It Takes Two Pools to Tango
By Steve McIntosh
Back in 2018, the city, along with an amenable school district, created a plan to resolve expanded city recreation pool use and modern aquatic high school needs. What does that mean?
It meant the city created a 33-meter long, all-deep competition pool, with a shallow, lap and kiddie pool, in a design for Lang Park.
The idea was that the high school would continue to practice in the current 25-meter pool at the school but play water polo and have swim meets at the new, state-of-the-art pool at Lang. All the city programs would move to the new pool and could start at earlier times, allowing the rec kids to be home early and opening the pool up for much-requested after-work lap swims. This would also allow the expansion of city programs.
That plan was abandoned because of pushback from residents after spending $150,000 on study and design.
Today, six years later, the school has the exact same programs, with only 79 kids participating in aquatics, spread out over the entire school year into three seasons.
They are still playing water polo in a pool that is not regarded as a place to play at a higher level.
Sensible Laguna understands that the high school needs a larger pool to play their home games in and to be more competitive. It is way past due.
At the same time, the city recreation programs have grown and still occupy the same pool.They are mostly made up of students from Laguna Beach Water Polo and Beeler Aquatics. Because the High School Water Polo or Swim Teams are in the pool until 6 p.m., these young rec kids practice in the pool until 9 p.m. This is unacceptable and was one of the main criteria that the District used to “justify” the massive pool.
Ironically, the district themselves, along with other studies, show that the $16 million, 50-meter Olympic-sized pool that the school district has approved will not resolve this issue, and the city rec kids will still be in the pool at 9 p.m. This is not a pool size issue; it is a scheduling issue. A 50-meter pool is over half of a football field long and eliminates the kiddie pool altogether, alienating a tradition of parents taking their kids of multiple ages to play and splash in both the kiddie and the big pool.
So, the answer? Two pools, as was decided back in 2018, would resolve all the issues. Only this time, the city builds its own 25-meter pool at one of several viable locations for a city pool, including the new recreation facility. This would allow scheduling programs at any time and would service the entire community, including seniors and kiddies, with a modern kid area. This also saves the city $500,000 or more a year in additional lifeguard staffing costs, needed if joining the school district in the 50-meter pool with no upside.
In turn, the school district builds a state-of-the-art 35-meter all-deep competition pool complete with diving that handles all CIF requirements for high school 25-meter floating goal water polo games.
(Just like dozens of districts and schools are building) Remodel and enlarge the bath house instead of demolishing it.
All are saving the taxpayers an estimated 8 million or more over building a giant 50-meter Olympic pool while lowering district maintenance costs by over 40 percent.
When the district changed its criteria to demand three concurrent water polo practices (To skew the narrative to a 50-meter pool), it totally contradicted the High School Water Polo coach who said at a school board workshop on Sept 2023, “If the city builds their own pool, I would not have to get players out of the pool at 6 p.m. I wouldn’t have to have all my players in the pool at the same time, and I could have varsity go from 4 to 7 p.m. and have JV go from 1:30 to 4 p.m.”
This could all be easily done in a 35-meter pool. Sounds like the solution if you truly want to improve the teams.
Don’t just take our word for it that two pools are needed. History shows it, and School Board President Jan Vickers stated it at the joint City Council/School Board meeting last June 6, twice!
She stated that one large pool will not take care of the problems, and that there will still be kids in the pool at 9 p.m. and that the city needs to step up and build another pool to service their programs.
The city recently distributed a biased “Survey” asking about what citizens want with a pool. However, the choices at the end add some unproven data about the length of time to build but leave out pertinent information, as you see above.
It’s time for the city to step up, stop kicking the can down the road, finally resolve all the pool issues by building its own, and save millions of dollars for the Laguna Beach taxpayers. Come to the 5 p.m. March 12 City Council meeting to discuss this.
Wake up and speak up before another costly mistake is made and more of our money is sent down the drain of an Olympic Lake.
Steve McIntosh is a 43-year resident and co-founder of Sensible Laguna, A Sensible Voice for all of Laguna. Find out more at sensiblelaguna.org.
Agree completely. There are a diverse set of stakeholders and needs of our aquatics facilities that simply cannot all be addressed with 1 pool and 1 location. The city needs to step up and be proactive.
Thoughtful, Steve. You mention “several viable locations” for another pool facility to serve just the City’s rec swimming needs. Where? The City has looked in vain since the 1970s for a place to put a skate park, and I wonder where a new pool might be located. Did you have specific locations in mind?
IMO, and based on personal experience, it would have to be no smaller than the existing LBHS pool, and from my perspective any new pool that was not that large would be wholly insufficient.
Hello Carter, Thank you for the kind words!
As we all know, space in Laguna is very scarce. In the past couple years, the City has “acquired” a couple of additional spaces that could be used as possible locations for a Modern Community Pool. The most requested spot is the new Recreation Center. There are several places there that could work and have little to no impact on neighbors. There are also several options for parking there as well, depending upon pool location. The other, is using part of the inland side of the parking lot at the new City property at Aliso. Hundreds of feet from homes and very close to Coast Hwy , with tons of parking! The last thought is Lang Park, visited before, with too large of a project. Done correctly, would have no impact on the neighborhood and still maintain a majority of the grass open area. The City claims parking is an issue. We have suggested leasing parking the Garage under Gelsons. But, now that Gelsons is out, a new popular thought is for the City to lease or buy the Gelson’s property, and put a pool indoors or on top of the garage with the building torn down.
For City use, the most amount of people that typically park at the pool at once, is 15 to 20 during morning lap swim or during Age Group Water Polo & Swimming, which would be in the afternoon and early eve. Summer a bit more, but not as great as some perceive.
By far, the biggest impact with volumes of people and over-all noise, are the High School Water Polo practices and games along with HS swim meets. Which would remain at the High School.
The size pool we are proposing, is exactly the same as currently at the High School. A 25M pool with a modern wading/kiddie area. A pool for the whole community such as Seniors, kiddies to play, aerobics, lap swim and Age Group WP & Swimming. A win win!
I would invite all of Laguna to actually go up to the pool to see just how big a pool twice that size would be!
Thanks again!
Steve
Steve:
To make any of these alternatives viable and avoid a lot of CEQA/habitat protectionist blowback, causing year more delays, may I suggest one minor but critical concession/exaction?
As a planner, land use & CEQA advisor, agreeing up front to certain conditions for approval might expedite your worthy cause, and here’s one to mull over:
Dawn to dusk use only. Three elements on a CEQA checklist are intrusive impacts regarding Noise, Lighting and Biological factors.
Several of the places now being suggested are adjacent to ESHAs (Enviro Sensitive Habitat Areas).
Plus neighbors who could object to their night sky views being obscured. For society’s sake, these suggested sites would need higher density lighting over large swaths of the property to ensure no criminal mischief.
So you and your fellow travelers can avoid not just contestation but perhaps acquire more support by voluntarily limiting use hours (exaction/concession)?
By avoiding “zero sum games,” by being considerate of not just neighbors but our wilderness critters who migrate and forage at night, even nest and need their quiet time, might be worth at least tossing into the “convo hopper?”
It’s ALWAYS better to front load potentially significant adverse, unmitigated impacts than to wind up in hearings and courtrooms, isn’t it?
Thanks Roger! Good info and very much appreciated.
Since the City Council voted 5-0 to not join the school district in their Olympic Dream Pool, they will indeed by looking for locations for the much needed community pool.
SM
Steve:
You’re more than welcome.
The Initial Checklist that determines the arc of a public or private project can be found online. Download it and you’ll be better informed by it as a reference. might look daunting initially, but hang in there.
Examples of IC CEQA docs are also in plenitude, they give you insight into how the project’s public lead agency “triages,” i.e., actually goes/went through the decision tree to make/sustain the project’s perceived, potentially significant adverse impacts that need mitigating, including deeper dives (need advanced studies, etc.).
Eventually, the discrete mitigations themselves emerge for progressing, altering or halting.
CEQA requires that several alternatives be offered.
Many don’t know that the first alternative is NO PROJECT……what are the consequences or ramifications of doing nothing?
You’re a bright guy, spend an hour and you’ll probably be not only rewarded but the most savvy person in the room.
I can’t tell you how many times I see or hear layperson’s invoke the name “CEQA” to alarm or intimidate, like a threatening club but actually have little if any understanding regarding how it actually works.
Or doesn’t!
Or what it is or isn’t.
I transitioned from general contractor to land use/compliance advisor myself and having in-depth experience with both has assisted me and my clients get a faster, better handle on strengths and weaknesses of proposals.
It can be your best friend or worst enemy. Or something in between, “That depends” is a commonly expressed position in my field.
Translation: Where or how you get that pool will depend to a great extent on being prepared. Luck is a function of planning.
Your website says that you have urban planners and construction advisors on your team?
It’s a worthy cause, don’t get discouraged by all of the red tape, seems you’ve got navigational help.