Projects We Are Working On
School District - Swimming Pool
“It’s an Unwrap” (October 10, 2024) - New Pool Approved by the School Board
As had been long expected, the school board officially voted on October 10 to move ahead with a 45-meter swimming pool at the high school at a projected cost of at least $19 million to build and an ongoing operating cost of $1.2 million per year with proposed programs, lifeguards and other staffing.
This was the expected outcome for anyone that had been following the process along with us. After all, it has been clear over the past year that the board majority made up their minds long ago to build the biggest pool possible that would fit in the existing space and regardless of cost. Beyond that, this group was simply going through the motions to reach this preordained destination.
Regardless of what current board members would have you believe, Sensible Laguna has ALWAYS supported building a new pool for the kids and community.
In fact, at the Thursday meeting the pool endorsed by Sensible Laguna would have met the requirements of every speaker at a cost likely millions of dollars less than the district will spend. The district takes a different view of fiscal responsibility than we expect from our elected leaders…they justify the cost with a “we have the money available” logic.
As we said above, from the very beginning we have fully supported building a new pool. We simply asked the district administration and school board to do it the right way, with professional help and with full transparency.
Over and over we repeatedly asked the school board to hire and utilize a professional aquatics design firm to help them navigate the process, keep the community informed and ensure independence was maintained.
We also noted on multiple occasions that this is a standard practice used by all cities and school districts before they spend tens of millions of taxpayer money.
We pushed for this because that aquatics design firm would have completed a proper analysis (takes about two months), released a detailed report to the public and provided guidance to district administration, the board and the community throughout the process.
The report itself would have included facility costs and benefits specific to the needs of the district and broader Laguna Beach. It would have been based on data and facts, as well as analyzing such things as patron and team usage (both currently and projected into the future), environmental impact, needs, wants, demographics and many other factors. In this way, a true facility analysis could have been clearly understood by all.
Unfortunately, such a process would have required the city and district to work together in a coordinated way and that wasn’t in the best interests of the district (as it would have required them to compromise).
After brushing aside suggestions to bring in a professional aquatics design firm, the district and school board tried to do this on their own, creating a convoluted mess. Then, as public discourse picked up, district administration and the school board quickly became entrenched in their position and began actively seeking anything to give them support.
Instead of listening to public concerns, weighing those and adapting, this group chose to aggressively block and attack anyone who questioned how taxpayer money would be spent. They then ramped up public relations efforts and executed a plan to try to split the community into two groups (“us” and “them”). They proactively vilified those asking questions or challenging data and assumptions into one group and embraced anyone in support of their predetermined option.
As the community sought to understand how such a significant amount of their money was going to be spent and asked questions, the district administration and school board were forced to adapt and a continually changing story emerged that unfolded over time.
It was this unfolding process that uncovered such things as the makeup of the 20-person subcommittee only included four Laguna Beach residents (two were board members Vickers and Osborne, one was from School Power and one was a trustee).
Keep in mind that this was also the very same group (chaired by Vickers and Osborne) that recommended acceptance of the broader $150 million facilities master plan with district administration.
That plan would bulldoze nearly everything from Blumont up Park to Manzanita (same distance as plowing under Hotel Laguna all the way up the hill to the dirt lot by Legion on Coast Highway), throw tennis courts on top of multistory parking structures (with lights shining 40 feet up from there) and put huge buildings on either side of Park that would have brought an Irvine commercial building corridor feel into the historical residential neighborhoods of Laguna Beach.
As proposed by this mostly outsider group of non-residents and aggressively championed by Osborne and Vickers, this tear up and tear down plan would have been the second biggest construction project (behind the Montage) in Laguna Beach history.
The current school board not only isn’t interested in listening to dissenting thoughts it seems, but as they have shown – will take action to proactively bully and try to squash any and all residents who try to oppose what they want to do with our money and our town.
Latest Update (September 26, 2024) - New Pool Study Session by LBUSD
On September 26 the LBUSD board held a study session to present their plans to demolish the existing high school pool complex and rebuild a new aquatic center on the site. The bulk of the presentation was conducted by outside consultants and professionals and was quite well done. Unfortunately, the presentation included only a single solution and NO COST INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED.
There were 20-25 members of the public in attendance, primarily current or prior water polo and swimming parents. A dozen spoke in favor of the project and three asked the board to consider lower cost options that meet key requirements.
Public comments were limited to three minutes and questions were submitted via a web based application by those in the room. Even with the small audience there was no dialogue or true Q&A.
Our view of the key points
* In the last sentence of the materials provided in the meeting, it says in short that the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) is being funded without outside sources. Maybe they meant to say pool? After all, the FMP is estimated to cost $100 million and the pool is another $20 million. The district receives the vast majority of their revenues from local property taxes. The question was asked in writing and in public comment but not answered or even mentioned.
* It was disappointing that a public update did not include a single mention of costs. Not in the presentation nor in response to multiple questions and comments. This had to be a conscious decision not an oversight.
* The district continues to present the pool design for combined school and resident use. This is odd, as it contradicts city leadership positions on resident needs and the city’s own plans. We assume the district is doing this because school needs alone fall far short of justifying a complex of this size and cost for only 66 student aquatics athletes participating over three different seasons (average of 22 per sport per season).
* While not mentioned, the majority of the non-school programs this massive complex is purported to address are part of a for-profit company offering training and club teams. This should be closely examined, as the funding for this project of course is coming from taxpayers.
* There were many questions submitted and Sensible Laguna will be submitting more. The board committed to answering all on their website.
* President Vickers, who has historically chastised the public for clapping or even speaking after the 3 minute window allowed per person for comment, not only allowed clapping but seemed to encourage it. We can assume this approach was designed to amplify the support of the +/- 15 people in attendance supporting the project as presented.
* Some quick observations on the proposed design
- No details provided yet on sound mitigation
- Lights are now proposed to be 40 feet tall, or about 3 stories high
- More than half of the parking has been removed to accommodate new buildings
- ADA ramp access is being replaced with a mechanical solution
- Southwest building facade is over 30 feet high with no articulation
It’s important to understand that “costs” are heavily weighted to the buildings over the actual pool, as we have been reporting since the FMP was announced. We have repeatedly asked the district to disclose details of cost, but since we don’t have that we will need to do the math ourselves to keep our readers informed.
Based on our evaluation of over 100 feasibility studies on this subject, using the data provided by the district, we estimate that of the $20 million total project cost, about $15 million is for the buildings. We brought local experts over to the pool to look at this and they roughly estimate retaining the main building and significantly rehabilitating it would likely save $8 million to $10 million. Saving the main building on Park would also still allow for a pool size of 35 to 40 meters long. That is why once again we have repeated a call for this cost benefit comparison, before the school board approve spending $20 million of taxpayer money.
The district continues to add “requirements” to support the pool size they aspire to build for vanity reasons. The presented plan is impressive, but is a massive build. Further, it gives no mention of cost and is certainly not being cost measured against other alternatives.
At this point it seems quite apparent that the school board will likely rubber stamp the plan provided by the district at their next meeting and reference public support represented at the meeting. Of course, we point out this meeting had a handful of residents (well…attendees to be accurate) speak in favor of the plans…presented without a cost.
Changing the board members seems to be the only alternative.
Here is a link to the presentation and another one to hear a recording of the meeting.
Previous Update
After conducting extensive research on this issue, Sensible Laguna analysis finds the best option for both the school district and the city is to have two pools in two different locations in Laguna Beach and we support this.
While this may seem counterintuitive, having one pool owned by the city and one owned by the school district would mathematically be the most cost effective for taxpayers and best serve residents and the competition needs of the high school. For this option, both pools would need to be optimized for usage and cost for each entity and in aggregate.
City pool (optimized) - 25 meter length with additional attached 5 to 10 meter wading area for babies and toddlers. This option would save the city over $9 million in projected up front total construction costs and over $600,000 in ongoing annual operating costs compared to the proposed district joint use pool at the high school. Assuming the city finds a suitable location for this pool on city owned property, this pool would be designed to serve resident needs; expand options for residents; better support kids under 5 years old; provide expanded opportunity for citywide aquatics programs; reduce the impact of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues compared to a singular location and other factors.
District pool (optimized) - up to a 38 meter length pool would save the existing building, which is the expensive element of construction by far. The building would need to be extensively updated and could be expanded without having to be torn down. This option would save the school district over $9 million in projected up front total construction costs and over $100,000 in ongoing annual operating costs compared to the proposed district pool at the high school. This pool would exceed all California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) requirements for all aquatics sports; easily accommodate the 66 student athletes involved in all combined swimming and water polo activities; provide expanded opportunity for school district team activities and facilities usage; reduce the impact of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues compared to a singular location and other factors.
The latest school district update indicates the following:
District plans to proceed with construction of a 45 meter competition pool
Projected cost estimated at $19 million
Pool will have one shallow lane and reach a depth of 7.5 feet
Spectator seating capacity will be 272 permanent seats and an estimated 100 to 200 additional temporary seats
8 indoor and 7 outdoor showers added
Team rooms, restrooms, offices and sauna’s added
6 overhead lights will be added around the pool at a height of 40 feet each (about a 3 story building)
Metal shade structure added over bleachers and an equipment storage area
City - Proposed 72 unit housing development
Proposed 72-unit affordable housing project by Related California at the Neighborhood Congregational Church site off St Ann’s between Glenneyre and Catalina.
SB 4 is the Affordable Housing on Faith Lands Act that was recently passed into law. It provides a streamlined process for religious organizations and nonprofit colleges to develop affordable housing on their property. It allows such organizations to maximize the number of housing units on their property and uses a fast-tracked approval process.
Sensible Laguna is actively engaged with the community on this and is currently conducting research to fully analyze the issue.
Elements that have surfaced so far include: there is no other 72-unit apartment building in or close to the Village area; this project would be the largest building in the Village as proposed; a 3 story structure is envisioned; the Montessori Preschool located at church would be closed; Related California is reportedly asking the city for $5 million to build affordable units; project would be mixed-use with a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms; would provide 100% affordable housing; would target large households/families, persons with disabilities and homeless persons; completion date is estimated for May 2028.
School District - $100 million Facilities Master Plan
The Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) currently owns and maintains four schools, district offices, and a warehouse facility encompassing approximately 312,400 square feet of building space. The latest Facilities Master Plan (FMP) update represents a comprehensive revision to prior plans. Construction projects and updates are scheduled to be completed on or before 2030 under the plan. This is a significant taxpayer spend so Sensible Laguna continues to actively engage with the community in order to balance school district “wants” versus “needs”.
Spending by location: High school (66%), El Morro (20%), Top of the World (9%), Thurston (5%)
Top 5 biggest areas of spending as proposed (rounded):
$19 million (18% of the total) for a new High School Administration building
$19 million (18% of the total) for a new 45 Meter High School Pool
$14 million (14% of the total) for a new District Office located at the High School
$9 million (9% of the total) for a new classroom at El Morro
$5 million (5% of the total) in Play Field Upgrades at El Morro