Council Delays Action on the Fate of Belmont Park After Hot Debate

The San Diego City Council Monday postponed action on a controversial development at Belmont Park in Mission Beach until next month, after a lengthy and confusing debate over whether the developer has a vested right to continue building the multimillion-dollar project.

Representatives of the developer, Belmont Park Associates, said they have spent more than $17 million on the project and claimed that the Plunge will be open for swimming on June 1. The renovated Plunge, along with a rehabilitated Giant Dipper roller coaster, which first opened in 1925, are expected to be the two main attractions of the new development.

After about four hours of sometimes acrimonious debate, the council voted to ask the city attorney for advice on the Belmont Park project and rescheduled debate for April 18. The council, however, separated the issue of the roller coaster, and will discuss that matter today.

Mired in Controversy

The Belmont Park development has been mired in controversy for several years. The City Council approved the project last year, but in November voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition G, calling for the Plunge and the surrounding area to be set aside for park uses. That measure excludes any development that has a “vested right” in the property, and lays out conditions for establishing that right.

Belmont Park Associates said it had invested $5 million in the project before the election, giving it that vested right.

At least two council members--Mayor Maureen O’Connor and Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer--expressed serious doubts about the Belmont Park development project, and Wolfsheimer urged the city attorney to sue the developer.

“There are no vested rights . . . We should be doing something to relieve the tragedy of this site,” said Wolfsheimer. “ . . . It’s sad when public land is put to private use.”

Mayor Lashes Out

An angry O’Connor, who has opposed the project since it was proposed about a decade ago, engaged in an “I told you so” dialogue with council members and other city officials, and lashed out at the developer.

“We never should have issued that permit in the beginning. . . . From the beginning it was a bad project,” O’Connor said. Then, turning toward the representatives and lawyers of the developers, she continued:

“You’ve destroyed the Plunge. You’ve destroyed the park.”

According to O’Connor, the developer would profit by $19 million over 30 years under the lease alone. O’Connor told the developer that the “morality” of the issue, in which the company has claimed it now has a right to be vested, “stinks.”

Criticized Renovation

The mayor was also incensed when she pointed out that the city paid $77,000 to the developer to renovate the park’s restroom, but instead only the facade was restored. The developer and officials from the city’s Property Department said that the lease only called for the outside to be repaired.

“The definition of renovation is to restore the outside and inside,” O’Connor shot back. “We’re paying for the restroom. . . . The council voted on one thing. The documents show something else. That’s where the bad faith comes in.”

At that point, O’Connor looked to City Manager John Lockwood for support, but was not satisfied with his reaction.

“Mr. Lockwood, what is your definition of renovation?” asked the mayor.

“I think it depends on the project,” answered Lockwood.

Rolled Her Eyes

O’Connor looked up at the ceiling and rolled her eyes in dismay.

The mayor also complained about the $595,000 public cost of a meeting room that measures less than 800 square feet. “Ladies and gentlemen, you’re not getting your money’s worth,” she said.

O’Connor also noted that the initial agreement called for 70,000 square feet to be built at the park, and cringed when she was told the development will actually consist of 73,000 square feet.

Earlier in the hearing, Craig Beam, an attorney for the developer, said in a short speech that the project was about 80% complete and the company deserved to receive vested rights from the council. Beam also alluded to the high costs incurred by the developer and added that the company had lived up to the letter of the the contract.

“You must look to the fundamental basic right of the applicant,” said Beam.

Contract Review Sought

Wolfsheimer and O’Connor argued against vesting the developer and Wolfsheimer presented a motion calling for the city attorney to review the city’s contract with Belmont Park Associates to see if the company has acted in bad faith.

She made no attempt to hide her intentions.

“I would like for the city attorney to go after the issue of bad faith,” Wolfsheimer said. She also suggested suing Belmont Park Associates and using any money won to buy back Belmont Park.

O’Connor put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the previous City Council, which gave the developer the green light for the project. The council members who backed the project did not bother to read the lease and contract, she charged.

Councilman Bruce Henderson, who represents District 6, where the project is located, made an unsuccessful attempt to get the council to vote in favor of vesting the Belmont Park developer. But Councilwoman Gloria McColl succeeded in stalling the vote until April 18, pending the city attorney’s review of the city’s contract with the developer.

Cited Expenditures

Henderson, who said that he was not afraid to take a hard stand on a controversial issue, cited the developer’s costly expenditures and said he did not favor buying out Belmont Park Associates.

The issue of vesting the roller coaster did not raise as much controversy as the Belmont Park project. Henderson campaigned on the slogan of “Putting the Roll Back on the Coaster.”

“The ability to ride the roller coaster is really a birthright of San Diego children,” he said.