SR-800-005 (7)
\, r
. . c
t,-K
!'tJtJr- CJ6J,5
RMM:LAM:MOXS156 JUN 1 ~ lSf.a
City Council Meeting of 6-14-88 Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Authorize Execution of
Modification to Lease Agreement Between City
of Santa Monica and Supermarine of Santa Monica
to Incorporate Lender Requirements
Introduction
On May 1, 1986, the City entered into a Lease Agreement
with Supermarine of Santa Monica ("Lesseelf) pertaining to
development of certain property located at the Santa Monica
Airport ("Premises") for purposes of construction, operation and
maintenance of a full service aviation fixed base operation
("FBOtt) .
Lessee has secured a construction loan commitment from
Wells Fargo Bank which is contingent upon certain Lender required
revisions and clarifications to the Lease Agreement. Such
revisions and clarifications will necessitate a written
modification to the Lease Agreement.
section 8.13 of the Lease Agreement expressly allows for
amendments to incorporate reasonable requirements of a
responsible lending institution acceptable to Lessor for
construction loan financing of the Leasehold Improvements.
- 1 -
0-K
.lJN 1 4 1988
.
.
Such section also requires the City, as Lessor to use its
best efforts to cooperate with Lessee and its lender to satisfy
the loan financing requirements of Lessee's lender.
Wells Fargo Bank, as Lessee's lender ("Lender") has
presented its desired Lease Agreement revisions to City Staff for
review, and such revisions have been determined to constitute
reasonable requirements which may be effected by a Lease
Modification.
Proposed Revisions to Lease Agreement
The revisions required by Lender primarily involve
protections of Lender's interests as a mortgagee. It is standard
practice for lending institutions to require such provisions in
order to secure their financial investments. The significant
proposed revisions are summarized as follows:
1. Lender requires sufficient notice and time to allow it
to cure any monetary breach or default by Lessee.
2. Lender seeks to protect its rights in the event either
Lender or a city-approved assignee of Lender succeeds to Lessee's
interest in the Lease, so that the Lease will continue in full
force and effect provided that Lessee's obligations are fully
satisfied by Lender or the approved assignee.
3. Addition of a standard quiet possession/non-disturbance
provision to protect Lessee's rights so long as Lessee is not in
default under the Lease Agreement.
- 2 -
.
.
4. Addition of a provision clarifying that Lender's
liability for Lessee's obligations is limited unless and until
Lender acquires Lessee's rights by foreclosure, and that upon
City's approval of an assignment or transfer by Lender of such
acquired rights, Lender shall have no further liability for the
Lease obligations.
5. Addition of a provision clarifying the priority of
Lender's mortgage interest as a lien on the Leasehold Estate,
superior to all other liens or encumbrances except those which
may be imposed by the United states government.
6. A revision increasing the cost threshold from $5,000.00
to $10,000.00 for leasehold improvements for which the City may,
at its discretion, require performance and payment bonds.
7. Addition of a provision allowing non-structural
decorating improvements without prior City approval if such
improvements are consistent with the permitted uses and
activities under the Lease or do not exceed a cost threshold of
$10,000.00.
8. Revisions extending application of Article 18
provisions pertaining to assignment, transfer and subleasing to a
lender succeeding to Lessee's position. A lender would be
required to provide the same evidence as Lessee on qualifications
of any proposed transferee, provided that a proposed transferee
would be deemed to satisfy the required qualifications under the
Lease Agreement if such transferee has a financial worth not less
than Lessee's as of the Completion Date of the Improvements and
- 3 -
.
.
has qualifications and experience in the operation of a fixed
base operation at least equal to that of Lessee.
9. A revision to the provision requiring a sublessee to
make sublease or other payments directly to Lessor (on Lessor's
written notice of default), to entitle the Lender to receive such
sublease payments so long as the Lender proceeds diligently to
cure any breach or default which may have resulted in Lender's
succession to Lessee's interest.
10. Deletion of the provision which allows the City to
terminate the Lease in the event of damage or destruction of 50%
or more of the Airport Common Areas. Lender emphasized that
Lessee's Improvements and business operations would not
necessarilY be impacted by such damage or destruction to the
Common Areas.
11. Addition of a provision requiring 30 days notice of any
proposed amendment be provided to Lender.
Fiscal/Budget Impact
There are no direct fiscal/budget impacts resulting from the
actions required by this report.
Recommen4ation
Accordingly, City Staff recommends that the City council
take the following action:
- 4 -
.
.
1. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a
Modification to the Lease Agreement incorporating the Lender
required revisions discussed above.
PREPARED BY: Hank Dittmar, Airport Director
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Linda A. Moxon, Deputy City Attorney
- 5 -
,
.
r ,~,,:-/('
u---
-j - j t./
,.; J}.... _ ~:Vt-~ ~"-'"
If /~~ff~ _~~
}"....t~ ' \J
.
CM: JJ: JI'1: lw
gt)tJ-tOoo
"1 { I x.,/
" ..} (./-
r; r"l--
t .(j. -J - f - ,;./
INFORMATION r ~ ,.- j./IJ'i
May 14, 19 84 .. , f~.}...... ~ J
f '0'
'-"'f-r'
,)
Santa Monica, CalIfornIa
TO: Mayor and Clty Counc~l
FROM: CIty Staff
SUBJECT: Summary of F~ndIngs and ConclusIons of the FeasIblllty
Analysls for the Reconstructlon of the Santa MonIca
PIer
Executive Summary
Background
On November 22, 1983, the CIty Councll awarded a $283,640
contract to the engineerlng flrm of DanIel Mann Johnson and
Mendenhall (DMJM) for a feaslblllty analysls of reconstructIng
the Santa MonIca Pler following the severe 1983 WInter storm
damage.
ThlS staff report summarizes the major fIndIngs and
conclUSions of the consultant's draft report.
Snmm;;\ry of Major Findings and Conclusions
o Wave protection must be provided to protect the existing Pier
and to rebuild the destroyed portion.
The consul tan t
concludes that the eXlstIng Pler would not wlthstand the force
of a SIgnIfIcant wave greater than 6 feet or a wave crest
hIgher than 21 feet. Waves that submerge the PIer WIll cause
It to collapse. Therefore, some means must be developed to
reduce the helght of the waves when they reach the PIer.
o There are two viable alternatives for providing wave
protection. The consultant concludes that the two viable
1
.
.
alternatlves are: Alternative A - rebuild the offshore
breakwa ter to 15 feet; Al ternat1ve B - rebuild and stabillze
the offshore breakwater at 6 feet and construct a 545 foot
long promenade, perpendicular to the end of the reconstructed
Mun1clpal Pler, WhlCh wlll act as a structural breakwater.
o Each of the alternatives is nearly equal in cost. The
approXlmate cost of $14 mllllon for each alternatlve makes
clear that the basls for the se1ectlon of the preferred
a1ternatlve w11l be factors other than cost. The alternatlves
must be evaluated ln terms of their aesthetlcs, their design
strength and functional character lstlCS, and thelr impact on
the shor ellne.
o Erosion of the shoreline will occur as long as the breakwater
remains in its damaged condition. The consultant concludes
that the Santa Monlca Beach 18 now sufferlng erOSlon at the
rate of 5 feet per year and wlll contlnue to erode as a result
of the damaged condltion of the breakwater.
o Many Scenarios for rebuilding the Pier were considered, but
most were found to be technically lnfeasible. The consultant
analyzed nine different configurations and comb1nat1ons for
rebuildl.ng the Pler, lncorporatlng breakwater protectlon and
determined that the two alternatives lndlcated above are the
most viable. The others el.ther do not offer suffl.cl.ent
protection to the pier or to the shorell.ne. or they are too
maSSlve or too costly.
'J
.
.
o The bistorical function of the lower deck to provide access to
the water and fisbing can be provided in an alternative way.
One alternatlve way lS provided by the deck area of the
promenade which would be 15 feet above the water, about the
same helght of the former lower deck, and would offer
extenslve opportunities for fishlng and strolllng.
RECOMMENDATION
Council Members are requested to review the attached document.
The Pler Restoratlon Corporatlon 1S expected to complete ltS
revlew and present its reco~mendatlon to the Clty Council.~
/, I i--
~. r I .-
I~~~'---LL
~ "
I J J.J /1
j"-' II l
,
; 2-L L~ --L-L---<-_ '--
_ -:t _ _
.
.
Introduction
As lnd1cated above, this report presents d summary of the
findings and conclUS1ons from the Feasibllity Analys1s for the
Reconstruction of the Santa Monlca P1er, by the en91ner lng firm
of Dan1el [4ann Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM). The attached
report 1S a draft; volume I lncludes an executive summary and
deta11ed analys1s of flndlngs and concluslons, volume II contains
all appendlces.
The draft report concludes that there are two viable alternatlves
for reconstructing the P1er. Both of the alternat1ves are based
on the consultant's conclus1on that to protect the eX1st1ng Pler
structure and to rebulld the destroyed port1on, protection must
be prov1ded. There are two klnds of protectlon and the two
alternat1ves relate to the type of breakwater system 1nvolved:
Alternatlve A - rebuild offshore breakwater to an elevat10n of
+15 feet, Alternatlve B - stabilize the offshore breakwater to
+6 feet and construct a promenade at the end of the reconstructed
Municlpal Pier WhlCh will serve as a structural breakwater. Under
both alternatlves, the Pler could be reconstructed all 1n t1mber
lf no lower deck were built, or lf a lower deck were des1red, the
piles and lower deck structure would be concrete and the upper
deck could be tlmber. It lS possible that the hlstorlcal
functlon of the lower deck, to provlde access to fishlng and to
the water, could be prov~ded in an alternatlve way.
.:1
.
.
ThlS draft report is belng made avallable to the City Councll,
Pier Restoratlon Corporat1on and the general public. Clty Staff
wlll be worklng with the Pler Restoratlon Corporat1on and the
consultants over the next several months to refine the report and
determlne the most viable alternatlve. ThlS recommendatlon will
then be brought to Clty CounCll for review and flnal approval.
The dlScuss10n Wh1Ch follows attempts to explaln In slmple terms
the critical factors and the methodology used by the consultants
WhlCh brought them to the conclUSlons stated above.
Back9round
On November 22, 1983, the C1ty Councll awarded a $283,640
contract to the englneerlng flrm of Danlel Mann Johnson and
Mendenhall (DMJM) for a feaSlbillty analysis of reconstructing
Santa Monica Pler followlng the severe 1983 storm damage. The
contract called for the co~pletlon of the following tasks during
thlS flrst phase:
I. Review of EXlsting Data includlng historlcal wave helghts,
wave forces, sea level, and the shorellne.
II. On-site Evaluatlon and Testlng
DMJM's structural engineers inspected the Pier deck,
structural framing and utility systems to determlne the
extent of damage and required rehabllltatlon. J. Agl and
ASSOclates (subconsultant) performed testlng of piles
uSlng a sonar technique called "ultrasound" to assess
remalning structural capacity of each plle. Ocean
c;
.
.
Surveys, Inc. (subconsultant) provlded the bathymetrlc
survey of the sea bottom and a side-scan survey to
determlne the location and magnitude of debrls at the
seabed. Converse Consultants (subconsultant) drllled
three soil borlogs to determlne SUbSOll conditions.
III.
Evaluatlon of Reconstruction Design Issues
This task was the most complex and served to identify the
wave crlteria and sediment budget analysis for the
shorellne. Tekmarine, Inc., an aSSoclate for Dl'lJM for
Phase I, performed coastal engloeering analysls. Dr.
S on u 0 f T e k mar in e ~ saw 0 r 1 d wid e ex per ton t ~ i S 5 U b J e c t.
ThlS work w111 be described 10 more detall In the next
sectlon.
IV. Development of Alternatlve Deslgns
Based on the informatlon galned from the above surveys and
analysls, DNJM developed nlne posslble ~cenarlos for
rebu~lding the Pier. These were thoroughly analyzed and
narrowed down to flve alternatlves which were further
analyzed and ranked. The result ~S, 10 DMJM's oplnlon,
the two vlable alternatives:
(A) rebuildlng the offshole breakwater to +15 feet, or
(3) stab1l1z1ng the offshore breakwater at +6 feet and
constructlng a promenade at the end of the Pier.
rhe final task 15 the selection of the preferred alternatlve
which will be done by the C1ty Council in consultat1on wlth the
PRC.
6
.
.
Crltlcal Design Factors
To understand how DMJM arrlved at the two v~able alternatlves, lt
lS important to consider the englneerlng assumptlons and the
maJor deslgn factors.
This sectlon wlll brlefly address the
followlng:
o Reason for structural fallure of Santa Monlca Pler durlng
1983 wlnter storms
o Deslgn wave and deslgn Ilfe for the P:er
o Protectlon afforded by breakwater to the Pler
c Shorellne stab1llty
DMJM has determlned that the waves durlng tne wlnter storms were
of unusually hlgh magnltude comblned wlth an extremely hlgh sea
level. The lower deck was submerged and Ilfted up . The floatlng
of the lower deck resulted ln the collapse of piles at the outer
end of the Munlclpal Pler. The debris created by this collapse,
acted as batterlng rams In a chaln reactlon Wh1Ch destroyed the
MunlClpal Pler and the south-easterly part of the Newcomb Pier.
From the above descrlptlon lt 15 clear that the critical factor
1S the des1gn wave, that is, the force of the wave that the Pler
must be able to wlthstand.
Generally accepted engineerlng
practlce lS to assume a 50-year Ilfe for a structure llke the
Pler wlth a 10 percent probabllity that the deslgn wave will be
encountered wlth1n that 50 year span.
DMJM has determlned
through extenslve analys1s that a 20 foot slgnlflcant wave is the
deslgn wave. ThlS means that a 20 foot hlgh offshore slgnlflcant
wave 15 the extreme condltlon for Wh1Ch the pier and breakwater
7
.
.
must be designed. "Sign1flcant wave" (Hs) 15 a term used In
coastal englneering to descrlbe the height of a wave, however lt
actually refers to the upper one-thlrd of the wave.
The consultant has also determined that withln the expected Ilfe
of the structure, the level of the sea may rise apprcxlmately
ten feet above mean low low water (MLLW).
In addltion to the signlficant wave helght and sea level, the
thlrd crltlcal parameter 15 the crest of the slgnlflcant wave at
the pOlnt when it meets the Pier structure. The term used to
describe th1S pOlnt lS "maximum wave cres~ elevatlon (crest
Hmax.)" The crest elevatlon has been shown to be crltlcal since
a wave crest that is hlgher than the Pier structure wlll submerge
the deck and 11ft it up causlng lt to fall. Attachment A
lllustrates the relatlonship between the slgnlficant wave and the
rnaXlmum wave crest.
Thus, as DMJM determlned the probable wave crlteria, lt became
necessary to establlsh upper wave limits for the existing Newcomb
and Munlclpal Plers so that the odds are that they would not be
destroyed w1thin the 50 year llfe. The maXimum slgnlflcant wave
helght the eXlsting tlmber piles could wlthstand is 6 feet.
Also, to avold submergence of the upper deck by the crest of a
wave, a maXimum crest elevation of +21 feet from MLLW has been
set; the upper deck is now at +25 feet.
At thlS pOint lt is helpful to understand the effect of the
breakwater in reduc1ng wave helghts. The 20 foot slgnlficant
8
.
.
wave, which 1S the extreme condltlon orlglnates offshore ln deep
water. As the wave travels toward the shore it is changed by
obstructlons, such as islands, and by changes ln water dep~h.
Based on DMJM's analysis, the consultant determlned that the 20
foot wave height lS reduced to 13 feet at the breakwater. A
breakwater also changes the characterlstics of the waves and
often reduces the helght. ThlS effect lS somewhat compllcated at
the Pier Slnce the seabed between the breakwater and the Pier
slopes upward WhlCh results in increased wave helghts lnshore of
the breakwater. This effect on waves is called shoaling.
The or 19 inal break water, bUll t In 1934, was 10 feet above MLLW.
Over the years the breakwater was subJected to wave forces and
erOSlon and was, on the average, at +6 feet above MLLW prlor to
the 1983 winter storms. The crest of the breakwater was severely
damaged durlng the storms and lS now at an average helght of -6
feet below MLLW.
The establlshment of a 6-foot slgniflcant wave and 21 foot
maximum wave crest helght as the tolerable wave llmlts at the
Pler means that some type of breakwater protection 15 necessary
to reduce the 13 foot slgniflcant wave height at the breakwater
to a tolerable level for both the eXlstlng and new portlons of
the Pler.
The breakwater has an lmpact on the shorellne as well. The
consultant has determined that durlng the 20-year perlod after
the breakwater was bUl1t, the shorellne ln the area around the
Pler was subJected to sand accretlon and erOSlon untll lt reached
9
.
.
a state of equlllbrlum which remalnea untll the 1983 storm. The
result of the storm damage to the breakwater lS that the beach ln
the area of the Pler lS now sufferlng erOSlon at the rate of
approxlmately 5 feet per year.
The effects on the beaches south
of the Pier wlll be studled during the Environmental Impact
Report phase of the Pler Reconstructlon ProJect.
Identlflcatlon of ScenarlOS
Once DMJr1 established the tolerable wave cr 1 ter la, they stud led
varlOUS configuatlons and combinatlons for rebullding the Pler
lncorporatlng breakwater protectlon.
They computed the wave
characterlstlcs and analyzed the structural requlrements and
other lmpacts, such as effects on the shoreline for each
scenar io.
These scenarlOS lnclude:
1) Do nothlng to the offshore breakwater
2) Allow offshore breaKwater to deteriorate completely
3) Stabllize offshore breaKwater to +6 feet
4) Restore offshore breakwater to original 1934 design
5) Ralse offshore breakwater to +15 feet (Alternatlve A)
6) Rebulld composlte offshore breakwater with concrete
caisson
7) Stablllze offshore breakwater at +6 feet and construct a
545 foot promenade at end of Pier to elevatIon +18.5 feet
to serve as structural breakwater (Alternatlve B)
8) Construct a 1,100 foot promenade to +21.5 feet and allow
offshore breakwater to deterlorate
9) Construct a 1,100 foot promenade to +18.5 feet and allow
offshore breakwater to deterlorate
The consultant found that to do nothlng to the offshore
breakwater or only stabilIze It would requlre that both the
10
.
.
eXlstlng deck and piles and the new portion must be constructed
of concrete. In addltion, d01ng nothing to the breakwater would
aggravate the rate of shore eros~on. Therefore, DMJ~ el~minated
the flrst four scenarios as technically lnfeasible and proceeded
to consider the five remalnlng ones as vlable alternatives.
AnalYS1S of Alternatives
To evaluate the viable alternatlves, the consultant devised a
ranking system incorporatlng the following lmportant dec1sion
factors. These lnclude:
o Llfe Cycle Cost
o Structural Integrity
o Shorellne Sediment
o EnVlronmental Conslderat~ons
o Conforrnlty with Pier GUldellnes
o Upper Deck Potential Expanslon
o Aestnetlcs
o Low Cost Substltute to Lower Deck
o Sport Flshlng and Recreatlonal Boating Potentlal
A full dlScusslon of tne ranking and evaluation of tne major
factors lS lncluded in the draft report. The consultant found
that Alternative I, referred herein as Alternative A (rebuild
breakwater to +15 feet) and Alternatlve III, referred herein as
Alternatl1le B (construct 545 foot promenade and stabllize
break'",ater) ranked hlghest. Essentlally the caisson breakwater
and the 1,100 foot promenade alternatlves were too costly and too
II
.
.
massive.
The d~scussion below highllghts the two vlable
a1 ternatives.
Attachments II and III graphlcally illustrate
Alternatlves A and B, respectively.
Alternative A: Raise Outer Breakwater to +15 Feet
The rebulldlng of the rubble mound offshore breakwater to a
height of +15 feet and a crest w1dth of 35 feet 15 expected to
result ln a 6 foot slgnlflcant wave helght at the P~er, and a
maX1mum crest elevatlon of 21 feet. The benef~ts or dra'tlbacks
include:
o concrete lower deck is feaSIble at +15 feet; thlS means the
plIes and upper deck supports must also be concrete
o if no lower deck 15 bUllt, an all t1mber Pler IS feasible
o eXlsting shorellne equilibrium lS expected to be sustained
o the bulk and height of breakwater would be clearly vlsible
from the shorellne and Pler
o supply of flSh would increase and flshing from PIer would be
more successful due to smaller waves
Alternatlve B: Construct Promenade to Elevation +18.5 Feet In
Comblnatlon wIth Stabllizlng Offshore Breakwater to Ele-
vatlon +6
ThlS alternatIve assumes that the offshore breakwater wl1l be
stablllzed and rebullt to 6 feet. A promenade of 545 feet ln
length would be bUll t perpendlcular to the end of the Z>1unlcipal
pier extendlng equal dIstances north and south. The promenade ~s
deslgned to absorb the force of the waves. It would conslst of a
10" wlde concrete wall that IS 18.5 feet hIgh above the water.
Between thlS protective wall and the Munlc~pal Pier would be a
30-50 foot-wlde deck 15 feet above the water. The platform of
the de c k m u s t be con c r e t e but the de c k 1 n 9 may be'.... 00 d . T h 1 S de c k
12
.
.
would be connected at varIOUS pOlnts to the Pler and serve as
addltlonal flshlng and strollIng area.
The plIes supportlng the
promenade would be subJected to extreme forces and must be elther
concrete or steel although they can be deslgned and treated to
look 11ke wood.
The comblned protectlon of the offshore
breakwater and the promenade would achieve the deslred design
criterla.
Beneflts or drawbacks lnclude:
o All timber PIer 15 feasible
o Promenade may substItute for lower deck and prov1de maXlmum
flshing area; fishlng actlvlty off promenade deck can take
place on eIther slde of promenade
o Promenade must be closed to users durlng extreme storm
conditions, approxlmately 5 days/year.
o CloudIness of the water onshore of the promenade lS expected
to be less than an all offshore breakwater
o EXlsting shoreline equlllbrlum 1S expected to be sustained
o Potentlal Increase In wave helght between the promenade and
the offshore breakwater dur lng hlgh seas due to wave
reflectlon from vertlcal face of promenade
o Offshore breakwater wlll be restored to +6 and will be
Sllghtly more vlslble than orlglnal breakwater prlor to 1983
storms
o Potentlal creatlon of small flshlng harbor adJacent to
Newcomb Pler by extendlng promenade
o Possible inclUSIon of ferry landlng or other boat launchlng
faClllty
o Creation of several dlfferent ~protected" and "exposed"
habltatsi substantial increase In number and dlverslty of
flSh
o Notlceable change to the physlcal conflguratlon of the Pler
Summary of Costs
ThlS sectlon provides a cost summary for each alternatlve. It
13
.
.
should be pointed out that these are rough order magnltude cost
estimates and are by no means final, nor do they include further
englneerlng fees. The cost breakdown for the Pier construction
lncludes the cost of strengthenlng and upgradlng the eXlstlng
Munlclpal and Newcomb Plers, restorlng the damaged portlon of the
Newcomb Pler and reconstructing the damaged portlon of the
Municlpal Pler. Also included lS the cost of addlng ut111tles.
The cost noted here 15 the lnitial capital cost, the 50-year life
cycle cost lS provided ln the draft report.
14
.
Descrlptlon
PIER RECONSTRUCTION
a) Structural
Strengthen EX1stlng Municipal
pier
Strengthen Existlng Newcomb
PIer
Restore Damaged Newcomb Pler
Reconstruct Damaged Municlpal
Pier
- Upper Deck
- Lower Deck
b) Utllltles
Sewer and Water
c) Electr leal
d) Upgrade Newcomb pier
to 100 psf
e) wearing Surface for
New Deck
f) Replacement of EXlsting
Pavement
TOTAL PIER CONSTRUCTION
.
AlternatIve A
Raise Breakwater
to 15 Feet
99,600
232,400
1,196,000
1,036,000
1,388,000
63,200
530,000
212,500
40,050
66,700
$4,864,000
15
Alternatlve B
Promenade & Stabillze
Breakwater
99,600
232,400
1,196,000
1,036,000
N/A
63,200
530,000
212,500
40,050
66,700
$3,531,700
.
.
Description
AlternatlV'e A
Ralse Breakwater
to 15 Feet
Alternatlve B
Promenade & Stabl11Z3
Breakwater
Pler Reconstructlon
(total brought forward)
4,864,000
3,531,700
BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION
a) Ralse outer breakwater
to +15 feet
9,526,000
N/A
b) Stablllze Outer Breakwater
at +6 feet
N/A
4,118,400
Promenade, 545 feet to
+18.5 feet
N/A
5,912,500
TOTAL BREAKHATER
$9,526,000
$10,030,900
GRAND TOTAL
$14,390,000
$13,562,600
As 1ndlcated ln the descriptlon of Alternatlve B, additlonal optlons
are posslble lncludlng the extension of the promenade to create a
fishlng harbor and to proV'ide a ferry dock or boat launch. The costs
for these dlscretionary options are:
Add Flshlng Harbor-Dock
574,000
204,000
Add Ferry Doc\(:
Add Boat Launch
200,000
978,000
1 e:.
.
.
The Next Step~
As noted ln the lntrod~ction, the draft report lS belng made
avaIlable to the City Councll, Pler Restoratlon Corporatlon, and
the general publlC.
It wlll also be sent to the fundlng
agenc1e5. The PRC 15 expected to reVlew and discuss the draft
report over the next sixty days and then make a report to Clty
Councll wlth the PRC's recommendatlon on the preferred desIgn.
Followlng Councll's actlon and dlrectlon, a contract wlll be
r.egotiated with DMJM who will then begin work on Deslgn
Development and the Environmental Impact Report. They will also
perform hydraullc model-testlng cn whlchever breakwater system 1S
selected and perform addItional geotechnlcal surveys.
The PRe lS expected to complete thelr reVlew and present a
recommendatlon to Clty Councll by August, 1984. At that tlme the
Clty CounCIl wlll be asked to make a decision on the selection of
the preferred alternatlve.
Recommendation
Councll members are requested to reVlew the attached document.
Attachments:
I Explanatory Dlagram of Wave
II Alternatlve A: Rebulld Offshore Breakwater to 15 feet
III Alternative B: Stablllze Offshore Breakwater at 6 feet
and Construct Promenade
Prepared by: JUdIth Melster, Manager
Fler Development D1V1S1on
Department of Communlty and EconOffilC Development
17
.
~~ 'VI
ATTACHME~T I
T
Hs !
!
",--1-./
/"\ L- t.- W 0
..,
"if!'
T;;?OlJGoH
(c.~A~i ;'ATUM)
rOt':. H";1 - b FeeT
l'
!
.
C-R.&~1 H"""'J(
/ \
I \
I \
I \
/1\\
~ ~\
i ( '"
~1 / \'-
"/ '-
.... -- ....
~
I
HMA)(
WATf3'il:.. pg?TfJ I P ,
....,....
~ M.J.oX :. ! 87 H? :: I: '2 Z
C~E'7T \.4 /V\AX ~ -!- 20. '71
i1i?OO6-l't .. -r- 9 Z. 0 '
EXPLANATORY WAVE TRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR SIGNIFICANT WAVE (H,l AND lHmaxl
.
~
....
m
:::J
Z
>
....
<:
m
>
*.
-,--, ~~ ~
..~\ ~
:-., ~
~E~\ .~.c ;:
-~y ~
~~:~- (,
;'\ ~...~ ~--;\ 5 ~
1<.::: ; ';L:\
!-......\ "-r~- \
, ~~ .';~;;. ~
lJ:tt
!. ~ I
t.- --
k~,-~- >
.f :'~
t _
~
""
-"
,
""'
~
-!.
So
~
:::
i
-=- ""--"1- -
~
~~
"
...
~
;r
- ,..---- ---
l.~
- -
- !
-fl:
r
~t_
-,
~
';;;
1
~
--t-~
~ ~
I
, -
j -
J
1 -
1
I -
'-1
j
1
!-- .....
i -
. .......J
.
~
:/
~ S2~A~
s--
L,
~
<:
Z
e;
~~I
I~I
U
'7
a;
..J-L..~
~ ~
~:q
'-i=!
'I
r-
I
i
I
I
I
!
/
/
//
/
/
~;1-
~
~'
j
::;;
~
~
....,
~-:;:....c...-.....e
..
:>
,..
# -I
..,
. ::>
Z
:>
-!
<
....
t:l
.~ -
- -
: i.
"'""
i
.".\
~A
h
-\
r.~\
1\.- ,
~..\.?::: \ ~ ;; f"
1"3:.-,\-:---,-)\_ '-'
c.~.'~r~'.
"""'- -...-"
:- ~-,..,-~-
r,=_~ >'0
: .. .:.~~.:\
: t; ~-~-:-:!
I -~ --~1
~ . < ~. '. :J
: ~ ~ <:7
, .J:' 'q :..- ../=...
,. '1'--
! ~.. r_'f
l -,--,
. "'::::;'..1
''>- -...
'-:-7
:j'
I
;:V
,
;) :>
'?
"'
..,
II
'.
1
,.-
~
;
----l.- _ ~ .
<
--,-
~~~~:=~-l"~
~-:'.i _'~ 1 ,",
~ I >.:.. 1
~~ ~>~1.
~:~r_'~ ~-J>
-.. ~ -----:::;-?'"r_
~r-~n ~l
[ i
-~~ ~J
=-; ~~~~
=4 -- ~--I
- -~ --'j
- --: _J
-- - ~~
I
-- . ~-=\
! ~
~"=" -i- - ~- -- - ~ .
.""'
.'-..
''\.
"-
I
/
J /
. /
/
.
~ ~I<,'.\AT~
.n
f_
(1~ l-\~~
-- i
i
=- i-
= -j
:;--= J-
I
I
I
I
--!
L,
,
'--
= ~ - -'--r--li
~l '_.
, I
~-- -"~~
~
-!~--=-=i :
==-t~ ~~j q
~I --~ ~
1
,;-U
'-,
i
!
- ~u....c::
/
/
_/
.0:-- I
----
>'-"
',,-
:;
~
:;
~
TO-
Santa f1onica, Califorma, '1arch 3,
. .
J ~t?--CJoC
and Clty Councll I
1981
FROM:
Acting Alrport Director
,
\ .~. .
. 'P{!J
'...,/ :.. L '-
r-
/
; { ,
;.(
loll
MAR 1 0 1981
r1ayor
SUBJECT: Recommendatlon of Alrport Commlssion
The Airport Commission, at its last regular meetlng, took the followinq
actlOn:
It was moved by Commlssloner Hoyt, seconded by Commlssloner
Sears, to recommend to the City Council lndlvldual aircraft
owners having month-to-month agreements wlth the Clty for
tie-down SDaces not be required to vacate those spaces within
the next 12 mont~s; however, persons leasing spaces on a
month-to-month basls on whlch they have loacted privately
ow~ed T-Hangars should be notlfied the City may choose
to develop the land for non-alrport uses.
AYES: Hoyt
McConnell
Sears
Chairman Roney
OPPOSED:
None
;Il.BSENCES:
Vauq~n
C~\\-rc'c\ 10#
MAR 1 0 1981
~
..
.
Santa Monlca, callfornia4llPnuary 27, 19B!
dJ Add'." ON
O/)CJ'-'OO.s-
10
,.3B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Jf\N 2, 7 10:'11
FROM:
Acting Alrport Director
, _ 0-'1'
l '\ .j,
~ ~ \.
.r
.,,- ....--_..
SUBJECT: Airport Commlssion Action
The Santa Monica Alrport Commission, at their regular meetlng
held ~1onday, January 26th, took the following action: It
was moved by Commlssioner Sears, seconded by Commissioner
McConnell, that the Airport Commlssion recommend to the
City Counell that the Clty Council notify all holders of
month-to-month leases of Airport property, the premises are
to be vacated within one year of the date on which the notice
is served to the leaseholders, Further, the Commission finds
this recommendation 1S based on the Commlssion's concern for the
safety of the residents llving in proxlmity to the Airport,
Also, the City's need for additional funds, coupled with
the ObV10US economic potentlal of the land, makes development
for other purposes a desirable goal.
AYES:
McConnell
Sears
Roney
NOES:
Vaughn
ABSENT:
HOYT
CKM:dV[l1
138
{JAf-l "i ,
~J 7 i"" oP'I,