SR 06-27-2017 8A
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : June 27, 2017
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 18
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Director , Community & Cultural Services
David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Susan Cline,
Director, Public Works Department, Gigi Decavalles -Hughes, Director, Finance
Department
Subj ect: Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Feasibility Study and Economic
Analysis Findings and Options for Next Steps
Recommended Action
Staff r ecommends that the City Council:
Review and comment on feasibility study and economic analysis findings for the
temporary and permanent multipurpose sports field with a softball field overlay;
and
Consider options and alternatives and provide direction to staff on next steps.
Executive Summary
Staff has continued working to advance a multipurpose sports field a t the Civic Center
per Council’s direction, including exploring a potential partnership project with the Santa
Monica -Malibu School District (SMMUSD) that would develop a permanent
multipurpose sports field with a softball field overlay and two levels of s ubterranean
parking. City and District staff have come to an initial agreement on proposed terms for
a joint use parking and field agreement and an economic analysis was conducted to
determine what each agency’s equitable pro rata financial contribution to the project
would be , as well as immediate and long -term financial impacts s hould the project move
forward. Given the financial impacts identified by the economic analysis, staff
recommends Council consider several options and alternatives and provide dir ection
accordingly.
The Recreation and Parks Commission considered the temporary and permanent
multipurpose Civic Center sports field options at its June 15, 2017 meeting and
approved a motion to recommend to Council that it direct staff to move forward w ith
development of the temporary field option.
Background
On February 9, 2016 (Attachment A), staff presented the Civic Working Group Final
Report and proposed next steps to Council. Council directed staff to explore the
2 of 18
possibility of placing a tempora ry field at the corner of 4 th St reet and Pico B oulevard , to
work with partners such as SMMUSD and Santa Monica College on funding options and
to return to Council in May 2016 with cost estimates. At the May 24, 2016 Council
budget study session (Attachment B), funding totaling $200,000 was identified in FY
2016 -17 as part of the FY 2016 -18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for design of the
field. Following considerable discussion and in response to public testimony, Council
adopted a motion directing staff to earmark funds for the construction of the Civic
Center multi -purpose sports field as identified in the adopted 2005 Civic Center Specific
Plan and to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status of the project to ensure it
moves forward as quickl y as possible. In addition to the aforementioned $200,000
budgeted in FY 2016 -17 for the design of the t emporary Civic Center sports field , the
five -year CIP budget plan for FY 2016 -21 also includes the use of $3.25 million in
reserve funds for constructio n of the Civic Center sports field in FY 2018 -19.
On October 25, 2016 (Attachment C), staff presented a quarterly update on the project
at a Council study session. Following the presentation, Council directed staff to initiate a
discussion with Coastal C ommission staff regarding the temporary sports field project
on the Civic Center parking lot and its resulting removal of approximately 600 spaces of
surface parking; continue discussions with SMMUSD staff regarding a potential
partnership project in the C ivic Center to include subterranean parking and a permanent
multi -purpose sports field with associated permanent amenities; and to reissue the
Request for Proposals (RFP) to a wider range of potential firms for the design of the
temporary field in an effor t to identify a fee proposal that was aligned with the $200,000
budget in the FY 2016 -17 CIP budget.
Staff proceeded per Council’s direction and issued an Information Item on January 17,
2017 to provide Council with an interim progress update (Attachment D). S taff returned
to Council on February 28, 2017 to deliver an update on discussions with Coastal
Commission staff, ongoing negotiations with SMMUSD, and a plan to award the
feasibility and concept portion of the design contract to RJM Design Group Inc.
(Attachment E). Council directed staff to continue negotiations with SMMUSD regarding
the partnership project and set a definitive deadline of June 2017 to either reach an
agreement or end negotiations and proceed with advancing the temporary multipurpose
sports field without subterranean parking. Council also directed staff to develop a
3 of 18
comprehensive plan for the sports field to ensure future needs of the Civic Auditorium
were considered and the field would not impede its rehabilitation.
Discussion
Feasi bility Analysis and Design Concepts
An interdepartmental team of City and SMMUSD staff conducted intensive discussions
and collaborated with consultants from RJM Design to determine the feasibility of two
options for a multipurpose sports field at the Civi c Center: a temporary field with no new
parking spaces added and a permanent field with subterranean parking.
Option 1: Temporary Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center
The temporary field option (Exhibit 1) would feature a regulation size multipur pose
sports field at grade with dimensions comparable to the existing field at Airport Park
(225’ x 360’). The feasibility analysis determined a softball field overlay could be
accommodated on the site with a 225’ centerfield line and a 200’ foul line. Due to site
constraints, the softball infield would be composed of synthetic turf rather than the
traditional clay material to allow soccer and other sports to be played on the field. Other
amenities would include lighting, fencing and containment netting aro und the perimeter
of the field (approximate combined height of 26’), a portable restroom trailer, temporary
storage space, temporary spectator seating, a moveable homerun fence, and chain -link
dugouts and bullpens. Access to the temporary field site would be provided through the
existing Civic Center Drive and Main Street parking lot entrances. The existing
emergency ingress and egress at Pico Boulevard would be retained.
4 of 18
Exhibit 1: Temporary multipurpose sports field
This option would present significa nt challenges due to the amount of surface parking
displaced. A comprehensive parking study of the area surrounding the Civic Center,
including the Downtown, would be needed to demonstrate that the loss of parking would
not impede coastal access in order t o secure approval of a Coastal Development Permit
from the California Coastal Commission . Additionally, City staff , Santa Monica High
School (Samohi) faculty and students , and visitors to the Civic C enter who currently
park in the lot would be displaced an d alternative arrangements would need to be
considered. The Courthouse would also be affected by the displacement of parking and
its administration has expressed serious concerns with the project as proposed as well
as with other upcoming development proj e cts within the Civic Center (further detailed
below ), citing the need for employee parking and accessible parking for patrons visiting
the court to serve jury duty and seek legal assistance . Furthermore, the significant
parking loss could likely impact fut ure reuse of the Civic Auditorium as prospective
5 of 18
private partners may consider the venue to be an unfavorable investment without
sufficient convenient parking .
Based on the feasibility study and concept design, it is estimated the temporary
multipurpose s ports field would cost approximately $8.6 million. This estimate includes
the aforementioned amenities, projected future cost escalation, and an allowance for
hazardous material removal and remediation. The estimate is considerably higher than
previous est imates as it includes costs associated with adding the softball field overlay,
contingency for design development, and site constraint construction cost premiums
that were not originally included in earl ier project cost estimates. Additionally, the
constru ction market has experienced a period of inflated costs due to a surge in
demand and a shortage of labor , resulting in increased escalation projections .
If this option were selected, next steps would include:
Environmental review pursuant to the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), amending the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) as needed, c ompleting
design and construction documents with RJM Design to definitively determine
funding needs for the FY 2018 -2020 CIP budget . Staff would return to Coun cil as
necessary to award a contract for this work.
Conducting the aforementioned parking study in preparation for Coastal
Commission review at an estimated cost of $250,000 (currently unbudgeted ).
Undertaking and managing this unanticipated step would req uire a considerable
amount of staff time and would divert staff resources from other efforts. Staff
would return to Council as necessary to identify funds and award a contract to a
parking consultant following a competitive selection process.
Discussions w ith SMMUSD to determine whether they would participate in the
development of the temporary field and provide funding to support the softball
overlay for Samohi use (a SMMUSD priority ).
Discussions with Courthouse staff to address alternatives to lost surfa ce parking
both during and following construction.
6 of 18
Construction of the temporary field w ould potentially begin in March 2020 with the field
opening in March 2021 . Given the need for a comprehensive parking study, Coastal
Commission review and approval, ap propriate environmental review , and amendment of
the CCSP to address the field setback along Pico Boulevard , the timeline is a realistic
estimate but could be subject to change if any unforeseen circumstances are
encountered . Additionally, the timeline pre sents challenges given the schedules of other
construction projects planned in the Civic Center, with projects overlapping at times
from September 2017 through March 202 1 (see chart below). If these projects were
constructed simultaneously, special attenti on would need to be pa id to ensure there is
sufficient and safe workspace for each project zone and contractor laydown and storage
areas would need to be accommodated on site and/or off site . It is important to note
excessive site constraints typically resul t in substantially higher construction costs and
could result in project delays. Furthermore, with overlapping construction schedules, the
Civic Center surface parking lot would be largely unavailable for an extended period .
Projects Estimated Start Estim ated Finish
City Services Building (CSB) September 2017 Spring 2020
Early Childhood Education Lab School (ECLS) Late 2017 / early 2018 Summer 2019
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) April 2019 October 2020
Temporary Multipurpose Sports Fie ld March 2020 March 202 1
Option 2: Permanent Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center with Two Levels of
Subterranean Parking
The permanent sports field option (Exhibit 2) would also feature a regulation size
soccer/multipurpose sports field at gr ade with dimensions comparable to the existing
field at Airport Park and a softball field overlay with a 225’ centerfield line and a 200’ foul
line. Similar to the temporary field option, the permanent softball infield would be
composed of synthetic turf r ather than the traditional clay material. Other amenities
would include lighting, containment fencing and netting around the perimeter of the field
7 of 18
(approximate combined height of 26’), a permanent structure with restrooms and
storage space, spectator seat ing, a moveable homerun fence, dugouts , and bullpens.
Exhibit 2: Permanent multipurpose sports field with two levels of subterranean parking
Most notably, the permanent sports field option would provide approximately 700 – 725
spaces of subterranean parking on two levels. The parking structure would be accessed
by a ramp adjacent to the westerly edge of the Early Childhood Lab School site (ECLS;
formerly named the ECEC). To accommodate access to the parking structure ramp,
Civic Center Drive would be extended through the parking lot to Main Street and the
existing Main Street driveway would be permanently closed as contemplated by the
CCSP. A bike connection from Pico Boulevard to Civic Center Drive would be included
and would run between the westerly edge of the field and the Civic Auditorium.
The permanent field and parking structure has been estimated to cost approximately
$95.4 million including escalation to the midpoint of construction and would include the
8 of 18
aforementioned amenities and site impro vements as well as earthwork and
underground utility relocation to allow for two levels of subterranean parking. This
estimate is higher than the previous estimate of $80 – 84 million and is attributed to
recent marked inflation in the construction industr y and inclusion of costs associated
with the softball field overlay, contingency for design development, projected future cost
escalation, site constraint construction cost premiums , and a higher allocation for
relocation of underground utilities. The cost to construct the parking garage is estimated
to be approximately 91% of the total project cost.
Given the Council’s commitment to constructing additional sports fields as part of the
Airport Park expansion and the City’s other capital project obligations , the City’s
financial contribution of nearly $48 million towards construction of a permanent field with
subterranean parking would need to come from passage of a potential local general
obligation bond i n November 2018. This would require two -thirds vote r approval and
this project alone would constitute a large portion of the proposed citywide park funding
measure . On April 25, 2017 , Council directed staff to pursue the concept of a park
funding measure , including conducting polling (Attachment F). A deci sion by Council
whether to put a measure on the November 2018 ballot would be required by August
2018.
If this option were selected, next steps would include completing the environmental
analysis, ending RJM Design’s contract , and issuing an RFP for full design and
engineering services for the permanent field and parking facility . The RFP would
incorporate the need for cost estimating services to more definitively estimate costs
commensurate with design development. C onstruction of the permanent field cou ld
potentially begin in September 2020 and would be completed in approximately 24
months. Given the need for a comprehensive parking study, Coastal Commission
review and approval, appropriate environmental review, and amendment of the CCSP
to address the l ocation of the sports field and subterranean parking (both are proposed
for locations that differ from what was contemplated in the CCSP), the timeline is a
realistic estimate but could be subject to change if any unforeseen circumstances are
encountered .
9 of 18
Moreover , as described below in the proposed partnership with SMMUSD, the Board of
Education would need to determine if the permitting process would necessitate the
involvement of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) since students may use the
multi purpose sports field for physical education during school hours. It is important to
note that DSA approval commonly takes 12 months from plan submittal to permit
issuance , and could delay the project schedule as well as add further costs. Similar to
the te mporary field, the construction of the permanent field would take place during a
time when the City Services Building an d the SWIP project are also under construction
in the Civic Center area (see chart below).
Projects Estimated Start Estimated Finish
City Services Building (CSB) September 2017 Spring 2020
Early Childhood Education Lab School (ECLS) Late 2017 / early 2018 Summer 2019
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) April 2019 October 2020
Permanent Multipurpose Sports Field with Parki ng September 2020 September 2022
Given that these projects are proposed concurrently and wo uld entail the temporary
elimination of surface parking during overlapping construction periods, alternatives for
replacement parking would need to be addressed fo r current Civic Center parking
users.
Proposed Partnership with SMMUSD
Since receiving direction from Council at the October 25, 2016 meeting, City staff have
met regularly with SMMUSD staff to discuss and negotiate proposed terms that would
be included i n a joint use agreement for the permanent multipurpose sports field and
subterranean parking structure. Should Council choose to move forward with th is
option, proposed terms would be as follows:
The joint use a greement term would be 55 -years with a possib le 45 -year option
to extend for use of the sports field .
10 of 18
To expedite the project SMMUSD would advance up to $4 million for design and
pre -construction costs with the expectation that the City would reimburse
SMMUSD for the City’s pro rata share of these c osts as determined by the
economic analysis (discussed in the next section of the report ), regardless of
whether the City obtains local voter approval for bond financing .
The City and SMMUSD would each pay its pro rata share of construction costs
with the understanding that construction of the project would be contingent upon
local voter approval of the parks bond measure .
City would oversee and manage all aspects of the design and construction of the
project through a collaborative process with SMMUSD par ticipation. If DSA
approval were determined to be a necessary component of the project, a DSA
inspector would need to be hired to be on site during construction.
City would retain land ownership and would own the sports field and
subterranean parking struct ure.
City would oversee all operations and maintenance functions of the field and the
subterranean parking structure.
SMMUSD would have exclusive use of the sports field Monday through Friday
from 2:30 pm to 6:00 pm on operational school days.
SMMUSD would have exclusive rights to use a specified number of guaranteed
parking spaces (anticipated need being 300 or fewer spaces) on Monday through
Friday, reserved until 10:00 am, during the regular academic year (from the first
day of instruction in August to t he last day of instruction in June). After 10:00 am,
the spaces not occupied would be made available to the general public; this
would require additional management by staff and/or with technology. The
number of guaranteed parking spaces needed outside of the regular academic
year would be far fewer. SMMUSD would not comp ensate the City for use of the
guaranteed parking spaces.
SMMUSD would receive an allocation of parking validation s for up to 25 special
events, the exact amount of which has yet to be nego tiated.
11 of 18
SMMUSD would agree to comply with the City's Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 9.53) terms as a condition of exclusive
use of the reserved parking spaces.
Economic Analysis
The proposed terms for use of the permanent field and parking were considered in an
economic analysis conducted by a team of consultants from Allan D. Kotin & Associates
and Economic & Planning Systems (EPS). The economic analysis was commissioned
to determine the overall financial feasibility of the perm anent field project and an
equitable basis for the City and SMMUSD to share costs associated with the project’s
development (Attachment G ). The analysis examined the net cash flow of the existing
condition and projected net cash flow of the temporary field for comparison. In addition
to proposed field and parking usage plans , the economic analysis studied capital costs,
projected maintenance , operational parking and field costs, projected revenues, and
projected savings SMMUSD would achieve by avoiding buil ding parking and a softball
field on the Samohi campus.
Given these considerations, the analysis recommended the City and SMMUSD each
contribute 50% of the total project costs , based upon the following assumptions:
1. The City would realize all potential p arking revenues by the e nd of the 55 -year
lease term;
2. SMMUSD would complete its master plan to construct permanent parking on the
Samohi campus by 2044; and
3. SMMUSD would not be required to pay for use of any guaranteed parking
spaces in the Civic Center pa rking lot until its debt to finance the project is retired
(anticipated to occur by 2045 ).
Given th e pro rata share, initial calculations, and current project cost estimates,
development of a permanent field at the Civic Center would cost SMMUSD and the City
approximately $47.7 million each. As noted previously, the City’s contribution would be
dependent upon passage of a local bond measure. While it is premature to identify the
12 of 18
ultimate size of such a local bond measure , it is clear that a sizable portio n of a future
funding measure would be required to realize a project of this magnitude. Other priority
park ne eds identified by the community such as the construction of the 12 -acre
expansion of Airport Park, the expansion of Memorial Park, and land acquis ition for new
parks, could potentially be deferred if sufficient funding is not available. If voters do not
approve such a bond measure, the City would still need to reimburse SMMUSD for 50%
of the design costs expended.
The economic analysis used the afo rementioned pro rata share to determine the
projected net cash flow for each party for the proposed 55 -year term of the joint use
agreement (2020 through 2075 ) for a comparative analysis of existing conditions, a
temporary sports field, and a permanent fie ld with subterranean parking. The financial
impacts of constructing either a temporary field or the permanent multipurpose sports
field with subterranean parking on the Civic Center parking lot would be significant . If a
permanent field were built, it is e stimated the City’s net cash flow , assuming present
value rates, would be -$43.9 million over the full 55 -year joint use agreement term.
SMMUSD’s net cash flow would be -$4.8 million over the 55 -year term of the
agreement.
If a temporary field were built , it is estimated the City’s net cash flow would be -$16.7
million over a 55 -year term. To ensure consistency, the economic analysis calculated
SMMUSD’s net cash flow for the temporary field as well (-$6.1 million over a 55 -year
term), with the assumption the City would finance 100% of the temporary project.
However, it is important to note the City and SMMUSD staff have not discussed a
potential partnership for the temporary field. Furthermore, because the temporary
project eliminates most of the surface p arking on the Civic Center lot , the project would
not provide SMMUSD with guaranteed access to a predetermined number of parking
spaces, which is arguably the most valuable financial benefit to SMMUSD of the
proposed permanent field and parking partnership .
Alternatives
13 of 18
The economic analysis illustrates the immediate and long -term financial impacts that
both the permanent and temporary multipurpose sports field options would have on the
City and SMMUSD. Given the significant investment and risk that would be required by
both agencies, staff recommends Council consider the benefits and costs of each of the
aforementioned scenarios as well as the following possible alternatives :
Alternative 1: Permanent Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center with One Level
of Subterranean Parking
One alternative is a permanent multipurpose sports field with the softball field overlay
and one level (approximately 325 spaces) of subterranean parking. The preliminary
estimated capital cost of this alternative is $60 mill ion and the project timeline would be
similar to that of the permanent field with two levels of parking. While the total capital
cost is significantly lower than the permanent field with two levels of parking, there
would also be fewer benefits. W ith only 325 parking spaces, the City would likely not be
in a position to grant Samohi exclusive access to the number of spaces required to
meet the needs of its faculty and staff, making this option less viable as a partnership
with SMMUSD. Furthermore, fewer par king spaces would result in less parking
availability for City and Courthouse staff and visitors.
Alternative 2: Temporary Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center with Offsite
Parking
Another alternative for consideration is the development of a te mporary multipurpose
sports field on the Civic Center site with parking leased offsite at a nearby location to
accommodate parking needs of the Civic Center, Courthouse, Civic Auditorium, sports
field, and Samohi. Staff would proceed with development of a field at the Civic Center
and concurrently undertake a process to identify offsite parking, preferably within
walk ing distance of the Civic Center. This alternative would provide parking for the
sports field and could meet the parking needs of the City, Co urthouse, Samohi, and the
Civic Auditorium and possibly, wholly or partially , address the Coastal Commission’s
requirements. While this alternative could eliminate the need to build new subterranean
parking and thereby save capital costs, the lease costs w ould need to be negotiated
14 of 18
and incurred at least in part by the variety of entities that would utilize the spaces . This
option assumes proximate alternative parking sites could be identified within the
dyna mic development environment and in consideration o f future public and private
projects near the Civic Center and the Downtown .
Alternative 3 : Defer Development of the Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center,
Develop a Temporary Multipurpose Sports Field at Memorial Park, and Issue RFP for
Civic Au ditorium Operator
The FY 2017 -18 CIP Budget includes funding in the amount of $1.35 million for the
development of a Master Plan for Memorial Park, which would include both the existing
park and the 2.91 -acre parcel that currently houses the Colorado Yards (also known as
the f ormer Fisher Lumber site). C ouncil could consider directing staff to delay the
master planning process and instead proceed with utilizing a portion of the Colorado
Yards , combined with reconfiguring some of the existing park facilities and amenities , to
design and construct a temporary multipurpose sports field at Memorial Park.
This multipurpose sports field would be used by Samohi and the community instead of
developing the Civic Center field at this time (see Exhibit 3 below). Samo hi spor ts teams
currently utilize Memorial P ark’s baseball and softball fields as well as the indoor
basketball courts. While this alternative would provide an additional multipurpose field
centrally located in the City, it would not be adjacent to Samohi thereby requiring
students to continue to travel to Memorial Park for practice and games. Should this
alternative be constructed, C ity staff would commit to assis t SMMUSD with identifying
safe modes of transportation for student s from Samohi to the park , i ncluding exploring a
possible direct shuttle option .
Following the design process and appropriate environmental review, c onstruction of the
field at Memorial Park could potentially begin in July 2019 with the field opening in July
2020. The estimated proj ect timeline would be a faster option than building the
proposed temporary field at the Civic Center as a field at Memorial Park would not
require a comprehensive parking study or an amendment to the CCSP, and would not
require a Coastal Development Permit since it would not be in the coastal zone.
15 of 18
Staff would proceed concurrently with issuing an RFP for a field design consultant and
an RFP for an operator of the Civic Auditorium, per Council’s directi on to staff on
February 9, 2016 when the Civic Working Group’s Final Report was presented to
Council (Attachment A). At that time, staff recommended Council focus on the Civic
Auditorium by issuing an RFP for an operator and deferring decisions about the rest of
the site until other planning processes had bee n completed and more information was
available (e.g. Samohi Campus Plan, Downtown Community Specific Plan, Airport Park
Expansion, and the possible exploration of ways to finance sports fields such as through
public -private partnerships). Council directed staff to issue an RFP for an operator with
the stipulation that proposals must be consistent with the ECLS as designed and the
sports field as represented in the 2005 CCSP. The RFP has not been issued, pending
information related to the design and ultimate direction of the sports field.
16 of 18
Exhibit 3: Temporary Multipurpose Sports Field at Memorial Park
Alternative 4: Defer Development of the Multipurpose Sports Field at the Civic Center
and Issue RFP for Civic Auditorium Operator
As mentioned above, Co uncil previously directed staff to issue an RFP for an operator
with the stipulation that proposals must be consistent with the ECLS as designed and
the sports field as represented in the 2005 CCSP. A decision to issue the RFP now and
defer the field would likely be supported by Civic Auditorium advocates and
preservationists , but strongly opposed by the Samohi advocates and broader
community that voiced an immediate need for a multipurpose sports field in close
proximity to the high school, as well as a ne ed to implement the plan as contemplated in
17 of 18
the 2005 CCSP. This alternative would also not address the need for a softball field
near Samohi.
Commission Action
The Recreation and Parks Commission considered the temporary and permanent
multipurpose Civic C enter sports field options at its June 15, 2017 meeting and
approved a motion to recommend to Council that it direct staff to move forward with
development of the temporary field option. The economic analysi s had not been
finalized at the time of the meeti ng and, therefore, the Commission’s decision was
based upon the timeline and capital cost considerations. The Commission cited
concerns with the permanent field’s overall capital cost as well as dissatisfaction with
the possibility of utilizing a large per centage of a potential future parks bond to finance
it.
Summary
There are opportunities, challenges, and risks associated with each option and
alternative considered in this report. Several options and alternatives provide field space
in an ideal locatio n but at great financial costs and with significant risks. Considering all
factors, the least costly , least risky , and fastest alternative would be to develop a
temporary multipurpose sports field at Memorial Park. However, this approach would
not meet the desires of the Samohi community who have advocated for a multipurpose
sports field with a softball field overlay adjacent to the high school campus. Staff
recommends Council consider all costs, risks, and benefits associated with each option
and alternati ve and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. For Council’s
reference, a summary of options and alternatives is provided in Attachment H .
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There would be no immediate financial impacts or budget actions required but there
would be future impacts associated with each option and alternatives as described in
previous sections of this report.
18 of 18
Prepared By: Melissa Spagnuolo, Principal Administrative Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. February 9, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. May 24, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. October 25, 2016 Staff Report (Web Lin k)
D. January 17, 2017 Information Item (Web Link)
E. February 28, 2017 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. April 25, 2017 Staff Report (Web Link)
G. Civic Field Economic Ana lysis Summary
H. Summary of Options & Alternatives
I. Written Comments
ADK &A 2 13.623.3841
Cell 213.369.3841
Fax 866.685.1377
Allan D. Kotin & Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventures
6801 Las Olas Way, Malibu , CA 90 26 5
akotin@adkotin.com
www.adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO : Susan Cola, City Attorney’s Office, City of Santa Monica DATE : June 19 , 2017
CC : Santa Monica Unified School District
FROM : Allan D. Kotin and Andrew E. Kaplan
RE : S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSI S
The City of Santa Monica (City) and the Santa Monica Malibu U nified S chool District (District)
currently share use of City -owned and operated parking facilities located on the west side of F ourth
Street between Olympic and P ico Boulevards in the City of Santa Monica. The District contracts
with the City to use approximately 200 spaces in either the Civic Center Parking Lot (Civic Lot) or
adjacent Civic Center Park ing Structure for 11 months out of the year and, on 25 special event
floater days , up to 750 spaces. In response to re -designation of the Civic L ot for use as a s ports field
in the City’s adopted Civic Center Specific Plan, the City and school District have engaged in a
conversation about construction on the Civic Lot site of a sports field at grade combined with a
major subterranean garage below it.
The two agencies retain ed the team of Allan D Kotin & Associates (ADK&A) and E conomic &
P lanning S ystems (EPS) to undertake an analysis of the financial consequences of this development
and to provide a recommendation about an equitable basis for sharing the costs of the project.
The guiding question underl ying project work was: Through analysis of different cash flow
scenarios, what is an acceptable and equitable basis for the City and District to share financing and
use of a proposed facility to be located in place of the current Civic lot?
Allan Kotin of ADK&A served as project manager for this assignment , and Andrew Kaplan of EPS
served as the principal analyst. The authors would like to tha nk the staff of both the City and the
District for their extensive cooperation in providing input and reviewing draft results.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
T he Consulting Team arrived at a two -part recommendation, together with some important key
assump tions , which are summarized below:
1. Split Cost of Propos ed Permanent Facility evenly “50 /50”: If City and District proceed with the
project, the District maintains its current master plan, and there are no material changes in
assumptions, a 50/50 cost split, combined with monthly parking cost relief to the District ,
represents a fair and balanced allocation of cost and usage.
2. Consider an Alternative : The extraordinary cost of the proposed parking and imperative for
sports use at grade suggest that lower -cost offsite parking alternatives be explored.
While there are numerous specific assumptions discussed in the body of the report, a few key
assumptions sh ould be noted at the summary level. It is assumed that the facility will cost $95
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 2 June 19, 2017
million and that each of the two agencies will independently finance it through the issuance of debt
on terms that each consider s appropriate. The measured benefits to the Ci ty primarily include
operating revenues, while benefits to the District include parking credits and substantial avoided
costs associated with future scheduled on -campus construction of a major parking facility and
softball field.
BACKGROUND
T he existing C ivic Lot abuts a City -owned parking structure and the Santa Monica C ivic Auditorium
and provid es 96 0 parking s paces. A planned Early Childhood Lab School (ECLS) will occupy the
southern side of the Civic Lot and reduce available parking spaces to 730 . The adopted Civic Center
Specific Plan requires that the Civic Lot become a sports field. B oth the City and the District are
heavily dependent on the Civic Lot for ongoing parking need s —the District even more so in coming
years as build -out of its campus master plan will temporarily reduce on -campus parking.
Consequently, the City and District have engaged in negotiation to jointly finance a potential
subterranean parking fa cility that would be located below the designated sports field.
POLICY FRAMEWORK
The framework for the analysis and a potential future
negotiation is informed by both City and District
needs. T he City ’s primary need is to accommodate
Civic Center Specifi c Plan designation of the Civic Lot
as a sports field . For this , two options are considered : a
“Permanent” scenario with a sports field at grade and
subterranean parking beneath ; and a “Temporary”
scenario with a field at grade but no parking 1 . A
conceptual land use plan for the “Permanent” scenario
with associated adjacencies is shown on the right.
The District ’s need mainly concern s parking , which include s scheduled demand through 2044 for u p
to 300 daytime off -campus spaces each year (August through June, Monday through Friday); and up
to 7 5 0 off -campus spaces for 25 annual event days. In addition , the District could avoid construction
costs contemplated in its campus master plan by renting parking and ballfield faciliti es off campus
rather than bu ilding them on campus . B ecause the “Permanent” scenario could potentially address
these needs, the District is will ing to consider sharing financing for its development.
1 As noted later, the Consultant Team was directed to analyze financial consequences over a 55 -year timeframe. No
information was provided about what might happen at the termination of the "Temporary" scenario. For sake of
comparison with other scenarios, the analysis thus assumes the "Temporary” operates for the full 55 -year term and is re -
surfaced at 10 -year intervals.
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 3 June 19, 2017
METHOD OF APPROACH
The analysis focuses on three separate scenario outcomes for the Civic Lot site. The main scenario is
for the “Permanent” facility. In addition, scenarios for the Existing facility and a Temporary facility
option are also considered to provide a basis of comparison with the Permanent scenario. All
scenario program parameters were provided by the City of Santa Monica. Scenario Descriptions of
the three scenarios are shown in the table below.
T hree Scenarios Analyzed
Permanent
(the focus of this effort)
Existing
(for reference and
comparison)
Temporary
(f or reference and
comparison )
• New 725 -space facility built at estimated cost
of $95 million
• Cost shared equally between District and City
• No charge to District for monthly parking
during financing term
• Continued operation by City after debt retired
• Projected current Civic
Lot operations less 230
spaces (to 730 total) to
be replaced by the Early
Child hood Lab School
(EC L S ).
• Playing field replaces
existing surface Civic lot
parking at estimated cost
of $8.6 million financed
100% by City
• Facility renovated every
10 years and not replaced
Analysis of the three scenarios is based on an estimate of cash flows that each scenario generates for
the City and the District over a 55 -year term. All assumptions for this cash flow analysis are based
on data provided and reviewed by the City and District.
For example, in the Permanent facility scenario, the City ’s cash flow sources include revenue from
operating the ballfield and parking , and its uses include construction financing and operating costs.
In addition, the City will incur anot her cash flow use by granting the District a parking credit. For
the District in the Permanent facility scenario , cash flow sources include a parking rent credit and, in
the later years of the term, credit for avoided construction cost that it otherwise wo uld incur (for on -
campus parking and an on -campus softball field scheduled as part of the District campus master
plan ) if the Permanent facility is not built. District uses for the Permanent facility only include
financing costs. T he table on the following page break s down all sources and uses considered in the
cash flow analysis for each scenario.
The time period for analysis is set at 55 years. The timing of uses incurred and sources realized is
based on current construction schedules f or the Permanent and/or Temporary facilities and for the
District campus master plan.
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 4 June 19, 2017
Cash Flow Analysis Assumptions
Permanent Scenario Existing Scenario Temporary Scenario
City District City District City District
So
u
r
c
e
s
• Parking revenue
from 725 spaces
• Operating revenue
from ballfield use
• Facility residual
value calculated in
the final year of the
term.
• Rent credit for off -
campus parking
• Avoided cost by
exchanging 760
on -campus
subterranean with
200 surface spaces
in 2041
• Avoided cost by
not bui lding on -
campus softball
field in 2043
• Civic Lot
parking
revenue
from 730
spaces
• No Cash
flow
benefit
• Ballfield
operating
revenue
• Avoided
cost by not
building
on -campus
softball
field in
2043
Us
e
s
• District parking
credit (lost revenue )
• Parking and ballfield
operating costs
• Financing 50% of
$95m total cost over
20 years
• Financing 50% of
$95 m total cost
over 25 years
• Civic Lot
operating
costs
• Rent for
off -campus
parking
through
2044
• Ballfield
operating
costs
• Financing
100% of
$8.6m cost
• Rent for
off -campus
parking
through
2044
For both the City and District, m ost of the cash flow expenditure is incurred during the initial
financing term (20 years for the City and 25 years for the District), while most of the benefits are
realized in the later years . Because of this long gap between expenditure and benefit, the time value
of money must be considered in the analysis .2 The mechanism for recognizing time value of money
is net present value , a technique in which future revenues and costs a re discounted at a n interest rate
that reflects the estimated risk of future values compared to present (today’s) value. Thus, cash flows
occurring at different periods of time can be adjusted and summed to into a “net present value ,”
which allows them to be compared directly .
KEY ANALYTIC ASSUMPTIONS
The key assumptions used in the analysis are:
2 T ime value of money (TVM) is the idea that money available in the future is worth less than the same amount in the
present.
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 5 June 19, 2017
• Term: 55 years, 2020 -2074 from estimated 2020 construction start (e ncompasses : District
Master Plan schedule ending 2044 , potential 20 - and 25 -year bond financing periods , 55 -year
ground lease first option interval )
• Inflation: 3% revenue and cost (for both facility construction and operation)
• Scarcity premium : 30% applied to parking rates during construction of Permanent Facility
and dur ing full duration of Temp Facility operation
• Terminal value to City for Permanent Facility calculated in year 55 using 8% cap rate
FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PERMANENT FACILITY
The chart on the following page shows the net cash flow to the Cit y and District in association with
the Permanent facility scenario. Over the 55 -year term, the City will collect approximately $150
million in revenue from parking and $7 million in sports park revenues while foregoing $15 million
in parking credits to th e District for a total revenue flow of $141 million. Normal operating expenses
of $108 million offset this revenue and yield an operating net of $33 million. To this must be added
an estimated $22 million in residual asset value, because the facility is as sumed to become the sole
property of the City at the end of the 55 -year term. Financing costs of $77 million, reflecting the
City’s 50% share of the total $95 million cost 3 , offset the $55 million in total revenue, yielding a net
cash flow loss of $22 mill ion.
This loss does not accrue consistently over time, however. In the first 20 years from 2020 to 2039,
the City will lose a net $79 million, which will be offset in the final 35 years by a gain of $57
million. The inconsistency of this cash flow is at tributable to financing costs and District parking
credits that act as a drain on revenue in the early years of the term followed by a large residual value
benefit realized in the term’s final year.
The cash flow pattern for the District differs markedly from the City’s, reflecting the different nature
of its realized costs and benefits. Over the 55 -year period, the District accrues $136 million in
benefit from parking credits and avoided construction costs for its master planned on -campus
parking facilit y and softball field. Offsetting this is financing cost of $72 million (lower than the
City’s due to the different financing terms 4 ), resulting in a net cash flow gain of $64 million.
The contrast between early - and late -occurring cash flow events is eve n more striking for the
District, as the only benefit received in the first 25 years during project financing is some relief from
parking costs. From 2020 to 2039, the District loses $47 million, which is offset in the final 35 years
by a gain of $111 mill ion from avoiding on -campus parking and ball field construction. Compared to
3 Financing charges consist of $47.5 million in principle and approximately $29.5 million in financing costs for the
assumed 20 -year bond.
4 Financing charges consist of $47.5 million in principle and approximately $24.5 million in financing costs for the
assumed 25 -year bond.
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 6 June 19, 2017
the City, this District benefit is more uncertain because in the future on -campus parking demand
may differ greatly from what is predicted now.
COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
I n the chart that follows, the estimated Permanent facility cash flow s are compared with estimated
cash flows from the E xisting facility and the Temporary facility alternative. For the City, the $22
million loss from the Permanent fa cility, as measured in whole dollar terms, is equivalent to a $44
million loss in present value. As discussed earlier, because most Permanent facility costs are
incurred in the beginning and most gains come at the end, the later gain values are more heavil y
discounted, thus reducing their contribution in present -value terms.
2020 to 2030 to 2040 to 2050 to 2020 to
2029 2039 2049 2074 2074
CITY
Operating
Revenues
Parking $10,533 $17,202 $23,118 $98,810 $149,664
Sports Park $462 $754 $1,014 $4,334 $6,564
(District Parking Credit)($6,112)($4,749)($4,124)$0 ($14,985)
Subtotal $4,883 $13,207 $20,008 $103,144 $141,243
Expenses
Parking $4,833 $7,892 $10,606 $45,332 $68,663
Sports Park $2,787 $4,552 $6,118 $26,148 $39,606
Subtotal $7,620 $12,444 $16,724 $71,481 $108,269
Subtotal Operating ($2,737)$763 $3,284 $31,663 $32,974
2074 Terminal Value $0 $0 $0 $22,067 $22,067
Total Operating ($2,737)$763 $3,284 $53,731 $55,042
Financing ($38,500)($38,500)$0 $0 ($77,000)
Net Cashflow ($41,236)($37,737)$3,284 $53,731 ($21,958)
DISTRICT
Avoided Costs
Off-Site Parking Rent $6,112 $4,749 $4,124 $0 $14,985
On-Site Constructed Parking $0 $0 $111,519 $0 $111,519
On-Site Softball Field $0 $0 $9,812 $0 $9,812
Total Avoided $6,112 $4,749 $125,456 $0 $136,317
Financing ($28,820)($28,820)($14,410)$0 ($72,050)
Net Cashflow ($22,708)($24,071)$111,046 $0 $64,266
Net Cashflow ($000)
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 7 June 19, 2017
In comparison, the Existing facility for the City yields a positive $43 million in whole dollar terms
and a positive $10 million in present -value terms. The variance between Permanent and Existing is
therefore $64 million in whole dollar terms and $54 million in present -value terms.
The Temporary facility for the City generates a negative whole dollar value o f $47 million, which is
equivalent to negative $17 million a s a present valu e . Compared to the Permanent facility, the
Temporary generates less revenue but also costs less to finance. The variance between Temporary
and Existing facilities for the City is a variance of $90 million in whole dollars and $26 million in
present -value dollars.
Turning to the District , the Perm anent facility produces a positive $6 4 million whole dollar gain that
in present -value terms is actually negative $4.4 million ; as discussed earlier, the late -occurring
benefit contributes far less to net present value when discounted to present -value terms and is
insufficient to fully offset the present value of early -occurring costs. The Existing scenario for the
District, in which costs consist mainly of off -site parking rent and benefits include avoided parking
construction costs, generates a positive $96 million whole dollar benefit , which is equivalent to a
present value of $11 million .
Item
2020 -2030 -2040 -2050 -2020 -2020 -2030 -2040 -2050 -2020 -
2029 2039 2049 2074 2074 2029 2039 2049 2074 2074
Years 1-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-55 1,2 Years 1-55 Years 1-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-55 Years 1-55
Existing Facility
Operating $3,593 $4,829 $6,490 $27,738 $42,651 ($5,761)($4,749)$107,395 $0 $96,885
Financing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Cashflow $3,593 $4,829 $6,490 $27,738 $42,651 ($5,761)($4,749)$107,395 $0 $96,885
City NPV at 5%, District at 9%$10,230 $11,115
Permanent Facility
Operating ($2,737)$763 $3,284 $53,731 $55,042 $6,112 $4,749 $125,456 $0 $136,317
Financing ($38,500)($38,500)$0 $0 ($77,000)($28,820)($28,820)($14,410)$0 ($72,050)
Net Cashflow ($41,236)($37,737)$3,284 $53,731 ($21,958)($22,708)($24,071)$111,046 $0 $64,266
City NPV at 5%, District at 9%($43,902)($4,379)
Temporary Facility
Operating ($2,826)($3,798)($5,104)($21,815)($33,542)($7,489)($6,174)$4,451 $0 ($9,211)
Financing ($6,937)($6,937)$0 $0 ($13,873)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Cashflow ($9,762)($10,734)($5,104)($21,815)($47,415)($7,489)($6,174)$4,451 $0 ($9,211)
City NPV at 5%, District at 9%($16,690)($6,082)
Variance: Permanent from Existing
Operating ($6,330)($4,066)($3,206)$25,992 $12,391 $11,872 $9,498 $18,061 $0 $39,431
Financing ($38,500)($38,500)$0 $0 ($77,000)($28,820)($28,820)($14,410)$0 ($72,050)
Net Variance ($44,830)($42,565.75)($3,206)$25,992 ($64,609)($16,948)($19,322)$3,650 $0 ($32,619)
City NPV at 5%, District at 9%($54,132)($15,494)
Variance: Temporary from Existing
Operating ($6,419)($8,627)($11,594)($49,553)($76,193)($1,728)($1,425)($102,944)$0 ($106,097)
Financing ($6,937)($6,937)$0 $0 ($13,873)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Variance ($13,356)($15,563)($11,594)($49,553)($90,066)($1,728)($1,425)($102,944)$0 ($106,097)
City NPV at 5%, District at 9%($26,920)($17,198)
(1) In City Permanent scenario, the final year of the cashflow term includes total residual value
(2) In City Temporary scenario, analysis assumes operation for full 55-year term with re-surfacing at 10-year intervals for the sake of comparision with other scenarios
CITY Net Cashflow ($000)DISTRICT Net Cashflow ($000)
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 8 June 19, 2017
DETERMIN ING A N EQUITABLE BASIS FOR PROJECT FUNDING
A rational basis for sharing funding responsibilities between the two agencies is a mechanism that
balances the projected share of usage with estimated share of project cash flow.
Parking revenue is a useful measure of shared parking usage because —more so than utilization
percentage —it reflects the market value of the services provided. S pecifically, the share of estimated
total revenue the City may realize from parking operations (consisting of both projected parking
revenue and District parking credit ) represents the total pool of parking value , and the credit to the
District represents its share of that total pool. To allocate share of cash flow, it is appropriate to use
the net present value , which compared to whole dollar value, adjusts cash flow to better reflect the
time value of money. In this analysis, the net present value discount rate for the District is assumed
to be 9%, and for the City it is 5%. The variance in discount rates is in tended to reflect the high
uncertainty associated with the District’s projected avoided construction costs, as discussed earlier.
As shown in the table below, projected City usage over the 5 5 -year term accounts for 91% of total
revenues, co mpared to 9% for the District. At the assumed 9% and 5% discount rates for the District
and City respectively, the net present values of the 55 -year project cash flows are negative $4.4
million for the District and negative $44 million for the City, which represent 9% and 91% percent
shares of total net project cash flow.
Note that in this analysis, the City experiences a $22 million cumulative whole dollar loss while the
District experiences a $64 million cumulative whole dollar gain. However, because these net gain s
and losses occur over such a wide time frame, the net present value of the City’s $22 million loss is
actually greater at negative $44 million, while the District’s yield falls to a negative $4.4 million.
Item City District Total
Usage Share by Revenue
Whole Dollar Parking Revenue ($m) 2020-2074 1 $149.7 $15.0 $164.6
Parking Revenue Share 91%9%100%
Cost Share by Net Cash Flow
Whole Dollar Net Cash Flow ($m) 2020-2074 2 ($22.0)$64.3 $42.3
Discount Rate 5.0%9.0%
NPV of Net Cash Flow ($m) 2020-2074 ($43.90)($4.38)($48.28)
NPV Net Cash Flow Share 91%9%
(1) Revenue for the District consists of parking rent credits
(2) Net Cash Flow = Revenue - operating cost - financing cost
ADK &A
Memorandum
Re: S ANTA M ONICA C IVIC L OT P ARKING AND S PORTS F IELD J OINT F INANCING A NALYSIS
ADK&A / EPS Page 9 June 19, 2017
The two graphs below show ing estimated proje ct cash flows for both the City and District help
illustrate the inconsistency in timing of Permanent project cash flow . Particularly noticeable is the
extreme fluctuation for the District due to huge avoided cost credits in 2041 and 2044.
.
($15,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$5,000,000
$15,000,000
$25,000,000
$35,000,000
$45,000,000
$55,000,000
$65,000,000
20
2
0
20
2
2
20
2
4
20
2
6
20
2
8
20
3
0
20
3
2
20
3
4
20
3
6
20
3
8
20
4
0
20
4
2
20
4
4
20
4
6
20
4
8
20
5
0
20
5
2
20
5
4
20
5
6
20
5
8
20
6
0
20
6
2
20
6
4
20
6
6
20
6
8
20
7
0
20
7
2
20
7
4
An
n
u
a
l
N
e
t
C
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
City Cashflows: Permanent Facility vs. Existing Civic Lot
Existing Facility Permanent Facility
City’s 20 -
year bond
paid off
District
parking
credit
increase
District
parking
credit ends
Revenue
operation
begins
Year 55
terminal
value
($15,000,000)
($5,000,000)
$5,000,000
$15,000,000
$25,000,000
$35,000,000
$45,000,000
$55,000,000
$65,000,000
20
2
0
20
2
2
20
2
4
20
2
6
20
2
8
20
3
0
20
3
2
20
3
4
20
3
6
20
3
8
20
4
0
20
4
2
20
4
4
20
4
6
20
4
8
20
5
0
20
5
2
20
5
4
20
5
6
20
5
8
20
6
0
20
6
2
20
6
4
20
6
6
20
6
8
20
7
0
20
7
2
20
7
4
An
n
u
a
l
N
e
t
C
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
District Cashflows: Permanent Facility vs. Existing Civic Lot
Existing Facility Permanent Facility
Avoided cost of on -
campus sub -
terranean parking
for both Permanent
and Existing
scenarios ($111m )
Avoided cost
of on -campus
softball field
$0 cash flow
after 2044 for
both Permanent
and Existing
scenarios
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e
S
p
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Op
t
i
o
n
1
:
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
F
i
e
l
d
,
n
o
n
e
w
pa
r
k
i
n
g
$8
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
s
t
s
;
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
i
f
S
M
M
U
S
D
w
o
u
l
d
e
n
t
e
r
in
t
o
a
j
o
i
n
t
u
s
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
a
n
y
co
s
t
s
.
Ne
t
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
o
v
e
r
5
5
y
e
a
r
t
e
r
m
o
f
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
-$
1
6
.
7
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(a
s
s
u
m
e
s
C
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
1
0
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
)
.
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
a
t
a
c
o
s
t
o
f
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
(
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
9
-
1
2
mo
n
t
h
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
)
.
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
2
0
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
2
1
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
a
m
o
h
i
.
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
n
e
t
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
ov
e
r
5
5
y
e
a
r
t
e
r
m
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
;
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
n
e
e
d
e
d
to
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
a
r
e
a
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
co
a
s
t
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Co
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
,
C
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
S
a
m
o
h
i
w
o
u
l
d
be
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
l
o
s
s
o
f
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
.
Wo
u
l
d
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
C
S
B
;
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
7
-
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
2
0
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Wa
t
e
r
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
S
W
I
P
;
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
9
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
2
0
)
.
Op
t
i
o
n
2
:
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
i
e
l
d
,
2
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
7
2
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
)
$9
5
.
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
te
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
s
t
s
;
5
0
%
p
a
i
d
b
y
b
o
t
h
C
i
t
y
&
S
M
M
U
S
D
.
Ne
t
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
o
v
e
r
5
5
y
e
a
r
t
e
r
m
o
f
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
-$
4
3
.
9
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
Ne
t
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
f
o
r
S
M
M
U
S
D
o
v
e
r
5
5
y
e
a
r
te
r
m
o
f
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
-
$
4
.
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
0
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
2
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
a
m
o
h
i
.
Wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
Ci
v
i
c
l
o
t
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
b
y
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
C
i
v
i
c
Au
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Hi
g
h
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
a
n
d
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
o
v
e
r
5
5
ye
a
r
t
e
r
m
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
u
p
o
n
a
l
o
c
a
l
bo
n
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
8
b
a
l
l
o
t
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
tw
o
-
t
h
i
r
d
s
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Wo
u
l
d
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
S
B
(
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
7
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
2
0
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
W
I
P
(A
p
r
i
l
2
0
1
9
-
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
2
0
)
.
Revised 06/20/2017 Page 1 of 3
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e
S
p
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
:
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
i
e
l
d
,
1
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
pa
r
k
i
n
g
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
2
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
)
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
6
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ca
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
;
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
i
f
S
M
M
U
S
D
wo
u
l
d
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
j
o
i
n
t
u
s
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
sh
a
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
.
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
0
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
2
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
a
m
o
h
i
.
Wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
l
o
t
sp
a
c
e
s
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
o
m
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
Ci
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Hi
g
h
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
;
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
n
e
e
d
e
d
to
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
a
r
e
a
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
co
a
s
t
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Co
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
,
C
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
S
a
m
o
h
i
w
o
u
l
d
be
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
l
o
s
s
o
f
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
u
p
o
n
a
l
o
c
a
l
bo
n
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
8
b
a
l
l
o
t
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
2/
3
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
:
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
f
i
e
l
d
a
t
C
i
v
i
c
,
le
a
s
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
$8
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
s
t
s
;
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
i
f
S
M
M
U
S
D
w
o
u
l
d
e
n
t
e
r
in
t
o
a
j
o
i
n
t
u
s
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
a
n
y
co
s
t
s
.
Ne
t
c
a
s
h
f
l
o
w
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
o
v
e
r
5
5
y
e
a
r
t
e
r
m
o
f
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
-
$
1
6
.
7
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(a
s
s
u
m
e
s
C
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
1
0
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
;
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
C
i
t
y
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
)
.
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
a
t
a
c
o
s
t
o
f
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
(
w
i
l
l
t
a
k
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
to
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
)
.
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
2
0
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
2
1
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
a
m
o
h
i
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
,
Ci
t
y
,
S
a
m
o
h
i
,
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
wo
u
l
d
b
e
m
e
t
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
s
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
y
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
a
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
i
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
su
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
.
De
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
s
;
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
c
o
s
t
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
of
f
s
i
t
e
.
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
;
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
n
e
e
d
e
d
to
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
a
r
e
a
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
co
a
s
t
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
.
Le
a
s
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
l
e
a
s
e
r
a
t
e
s
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
d
.
Revised 06/20/2017 Page 2 of 3
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e
S
p
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
:
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
f
i
e
l
d
a
t
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
;
i
s
s
u
e
R
F
P
f
o
r
C
i
v
i
c
Au
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
To
t
a
l
f
i
e
l
d
c
o
s
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
de
s
i
g
n
R
F
P
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
fi
e
l
d
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
S
M
C
Me
a
s
u
r
e
V
m
o
n
i
e
s
.
Ju
l
y
2
0
1
9
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
2
0
C
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
S
M
C
Me
a
s
u
r
e
V
b
o
n
d
m
o
n
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
t
a
f
f
c
o
u
l
d
ad
v
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
'
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
i
s
s
u
e
a
n
R
F
P
f
o
r
an
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
,
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
1
6
.
Wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
;
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
s
s
o
n
Co
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
,
C
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
S
a
m
o
h
i
w
o
u
l
d
be
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
.
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
n
o
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
Ac
t
;
c
o
u
l
d
s
a
v
e
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
c
o
s
t
s
.
No
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
S
a
m
o
h
i
.
Wo
u
l
d
d
e
f
e
r
t
h
e
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
4
:
D
e
f
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
is
s
u
e
R
F
P
f
o
r
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
No
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
i
e
l
d
c
o
s
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
d
at
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
.
Fi
e
l
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
ab
o
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
wo
u
l
d
b
e
d
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
a
n
R
F
P
f
o
r
a
n
op
e
r
a
t
o
r
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
s
s
u
e
d
,
o
t
h
e
r
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Co
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
t
a
f
f
c
o
u
l
d
ad
v
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
'
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
i
s
s
u
e
a
n
R
F
P
f
o
r
an
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
,
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
'
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
1
6
.
Wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
S
a
m
o
h
i
fo
r
a
m
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
p
o
r
t
s
f
i
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
a
so
f
t
b
a
l
l
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
ca
m
p
u
s
.
Wo
u
l
d
d
e
f
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
u
n
t
i
l
fu
r
t
h
e
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
C
i
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
n
d
fu
r
t
h
e
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
m
a
d
e
(i
.
e
.
C
i
v
i
c
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
i
u
m
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
.
Revised 06/20/2017 Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
821 KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
Tel: 213-974-3333 Fax: 213-625-7360 Sheila@bos.lacounty.gov
June 22, 2017
Santa Monica City Council Members
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Santa Monica Courthouse Parking
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:
SHEILA KUEHL
SUPERVISOR, THIRD DISTRICT
I understand the Council will be considering a proposal on June 27 to reduce or possibly eliminate essential
public parking for the Santa Monica Civic Center and possibly replace it with another smaller underground
structure or a multipurpose sports field. While recognizing the benefits of a sports field in Santa Monica, on
balance, when weighed against the needs of hund reds of thousands of citizens who regularly must access
the Santa Monica Courthouse, I wanted to weigh in and ask that you reconsider the plan.
As you know, there are 15 civil courtrooms in the Courthouse that conduct, among other things, civil jury
trials, unlawful detainer hearings, traffic matters, small claims, family law cases and vital services for those
who require assistance with child custody, evictions, elder abuse and restraining orders for domestic
violence. Creating barriers by precluding parking at the courthouse can have the unintended consequence
of preventing and impinging on the public's ability to exercise their rights as litigants and defendants and
civic duties as jurors. Often transportation options are not an easy answer. How will a domestic violence
victim take public transportation with her children to the Courthouse when she/he is in hiding from their
abuser? Is it fair to ask people to do their civic duty and serve on a jury when it will cost them time and
money to find a place to park? What guarantees are there that Santa Monica Courts will have a sufficient
pool of jurors when they could easily request reassignment to other courthouses where parking is provided.
This action could also have a negative and discriminatory impact on those persons who are disabled or
those unable to make their way from the Metro station blocks away. I ask you to be mindful of the
Constitutional protections that mandate the public's access to our courts and direct us to eliminate barriers
that prevent people from exercising their rights. I am concerned that the absence of adequate and
convenient parking close to the Courthouse, will inadvertently deny the fundamental right of access to
justice to our most important as well as vulnerable population.
I have reviewed the letters provided to you by Presiding Judge Buckley and the Court's Executive Officer
and find the statistical information compelling. This Courthouse serves over 1,200 people daily from all
locations within the West District of the Court. Last year the Courts handled over 6,500 unlawful detainer
actions and over 1,000 restraining orders where over half were for potential domestic violence incidents.
Each year almost 75,000 traffic citations are handled within this courthouse. In 2016, 33,687 jurors were
·�·
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
2 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
3
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
4
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
5
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
6
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
7
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
8
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
9
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
10
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
11
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
12
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
13
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
14
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
15
of
33
7
It
e
m
8-
A
06
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Levin, Amy C <amy.levin@csun.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Cc:Molly Munoz; rob@arocd.com
Subject:6/27/17 Council Meeting Item 8.A. Civi c Center Multipurpose Sport Field
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
We are tired of waiting for this field - it's been over 12 years - and we wa nt it built at the Civic Center, not
Memorial Park or anywhere else. We are tired of shell games and of bait & switch. Please agree on 6/27/17 to
partner with the school dist rict to build the permanent field and permanent parking at the Civic Center
ASAP. Don't make us wait any more for this field that will be of such benefit to our high school students and
our entire community.
Thank you –
Amy Levin
Santa Monica resident for 15 Years
*******************
Amy Levin, MSW, PhD
AVP Graduate Studies
Professor, Social Work
CSU, Northridge
(818) 677 ‐2138
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
16 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sloca, Beck <Beck.Sloca@aenetworks.com>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:6/27/17 Council Meeting Item 8.A. Civi c Center Multipurpose Sport Field
Dear City Council Member s and City Manager Cole -
We do not want a soccer / lacrosse fi eld built at Memorial Park. Those fields spaces are already over
committed to other sports and the parking is terrible. Any new field space developed at Memorial Park
should be devoted to additional ba seball and softball fields.
We want the soccer / lacrosse fi eld built at the Civic Center.
Thank you -
Beck Sloca
Santa Monica resident for 16 Years
Property owner and parent.
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
17 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jennifer Raymond <jenniferanneraymond@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:07 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:6/27/17 Council Meeting Item 8.A. Civi c Center Multipurpose Sport Field
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
We are tired of waiting for this field - it's been over 12 years - and we wa nt it built at the Civic Center, not
Memorial Park or anywhere else. Please agree on 6/27/17 to partner with the schoo l district to build the
permanent field and permanent parking at the Civic Cent er ASAP. My sons are entering high school this fall,
and it would be nice for them to have at least a little bit of time on this long over due field. Don't make us wait
any more for this field that will be of such benefit to all of our high school student s and our entire community.
Thank you -
Jennifer Raymond
Santa Monica resident for 12 years
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
18 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Levin, Amy C <amy.levin@csun.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:NO soccer/lax at Memorial Park
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
As the parents of three boys in SMMUSD who play both soccer and baseball, we do not want a soccer / lacrosse
field built at Memorial Park - any new field space deve loped at Memorial Park shoul d be devoted to additional
baseball and softball fields. We want the soccer / lacrosse field built at the Civic Center.
Thank you –
Amy Levin
Santa Monica resident for 15 Years
*******************
Amy Levin, MSW, PhD
AVP Graduate Studies
Professor, Social Work
CSU, Northridge
(818) 677 ‐2138
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
19 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jill Boberg <jill.boberg@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; CIVIC FIELD
Subject:6/27/17 Council Meeting Item 8.A. Civi c Center Multipurpose Sport Field
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
We are tired of waiting for this field - it's been over 12 years - and we wa nt it built at the Civic Center, not
Memorial Park or anywhere else. Please agree on 6/27/17 to partner with the sc hool district to build the
permanent field and permanent parking at the Civic Cent er ASAP. My kids are recently out of SAMOHI, but
there are many more community kids to come.
Don't make us wait any longer for this field that will be of such benef it to our high school students and our
entire community.
Thank you -
Jill Boberg
Santa Monica resident for 19 years
--
jill
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
20 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Pietro Martini <tpcmartini@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole
Subject:6/27/17 Council Meeting Item 8.A. Civi c Center Multipurpose Sport Field
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
We do not want a soccer / lacrosse field built at Memori al Park - any new field space developed at Memorial
Park should be devoted to additional ba seball and softball fields. We want the soccer / lacrosse field built at the
Civic Center.
Thank you -
Pietro Martini
Los Angeles resident for 14 years
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
21 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Giess <janegiess007@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 23, 2017 10:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Mum Cell; Rick Cole; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:Permanent Field and Parking at Civic Centre
Dear City Council Members and City Manager Cole -
We are tired of waiting for this field - it's been over 12 years - and we wa nt it built at the Civic Center, not
Memorial Park or anywhere else. We are tired of shell games and of bait & switch. Please agree on 6/27/17 to
partner with the school dist rict to build the permanent field and permanent parking at the Civic Center
ASAP. Don't make us wait any more for this field that will be of such benefit to our high school students and
our entire community.
Thank you -
Jane Giess
Santa Monica resident for 16 Years
Item 8-A
06/27/2017
22 of 337 Item 8-A
06/27/2017