Council tells Bay Club to keep exploring pool plan but demands details on depth, programming and affordability

City Council held an extended discussion on a proposed memorandum of understanding with Bay Club Company for a privately built and operated aquatics facility on city‑leased land adjacent to Manhattan Country Club.

Staff senior management analyst Patty Mattson told council the Big Pool modernization study identified costs ranging from about $27.9 million to $40.3 million to renovate or replace the existing facility and that short‑term plumbing repairs funded in the FY26 CIP (about $825,000) plus a pledged Bay Club donation of up to $1,000,000 are intended to keep Big Pool operating in the near term. Mattson said Bay Club’s conceptual designs for a new facility on leased city land show a proposed budget in the $8–12 million range and a suggested resident daily‑use rate of $15. She also flagged needed entitlements, CEQA review, a potential retaining wall, two monitoring wells that must be relocated by Honeywell with regulatory approvals, and likely parking shortfalls (about 30 spaces).

Bay Club president and CEO Matthew Stevens said the company would absorb construction and operating costs under its model, reiterated a $1,000,000 contribution to help Big Pool repairs, and described the proposal as one that would give Manhattan Beach residents priority access while Bay Club members fill overflow. Stevens said Bay Club set an internal spending threshold and would stop the project if costs made it infeasible. He estimated a 12‑month approvals timeline and about 12 months of construction if council directed staff to advance the project.

Community members, active pool users and senior advocates urged the council to protect existing programs and keep services affordable. One longtime water‑aerobics participant said the proposed $15 daily charge would be a large jump for regular users on fixed incomes; masters swimmers and other regular users questioned how class pricing, lesson access and masters programs would be handled under a private operator.

Council members pressed Bay Club and staff on several specific points: whether the proposed pools could reach the 6.5‑foot depth required for high school water polo; whether programming would remain under city oversight or be run entirely by Bay Club staff; what the net effect on parking and village access would be; and who would cover any cost overruns above the proposed $8–12 million budget. Staff confirmed Bay Club has proposed maximum depths of about 3.5 feet for the small pool and six feet for the larger pool but said the company was open to discussion; staff also confirmed that final fees would be memorialized in an amended lease and that the city could consider subsidizing resident access.

After debate about tradeoffs—resident access, competitive swim depth, pricing and loss of 30 parking spaces—council members agreed they wanted to preserve community programming and examine subsidy options. Council voted unanimously to direct staff to continue discussions with Bay Club focused on: (1) exploring whether a deeper pool or two‑pool configuration could meet community needs and the tradeoffs required; (2) identifying programming arrangements that preserve or mirror city programs while allowing some shared staffing or oversight; (3) examining fee structures including hourly or subsidized options for seniors and low‑income residents; (4) pursuing a parking study if and when the pool footprint is clarified; and (5) returning to council with findings and recommended next steps within about two months.

The council emphasized that staff should return with clear proposals on what the city would gain and what it would give up under an amended lease or MOU, and with potential cost‑mitigation strategies for residents. No formal lease or amendment was approved; council’s action was a direction to staff to continue negotiation and reporting.