Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pool Modernization topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Laguna Beach Unified Board previews 45‑meter pool modernization; parents press for larger size and community access

Laguna Beach Unified School District Board of Education · September 26, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Designers presented a schematic for a 45‑meter Laguna Beach High School pool with new locker rooms, concrete bleachers (about 270 seats), community restrooms and mechanical upgrades; parents urged a 50‑meter option and stressed impacts on young children and construction closures. The board reiterated plans to pursue community access and further CEQA and DSA reviews.

Designers for the Laguna Beach Unified School District presented a schematic plan for a major modernization of the Laguna Beach High School pool on Thursday, outlining a new 45‑meter competition pool, dedicated boys’ and girls’ locker rooms, expanded mechanical space and separated community restrooms.

“It's going to provide increased capacity for aquatics programs, increased sanctioned competition,” said Kristen Rose of Foresight Planning and Development, introducing the design team and interactive community feedback tools. Architect Roger Clark described plans for concrete bleachers with an overhead canopy (with proposed solar panels) and said the new seating would hold about 270 spectators. He noted the design preserves an existing pathway from the upper level and retains historic tile elements where feasible.

Justin of Aquatic Design Group explained the programmatic rationale for the pool’s length: a 45‑meter pool maximizes programming on a constrained site, allowing simultaneous practice and competition layouts for swimming and water polo, while maintaining a mandatory minimum shallow depth of 3 feet 6 inches. “We really wanted to maximize the pool space we can for the programmatic needs on the site,” he said.

The design team showed site plans with a new southeast restroom building, on‑deck storage, lifeguard tower and an elevator for ADA access. Staff said exterior showers are being considered to reduce cost, but one indoor shower per design will remain to address privacy concerns.

The presentation included schedule and regulatory milestones. Clark told the board the district is in schematic design and plans site and soils investigations, DSA review and likely a CEQA review; bidding and construction were presented as contingent on approvals. He said design/construction documents would be prepared September–April with potential construction start as early as 2026–2027 depending on approvals. Clark also listed agency reviews that could be required: geologic review, local fire review, public‑health signoffs and, if needed, Coastal Commission review.

Public comment overwhelmingly supported modernization but showed differences on size and community needs. Parent Julian Harvey urged trustees to prioritize student athletes and legacy uses; Kimberly Smith, a parent, said she had pushed for city partnership at a prior council meeting but the city chose not to collaborate and called on the district to proceed.

Several speakers urged the district to retain or replicate a shallow/wading area for small children, arguing the current wading pool frequently hosts dozens of toddlers and fills a distinct community role for families and lifeguard training. Steve McIntosh said he photographed “25 kids playing in the wading pool this year” and asked the district to consider temporary platforms or other design options rather than assuming the community would be served elsewhere.

Speakers also pressed for clearer cost data and comparisons between remodeling the existing building and building new. Designer Roger Clark said remodeling and adding on would likely approach the cost of new construction because of seismic and equipment needs. District staff clarified that while an 8–11 month closure is the program’s ambition, some phasing scenarios might require up to a year of limited access during construction.

Board members and staff emphasized the district’s intent to preserve community access where possible and continue discussions with the City of Laguna Beach on a joint‑use agreement, while noting the city has not returned a plan the district can integrate. Trustees said they were moving forward because the existing pool is aging and requires significant investment.

The board did not take action on the pool tonight; the design team said schematic design approvals would be brought back for board consideration and that CEQA impacts and mitigation measures will be evaluated as part of that next phase.