The revitalization of the former Belmont Plaza Olympic Pool through a $103 million development project has encountered several hurdles in the years since the pool closed in 2013. What has been informal opposition during public comment at planning commission meetings or op-eds posted online have been formalized with the submittal of four separate appeals to the project.

At its March 2 meeting, the planning commission approved the environmental impact report (EIR) and other permits for the project, which spurred the appeals filed by Joe Weinstein and Ann Cantrell as the group Citizens About Responsible Planning (CARP), Belmont Shore residents Jeff Miller and Melinda Cotton, Belmont Heights resident Gordana Kajer, and Anna Christensen representing the Long Beach Area Peace Network.

Olympic Plaza pool view from the beach. (Rendering courtesy of the City of Long Beach)

This is not the first appeal Miller has filed against the pool project, having contested the lack of story poles on the site to demonstrate building heights for surrounding residents. His and Cotton’s most recent appeal also claims the story pole was inadequate.

Both the CARP and Kajer appeals cite the proposed 78-foot building height as too tall, which creates a hindrance to ocean views and migrating birds. Additionally, the appeals claim a traffic study should be conducted in the area, which would call for the EIR to be recirculated and opened for further discussion and public comment.

Christensen’s appeal focuses on the location of the pool being discriminatory by limiting access to low-income residents and residents of color. The appeal contends that the heavily white, heavily wealthy area of Belmont Shore does not need such a project and is too far for some residents to travel.

This is not the first time Christensen has made this claim regarding the pool project. On August 16, 2016, Christensen posted an op-ed titled “#Swimmingsowhite: Long Beach Pool Project a Racial Justice Issue,” in which she voiced the same concern and noted statistics about the disparity between African-American and Hispanic children’s swimming ability compared to white children, saying it comes down to access to pool facilities.

Her appeal claims the EIR was too quick to disregard alternative locations for the pool downtown near the convention center or the Queen Mary.

“A public hearing on the appeals is scheduled for the May 16 city council meeting,” Amy Bodek, director of development services, said. “The EIR, as prepared by a team of CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] professionals, is a valid disclosure document of all the environmental effects potentially associated with the project; otherwise, staff would not have recommended for the planning commission to consider certifying it.”

If the council turns down the appeals, opponents could file a lawsuit to combat the approved EIR. The California Coastal Commission also must approve the project if it moves forward.

The proposal consists of two 50-meter pools, a separate diving well, a recreational pool, a therapy teaching pool, a small spa near the diving well and a larger spa for the general public. However, the city only has $60 million set aside and is currently evaluating various means of raising the remaining $43 million minimum needed for the project.