City Manager Jim Starbird also questioned the cost effectiveness of the building’s design, singling out a proposed two-story lifeguard tower.
“It seems to me to be a very expensive architectural element,” he said.
While the project’s design team described the building as “bare bones” in terms of meeting code requirements, Community Services and Parks Department Director George Chapjian said he would bring back options for reducing the building’s size and cost in January.
The delay could make it more difficult for the pool — which has been the subject of council debate since its inception — to meet its proposed summer 2011 debut.
Once the proposed design development documents receive approval, a seven-month period for the preparation of construction documents and a yearlong construction period is expected, according to a city report.
Councilman John Drayman, who also expressed cost concerns, said the project should focus on the main intent of providing a pool desperately needed by city residents, especially in the low-income and densely populated area surrounding the park.
Residents now have access to pools only at select schools, but those facilities give priority to sports programming and other campus activities. Pacific Park had a public pool, but it was demolished as part of the city’s joint Edison Elementary School project in 2003.
“This is a getaway for families primarily,” Drayman said. “And I guarantee that is the primary demand you are going to see here.”
