Patch reported that Mayor Jim Light said, "We have never been anywhere near this close to construction," after last week's City Council meeting. He was talking about Seaside Lagoon, the saltwater swimming pool tucked inside King Harbor that has been open every summer for more than 80 years and closed, as it does every year after Labor Day, just days before the council voted.
The timing was not a coincidence so much as a collision. On September 15, with the gates already locked for the season, the council spent hours listening to residents argue about what should replace the facility, then voted unanimously to move forward with a rehabilitation plan the city has been circling for roughly two decades. Three weeks earlier, the city's own Harbor Commission had recommended the opposite. If you live near the harbor, you have probably heard fragments of this fight secondhand. This is a look at the decision, the alternatives discussed, and the figures presented.
A Facility Everyone Agrees Is Expensive to Run
Start with the part nobody disputes. Seaside Lagoon works on an unusual system: it pulls seawater in from beyond the breakwater, chlorinates it for swimming, then de-chlorinates it before sending it back into the harbor. That process has gotten more expensive as the infrastructure has aged. A pump failure closed the lagoon for about two weeks during the 2025 season and cost roughly $60,000 to repair. Community Services Director Elizabeth Hause told the council in April that the city's most recent two-year round of water-quality fines totaled $175,000, negotiated down from a higher figure.
Those numbers are why the state stepped in. Sacramento appropriated $10 million toward rehabilitating the lagoon, with the city committing another $1 million on top of that. An early design tried to fit in both a recreation lagoon and a separate lap-swimming pool, but Los Angeles County public health rules require the two to be physically separated with their own filtration systems, which pushed the estimated cost above $16 million. The council scaled the plan back in April to a roughly $9.47 million Phase 1: replace the lagoon and its essential infrastructure now, leave everything else for later.
The engineering fix is straightforward. Instead of the pull-treat-discharge cycle, the new lagoon would continuously filter and recirculate about 770,000 gallons at 3,000 gallons per minute, turning over its entire volume roughly every 4.3 hours. That is the boring, sensible part of the story, and it is the part the council actually voted on.
The Lagoon's 2026 Attendance and Revenue
One measure of the lagoon's role is its seasonal use. Citizen Portal reported that waterfront staff told council members Seaside Lagoon was open 104 days in 2026, drew more than 67,000 admissions, and brought in almost $780,000 in gate and rental fees.
Set that against the maintenance numbers above and the picture shifts. This is not a forgotten facility limping toward closure. It is a seasonal operation that filled itself to capacity most of the summer, at $10 for an adult day pass and $8 for a child's, while costing the city real money to keep running on outdated plumbing. Both things are true at once. A private developer also presented an alternative plan as the city was preparing to finalize its own.
The Ocean Park Proposal
Citizen Portal reported that Allen Sanford, founder of the BeachLife Festival and the California Surf Club, brought an "ocean park" concept to the Harbor Commission this month. His pitch would replace much of the lagoon site with a purpose-built surf pool, plus a smaller family swimming area, a surf school, a dining deck, and a bar. He argued the site's current attendance could grow to somewhere between 400 and 500 people a day if it operated year-round, with surf sessions priced in the $100 to $150 per hour range and a percentage of revenue paid back to the city under a concession-style lease.
Citizen Portal reported that Sanford told the Harbor Commission, "This decision is gonna last 50 years," urging the city to think in terms of private investment rather than public grant cycles.
The commission did not endorse or reject the idea. It voted only to receive and file the presentation, which is a procedural way of saying the record now includes it without anyone being on record approving it. Council members were careful to say the same thing at their own meeting: the wave pool was not before them for a vote, and the city was not negotiating with Sanford on it.
Earlier Discussions About the Site
City records show a series of closed-session real estate discussions between Redondo Beach and both Sanford and BeachLife Festival, involving portions of the Marina parking lot and the Seaside Lagoon site, appearing on council agendas in January, February, April, and June, then again on September 1 and September 8. Every one of those agenda items is labeled only "price and terms," with no detail on what was discussed. The January, February, April, and June agenda items predate the public wave-pool debate; the September items followed it.
The public discussion over Seaside Lagoon began in late August.
Where the Disagreement Actually Lives
Residents split along familiar lines at both meetings. Jeff Jones, president of Quality Seafood and the King Harbor Association, argued the harbor needs a year-round draw to support local businesses and pointed to a wave pool as one way to get there. Carlos Meza called the concept a potential destination that would strengthen youth recreation. On the other side, resident Annika Blair told commissioners that the lagoon's public water footprint is protected under Measure C, warned that premium pricing could exclude the families who currently use the lagoon, and raised the possibility that the state's grant, which she and others cited at roughly $8 million rather than the $10 million figure used elsewhere in the process, could be at risk if the public parkland is reduced.
That $8 million versus $10 million gap never got resolved at either meeting. It is a small discrepancy, but it tells you something about how fast this conversation has moved. Even the people arguing about the money have not agreed on the number.
Here is what separates the two paths on the table right now:
| City's Phase 1 Rehab | Sanford's Ocean Park Concept | |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated cost | ~$9.47 million | ~$10 million (per Sanford's pitch) |
| Funding source | $10M state grant + $1M city | Private investment, concession lease |
| Water system | Recirculating, ~770,000 gallons | Not fully specified in current proposal |
| Public process status | Council-approved, moving to Coastal Commission | Received and filed, no formal review yet |
| Operating model | City-run, existing fee structure | Private concession, $100 to $150/hr surf sessions |
What Actually Happens From Here
The Harbor Commission's advisory recommendation, delivered unanimously on August 25, was to pause the current design and revisit it with a deeper lagoon, a retained sand bottom, more year-round programming, and room for sea-level rise. The council heard that recommendation and voted the other way three weeks later, choosing to keep moving on the existing plan rather than delay it while alternatives get explored.
According to Citizen Portal, what the September 15 vote actually authorizes is narrower than the debate around it suggests. Staff can now finalize and submit a Coastal Development Permit application to the California Coastal Commission, along with an environmental exemption filing. It does not approve final construction drawings, and it does not approve any private development on the site. The Coastal Commission still has to review the permit, and if the design changes significantly during that process, staff has to bring it back to the council before anything moves forward.
There is no construction start date yet. There is also no version of this where Seaside Lagoon disappears. The lagoon that closed for the season this month is very likely the same lagoon that reopens next Memorial Day weekend, running on the same aging system, while the Coastal Commission works through the paperwork for the version that eventually replaces it.
If you already live along the harbor, the practical takeaway is simple: nothing changes for you this winter, and the picnic reservations, luau shelter bookings, and season pass rates you're used to will likely look the same next summer too. The bigger question, whether this waterfront ends up with a rebuilt public lagoon or something closer to a private surf park, is still being decided in council chambers, not at the gate.
If you're weighing a move near King Harbor while this plays out, or wondering how a project like this tends to affect timing and value on nearby streets, I'm happy to walk through what's confirmed, what's still speculative, and what a realistic horizon looks like. Let's Connect.
This article is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Consult a qualified professional about your situation.
