Issues have complicated the La Jolla Children's Pool Lifeguard Station Project for years:

http://www.lajollalight.com/2010/08/04/la-jolla-lifeguard-tower-projects-moving-toward-contracts/​

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/article_8bdac9f2-0c07-11e1-92a1-001cc4c03286.html?photo=%27

For those who are not familiar with the Pool:

http://www.sandiego.gov/lifeguards/photos/childpht.shtml

At this point public pressure over the project may be overwhelming. Anyone familiar with coastal development and environment knows that such the web of confusion over project design and impact is hard to escape. Environmental history says if you do it, the features with greatest impact you must get right the first time.

    Including La Jolla, beach communities care very much about the project scenic impact, and in the case of the Children's Pool possibly California, the USA, and international tourism might care. The city budget almost prohibited this project, but now that the city sees an opportunity, it might be wanting immediate pressure relief with project approval:

http://docs.sandiego.gov/citybulletin_publicnotices/PublicHearings/PN1300%2520%2523154844%2520HO%252011-30-11.pdf

The Pool project will be heard before the Planning Commission on December 14.

    The La Jolla Community Planning Association does not see relief or agree with the project proceedings:

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/lajolla/pdf/agendas/11novagenda.pdf (pages 28-31)

For further background on the community plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND):

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/pdf/cp/cpljopenspace.pdf​

http://docs.sandiego.gov/citybulletin_publicnotices/CEQA/PN1300%2523154844mnd%252010%252006%25202011.pdf

The MND shouldn't state the Land Use and Planning impact as "No Impact" instead of "'Potentially Significant Impact" although I think the project has "Less Than Signifant Impact" aesthetically.

    Really, not enough people know this project's design impact given its complexity. The city budget says after approval it will negotiate a "design-build" contract:

http://www.sandiego.gov/fm/proposed/pdf/2012/vol3/v3fire.pdf (pages 18-20)

    First, I repeat that this project affects a cliff over a beach, and any environmental impact, including that to erosion control, might result in an environmental and public safety disaster that results from the cliff collapsing or the ocean washing the beach (and the breakwater) away. I'm concerned that the environmental sensitivity dictates that the project not be built so quickly. The design constraints must be known in detail and be primarily important in the approval.

    Second, I worry about the proposed ramp. It will impact the coastal bluff and the beach, and the MND says emergency vehicles need beach access. I don't think vehicle access is feasible because the sand levels fluctuate, so there's never much area on the beach even with the exceptional drainage diversion design of the Pool, and lifeguards have excellent training for emergency response without vehicle access. Vehicle access isn't necessary.

    I think the city would be wrong to not "deny" or "conditionally approve" the project.

    If you're still reading this far, you might be already confused; but that's exactly why this petition is important- this project is not even simple by coastal development norms.

    No matter how much pressure is on the city, it can't afford to make many mistakes here. The Pool has too much environmental, community, historical, and tourism importance, to say the least, to be impacted by this (or any) project that appears to lack fundamental public coordination, cooperation, communication, and agreement over.

    The Pool project must be done because otherwise the station must be demolished; but I think the foundation repair is the only work that cannot be delayed. The other development would not have serious environmental or public safety impact if it was delayed in order to determine the correct design and construction.

    If the city fears more pressure or outcry for not accepting the Pool project as is, in the long term the Pool would be preserved and be as popular, beneficial, and historic to the city, California, the USA, and international tourism, if not more. The La Jolla community loves its area and will not be up in arms if the designers and developers take their time, go the extra mile, and work with the "better safe than sorry" approach.

    If the project is delayed, the city has other innumerable redevelopment issues to divert their economy, workforce, and public involvement to.