7. 25-0349 Consideration of an Update and Next Steps Regarding the Existing Memorandum of Understanding with The Bay Club Company to Construct and Operate an Aquatic Facility with the City (No Budget Impact) (City Manager Mirzakhanian).
(Estimated Time: 1 Hr.)
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
While improved aquatic facilities for Manhattan Beach residents is highly desireable, building such a facility in the pkg area north of the MB soccer field is not the place to do it. I am a resident of Manhattan Village Senior Villas (MVSV), and traffic at the entry point to the pkg lot on Park View is congested at various times of the day making it hard to enter and leave the property. West-bound egress in the mornings is already challenging due to people turning into the pkg lot of the comm'l bldg across the street. Afternoons and weekends,it bottlenecks with people coming and going for soccer matches or drop-offs and pick-ups. This is in addition to overflow pkg for Bay Club events. The lot is needed for said events, and during holidays, it's full from Manhattan Village shoppers. A swim facility there would both eliminate the needed parking spaces, and increase traffic, not to mention the noise factor of more whistles and yelling (in addition to the soccer field noise we already ).
Great post! The <a href="https://oxbowgcc.com/business-setup-in-uae/how-to-start-a-profitable-limousine-business-in-dubai-uae/"> limousine business in dubai </a>is truly a game-changer for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. It's encouraging to see how the UAE is positioning itself as a long-term hub for global talent.
I am generally opposed to "public/private partnerships" like this. The arrangements tend to favor the private partner in many ways, the City loses control, and avoids or delays providing what it should provide. I deem a public pool as a civic necessity irrespective of public survey approval (as opposed to, say, a parking faciility),
As to Begg projected costs, consider the Griffith Park pool projected (per LA Times) at only $28-million to include “demolition and reconstruction,” replacing the old pool with a new competition pool measuring 25 yards by 50 meters (up to 12.5 feet deep) and a “training pool” splash pad that is 25 yards by 25 meters (up to 5 feet deep), along with reconstruction and rehabilitation of the site’s two-story Spanish-style pool house and improvements to changing and shower areas and ADA accessibility." Note that over the past 25 years (already considered a "critical need"), Begg costs have been $5M and $14M. Waiting would seem to make it more expensive.
Dear Councilmembers: I'm writing as a 26-year Manhattan Beach resident and frequent user of Begg Pool. While I fully support the addition of an upgraded and/or new swim facility, I do not understand the rationale behind the proposed $15 day pass for use. Most people use the pool for one hour (current Manhattan Beach lap swim rates are $5/hour, and current rec swim rates are $3/hour). The fully upgraded pool at El Segundo charges $7/hour for nonresidents, and Hawthorne charges $5, or $3 for seniors. The term "day pass" seems to imply that a person would have use of other club facilities, but this would not be the case here. Will swimmers be willing to pay three times more for an hour of lap swim? Will families be willing to pay five times (!) more for rec swim? (Would a mom with two kids pay $45 for rec swim?) With other local pools offering completely reasonable rates, the answer would appear to be no. Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Councilmembers, I am a Manhattan beach resident and life-long swimmer. I frequently use the Begg Pool facilities as part of the Masters Swimming program, and for recreational swimming with my children. There is a deficit of swimming facilities in our area, and I support more swimming facilities in the City in general. Regarding this specific proposal, I ask that Councilmembers please consider the affordability of the facility for frequent users. In comparison to the $15 proposed daily use fee, as an example the nearby El Segundo Wiseburn facility is $7, which is less than half of the proposed Bay Club fee. A $15 fee per person for frequent users is cost-prohibitive and will drive frequent swimmers away to other facilities. A new swimming facility is a tremendous value-add for the Bay Club ownership and members, and thus the cost should be borne by Bay Club and not City residents. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Best regards, Andrew Hunt and family.
While improved aquatic facilities for Manhattan Beach residents is highly desireable, building such a facility in the pkg area north of the MB soccer field is not the place to do it. I am a resident of Manhattan Village Senior Villas (MVSV), and traffic at the entry point to the pkg lot on Park View is congested at various times of the day making it hard to enter and leave the property. West-bound egress in the mornings is already challenging due to people turning into the pkg lot of the comm'l bldg across the street. Afternoons and weekends,it bottlenecks with people coming and going for soccer matches or drop-offs and pick-ups. This is in addition to overflow pkg for Bay Club events. The lot is needed for said events, and during holidays, it's full from Manhattan Village shoppers. A swim facility there would both eliminate the needed parking spaces, and increase traffic, not to mention the noise factor of more whistles and yelling (in addition to the soccer field noise we already ).
Great post! The <a href="https://oxbowgcc.com/business-setup-in-uae/how-to-start-a-profitable-limousine-business-in-dubai-uae/"> limousine business in dubai </a>is truly a game-changer for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. It's encouraging to see how the UAE is positioning itself as a long-term hub for global talent.
I am generally opposed to "public/private partnerships" like this. The arrangements tend to favor the private partner in many ways, the City loses control, and avoids or delays providing what it should provide. I deem a public pool as a civic necessity irrespective of public survey approval (as opposed to, say, a parking faciility),
As to Begg projected costs, consider the Griffith Park pool projected (per LA Times) at only $28-million to include “demolition and reconstruction,” replacing the old pool with a new competition pool measuring 25 yards by 50 meters (up to 12.5 feet deep) and a “training pool” splash pad that is 25 yards by 25 meters (up to 5 feet deep), along with reconstruction and rehabilitation of the site’s two-story Spanish-style pool house and improvements to changing and shower areas and ADA accessibility." Note that over the past 25 years (already considered a "critical need"), Begg costs have been $5M and $14M. Waiting would seem to make it more expensive.
Dear Councilmembers: I'm writing as a 26-year Manhattan Beach resident and frequent user of Begg Pool. While I fully support the addition of an upgraded and/or new swim facility, I do not understand the rationale behind the proposed $15 day pass for use. Most people use the pool for one hour (current Manhattan Beach lap swim rates are $5/hour, and current rec swim rates are $3/hour). The fully upgraded pool at El Segundo charges $7/hour for nonresidents, and Hawthorne charges $5, or $3 for seniors. The term "day pass" seems to imply that a person would have use of other club facilities, but this would not be the case here. Will swimmers be willing to pay three times more for an hour of lap swim? Will families be willing to pay five times (!) more for rec swim? (Would a mom with two kids pay $45 for rec swim?) With other local pools offering completely reasonable rates, the answer would appear to be no. Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Councilmembers, I am a Manhattan beach resident and life-long swimmer. I frequently use the Begg Pool facilities as part of the Masters Swimming program, and for recreational swimming with my children. There is a deficit of swimming facilities in our area, and I support more swimming facilities in the City in general. Regarding this specific proposal, I ask that Councilmembers please consider the affordability of the facility for frequent users. In comparison to the $15 proposed daily use fee, as an example the nearby El Segundo Wiseburn facility is $7, which is less than half of the proposed Bay Club fee. A $15 fee per person for frequent users is cost-prohibitive and will drive frequent swimmers away to other facilities. A new swimming facility is a tremendous value-add for the Bay Club ownership and members, and thus the cost should be borne by Bay Club and not City residents. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Best regards, Andrew Hunt and family.