Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider the third-party appeals by Jeff Miller (APL19-012), Melinda Cotton (APL19-013), Susan Miller (APL19-014), and James Hines (APL19-015), and uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation; Adopt resolution accepting the Environmental Impact Report Addendum (EIRA-03-19) to the previously-certified Belmont Pool Revitalization Project (EIR 01-16/SCH#2013041063);
Now we're going to move to item 20. Oh, you play club, please. Regarding item 20, report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and consider the third party appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. A DAB resolution accepting the Environmental Impact Report Addendum. A resolution approving a General Plan Amendment Declare Ordinance Approving a zoning code amendment. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting for the City Council for Final Reading, declare ordinance approving a zone change and amending the zoning use district map. Read the first time and later go to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Approve a modification to site plan review, approve a local coastal development permit and adopt a resolution to submit the local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for its review and certification, all located at 4200 East Ocean Boulevard , District three. This item required an oath. Those wishing to give testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. You in each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the courts now and pending before this body shall be added to the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Mr. Perkins. Vice Mayor. I guess I'll kick it off just as late in the evening. But just a reminder, this matter is an appeal regarding the pool project for the city. The city is the applicant. Here we have four. Appellants. Earlier today, the vice mayor allocated up to 10 minutes for each of the appellants to make a presentation. If they felt that it was necessary to go for 10 minutes as a reasonable time period, we will kick it off with the city making comments about the project. Then each of the appellants will be given an opportunity to speak. Then we'll have public comment, then a short rebuttal if necessary by the city, then back behind the rail for a vote. So the first order of business is City's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Assistant City Attorney, Vice Mayor Andrews and members of the Council. I will be given the presentation on behalf of staff. We will try to be efficient with your time. We realize the late hour. However, this is an appeal and there are some facts that we need to get in the record. I'm supported by a very talented team, both from the planning side and also our project team, led by Eric Lopez and Josh Hickman, who can answer questions as well. So to revisit this project. If you remember, the previous facility closed in 2013 and we came forward about a year later with a programmatic design that was approved by the council. We then completed conceptual design in 2016. This was in front of the Council in May 2017 where you approved the year and gave us final direction on the design and the related entitlements. We then went through a longer process where we submitted the project to the Coastal Commission in August 2018. We got back some comments from them and then really went through kind of a re-envisioning of the project which will really walk you through today. And then the last step was the Planning Commission gave us unanimous approval and a recommendation on December 2019. And so I'm going to walk through what those changes are today. Do you want to get out for the record that we do have a a approved secret document and we're asking for an ER addendum. So we have evaluated the potential impacts of that revised project. There are no new significant impacts, there's no impacts that exceed the those analyzed in the previously certified EMR and that the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program that's certified E.R. Continues to apply. So it's important to note that this project is really in a split jurisdiction between the city and the Coastal Commission. The area in red is their original jurisdiction. And so while you're making actions on behalf of Coastal Commission through the local coastal development process, this does need to go to the Coastal Commission. So there really were three steps Planning Commission, City Council, but really the ultimate project decision is going to be in the hands of the Coastal Commission. So the major entitlements that we're looking for are a general plan amendment, zoning code, amendment, zone change, local coastal program amendment, modification to site plan review and a local coastal development permit. So back in 2017, this council in a in a pretty long hearing about 5 hours, heard the project and gave us some direction. We also heard some concerns from both the council and the Coastal Commission. And so those included looking at increased recreational components, increasing our connection to disadvantaged communities, addressing sea level rise, addressing height concerns, providing a robust alternatives analysis, providing a parking analysis, and lowering the overall project cost. And we're going to go through each one of those. Some terms, the recreational components. We heard loud and clear from the council. You'd like this to be not only able to host competitive events and have, you know, lap swimming for everyone, but also to really focus on youth and recreational components. We've added a number of components, including zip lines up in the top left vortex pool, which is in the bottom left is an example of that fun elements like splash pads and water features for kids and some small slides and some cascading features to really increase the recreational component. We also wanted to really make a strong connection of this pool to every other park. You know, existing park programs in our disadvantaged communities. We found the best way to do that was to incorporate the pool into where kids are already going to their neighborhood parks, including transportation options, being able to, for example, go to your neighborhood park and knowing that on that Wednesday, that's the day you get to go to the Belmont Pool if you're already incorporated into the programing at that park. That helps people realize that this is a community asset for everybody. They're hopefully telling mom on the weekends, I'd like to go to the Belmont Pool. I've already been there. I know it's a cool place and let's go. We're also looking at language access programs to increase marketing of the pool to the entire community in four different languages and a number of other projects and programs that are in our coastal application. For sea level rises was a major concern of the Coastal Commission. In this diagram diagram I'd like to call your attention to that blue dotted line. This is now the new poor design. And if you notice that blue dotted line, that is the 2100 maximum sea level rise in the 1% storm in the hundred year storm. And so coastal commission under the previous pool, it was designed so that the water in that year would, in those major storms, touch the facility and then recede. And Coastal Commission felt that that was still an impact for sea level rise. In this new design, we have designed it so that that water does not touch the facility. So essentially we are completely out of sea level rise from the facility. And we believe that will satisfy that requirement. We also had a major height reduction. We're proposing making this an outdoor facility rather than an indoor facility. The original building height was 60 feet. The prior design, which is what you saw in 2017, had a maximum height of 78 feet. The new improved design is what we're calling it has a building height of 35 feet. So a significant reduction. There are a couple of areas where we have higher than 65 and we have the sale element that you can see this is a neat kind of shade structure and also brings that aquatics theme to the to the pool. And so the max of that is 60 feet, which is the top of the mast and the lights, which is equal to the original building height. And the top of the shade canopy is 49 feet. You can see the dotted outline with the old pool was not even the prior design. And so this is a significant improvement from a from a coastal view, shared perspective. We also look significantly at other alternatives. Those were considered in the air, which also went through a lawsuit to which the city was successful in. We looked at Harry Bridges Memorial Park. We looked at the Queen Mary, and we focused a lot on the elephant lot and convention center. And all alternative sites were determined to be inferior to the Belmont as Belmont Pool. We then went through a process with council to give additional information about our our turn alternatives analysis. In particular the elephant lot and really spend some additional time on it. We're able to show in that analysis that the elephant lot is actually inferior to the Belmont site in the in the revised design in that we would not have sea level rise impact at the Belmont pool site, but we would have sea level rise impact in that same scenario at the elephant lot. We'd also have to do additional parking. We'd have to build a parking structure in order to accommodate that for at a significant cost and probably in excess of $50 million. There's also leasehold issues. We also looked at environmental data and saw that from an air quality perspective for swimmers that are outside, it's superior to be at the Belmont Pool site and a number of other factors. We looked at parking analysis. There are currently 1116 spaces at the prior facility under the new facility, with all the parking improvements that we've made. We would have an increase. 1152. The old Belmont Pool had a parking demand of 834 spaces because it had significantly more seating. The proposed facility demand is 614 spaces, so we are well within you know, we have almost double the amount of parking that we would need and well within actually lower than the previous the previous pool. We also did some additional design modifications. We went out to our stakeholder advisory committee and talked to them about the project. That's been the committee that the council asked us to really engage with as throughout this process and not talk about some of that in a second. We've also engaged with the 2028 Olympics Committee, and they are highly interested in having diving at that facility. We believe everything that we've done in our design has been consistent with what we heard in 2017 from the city council as well. And so here's the picture of the outdoor facility. This used to be an indoor covered pool. This now you can see the bubble was removed significantly lower in height and still a very elegant structure. This is the overhead. And you can see that the push to the left was suggesting suggesting that that pool remained. That's the current temporary pool. We would enhance it with some additional buildings and some decking and make it a more of a permanent structure. And then you can see the the pools on the right. We've maintained all of our water bodies. So we haven't lost any major water bodies. We are looking to relocate the beach concession. That was a beach concession outside of the facility. Given all the improvements we've done to concession stands along the beach, we don't need it outside anymore. We don't need that one anymore. We recommend bringing that indoors for a year into the facility for a better experience. We also are designing this pool to be Olympic dove ready, which would include the ability to have 10,000 temporary seats that could be constructed. And while there's no commitment from the L.A. 28 Olympics, they are very, very interested in having this as a as a potential to consider. And we would create that to them to Olympic standards. We have also increased open space. The original facility had 18 118,000 square feet of open space. The prior design that you had approved in 2017 increased that to 127,000 square feet of open space. The improved design increased that even more to 141,000 square feet of open space. And if you look at green space compared to the original facility, it is more than or nearly doubled. In terms of the increased green space. Increased spectator seating. The original design had 1250 seats. That was important to the proponents of the project. We've actually now increased it to 1555 seats at the main pool and 310 seats at the existing Murtha pool. This is a picture of the support building. There will still be a building on site that is covered, but that really is for locker rooms and for, you know, maintenance equipment and offices. So it's a much sleeker design. And so I do want to talk a little bit about cost. So part of the main factor here is that cost escalation has grown since 2014. When we first approved the programing design was $103 million programmatic budget, which over time the cost estimates came in around 145 million. That was not a realistic project. We have 61 and a half million set aside for the project. And so, you know, we we believe with all these scope changes, we can address the concerns, make it a better project, make it more, you know, in line with cost of commission and council, maintain the bodies of water and also reduce the cost to 85 million. We have a lot of public comments. We have over 100 written comments since the public hearing was published for the Planning Commission. All comments received have been provided to you. They relate some of them relate to noise, and I did want to cover that. We actually have less outdoor seating than the previous pool. We also have a glass perimeter wall that is going to be covering the entire facility, which will help with noise. It will be closing at 10 p.m., which will help with noise as well. It will have below daytime exterior noise levels and we'll also use directional speech. So noise, you know, has been studied in the air is not an issue. There is one thing that is still being kind of looked at is this concept of a 25 meter wide pool versus 25 yards. The original design was 25 yards. The stakeholders have requested an increase to 25 meters. We've looked at that and done some additional outreach. We included that in the ER addendum and looking for some direction on that. The costs might be up to a 1.5 million. We're hoping that can be significantly brought down as we look at some other options and design. And that's currently within the $85 million ballpark range. And so for next steps, we are asking for your approval tonight. We then we originally, when we put this presentation together, had a goal of really trying to get this on the February 2020 Agenda for Coastal Commission because it's here in Long Beach. When you if you approve this tonight, the Coastal Commission will have everything they need to consider that. From a timing perspective, they're telling us they may need a little bit more time. So we would ask for the the next immediately available local meeting to be heard here in Long Beach. That will probably be sometime in April or May. We would then do final design and permitting in winter 2021 and get the pool built by winter 2023. And so in conclusion, positive findings can be made for all the required entitlements. The E.R. addendum with the previously certified ETR satisfies fully the sequel compliance. We recommend that you approve the entitlement package and accept the IIR addendum, and this is the list of all the recommendations that we're making to you tonight. There in your packet. I won't read them all in the interest of time. And that concludes stuff's presentation. Thank you. And with that, we will start out with the. It's a package. We started with. A vice mayor. We have four appellants listed in the order on the agenda would be first appellant Jeff Miller with up to 10 minutes allocated for his appeal. Thank you. Would you please come forward to. All right. No problem. So would you please come up to the front? Okay. All right, fine. Yes. Yes. I do have a PowerPoint presentation if we can bring that up. Seven years ago, the city failed to heed legitimate concerns about sea level rise, flooding, seismic and liquefaction at this location. So ignoring other alternative sites, the city pool planning began giving little regard over costs or Coastal Act limitations. For the past six years, this area has been a grassy park with mature trees. A passive park is the correct usage for this geological location. So Saga, more plans, more wasted dollars to appease a special interest group began. This is a flood zone. You won't be able to reach the building because it's sitting on an island. This site will require grid work of 80 foot deep pylons in the sand where groundwater is at six foot. These are significant negative impacts to prevent the beach from disappearing completely. The city has been backfilling the beach, calling it sand nourishment as worn by the city's own climate change report. Coastal areas should be planning managed retreat. Putting this facility on a plinth with retaining wall or doing sand enhancement is considering armoring which will eventually resolve and acceleration of our beaches. Coastal Commission will not allow these types of remediation or build up of infrastructure. Long Beach public officials warn coastal homeowners of rising water from climate change will eventually flood their neighborhoods. Yet at the same time, Long Beach promotes plans for a massive pool complex. Ignoring their own advice. Here we are tonight with the latest rendition that has never seen public outreach. This plan has even more flaws. East Ocean Boulevard has already been narrowed. Plans intend to remove East the Living Plaza. Note In this slide, the residential size cul de sac loop in the center with a 31 foot turning radius. This is also the area for handicapped parking. This traffic plan could not possibly be feasible for the Olympics. This is inadequate for traffic management. Here's another missing reality check. Then an avenue East Ocean Boulevard pool entrance is not used only for personal vehicles. It's used by oversize vehicles daily. See the earth movers on extended semis, massive beach sweepers, first responders, police, fire and paramedics. Note paramedics are regularly at the pool. Diving areas and children's rec areas have propensity for accidents. So with inclusion of these areas in the pool, plans will require more paramedic visits to the pool. Many cities have closed diving areas because of accidents, lawsuits and liabilities. More oversize vehicles at this intersection include busses, the pool, chemical supply trucks, and there are delivery trucks to the businesses on East Olympic Plaza. You will see military exercise vehicles on the beach, including hovercrafts and Humvees. The city claims they will require special traffic control at special events, but this has not been the case. Light and noise are huge negative impacts with a ruthless pool plan. The old and closed Belmont pool contain the noise. Noise complaints from the old closed pool were from illegal skateboarders on the Front Concrete Plaza. This new pool design is a skateboarders delight with the lure of ripping on the concrete stairs, plinth and ramps. The majority of the new noise is from the Open Air Belmont temporary pool from water polo whistles, air horns and P.A. systems. If the operational noise can be so easily abated, why was this not done at the temporary pool? Why did the city not record dust measurements at this pool to full analyze neighborhood impact? These noise violates municipal noise codes as per the city's municipal noise code. Areas near schools, hospitals, so on are considered noise sensitive zones. This pool is right next to a preschool. The oversize towering light poles at the temporary pool saturate residential night neighborhood nightly. These towering lights are twice as tall as the street lights. Competitive swimming and diving require higher illumination than recreational pools, creating increased light glare clearance aboard the highest diving tower must be 16 feet, five inches. How can the Dove Tower be covered and stay within zoning height register restrictions? It is blatantly false to say there will be no negative light. Noise or traffic impacts with this plan. The EIA addendum states that traffic volume will double due to two large pools. This is without even counting the impact of the new recreational features and frequent special events. But what makes this plan especially egregious is the city intends on operating this facility 350 days a year from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night. This pool is five times larger. It is the size of a football stadium. Cleaning the pool will go on long after the pool closing time of 10 p.m., leaving the lights on. Phasing PA speakers away from the residential is not a successful soundproofing plan. Noise from the beach. Events in the temple invade the neighborhood now regardless of speaker direction. Not only have the residents been subject to noise and light intrusion with the open temporary pool, the noise, lights, traffic and chemicals have decimated the protected wildlife habitat at Bennett and Ocean Boulevard. Fractured open space does not make a park. The Coastal Commission considers this open space, free or low cost coastal recreation area, even with large subsidies that taxpayers will be burdened with. These will be charged to use the aquatic center. If you have walked the Belmont Pier, you are fully aware of seagulls perching, pecking and pooping the seagulls. Thank you for creating this design, contributing to their activity, and adding places for their target practicing. A pool is not a coastal dependent but with towering light poles is planned exceeds height restrictions. Move it to the elephant lot instead of manipulating zoning heights to squeeze it into a residential neighborhood. No parks and rec pools should be built for a weeks long Olympics event. The Olympics are a terrible investment and a huge risk. This past June, a presentation was given to a select group. I was part of this group. Originally, I was part of the city designated pool advisory committee, but somehow I was not invited to this meeting in June. In this presentation was text about Olympic diving. The slide you've seen was taken at that presentation. Also in this presentation on page 17, a page titled Probable Path Forward. It states reduce height by creating an outdoor pool with option to cover later. This is called segmentation or piece mealing, and it's illegal. Another missing design consideration in this pool plan is allocation for a first aid room. Recommended pool guidelines suggest a swimming pool with a surface water surface area in excess of 4000 square feet shall have a readily accessible room designated and equipped for emergency care. The room shall have a cat sink telephone, including first aid kits and long spine boards with ties and collar and blankets for potential triage spaces for victims who need to be moved away from on lockers. Where is the allocation for this first aid room? This is especially necessary with a diving area and a children's recreation area. Despite significant geological, environmental, financial obstacles. With this project in this location, city will not consider another location. The old pool building was demolished because it is on unstable ground. So how preposterous to build in the same location. Where will the money come from? Taxes. Bonds. Grants are sold off like the City Hall is a privately financed P3 project. With shrinking budgets. Are you going to allow general funds to be siphoned off to float a pool? These proposed plans are new build and they need a new IIR. No pool on the beach. I request my retain remaining time for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, the. Good evening. Vice mayor and council members. I'm Jeff Miller. I ask you to postpone or vote no on all of the items of this hearing? The second attempt to build the BBC. The first attempt three years ago ended when the Coastal Commission found fault with the proposal. The immediate problem is that you and the public have not been given all the information needed to make an informed decision. There are two significant gaps in information. First, the details of the second version of the BBC have been fully known only since they were presented at the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 2019, just a month ago. Even then, the materials presented did not include some relevant data, such as the design renderings separate from the plan drawings, which you just saw in the presentation tonight. Some public comments were also omitted from the documents. I believe those items are still missing from what has been presented to you. And second, the city has not answered the significant questions about this project. 22 of them asked by the Coastal Commission. Their approval of the project will not even begin to be considered until these questions have been satisfactorily answered. This project seems to be shrouded in secrecy. The second version of the design has been produced and presented with almost no publicity and with no public outreach. Not one public meeting was held to present this design ahead of the December 19 Planning Commission meeting. Even though it has been touted as a citywide facility. The last public outreach meeting was in April 2016, and that was for the first version of the project, a totally different design. There was a secret presentation of this latest design to the BBA stakeholder committee last summer. From the beginning, there has been only one resident representative on that committee. That representative was intentionally excluded from that meeting. The proceedings of that meeting were not made public. This is not a citywide representation. The signage at the Belmont Park where the project would be built is incorrect. The four large billboards four feet tall by eight feet wide, are the illustrations and description of the four year old project. There is no picture or description of the current project. This new project was never presented to the city's own Marine Advisory Commission. This commission meets monthly and is tasked with advising council on quote matters regarding city policies pertaining to marinas, beaches, waterways and near-shore areas, unquote. They had no meeting in December, but they did have one in January. This project has been portrayed as a replacement of an old pool. It is not. It's a new project, far greater in size and impact. It would be a replacement of a natural beach and park containing grass and mature trees, which have been enjoyed for the public by the public for six years now. This is the baseline. A new E-R and approval process are required. It is not accurate or acceptable to claim. The second attempt is merely a revision of the first BBC, which was presented three years ago. At that time, two council members acknowledged it was a new project, not a replacement, and voted no. Now is that it is a different new project. The presentation at the Planning Commission meeting in December was basically a stealth action. It was scheduled at an extremely busy time for everyone in the middle of holiday activities guaranteed to minimize public awareness and participation. The meeting was announced, then canceled, then confusingly reinstated. The documents, images and exhibits presented at that meeting were not made available to the public until three days before the meeting. These included the air addendum of 865 pages. I challenge anyone to be able to even read, much less understand and prepare a response to all of the documents in three days. The ER addendum contains significant errors of fact. Here is only one example in the section describing traffic impacts. Quote The project site and surrounding area have not been further developed or altered since the 2016 certified air was prepared. There is no information in the administrative record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to transportation and traffic that would require major changes to the 2016 certified air, unquote. That is blatantly false. Since 2016, Ocean Boulevard in that area has been reduced from four lanes to two. The Olympics, now renamed Iconix Fitness Business, has opened with a large demand on parking. The beach in that area has undergone a large increase in usage in those intervening years by volleyball players, dog walkers, pedestrians, bicyclists and others. Also adding to parking and traffic demand. Changing the zoning to accommodate the extreme height of the structures, including the floodlight poles, is nothing but a trick. To mask this inappropriate height. And there's the question of money. The stated costs of this project have been nebulous. The cost of additional design work has not been addressed. The operational and maintenance costs have not been detailed. And the Tidelands Fund. Money set aside is not really available if you want the city to be prepared for the 2028 Olympics. The pier is the viewing site for the sailing events and it needs costly upgrades. And finally, there is sea level rise and increasing damaging storm surges. The sea can't be held back. Long Beach should be leading the effort to deal intelligently with sea level rise, not creating a problem for itself by proposing a new building on the sand. The Coastal Commission will not look kindly on the attempt to ignore this problem and instead put an expensive facility on the sand vulnerable to an uncertain future. Please start now to plan and commit the funds to renovate the pier for the 2028 Olympics. That will be something to be remembered for building a first class venue for the Olympic sailing events. Not the costly mistake of pursuing a flawed proposal. Please postpone this item or vote no. Don't approve this project now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Seems to be a little bit longer. I hope you can hear me. Good evening, Vice Mayor Andrews. Council members, or is it? Good morning? I think not. But anyway. My name is Melinda Cotton. My husband and I have lived in Belmont Shore for more than 35 years. We're fortunate to live just a few blocks from the beach and have walked and bicycled the states. The city's enviable Long Beach the entire time. As temperatures rise, we see more and more people flocking to the beach to enjoy the bike and pedestrian paths soccer and volleyball, Rosie's dog beach, the surf and just playing in the sand and making sand castles since the old Belmont pool was demolished six years ago. Olympic Park Plaza Park has shined as a beautiful beachfront jewel with family picnics and group parties, people walking their dogs, young people partying and having improper, improper and impromptu soccer games on the nearby sandy beach. The L.A. 28 Olympics Committee has liked the area so much, they've chosen the waters off the Belmont Pier for the Olympics competitive sailing events. This artist rendition of the sailing venue is telling for. When you look closely at the beachfront, you'll see in the Olympics picture no Belmont Pool complex. The existing green treed Olympic Plaza Park is still there. The L.A. 28 official website shows swimming and diving events taking place at USC's baseball stadium. It's called Dado Field in downtown L.A., where they'll put in a large temporary pool, which you see in the artist's rendition and diving facilities. The L.A. 28 game does have water polo water polo events in Long Beach. The site, a large temporary pool and stadium to be built in the elephant lot next to the convention center where other kinds of events will take place. This is the same site the Coastal Commission and many others have strongly recommended for the BBC. Doesn't that tell you the elephant lot is the best place for a permanent new complex? That is, if the city can afford it. An expensive $85 million pool and diving complex is not needed in Belmont Shore. We already have and have had for six years an Olympic sized temporary pool that is slated to become permanent. It serves recreational swimmers and water polo players, provides lessons, aerobics and more. One must ask, does the third district need additional public pools and special diving facilities when only two other council districts in the city have public pools leaving six districts without? And that $85 million price tag that we heard talk about earlier, that $85 million price tag just for the BBC is daunting. The NY 20 city budget shows in the red less than $54 million set aside for the BBC complex that's out of the beaches and marinas $89 million total capital improvement fund shown in blue. And the funds set aside so far are at least 32 million less than the current pool estimate, with no information as to where those extra millions will come from. The Title IX Capital Improvement Fund also expects less than $3 million in new money this year and in years to come. And that's also in blue on that chart. Think of just a few of the titles unfunded needs. We know the crumbling Naples Sea still need for more repair phases. Phase two, which is now going on, is costing $15 million. That indicates another roughly $60 million for phase three through six. Again, unfunded. Public Works also says there's no money to rebuild. The 90 year old lifeguard headquarters on the beach or to appear on the council in 2015, recognized the elderly 1930 structure, needed rehab or replacement, paid for a study and architects. But no idea when that might happen. The junior lifeguard building did get approved and apparently will go under construction. But don't we need a really up to date lifeguard headquarters building and marine safety and public safety by 2028 when we have the competition off the Belmont Pier. Yet the city has promised the 2028 Olympics Committee it will rebuild the Belmont Pier for the sailing competitions. But it, too, is listed in the budget as an unfunded, unfunded, high priority. And the pier needs serious help, which was highlighted in 2017 when a storm to docks off the end of the pier landing on the beach. Now, three years later, the pier still hasn't been fixed. The Marine Advisory Commission asked why at this month's meeting in early January and was told bids to replace the docks were coming in at two and a half million dollars and the city has only $900,000 in insurance available. We were told, again, lack of funds is the key. And then there's continued climate change, sea level rise and global warming to plan for. The League of Women Voters held its sixth annual climate symposium at the Aquarium of the Pacific last Sunday with scientists detailing the seriousness of SLR, especially when combined with king tides, storm surge and wave action which plagued the peninsula regularly. And on my street in Park Avenue, we have heavy rainstorms flooding the street and our garage. The Aquarium of the Pacific titled It's October Climate Change Event Coping with Sea Level Rise with a focus on Long Beach. As we all mature and peninsula. And as you see, this deluge is already happening in front of my house. I know this LV Post article from just a year ago, only last January, with floods inundating the Olympic Plaza dry where the Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center is to be built. Is this really smart? Shouldn't we be spending our limited tidelands and other funds on the critical needs noted above, rather than spending $8,085 million on an aquatic complex on the beach 100 feet from the surf? I think a lot of us would think the answer was no. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them and thank you for your time. And if there's time left over, I might have comments after the report. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Jim Hines. I'm a 30 year resident of Long Beach and a taxpayer. And this is my first process in the city council. So bear with me. But I hereby request, respectfully request that the City Council reject this application of the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center as the item is presently written. From a taxpayer perspective, I believe better analysis is the other stakeholders and other speakers have said is the make a sound decision is ordered is required to make a sound decision. Analysis should examine the city latest redesign relative to the days overall city investment needs, the strategic criteria, associated risk and funding. A comprehensive risk assessment should be made sure in best, most likely and worst case scenarios not just the initial investment, but also importantly, the operating support and maintenance costs. Question How likely will the center be completed in 85 million? Well, is that not to exceed cost or is it a 5050 chance that the cost will be there? And who will who will bear the brunt of the overruns? What are the major concern? Risks, contingencies and associated costs. From a finance standpoint, I'd like to see an S-curve. Taxpayers should be informed of the project risks relative to their requirements needs, not just wants. Ground rules and assumptions against total nonrecurring and reoccurring costs. Financial should also be reported both for public and private financial commitments. That far along, you should be getting the commitments and their likelihood firm upfront commitments should be obtained for the initial investment. But as well for the operating revenues before going forward. Olympic requirements seem to be the driving factor for the 85 million. The question is, is what are the firm city commitments for the Olympics? You need to nail those down. Otherwise the requirements are a wish list or a want list. Well, relative to weather, what is needed? For example, we should know whether the Olympic cost drivers, the number and size of the pool, the driving force, the diving facilities we talked about, the associated costs and commitments. It seems that a few wants are driving a lot of the cost. Although vocal, the reality is a 50 meter pool, etc. is only used for competitive purposes and that only represents about 5% of the total population. So from that, you know, other similar aquatic facilities without diving seem to cost anything about 15 to $30 million. And we know that UFC, you know, just spent $8 million to renovate their facility up there, too, with diving facilities, etc.. So that should be nailed down relative to who's doing what, when associated with the cost of this effort. Um. We hear a lot from the competitive swimming community, but where is their financial commitments? Taxpayers. With all that, the taxpayer shouldn't be the point and the burden that satisfy the special interests. Also were the swimming requirements coordinated and integrated with our local public school systems. To date, there seems to be little. Long Beach taxpayers are already paying for a $28 million Olympic sized pool for the Long Beach City College. Long Beach tax payers are already, you know, are also paying, you know, 3 billion for Major K and major E for school upgrades and repairs and include new pools and pool upgrades. Cambria, Ohio, for example, has a new $12 million pool, reportedly because there's no public pools nearby. Wear them or any of the Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach C College or Cal State, Long Beach financial commitments to the pool. That lack of coordination doesn't and does not inspire taxpayer confidence. Up to 80% of the like the Aquatic Center Lysate because it's typically tied up in operation maintenance and support expenses. What is the project? Operating life with its probable operating maintenance and support cost. Is there a list of operating maintenance and support concerns or risk? What are the reserves? Is an operating and maintenance risk assessment being performed or the operating commitments he's made with the swimming, private, public and private organizations? My understanding in Sacramento is when organizations stepped up to pay 70% of the operating costs or 70,000 per year of the operating costs, where's the commitments from these people that, you know, from these organizations are want these special requirements? Which one of this according to the also according to the capital improvement process, you know, public works, financial management. Any possible end user department should have quantified anticipated name cost route for each council so they can have a detail and understand the costs and risk against future allocated budgets and to make an informed decision and such as that being done. My personal benchmarking shows that cities with aquatic centers experienced net operating losses, some substantial rip up to billions of dollars. Again, council members and taxpayers need to understand the driving cost requirements and get a detailed breakdown of the probable operating costs, room routes, revenues and cost recovery. The taxpayer's concern is that the city does have a reputation of neglecting infrastructure. Look at our streets, sidewalks, public facilities with liability. Debt is up to 2.3 billion. And we're going to add new, new infrastructure on top of that. What about the Queen Mary? The city has established criteria for capital improvements. Question is, does the aquatic center meet them? Does Aquatic Center address any city health, safety or legal concerns and mandates? Does the Aquatic Center prolong the life of the city asset or in minimizing future costs? Repair costs? Can't be prolonged anymore. We need to reassess the needs to the to the current environment and the constraints. Is the aquatic center in the is long range strategic plan. Is there a city long strategic plan? Does the Aquatic Center secure will be able to secure future funds through programing, planning or grant eligibility versus its cause ? In summary, I asked, is the current needs and priority of the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center serve the average Long Beach taxpayer, especially, especially with the $2.3 billion liability and infrastructure. I then encourage careful consideration of the City Council regarding the financial realities of the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center project and in its existing requirements as they now stand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would like to take the opportunity to make a couple of comments in rebuttal. Obviously, there's a number of. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to do public first or rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Vice Mayor, it's appropriate to do public comment now and then. City staff, since they have the burden of proof, would have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to anything that's been said. All right. Thank you. So any public comment on this item? Would you please come forward? We have Khadijah Cager, Mel Nutter, Joseph. Griever and Joseph Slim and Anna Christiansen. Terry's daughter, Kim or O'Shay calls Lee and Cantrell, Lucy Johnson, Joe Weinstein, Katie Roll, Dr. Preston Smith, Dave Sugar and Keith Mason. I'm in this. Can I clarify the amount of time that you're giving to the public speakers this evening? Agenda item, it's. Over ten people, so we're kind of down. And their place. Seconds. You can go whenever you feel. Thank you. Yes. Good morning. My name is Gordana Cager, and I'm an appellant on this pool to the Coastal Commission. My comments were filed earlier this week via email, and as most of you know, I am opposed to this pool. I'm so very grateful to those of you on the dais, along with your staff who were willing to meet with me this week. Thank you for listening, and thank you for listening to our concerns about this pool. There are so many unanswered questions that it's absolutely irresponsible to make a decision this evening. So I urge your no vote. The Coastal Commission has serious concerns and questions on this pool. City staff, I understand, has responded to the December 6th incomplete letter with a response this afternoon. Have you seen that information? You must have that information before making an informed decision. And exactly how many public meetings were held in Long Beach about this project? Zero. One private meeting was held with the pool stakeholders in June of 2019. I urge you to consider the comments of Councilman Oranga, Coastal Commissioner Urunga, who pointed out significant issues on the first design in 2017. This revised pool has not changed those issues. We will see you at the Coastal Commission. It will not be in February. It will not be in May. Maybe this year. Thank you for your time and please vote no. Thank you. I'm Bill Netter, and I'm here representing Gordana Cage, who. Appealed your. Approval of a local. Coastal development. Permit to the Coastal Commission back in 2017. Because the coastal. Are because the city waived the time to hear the appeal, that appeal is still pending, and it's unclear what the city's position is relative to that pending appeal. But regardless, the proposed finding that the current proposed local coastal development permit is consistent with your certified LCP or local coastal program is false. The fact that the staff proposes. That the city. Seek certification of an amendment to the current LCP is proof that the city staff knows that that proposed finding is untrue. And if you look. At the comments I made before the Planning Commission, I expanded upon that. The staff reports that the changes made to the project since 2017 could have been made in response to public input. That is not entirely accurate. The only public exposure to the proposed changes occurred at the Planning Commission hearing in December. Thank you and have pointed out and I have a few other things to say, but I thank you. So my name's Joe Giaever, and I live in a third district. So, yeah, Mr. Mercola, for kind of an important piece out of the timeline there, and that's those appeals. So the several appeals from local residents were combined with a couple of appeals by the coastal commissioners, and those appeals are still pending. Not clear to me whether the city has ever informed the commission that you've got a new project on the same property and that old clip should probably be just rescinded and start over again. But despite all that. The revised pool has definitely been made smaller just to make it cheaper, I guess, but it doesn't resolve the issues in those appeals. So I don't know who the stakeholder advisory committee is, but it clearly doesn't include the appellants or probably the most important stakeholders, at least from a dispute resolution perspective. So two of the issues kind of go together. The idea of alternative sites for this pool and the and the prohibition on protective devices from sea level rise. So in the first of all, the the elephant line was considered. Last go round and eliminated because it was. So I said, thank you very. Much. She's okay. Um. Oh, thanks. Anyway, I'm next by speakers, please. I was going to say good evening, but I think somebody was right when they said good morning. Thank you for your time and your stamina to stay awake and pay attention to these these comments. And we greatly appreciate your efforts. My name is Kim O'Shay. I work for Southern California Swimming. Our offices are over in San Pedro and we represent over 20,000 swimmers who participate in competitive swimming across this area all the way over to Vegas. And our swimmers love to come to Belmont. They love Long Beach. They love the history here. They love their experiences. Hopefully, many of you were able to look at some emails that you received earlier today from Olympians who participated in meets throughout history here in Belmont and phenomenal, phenomenal memories, sentimental value and success as well. But we're not only talking. About Olympic swimmers. Yes, it's a special interest group and we're very much into the competitive side of things. But we also want to applaud you for looking at cradle to grave programing for your community. Absolutely. To look at putting little kids into swim lessons to make them safer around the water because we are a beachfront community all the way up through programing for senior citizens that want to lap, swim and stay healthy. So it's cradle to grave programing and it's a beautiful community service. We thank you for your time and we greatly appreciate your attention to this. And we would vote for a recommend voting for approval to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Good morning. Dave Shukla, Third District. I both my brother and I were on the swim team at Long Beach Poly and from 1996 through 2002, we participated in the Moonlight Swim finals at the Belmont Pool. After his injury, after he became disabled, he did two years of physical therapy at the Belmont. It's an important institution. Having a city pool, a flagship institution, is important nonetheless. I. I oppose the project even as revised when it was approved in 2013. In February of 2013, that was the first City Council meeting I went to as an adult, and there were hundreds of people here in the afternoon. Through the evening. The offshore clinics was here, but not here next door, but they were in the city council chambers and they were engaged. It's the dead of night. What are we doing? What are you doing tonight? The appellants are going to start. Whatever merits you think their arguments have. They are going to continue. And the one issue that I have specifically with this project is that. It's a built structure that's going to last 60 to 80 years. Sea level rise is something that we're increasingly learning is coming sooner and faster and harder than we expected. It would be a horrible symbol for the city to take tidelands funds and not think of how the lifecycle of those funds has been used and what that flagship actually works. Thank you. So. Hello. My name is Terry Stoddard. I'm the general chairman for Southern California Swimming. And as Kim has mentioned, I'm here representing over 20,000 registered athletes, 800 coaches and over 150 clubs and 250 officials that have been through the process of using Belmont's pool in the past. Myself, I swear on my last national championship there and 15 years later I was able to win a national championship as a team. But more importantly, as my daughters then were able to compete in a massive championship and also for their their college and a four year school. So the whole process went through. And now, as my grandkids are beginning to learn how to swim at age six, four and ten months, they're looking for facilities like this. But my players applause an iconic. Pool that goes straight to the memories of learning to swim, have the opportunity for competition on weekends, but have the ability to have fitness throughout the time. Eight people die from drowning every day. Having this in a coastal community is going to give us the opportunity to avoid that, and it's going to be able to reach out not to only the communities of Long Beach, but the surrounding communities. We urge you to continue your support of revitalizing this project. Thank you. Could you please call the next speakers? Joseph Silverman. Anna Christianson. Corey Leslie. And Cantrell. Lucy Johnson. Joe Weinstein. Katie Roe. Dr. Preston Smith. Keith Mason. Please come. Up. Yes, please. Come on. Other names as you call, as you please. Coming up, Joseph slamming Anna Kristiansen. In the name of the bride. Oh, okay. Fine. Thank you. Yeah. And if she wants it. You know, we can't do that, too. So I think keep doing it that last time on the clock. You have Lieberman's points. I'm not going to reread them. Okay. But I am also speaking for Lieberman, the BBC. Move it or lose it. Build it downtown on the elephant lot or some other location where more residents, especially low income people of color, are likely to use it. How and where we build our municipal pools reflects a pattern, reveals a pattern of race and class prejudice. Olympic sized pools in the wealthy, white, south east corner and too small. Jim Crow, I'm quoting a gentleman who wrote about contested waters, the history of swimming pools in low income neighborhoods for people of color. BBC. Both boosters, as you see here tonight, invoke nostalgia, insisting that our former Belmont Power will be rebuilt in the same location while also demanding to make it bigger and better. And we know that 16 of those 17 stakeholders are either representing sports teams or for profit businesses. A state of the art facility for competitive and for profit owners will not reverse the high risk of drowning faced by the majority of youth in Long Beach. We are a 70 plus percent minority community nationwide. 40% of white youth and 60 to 70% of youth of color do not learn to swim and are more likely to drown. All residents are expected to share the $85 million cost some will be paying with their lives and the communities. Prioritize public health, safety and recreation. Let's plan accordingly. Thank you very much. Next speaker. I am cautiously and I'm opposed to this agenda item. I have no issue with building a pool and but I do have objections to the location and specifically with the risk associated with that location and also with the cost. The risk once again, is the sea level rise and placement on the sand where liquefaction and earthquakes can cause another a loss of our of our pool. There's also poor public access in that location. It's way over in the corner of Long Beach. We're using precious tidelands funds that in and of themselves will not cover the scaled back design that is lacking a roof and will very obviously be a money pit for maintenance. And now about the cost. Why is it that Torrance can produce a public swimming facility for $15 million? Santa monica built a pool on the beach in 2009 for 27.5 million. With the additional listed amenities a rec room, the swimming pool, a splash pad, beach volleyball, tennis courts, soccer fields, canopies, a cafe, rentals for paddleboards all that for 27.5 million. Why are we paying 87 or 85? Whatever it is? Less than a third of the price of the Belmont Pool is how they did it in Santa monica. Thank you. Very much, Mr.. Salmon. Why Skip doing that? Good morning. In control. And I agree with everything that's been said. I'm asking you to either vote no or postpone this. I'm speaking for carp. I we sent you a letter. I want to reiterate. You're being asked to approve an addendum for the Environmental Impact Report that was approved for a completely different site plan and location. Removing the roof from the previous pool. Adding a kids fan zone. Moving the project, taking out a park and public ride away are all significant changes to the original site plan and EIA are the additional impacts of noise, light, traffic and parking have not been adequately studied nor mitigated. The city manager tells you there's no problem, but there's not been any studies. The new project must have a new IIR. Carp has never opposed a pool. We have opposed the location. And this location is flawed. The elephant lot. There's no proof that it has in greater danger from sea level rise than the current location. I would like to see a study that shows this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. I'm Joe Weinstein, and I sent you the other letter from Karp. What's at stake is not merely making the right decision about a pool. You've been presented you've been presented. A project which proposes to spend at least four times much as much as is necessary to produce a full fledged aquatic center. Karp supports the idea of a multipurpose aquatic center. We don't support the proposed squander. These proposals would have us. Thanks. Thanks to the choice of the absurd choice. Based solely on nostalgia, but needless and foolish and almost about the worst possible sight. Belmont Park has a beach. Thanks to this, you have a recipe for squander. And you think this is just about a pool project about aquatics? No, I'm afraid not. These proposals will damage not only city finances, but the public career of every official that votes for them. Because you declared a fiscal emergency and you want a permanent sales tax. And when you approve these proposals for squander, you are sending a very clear message that people are going to continue to reiterate. Namely, you want the tax revenue in order to squander it. Squander is not okay even if you get other sources of revenue, because think of a philanthropist as a philanthropist, want to enable you to make you have to spend more in order to get less. That's essentially the message you'd be sending to a philanthropist. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Is Lucy Johnson still here? Katie Role. Dr. Preston Smith. And Keith Mason. My name is Dr. Preston Smith. I admire your your ability to take this. I have a difficulty opposing the pool since I was a swimmer in high school at USC. But I've also spent 45 years studying the beach and its processes. And for that reason, I have two. Reasons why I oppose it. One is the costs. The money should be set aside for use of protecting property. We already have problems in Naples and the peninsula. We need we need to protect the property that we do have. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is in 1939, we had a hurricane caused by warm water. We have warming water and much more of a chance of hurricane men. If we look at history, will see that this area was under water in the thirties and then there's a sea wall running along the back of the of the parking lot. You also had storms in the late thirties. We have signs of erosion now. And I have a letter from demonstration to the Army Corps of Engineers stating that we had. 114 feet of the recession in during a two hour, two month period. So for all the reasons, I think it's a very dangerous place to put the pool. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Next we go. And Keith Mason. I live in the third district on the I regularly use the temporary pool that's there. I'd like to see something done with the pool in that area. I don't know that we need to pools. I don't know that $80 million is the right amount of money. But it certainly would be nice to have something in that area that was used a lot today, and I think it would be a real detriment to the community to not do something like that. So with only 30 seconds. I came yesterday to the meeting. Thank you. Next week. You? Is Lucy Johnson still here? Carrie Row. That's the end of our speaker's list. I think, you know, the answer comes from the Council on Price. Is that it, or what do we know? We have this as an opportunity for a short rebuttal, if necessary. Is there a time when energy just. It's reasonable. Is there anyone who like I. Yes, we would like to provide some brief rebuttal. Those were a lot of comments. There's needless to say, there's a number of things that we disagree with. I will focus on the the large ones and do the mostly in chronological order. So forgive me for this being a little disjointed. There was a comment about that there no access for fire lanes or oversize vehicles. The facilities for were designed with fire lanes and the ability to turn around any type of oversize vehicles that are necessary. There was a comment about that. We need to armor the building that is not correct or that sand replenishment is required and that is armoring. That is also not correct. We had originally contemplated sand replenishment but with the new design, since we aren't impacted by sea level at all because we moved out of the sea level plane as requested by coastal, that is not required. There were a number of comments about how the information was shared. I do want to point out that when we were first contemplating a redesign back in June, we of 2019, we created our stakeholder committee. We brought them to. I'm sorry. Didn't create them. We reactivated them and brought them together and shared information about the project we did at that time. Take a little bit different approach because on that stakeholder committee was also an individual and others who had sued the city. And so because of that legal action, we actually did still provide the information. We just did it in a different forum. So they got phone calls from me and we shared the same information. We just did it in two different forums. We also then provided information before we came to Planning Commission on December 3rd and writing so that everybody had the new design. The discussion back in June was high level concepts, and then we provided a new design on the 13th. Then went to Planning Commission on the 19th. That was a major public meeting. You have the public meeting today where there's additional input for everyone to be here. And it's well attended, obviously. And we also have an opportunity, a coastal commission. And there was a comment that we are proposing a cover that is not correct. That was an initial part of a discussion with the stakeholders and could we may be consider recover. We did not put that in after getting some stakeholder input. The project will be designed so that we could add one in the future, but that would be a completely separate project going through all the separate entitlements and separate air if future councils ever want to do that. There was a question about the notice of incomplete application from the Coastal Commission. They did send us 22 different questions about our response that we submitted back in, I believe, November. We have submitted to that as of today. We'd be happy to share that with anyone who wants to see it. It's a seven page response. Frankly, doesn't affect what we're doing here tonight because that's addressing a different jurisdictions issues. They're different than than the ones that we have here tonight. But we can certainly make that available to anyone who wants it. Do you want to respond to the cost as that has been brought up? When we talk about $85 million, that is a total budget figure and it's actually pretty comprehensive. It's kind of soup to nuts on the project. It even includes the cost of demolition of the facility of the old one. So we wanted to provide the council on our fiscal policies, not just the construction cost, but the full cost of the entire project, including soft costs, design costs and the demolition. And so whenever we talk about that 85 million, that's what's included there. And so I did want to clarify that. So when you're comparing this to other projects, a lot of times that you'll read about it in the paper, that'll be the construction cost of the facility. Our construction cost is significantly less than $85 million. There was a comment that we had promised the Olympic Committee to rebuild the pier. That is incorrect. There isn't you. Yeah. They're not asking us to rebuild the premier and the pier. That is a separate project that we're visioning. But that is not a requirement. We also had been asked about maintenance and operating costs, as have been estimated. We started that when the council first entertained this project back in 2014. We got permission to move ahead knowing that there were maintenance and operating costs. Frankly, this project has gone through so many different changes. That is all going to be updated after we get an entitlement and then the council will make a decision whether you want to move forward. Once you have the entitlements, that's one thing you still are going to make a decision whether you want to fund this project or move forward. And our fiscal policies say we're going to go through all of the costs, both capital and operating and maintenance when you make that decision. There was also comments that we should not be spending city taxpayer dollars on this. I want to remind everybody, this is not the general fund. These are not your property tax dollars or sales tax dollars that go to this project. These are specific funds funded in the Tidelands, funded mostly out of transfer from the Port of Long Beach and oil operating dollars that are funding this project. Oil dollars and dollars from oil recovery. These are not tax dollars in the in the normal sense of the word. And then finally, there was a question about the appeals and what the status of those are. We are in constant communication with the Coastal Commission staff on this project. It's been that way since we first proposed this project. We have talked to them about staying our appeal so that we could go through this process. All of those appeals will be heard at the same time. You know, Coast to Wall is holding everything so that at the meeting that they are planning to have, everything will be discussed. Everyone will have a chance to come. We expect that to be very, very well attended. If you'll notice, there were not a lot of supporters here, and they all are. A lot of them went home and then let the council member talk to that. But also they all know that, you know, everyone's going to come out and really talk about this at the Coastal Commission because that really is the the final body making the final decision. So if I turn to staff today, miss anything critical. I just. Think correct to. Factual items in the record. In Ms.. Miller's presentation, there was a comment that this was somehow inconsistent with the city's climate action plan. The city is working on a climate action plan, but there is no draft, much less any adopted plan. So there's no way for this to be inconsistent with that. And there were multiple references to the Olympic Games. Just to clarify what's in front of the council. No agreement what the Olympics is in front of the council at this time. It is the land use entitlements that are in. Front of you for the. Permanent structures at the site. Any temporary activities for the Olympics would be subject to a separate item that would come in front of this council. And those items are exempt from sequel under a different section of law at square guidelines 15272. And with that, there. Were many items brought up, but just to correct those items on the record. So we have our full team here. We have anything from our environmental consultants to our project delivery team to our project manager, and we are available to answer any of your questions. Councilmember Price, would you like to? I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Councilman Austin. So I want to thank everyone for staying, especially the appellants and the public that came out to speak. I know it's been a late night and I really appreciate the fact that everyone stayed and I appreciate everyone's input. I want to thank staff for working very hard on this project for as long as they have. It's great to see how far this project has come. It's taken us a long time to get to this point, and I think we've had a lot of investment from our city council in educating themselves about the project and learning about it and really understanding the issues. We've heard input from residents city wide on how the project can best be possible and has. We've included lots of amazing amenities as a result of comments directly from my council colleagues. The last time this item was before us. Whether it's a competitive swimmer, toddlers or seniors, the amount of recreational activities and opportunities to use the space has been enhanced as a result of this redesign. So I think staff are taking to heart the comments made by my council colleagues. The last time this item came forward. This will be truly a pool that anyone can enjoy and it will increase access to the coastal. Area for. Residents throughout the city. I think that the changes that have been made to the facility make it less intrusive and more feasible for us to construct, which I appreciate. The height has been greatly reduced, which I know was a concern of some of my colleagues, and the design changes have reoriented the property to reduce the impacts on the beach. I will say, and I have said this over and over again, this pool has been designed with sea level rise in mind when we're talking about sea level. I am far more concerned about the hundreds of homes and the thousands of people who live around this facility whose homes have not been designed for sea level . Rise like this property has. Are this the. Proposed design has? We did have a large group earlier today, if I may inquire of staff, how many letters of support and opposition we received. I received a total of nearly 300 comments. I believe approximately 250 were in support and we've had the remainder were in opposition. Okay. Thank you for that. And I appreciate. The folks who took the time to write letters, because I know I knew tonight was going to be a very long night. And in the past, we've had a lot of youth who are interested in swimming attend the meeting tonight. And with the SDR item, I knew that the earliest we would get to them would be 10 p.m., so I'm glad that they didn't come for that. We talk a lot about I know the opponents talk a lot about the best use of tidelands moneys and I have talked with some of them in the past for the beach path, for example. Some felt that that was a waste of tidelands money. And I understand that. And while I appreciate those concerns, I don't share them. I believe that engaging our coastal spaces and activating them has been a positive benefit for the city. And I'm very, very much looking forward to continuing to do that. I would love to have swimming pools in every district in the city. I really would. And if the decision today was whether or not we're going to fund a pool with $85 million of general fund dollars, I probably would not be supporting that project because our biggest projects right now and from a citywide level are our street infrastructure, our public safety. And if we had $85 million of general fund moneys to play with, I think building a pool would not be anybody's top priority. We are using money that's restricted in terms of where it can be used. And I think that it's. The void of the. Pool is felt by many. I heard the opponents speak tonight about the use of that property, but I will say from the residents who live around that facility, the businesses who operate businesses right around that facility, that the void of the pool is felt very strongly every day, while on occasion you might see families picnicking in the area. We often do see also encampments, a lot of areas that are not maintained and a lot of non activation of the space that has deteriorated. The general use of that space. I think that's I think when we talk about pools throughout the city, the only pool on the east side of Long Beach is a temporary one. In Belmont Shore, we have no permanent pools. And the east side of Long Beach, we do have two public pools, but they are located in exactly the areas that some of the opponents suggested. We built. Additional pools. And so I'm all in favor of building more pools. But in terms of this project, I ask for my colleagues support and I do want to commend staff because they've been working very closely with Coastal Commission staff to get us to this point. And will there be changes and modifications made along the way? Absolutely. But staff has worked and earnestly with Coastal Commission to try to get to a place where we have some meeting of the minds. And I want to thank our staff, our entire staff for the excellent work that they've done and for allowing me to carry on this project that was really started by my predecessor and Assemblyman O'Donnell and Councilwoman Lowenthal, who were all very supportive of this. And I carry the torch forward on their behalf as well. Thank you. Councilman Suber No. Thank you. I wanted to cover a point. Tom McCann actually covered it, but a few speakers did bring it up and that was about the 2017 appeal and their questions. Would that be rescinded? Would it be dismissed without prejudice? I think Tom could explain that. That will be addressed by the Coastal Commission along with everything else. So it's kind of an aggregate of of both appeals. I think that. The other point that Tom Marcum made was that this is not the final decision on this in terms of the council in the funding. So, Mr. Murdoch, if you could just repeat what you said in that point, I think it's important. Yes. So before we can even get to that funding decision, you have to have an entitled project. So you're one part of that coastal commission will make a decision on the on the final entitlements. You may have to come back and actually tweak things depending on what they're what their actions were. But then, more importantly, you would need to give us direction on should we move forward with, you know, getting to 100% construction drawings, bidding the project and then ultimately deciding on whether or not we should fund the project and actually start the construction. So there are still several steps ahead of the council. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be short. Looking at the hour, I. I was, I think, one of the one or two council members here in 2014 when this first came before us. I can remember the meeting like yesterday. I can remember my mindset going into that meeting, but then also being influenced by a lot of people who who utilize our pools and what the Belmont pool really and understanding what the Belmont Pool really meant to so many people in this city and not just in the third district, but from for those across the city. Recently had a an experience where we had our niece's staying with us during the Christmas holiday and they stayed about a week . One is a competitive swimmer at the University of Pacific. The other is going to be a water polo sensation in Long Beach State next year. But during their time with us, they were looking for a place to work out because they're competitive athletes. They needed to to work out. And so I gave them my car keys and said, go down to the Belmont pool, you can the temporary pool. And they loved it. There was a perfect experience for them. And so I think we sometimes take for granted the resources that we provide and can provide as a city. And this I got to say, I'm really delighted to see the cost of this project scaled down significantly. And I think that that has that can't be overlooked. You know, you go from a $140 million project to an $85 million project. That's the direction I want to see. Because when we first. This project was first proposed, I think it was a $60 million project. Then it started escalating up the other way. And so I commend staff and everybody involved for getting us to a place that, yeah, 80 million plus is expensive, but it's, it's way more reasonable than where we were headed. And so and the design changes I think are are definitely consistent and reasonable as well. I did have a question regarding just the little nuance of detail, 25 yards versus 25 meters. Can you explain that? Yes. So while most of us with a calculator realize that's not very much distance, it means a whole lot to the poor community. So certain groups swim 25 yards, you know, and this is just the width of the pool. It's 50 meters. Is the is the normal size of the pool. It allows you to do more collegiate type of practice on the 25 yards width, 25 meters is a little bit longer. And that is what is considered a fully Olympic pool. So not many people swim 25 meters, but it allows more water polo to be done with floating goals, which is important to the water and community, water polo community. And it allows you to have what's called a fast core. So it's a little bit of distance, but it does make a big difference to the to the swimming community. I appreciate that. That note of clarification. Again, I want to thank everybody who's been involved in this. What we're voting on tonight is moving this to the Coastal Commission. Is that correct? That is correct. Right. I will be supportive. Fine. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Yes? I forgot to ask that staff make a change in the design that we change it from a 25 yard with to a 25 meter width pool and that we we consider that change as part of our design element. Thank you. So we're considering that to be part of the motion. And we've done all the environmental study to allow that it's included in the air and we've done some additional outreach and staff is very comfortable with that. So thank you for the direction. I'm so impressed. Thank you. I want to thank the appellants that showed up today and the community members that have been involved in this process. And 2017 I issued my concerns on this item was not here, but issued a lengthy letter that I know was submitted as well, and the Coastal Commission had access to that. My concerns are voiced. I have some questions that I'd like to ask and understanding that this is putting it to the Coastal Commission. With this design, obviously support a smaller design. My first question is around the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and it was stated by staff that we have not yet adopted one. My gut reaction. And I and I know that the votes aren't there for tonight, but my gut reaction is to say we should we should stop considering a poll until we have a climate adaptation plan. But I know that that's not where we're going to end up. But that's that's my gut response. Could staff walk through for me two pieces? One is, what is the timing on the cap and two out of Thailand funds? And I know we're not talking about funding it today, but just so we know as we're moving forward. Are there things in the cap that are proposed right now that Thailand funds could be used for to protect against sea level rise and some of the other issues that that are a priority for us. Thank you, Councilmember Perez. So we're about. A little under a year out of completing the Climate Action and adaptation plan for this city site. Then we'll go to the Coastal Commission. Average turnaround for items at the Coastal Commission right now is in excess of a year. So we're talking, you know, 24 months before being fully complete, the hold up on the Climate Action Plan has nothing to do with sort of this topic of sea level rise. That has to do with the greenhouse gas reduction side and finding sufficient greenhouse gas reductions for the city within the city's existing fiscal and logistical constraints. So. I don't want to go too far astray and end up in brown at all. But we can, you know, provide you an update on the Climate Action Plan under a separate cover, but its completion is not imminent. And I'll answer the Tidelands questions of all of our projects in the city, the ones that get the most scrutiny from a climate perspective and sea level rise perspective and all of those things are the projects in the coast that is pretty clear set out by the Coastal Commission. They expect that, they ask for that. We look at every single adaptation there and the main idea is retreat. So wherever you can, they're not looking to armor or prevent sea level rise. They're looking to basically get out of the way. And that's exactly what we're doing with this project. We have retreated completely out of the 2100 sea level rise projection, and we do that with just about every project along the coast. We look at climate impacts. I can't believe for 24 months out of. Having a cap. We had a presentation like a year ago. I know this is not the agenda item, but I am just. Really surprised because I thought from my conversations with development services that we were looking at this early in this year. So I am I'm very surprised that we're two years out. We and to clarify, we. Do expect to have a TFP to you in the next 30 or so days. On the cap. We are within a major milestone of, as I said, completing our local adoption over the next 12 months. But it does have to go to the Coastal Commission and to our great frustration. But nonetheless it's taking in excess of a year for the Coastal Commission to process our items. It's heartbreaking. I feel like climate change, like we always say it should be, it is the ultimate crisis and yet it takes us so, so long to go through this process. So, I mean, there are some things that we can talk about at a later date that I want to tease out necessarily. But I'm very interested in looking at even proposed items in the coast that are geared towards protecting our environment and thinking about climate change and thinking about how we offset supporting the poor while being able to do that. Can we also really invest in some of these focus on climate change? Because we've done a lot on tourism already, I think all of the nodes. And so this is just a public way for us to start that conversation. I know that you guys mentioned it. The cost has come down. Any additional fundraising that is being looked at now that the cost is lower or. Yes. So there are two main aspects that we'll be looking for for those funding. One, we do want to approach the Olympics Committee. We're a ways away from actually getting a commitment on Olympic diving to this point. All of the facilities that they've looked at, there really aren't any additional cost to the city. This would be one where we are creating a facility where one does not currently exist. So we think there's a good opportunity to talk to them about funding. We are also looking at doing some fundraising and some marketing and sponsorship. This is a big asset. It's going to be right in the Olympic area in 2028 and we believe there is some potential for some tasteful sponsorship of a naming rights for the facility, and then we would look at any other ways to close the gap. So it's a much more manageable gap to close than before. So would you like to keep up again? I just have one quick thing, but yeah, I can queue up again. That's fine. Now you go ahead if you have one quick go ahead. On the you mentioned naming rights. I just want to make sure that the staff brings forward a agenda item about how we do naming rights before we get to that point. Yes, that would be for council approval. We did a exercise about a year and a half ago where we just understood the feasibility of it. Before anything really gets done, the council will have to adapt that and blessed. I'm going to be nearing the. I see nobody else queued up so I could to make it short because it is late, as you tell my wife, that if I get home after. After Colbert put the APB on me. Colbert belonged on finished of the standard. A review that we have here is the standard of review that we have for this project here. The standard of review that we had in 2017 with a whole lot different. And it was a different project. And at that time I brought that up. There were a lot of issues that were involved with that project at that time. So that we're right that we're right up here, that some changes have been made. We'll talk about heights and a few shades and and sea level rise was a big one. And then. And so the long story short, I didn't vote for that project. But we I said, anyway, it went forward to the Coastal Commission knowing that the Coastal Commission has a different standard of review. And that and that has been going on, I'm guessing, for the last two years, year and a half, where staff has been meeting with a close commission staff to talk about some of those concerns that were raised back in 2017. Height and sheds and sea level rise. So the project comes here. Now we have a different a different standard to review today. From my point of view, this area that we have here today is satisfactory. You addressed a lot of the issues that were brought up in 2017, which in my opinion is enough to move the project forward to the Coastal Commission. That having seen that, there's still going to be another standard of review again by the Coastal Commission, which is going to be, I think a little more. Scrutinize it a little harder. Going to be a little bit more. More. Critical as to what's going to be presented. And I think the challenge is that here the challenges with costs commission, I think you understand it and I think it's going to be also a challenge that the commission knows very well about sea level rise. You said a key word there, kind of a managed retreat there had to do managed retreat because they're already back. But that's another issue that the Coastal Commission is dealing with every month in terms of managed retreat. We had a whole workshop on a managed retreat and sea level rise where a lot of cities are not as positioned as we are, where they're really encountering some really serious erosion along the cliffs, in their bluffs to where there's there's going to be some serious decisions being made for them next 20 to 30 years. What are they going to do with those those homes where they can't retreat anymore? I mean, they're done that. What's what's going to happen? People who have made investments for their families and I mean a. Sure you say a house with a great view of the beach. But that's going to be gone within the next 20 or 30 years because of sea level rise. No rate is going faster than we thought we were thinking at first it was going to be about six feet. But by 2001. 100, but it's going to be actually looking. Projections are more like ten feet, which is going to be a massive impact not only for here for us, but around the world, obviously, and everywhere else . So what I want to do, what I want to basically push forward is that this is a different project now. The standard reviews is much different. The standard review that the Commission is going to look at is going to be different. I think that step has already been challenged with that. I know that you have been asked to provide additional information, some additional challenges being put forward to you to to meet so that when it comes to the commission or when it is adopted an agenda, it is pretty much the the plan that that you want to go forward with. I don't think this is the end of this discussion. I think there's going to be some war on on this project because obviously, I think there are still some some issues we need to take care of. We have to look at, and especially when we're talking about, you know, environmental justice issues with having access to the beach. We talked we had a big discussion earlier tonight about affordable accommodations and Sterling's short term rentals. So, I mean, it's all that it's all it's all related. It's all related. And we'll be dealing with those when they come to us. So I'm going to be supporting moving forward to the Coastal Commission because I think that the standard review there will be much more much more difficult. The reason, much more challenging. I mean, thank you. See? No more comments from anyone. Please take the vote. Ocean Cay.