Council directs staff to pursue Bay Club aquatic proposal while also costing a city-built pool

The Manhattan Beach City Council on Nov. 4 directed staff to continue discussions with Bay Club about a proposed aquatic facility on city-owned land adjacent to Manhattan Country Club, while also asking staff to obtain an independent cost estimate for the city to build its own pool at the same site.

At a long public hearing and policy discussion, senior management analyst Patricia Matson told council the Bay Club's preferred conceptual plan included two pools (a shallow pool about 2— to 3— feet deep for lessons and a 25-yard pool to about 4—'6 feet deep), a bathhouse and programming that would prioritize Manhattan Beach residents for some classes. "Bay Club has confirmed the daily use fee would be $15, with a reduced $10 fee for seniors 70 and older and children 12 and under," Matson said.

Matson said Bay Club also proposes that a paid daily pass include the option to visit the Bay Club's other South Bay locations later the same day, and that Bay Club would pay construction and operating costs. "Bay Club's estimated project cost is $8 million to $12 million," she said.

Pete Jones, executive vice president for Bay Club construction and development, told the council Bay Club views the offer as philanthropic and is willing to move to more detailed designs and to fund technical studies if the council directs staff to continue. "Our offer to build the aquatic center is pure philanthropy and loaded with risk," Jones said. "We are a member of this community and want to be a partner." (Pete Jones, Executive Vice President, Bay Club.)

Council members pressed staff and Bay Club on several points before voting to proceed with a two-track approach: (1) ask Bay Club to develop more detailed designs and to fund a parking study and the next phase of technical work; and (2) commission a high-level independent estimate of what it would cost the city to build one- or two-pool options at the same site. Acting City Engineer Gil Gamboa said a reliable high-level estimate could be returned in roughly three months and would carry a wide contingency range.

Council members repeatedly raised concerns about parking impacts on the Village field and on access for the adjacent Senior Villas. Matson said the entitlement process would require a parking study paid by Bay Club and that the project is expected to avoid interfering with Senior Villas ingress and egress.

Several council members said they favored a two-pool concept because a smaller shallow pool expands programming for children and seniors. Council Member Hoard said the project should be pursued as additional water capacity for residents rather than a replacement for Beg Pool; Council Member Sherillion and others asked staff to pursue both the Bay Club path and a city-build costing so residents and the council can weigh options.

The council gave unanimous direction to staff: continue talks with Bay Club and ask Bay Club to advance sufficient plans for technical studies, and also commission a high-level cost estimate for a city-built pool at the site. The estimate will be returned to council for budget consideration before any final lease or entitlement negotiations.

What's next: staff will ask Bay Club to advance detailed plans and a parking study, update the existing memorandum of understanding if needed, and return the city's independent cost estimate in the coming months. The council asked that any lease terms protect residents' long-term interests and that requirements apply to successor owners.

The council's action was procedural direction to continue exploration; no final contract, lease, or entitlement was executed at the meeting.