Coastal Commission to Vote on Aquatic Center

On Dec. 10, the California Coastal Commission, which is legally required to protect and enhance public access to the coast, is scheduled to vote on whether to let the City of Long Beach build a Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center steps from the sand in the SE corner of Long Beach. 

[UPDATE: IN THE AFTERNOON OF DEC. 4, THE COASTAL COMMISSION EMAILED THE FOLLOWING: "We are postponing the hearing for the Belmont Pool items. The comments we have received will be added to the file."]

Why is City Hall proposing an $85 million facility – that’s supposed to serve residents citywide – in a corner of SE Long Beach?  Although it replaces a former public pool at that location for years  Coastal Commission staff is recommending that the City of Long Beach address long-shrugged geographic issue.

“The proposed project raises significant environmental justice concerns because of the inequitable distribution of the pool facility’s benefits and limited access for residents of Long Beach,” writes Coastal Commission staff. “Throughout California’s history, underserved communities – including low-income populations, communities of color, and other marginalized populations – have faced disproportionate social and physical barriers, often caused or exacerbated by discriminatory land used patterns and economic policies, disconnecting them from coastal access and recreational opportunities.

In the case of the proposed project, for example, the pool is located in the more affluent section of Long Beach, which has a higher socioeconomic demographic than the rest of the city.”

Coastal Commission staff recommends attaching multiple conditons (detailed below) to address those Environmental Justice issues. If the commission votes to do so, it will allow the city to build the pool in southeast Long Beach.

In response to our request for quick comments, Third district Councilwoman Suzie Price, a supporter of the pool in her SE LB district along with LB’s influential aquatics community, emailed: “I can only share that we are pleased with the collaborative process that the staff participated in with Coastal Commission staff and are pleased with the recommendations as they address all of the environmental considerations that were critical for coastal’s approval.”

Councilwoman Price also referred our inquiry to City Manager Tom Modica, who told us:

“Our team has worked very closely with the Coastal Commission staff to address any outstanding issues and are very happy to see their recommendation of approval for the project.  We know that environmental justice is a key priority for the Coastal Commission and have added numerous components to address concerns.  We have worked with staff and are supportive of the conditions.”

Coastal Commission staff writes: “When considering environmental justice issues related to the proposed facility, the first concern is the location of the project site in a part of coastal Long Beach that is more affluent predominantly white and not easily accessible from other parts of the city.

“Despite the size and population, there are currently only three year-round public pools in Long Beach that offer open swim lessons and aquatics programming (the two indoor pools are closed during the pandemic) and three additional pools at high schools that are opened in the summertime to meet additional demand.

“The proposed project, which would be the largest pool facility and offer greater programming and recreational opportunities, will be located far from communities more burdened with public health impacts of pollution and have greater sensitivity to the pollution.

“While, with seven water bodies and associated facilities, the BBAC would greatly increase the aquatic recreational opportunities in the area, these benefits will be difficult to easily access for underserved members of the city who do not live near the proposed location and have less disposable income to spend on aquatic programs, pool use and transportation to the site.

“As a result, the BBAC will provide recreational opportunities that disproportionately benefit those wealthier residents who live close to the proposed project site and enjoy access to more recreational amenities, those who can afford cars and those with time to transport themselves to the proposed pool complex.

“In addition to geographic inequities, there are inequities in terms of who learns to swim and death rates caused by unintentional drowning. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there is an increased likelihood of African American youth and young adults drowning in swimming pools compared to other race/ethnicities and differences in swimming skills may explain this inequity.”

So, what about an alternative location, like the downtown “Elephant Lot” adjacent to the Convention Center?

“While this site is more easily accessible to residents throughout the region, the city raised environmental justice concerns about the Elephant Lot because it is closer to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and could expose more people to poor air quality,” Coastal Commission staff reasoned.

While the project could be redesigned as an indoor facility to alleviate that concern, the city also said it was committed to other uses for that site. That area is a popular visitor serving center and the city considered the Elephant Lot for other future developments including a new Angels Stadium and for other short-term projects, such as swimming and BMX Olympic events during the 2028 Olympics

As a result, Coastal Commission staff concluded that the Elephant Lot isn’t a feasible alternative for the city under current conditions and recommends that the Coastal Commission approve the following:

To address these [environmental justice] concerns and the insufficiencies in the city’s proposed public access enhancement plan with regard to public participation and project details, Special Condition 3 is imposed to require the city to conduct citywide community outreach that will inform a revised public access program to be submitted to the [Coastal Commission] executive director for review and approval.

Specifically, this condition requires the city to develop a community access program to be reviewed and approved by the executive director that includes tailored, culturally appropriate outreach methods to equitably engage and survey Long Beach residents and users of Long Beach community pools to collect input on what type of recreational programming at the BBAC (if any) is most desired and how it could best be accessed.

Until the public access program is approved and ready to be implemented, “the BBAC shall not be opened to the general public or any other user group.”

City Manager Modica says “This project has gone through many design iterations over the past few years as we work to achieve a balance of the various competing priorities on a project of this magnitude. We’re excited to have this in front of Coastal Commission on Dec. 10 and will be providing a full report during the hearing.”

The Coastal Commission staff addressed these issues in response to appeals (on issues including sea level rise) filed by Citizens About Responsible Planning (Ann Cantrell among in its leadership) joined by two commissioners themselves (Bochco and Turnbull-Sanders.) 

Other appellants included Jeff Miller, Melinda Cotton, Renee Lawler, Susan Miller, El Dorado Audubon Society, Long Beach Area Peace Network, Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development, Gordana Kajer, James Hines, Audrey Mabie, Ashley Waugh, Kerrie Aley, Gladys A. Moreau, Virginia Shontell, Loy Zimmerman and Alan Songer.

In addition to sea level rise and other issues, the Dec. 10 Coastal Commission hearing will show to what extent the city is prepared to accept these conditions in seeking approval for the project.

Bill Pearl publishes lbreport.com, a local, online news source since August 2000.