SR-106-025-02 (7)
k- -'-
... -
. .'
~.
.
/t?6-tJ'zs--o 'Z
Santa Monica) CA
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting:
September 4, 1984
/1- C
TO:
Mayor and City Council
SfP 4 1984
SE'" 19&.i
FROM:
Pier Restoration Corporation
SUBJECT:
Update on activities of Pier Restoration Corporation and related
recommendations
Introduction
This report presents an update on actions taken by the Pier Restoration
Corporation (PRC) and City staff since the release of the feasibility analysis
for reconstructing the Santa Monica Pier in May) 1984) and sets forth a plan of
action for carrying forward the overall restoration of the Pier. This report
will specifically address the following areas:
o next steps in reconstruction process
o process for seeking funding through State budget
o Pier Restoration Corporation's business plan and overall restoration
objectives
The report also transmits the PRe's recommendation to the City Council to authorize
an intermediate testing phase of both alternatives. This intermediate phase
is recommended to address many of the technical and environmental issues
raised during the review process and to enable a more informed decision with
regard to the most viable alternative. The proposed testing program includes
tests and analysis that would have to be done regardless of which alternative
is chosen. The net difference in cost in doing testing on both alternatives
rather than only one is $23,000. A breakdown of this cost differential is
provided in the Budget/Financial Analysis section of this report.
- 1 -
II-C-,
SfP 4 ...
SfP 4 1984
~ ,
~
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting:
.
.
September 4, 1984
Santa MonIca, CA
Background
On November 22, 1983, the City Council awarded a contract to the
engineering firm of Daniel Mann Johnson & Mendenhall (OMJM) for architectural
and engineering services for the reconstruction of the Santa Monica Pier. The
contract provides for two distinct phases: Phase I, Feasibility Analysis and
Phase I I, Construction Contract Documents and Construction Administration. The
fee of $283,640 covered Phase I services; the performance schedule and
compensation for Phase t I is to be negotiated upon completion of Phase I and
the City's selection of the most viable design alternative.
DMJM completed the feasibility analysis and submitted the draft report
to the City in May, 198~. Copies of the report were distributed to the City
Council and the PRC at that time. A summary of the report has been made
available to the public, local, state and federal agencies. The summary is
included in this report as Attachment A.
The services for Phase II inc1ude the traditional range of design services:
Design Development, Environmental Impact Report, Final Working Drawings and
Construction Contract Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration,
Phase I r also provides for additional surveys and geotechnical investigations
and for hydraulic model tests.
I. Next Phase in Reconstruction Process
The PRC is proposing to proceed with a limited number of the above-
mentioned tests and to begin environmental analysis prior to recommending a
design alternative to the Council. The PRC is recommending that this testing
be done to address many of the technical issues raised during the review process.
A description of the Pier Restoration Corporation Reveiw Proc~ss, including
<
- 2 -
~ .
.
.
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
a well-attended public hearing, is included in this report as Attachment B.
The tests and environmental analysis are included in the scope of the contract,
have been budgeted and will be required for either alternative. The PRe
believes these tests will yield answers to some of the major remaining questions
and will provide technical information critical to the decision-making process.
As will be discussed later in this report, progress in seeking funding will
not be impeded by the postponement of a decision on the design alternative.
The testing program and environmental anaylsis will include the following
components:
A. Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Model Testing'
This test will be performed on both alternatives and will verify the
numerical wave analysis and criteria which are the basis of DHJH's work,
A scale model of the pier, breakwater and/or promenade, and ocean floor
is built and subjected to various wave heights and directions. This test
will confirm if the breakwater and/or promenade will provide the required
wave protection. The test will also answer questions about the length,
heIght, orientation of breakwater and/or promenade. The cost for this test
for both alternatives is $102,000.
B. Sparker Survey:
This is a geophysical survey which will identify the presence of bedrock
and other major subterranean characteristics. The information will be
needed for either alternative. Soil borings may be required at the time
of final design if the promenande alternative is selected. The cost for
the Sparker Survey is $15,000.
- 3 -
~
.
.
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
C, Preliminary Environmental Analysis:
It is important that the necessary environmental analysis on the reconstruc-
tion alternatives be conducted early enough to enable its incorporation in
the planning and decision-making process. The specific areas to be studied
are marine biology, air quality/noise, traffic, visual, archaeology/
paleontology. This technical analysis will identify potential problems,
suggest mitigation, and assist the PRC in its selection process, The
subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), depending on which is required, will incorporate the
information obtained in this analysis. The cost for the preliminary environ-
mental analysis is S82,400 for both alternatives.
A critical element, which has been identified during the feasibility
study, IS the short-term and long-term impacts of the reconstruction on
the stability of the Santa Monica Bay shoreline. The PRe is recommending
that this study be incorporated into the scope of the environmental analysis.
The cost for this study is $45,000.
D. Design Refinement:
This step involves incorporating limited design work by DMJM1s architects
into the engineering solutions of the two alternatives as a means of
addressing aesthetic and functional issues raised during the review process.
The cost for this work is $10,000.
E. Mana~ement Coordination, Supervision by DMJM and Tekmarine:
This component will be credited against future design work which is already
budgeted. The cost is $35,000.
- 4 -
...
.
.
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
The projected time frame for thetestingprogram and preliminary environ-
mental analysis is three months. The total cost of the intermediate phase is
5289,400. The Pier Restoration Corporation anticipates making a decision on
an alternative in early January, 1985 and returning to Council with a
recommendation on January 22. 1985.
I I. State Budget Process
Concurrent with the above-described testing phase, and as a major means
for securing financing for the reconstruction of the Pier. the PRC and City
staff are seeking funding in the Governor1s FY 1985-86 budget. The State
budgeting process is already underway; from now until November, the PRC wil1
concentrate efforts on the following tasks:
1. Review agency/department budgets to identify funding opportunities.
2. Meet with Governor and key staff to generate support and encourage
the Governor's office to communicate an interest in funding the
Pier to the appropriate agencies/departments.
3. Meet with staff of key agencies/departments to get their assistance
in getting the Pier funding into their budgets.
The Governor's Budget is transmitted to the legislature on January 10.
1985. The PRC hopes to have a significant level of funding represented in
this budget, which will be adopted by the State legislature on June 15. 1985.
III. Pier Restoration Corporation Business Plan
The third element. and the driving force in moving the reconstruction and
revitalization of the Santa Monica Pier forward. is the development of a business
plan by the Pier Restoration Corporation,
The business plan
is both a management/
,
- 5 -
~
-
.
PRC'JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
operations tool and a guide for the Pier1s reconstruction and development.
An outline of the Business Plan appears as Attachment C to this report.
As a management/operation guide. the business plan Will establish policy,
procedure manuals, annual objectives. and annual revenue and expense projections.
The PRe has been working over the past seueral months to develop an organization
structure, job descriptions. and personnel pol icies. The assumption of full
management of the Pier by the PRC and the transfer of City employees is
anticipated at the time of the execution of a Service Agreement between the
City and the PRe.
The business plan also establ ishes a basic growth plan for capital
development and improvements to the Pier. Specifically. the growth plan
includes the reconstruction plan and the development plan. The growth plan
will establish the goals of the capital development program, the strategy and
means to accomplish the goals, and the financing required. The first section
of this report detailed the PRCls recommended course of action for reconstruc-
tion activities during the next five months. The remainder of this report
will consider the PRC's planned course of action for the development plan over
this same period.
The PRe will undertake the preparation of specific development guidelines
which conSider the Pier Guidelines and are financially feasible. In order to
identify these guidelines, the following steps will be taken:
1. Market analysis, including existing and potential market support.
2, Identification of types of uses, square footage for each use, lease
rates. revenues and capital costs required for improvements.
3. Development concept including a site plan, design treatments.
refinement of capital cost.
- 6 -
"\
.
.
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
4. Analysis of the financial feasibil ity of the development guidelines
at various points during the steps outl ined above.
The PRe will be working with an economic consulting firm to assist in
the preparation of the guidelines. A final decision on the firm to be hired
will be made at the Board's September 12, 1984 Board meeting.
By mid-November, the PRe will have a report detail ing the uses and
density of the proposed development guidel ines. The report will yield information
on the extent to which the revenues of a reconstructed Pier can meet the Pier
development and operating needs. This analysis will identify the gap in
funding between construction costs and operating expenses and available revenues
as well as the potential level of City subsidy to the Pier,
In summary, the events and timelines for the course of action described
in this report are indicated below.
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Reconstruction
Activities
I
Intermediate Testing Phase
Prel iminary Environmental Analysis
I )(
PRC
deci s ion
on alter-
native
X
PRe
recomrr<,-
to
Counei
,
I
x.
State Budget
Process
City/PRC contact & work with Governor,
key staff & agencies to be included
in budget
Governor's Budget
sent to LegisJatur
PRC Development
Plan
I
Market Analysis
Identification of
Development Options
, ~
Initial
Report
to PRC
"---
Refinement of
Development Option(s)
- 7 -
"l
.
.
PRC:JH:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
Budget/F inane i a 1 Impact
The chart below presents the cost differential for testing both alternatives
rather than one.
Spa rker Su rvey
One Alternative Both A I ternat i ves
88,000 102,000
11 8 ,400 127,400
15,000 15,000
10,000 10,000
35,000 35,000
$266,400 $289,400
Model Testing
Prel iminary Environmental Analysis
Design Refinement
Management, Coordination
The recommended action presented in this report does not have a budget
impact since $675,000 has already been appropriated in the Cityts 1984-85
Capital Project Budget account 30-740-626-000-902 for Pier Platform Recon-
struction Design. Additionally, the FY 1983-84 project balance of $56,000
for Research and Design Services has been re-appropriated to the above 1984-85
account. Grants in the amount of $492,000 have been budgeted as revenue to be
received in 1984-85. These grants to be used for design services include
$312,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $150,000 from Coastal
Conservancy, and 530,000 from Wildl ife Conservation Board.
Recommended Action
Staff respectfully recommends that Council approve the proposed inter-
mediate testing phase and request the Pier Restoration Corporation to forward
a recommendation to the Council on the design alternative upon the completion
of the testing phase and subsequent review by the PRe.
- 8 -
,~
.
.
PRC:JM:wl
City Council Meeting: September 4, 1984
Santa Monica, CA
Prepared by: Gail Markens, Executive Director of Pier Restoration Corporation
Judith Meister, Development Director of Pier Restoration Corporation
Peg Gardels, Assistant to City Manager
Attachments A: Summary of Findings and Conclusions of Feasibility Analysis
for Reconstruction of Santa Monica Pier
B: Summary of PRC Review Process
C: PRe Business Plan
- 9 -
'0
.
.
~~fl
CM:JJ:Jl1:1w
INFOR.'1ATION
May 14, 1984
Santa Mon1ca, California
TO: Mayor and City Councll
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Summary of F1ndlngs and Concluslons of the Feaslbillty
Analysis for the Reconstruction of the Santa Monlca
Pier
Executive Snmmary
Background
On November 22, 1983, the City Councll awarded a $283,640
contract to the englneering flrm of Danlel Mann Johnson and
Mendenhall (DMJH) for a feasibllity analysls of reconstructlng
the Santa Monlca Pier followlng the severe 1983 winter storm
damage.
ThlS staff report summarlzes the major findlngs and
conc1uslons of the consultant1s draft report.
Snmmary of Major Findings and Conclusions
o Wave protection must be provided to protect the existing pier
and to rebuild the destroyed por tion.
The consultant
concludes that the eXlsting Pier would not wlthstand the force
of a slgnlflcant wave greater than 6 feet or a wave crest
hlgher than 21 feet.
Waves that submerge the pier wlll cause
lt to collapse. Therefore, some means must be developed to
reduce the height 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
~
.
.
alternatives are: Alternative A - rebuild the offshore
breakwater to 15 feet; Alternat~ve B - rebuild and stab~lize
the offshore breakwater at 6 feet and construct a 545 foot
long promenade, perpendicular to the end of the reconstructed
Munic~pal Pier, which will act as a structural breakwater.
o Each of the alternatives is nearly equal in cost. The
approximate cost of $14 mill~on for each alternative makes
clear that the basis for the selection of the preferred
alternative w~ll be factors other than cost. The alternat~ves
must be evaluated ~n terms of the~r aesthet~cs, their deslgn
strength and functional character~stics, and the~r ~mpact on
the shoreline.
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 is now suffer~ng eros~on at the
rate of 5 feet per year and will continue to erode as a result
of the damaged condition of the breakwater.
o Many Scenarios for rebuilding the Pier were considered, but
most were found to be technically infeasible. The consultant
analyzed nine d~fferent configurations and comb~nations for
rebuildlng the Pier, incorporating breakwater protection and
determined that the two alternatives ind~cated above are the
most viable. The others either do not offer suff~cient
protect~on to the P~er or to the shoreline, or they are too
massive or too costly.
.
{
.
.
o The historical function of the lower deck to provide access to
the water and fishing can be provided in an alternative way.
One alternat~ve way is provided by the deck area of the
promenade which would be 15 feet above the water, about the
same he~ght of the former lower deck, and would offer
extensive opportunit~es for fishing and strolling.
RECOMMENDATION
Council Members are requested to review the attached document.
The P1er Restoration Corporation is expected to complete its
review and present lts recommendat~on to the Clty Council.
"
.
.
Introduction
As indlcated above, thls repor-t presents a summary of the
flndlngs and concluslons from the FeaSlbility Analysis for the
Reconstructlon of the Santa Monlca Pier, by the eng iner ing firm
of Danie 1 Mann Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM). The attached
report is a draft; volume I lncludes an executive summary and
detalled analysls of flndlngs and conclusions, volume II contalns
all appendices.
The draft report concludes that there are two vlable alternatives
for reconstructlng the Pler. Both of the alternatives are based
on the consultant's canclUSlon that to protect the eXlsting Pler
structure and to rebulld the destroyed portlon, protectlon must
be provlded. Thera are two kinds of protection and the two
alternatlves relate to the type of breakwater system involved:
Alternative A - rebuild offshore breakwater to an elevation of
+15 feet, Alternative B - stabilize the offshore breakwater to
+6 feet and construct a promenade at the end of the reconstructed
Municlpal Pier which wlll serve as a structural breakwater. Under
both alternatives, the Pler could be reconstructed all in timber
if no lower deck were built, or lf a lower deck were deslred, the
piles and lower deck structure would be concreta and the upper
deck could be tJ.mber. It is possible that the historical
functJ.on of the lower deck, to provlde access to fishlng and to
the water, could be provided in an alternative way.
'-
.
.
This draft report 1S belng made available to the City Counell,
Pier Restoration Corporation and the general publlC. Clty Staff
will be working with the Pler Restoration Corporation and the
consultants over the next several months to reflne the report and
determine the most viable alternatlve. This recommendation will
then be brought to City Councll for review and final approval.
The discussion WhlCh follows attempts to explaln in simple terms
the crltical factors and the methodology used by the consultants
WhlCh brought them to the conclusions stated above.
Background
On November 22, 1983, the City Council awarded a $283,640
contract to the englneerlng firm of Daniel Mann Johnson and
Mendenhall (DMJM) for a feasibillty analysls of reconstructlng
Santa Monica Pler fo11owlng the severe 1983 storm damage. The
contract called for the completlon of the followlng tasks during
this first phase:
I. Review of Existing Data includlng hlstorlcal wave heights,
wave forces, sea level, and the shorellne.
II. On-slte Evaluatlon and Testing
DMJM's structural englneers inspected the Pier deck,
structural framlng and utility systems to determine the
extent of damage and required rehabilitat1on. J. Agi and
Associates {subconsultant} performed testing of piles
using a sonar technlque called nultrasound~ to assess
remain~ng structural capacity of each p~le. Ocean
~
.
.
Surveys, Inc. (subconsultant) provlded the bathymetric
survey of the sea bottom and a side-scan survey to
determlne the locatlon and magnitude of debris at the
seabed. Converse Consultants (subconsultant) drl1led
three sOlI borings to determine SUbSOll condltions.
III. Evaluation of Reconstruction Deslgn Issues
ThlS task was the most complex and served to identify the
wave crlteria and sediment budget analysis for the
shoreline. Tekmarine, Inc., an assoclate for DMJM for
Phase I, performed coastal englneering analysis. Dr.
S Gin u 0 f T e k mar i n e .1 saw 0 r 1 d W 1 d e e x per ton t h 1 S sub j e ct.
This work wlll be described in more detail in the next
section.
IV. Developmenc of Alternative Des~gns
Based on the lnformation gained from the above surveys and
analysls, DMJM developed nine posslble scenar10S for
rebullding the Pler. These were thoroughly analyzed and
narrowed down to five alternatlves which were further
analyzed and ranked. The result is, in DMJM1s opinion,
the two vlable alternatives:
(A) rebuilding the offshore breakwater to +15 feet, or
(B) stabillzing the offshore breakwater at +6 feet and
constructing a promenade at the end of the Pier.
The final task 1S the selection of the preferred alternative
WhlCh will be done by the Clty Council in consultati'on wlth the
PRe.
.
.
Crit1cal Design Factors
To understand how DMJM arrived at the two vlable alternatives, it
is important to conslder the eng1neering assumptions and the
major deslgn factors. This section wlll briefly address the
following:
o Reason for structural fallure of Santa Monlca Pler during
1983 wlnter storms
o Design wave and design l1fe for the pier
o Protect1on afforded by breakwater to the Pler
o Shore11ne stablllty
DMJM has deterrnlned that the waves durlng the wlnter storms were
of unusually high magnltude comblned with an extremely high sea
level. The lower deck was submerged and Ilfted up . The floatlng
of the lower deck resulted in the collapse of piles at the outer
end of the Municlpal Pier. The debris created by this collapse,
acted as battering rams in a chaln reaction which destroyed the
Munlcipal Pler and the south-easterly part of the Newcomb Pier.
From the above descriptlon lt is clear that the critical factor
1S the deslgn wave, that is, the force of the wave that the Pler
must be able to withstand.
Generally accepted engineering
practice is to assume a 50-year llfe for a structure like the
Pier with a 10 percent probability that the design wave will be
encountered within that 50 year span.
DMJM has determined
through extensive analysls that a 20 foot slgniflcant wave is the
design wave. ThlS means that a 20 foot high offshore slgnificant
wave is the extreme conditlon for which the Pier and breakwater
.
.
must be deslgned. "Significant wave" (Hs) lS a term used 10
coastal englneerlng to describe the helght of a wave, however ~t
actually refers to the upper one-third of the wave.
The consultant has also determined that within the expected l~fe
of the structure, the level of the sea may rise approximately
ten feet above mean low low water (MLLW).
In additlon to the signlflcant wave height and sea level, the
third crltlcal parameter 1S the crest of the slgnlficant wave at
the point when 1t meets the Pier structure. The term used to
descr1be thlS point is "maximum wave cres~ elevation (crest
Hmax.)" The crest elevatlon has been shown to be critical Slnce
a wave crest that is hlgher than the Pier structure will submerge
the deck and 11ft It up causlng lt to fall. Attachment A
illustrates the relationshlp between the significant wave and the
maximum wave crest.
Thus, as DMJM determined the probable wave crlterla, ~t became
necessary to establish upper wave limits for the eXlsting Newcomb
and Municipal Plers so that the odds are that they would not be
destroyed wlthin the 50 year llfe. The maXlmum signlficant wave
height the existing timber piles could wlthstand is 6 feet.
Also, to avoid submergence of the upper deck by the crest of a
wave, a maXlmum crest elevation of +21 feet from MLLW has been
set; the upper deck is now at +25 feet.
At thlS pOlnt ~t is helpful to understand the e~fect of the
breakwater in reducing wave heights. The 20 foot slgnificant
.
.
wave, WhlCh 1S the extreme condit~on or1ginates offshore 1n deep
water. As the wave travels toward the shore lt is changed by
obstructions, such as lslands, and by changes in water depth.
Based on DMJM's analysls, the consultant determlned that the 20
foot wave height is reduced to 13 feet at the breakwater. A
breakwater also changes the characteristics of the waves and
often reduces the helght. Th1S effect 1S somewhat compllcated at
the Pier since the seabed between the breakwater and the pier
slopes upward WhlCh results in increased wave heights inshore of
the breakwater. ThlS effect on waves is called shoal1ng.
The origlnal breakwater, built 1n 1934, was 10 feet above MLLW.
Over the years the breakwater was subJected to wave forces and
eroS1on and was, on the average, at +6 feet above MLLW prlor to
the 1983 wlnter storms. The crest of the breakwater was severely
damaged during the storms and is now at an average height of -6
feet below MLLW.
The establishment of a 6-foot slgnificant wave and 21 foot
maximum wave crest height as the tolerable wave limits at the
Pier means that some type of breakwater protect1on lS necessary
to reduce the 13 foot significant wave height at the breakwater
to a tolerable level for both the existing and new port1ons of
the Pler.
The breakwater has an impact on the shore11ne as well. The
consultant has determlned that dur1ng the 20-year per10d after
the breakwater was built, the shorellne in the area around the
.
Pier was subJected to sand accretion and erosion untll 1t reached
.
.
a state of equ~l~br~um which remaIned untIl the 1983 3torm. The
result of the storm damage to the breakwater is that the beach in
the area of the Pier ~s now sufferlng eros~on at the rate of
apprax1mately 5 feet per year. The effects on the beaches south
of the Pier will be studied during the Env1ronmental Impact
Report phase of the Pier Reconstructlon ProJect.
Ident~f~cation of Scenarios
Once DMJM established the tolerable wave criterla, they stud~ed
various conf~guatlons and comblnatlons for rebUIlding the PIer
lncorporating breakwater protect~on.
They computed the wave
characteristics and analyzed the structural reqUIrements and
other impacts, such as effects on the shoreline for each
scenario. These scenar~os include:
1) Do nothing to the offshore breakwater
2) Allow offshore breakwater to deteriorate completely
3) StabIlize offshore breakwater to +6 feet
4) Restore offshore breakwater to orig~nal 1934 design
5) Raise offshore breakwater to +15 feet (Alternative A)
6) Rebuild composite offshore breakwater wlth concrete
ca~sson
7) StabIlIze offshore breakwater at +6 feet and construct a
545 foot promenade at end af Pier to e1evat~on +18.5 feet
to serve as structural breakwater (Alternat~ve B)
8) Construct a 1,100 foot promenade to +21.5 feet and allow
offshore breakwater to deter10rate
9) Construct a 1,100 foot promenade to +18.5 feet and allow
offshore breakwater to deteriorate
The consultant found that to do noth~ng to the offshore
breakwater or only stabil~ze ~t would require that both the
.
.
ex~st~ng deck and piles and the new port~on must be constructed
of concrete. In addition, do~ng nothing to the breakwater would
aggravate the rate of shore eros~on. Therefore, DMJM el~minated
the first four scenarios as technically infeas~ble and proceeded
to consider the five remaining ones as v~able alternatives.
Analysis of Alternatlves
To evaluate the viable alternatives, the consultant devlsed a
rank~ng system incorporat~ng the following ~mportant decision
factors. These ~nclude:
o L~fe Cycle Cost
o Structural Integrlty
o Shoreline Sediment
o Env~ronmental Considerat1ons
o Conformity with Pier Guidelines
o Upper Deck Potential Expans~on
o Aestnet~cs
o Low Cost Substitute to Lower Deck
o Sport Fish~ng and Recreat10nal Boat1ng Potential
A full discuss~on of the ranklng and evaluatlon of the major
factors 15 included in the draft report. The consultant found
that Alternative I, referred herein as Alternative A (rebuild
breakwater to +15 feet) and Alternative III, referred herein as
Alternatlve B (construct 545 foot promenade and stabllize
breakwater) ranked highest. Essentlally the caisson breakwater
and the 1,100 foot promenade alternatlves were too costly and too
.
.
massive.
The dlScussion below highlights the two viable
alternatives.
Attachments II and III graphically illustrate
Alternat1ves A and B, respe=tively.
Alternative A: Raise Outer Breakwater to +15 Feet
The rebuilding of the rubble mound offshore breakwater to a
helght of +15 feet and a crest width of 35 feet 15 expected to
result 1n a 6 foot significant wave height at the Pier, and a
maximum crest elevation of 21 feet. The benefits or drawbacks
include:
o concrete lower deck is feasible at +15 feet; this means the
plIes and upper deck supports must also be concrete
o lf no lower deck is bUllt, an all timber Pler is feaSlble
o eXlsting shorellne equillbrlum is expected to be sustained
o the bulk and helght of breakwater would be clearly visible
from the shorellne and Pler
o supply of fish would increase and flshlng from Pier would be
more successful due to smaller waves
Alternatlve B: Construct Promenade to Elevation +18.5 Feet In
Comblnatlon wlth StablllZlna Offshore Breakwater co Ele-
..
vatlon +6
ThlS alternatlve assumes that the offshore breakwater wlll be
stablllzed and rebuilt to 6 feet. A promenade of 545 feet in
length would be bUll t perpendicular to the end of the MunlC lpal
Pler extending equal distances north and south. The promenade is
deslgned to absorb the force of the waves. It would conslst of a
10" wlde concrete wall that is 18.5 feet hlgh above the water.
Between this protective wall and the Municipal Pler would be a
30-50 foot-wide deck 15 feet above the water. The platform of
the deck must be concrete but the decklng may be 'iood. This deck
.
.
would be connected at var~ous po~nts to the Pier and serve as
additional fishing and stroll~ng area.
The p11es supporting the
promenade would be sUbjected to extreme forces and must be e~ther
concrete or steel although they can be designed and treated to
look like wood.
The combined protect1on of the offshore
breakwater and the promenade would achieve the desired design
cr~teria.
Benef~cs or drawbacks include:
o All t~mber Pier is feas~ble
o Promenade may substltute for lower deck and provide maXlmum
f~shlng area; fishlng actlvity off promenade deck can take
place on e~ther s~de of promenade
o Promenade must be closed to users during extreme storm
condit~ons, approxlmately 5 days/year.
o Cloud~ness of the water onshore of the promenade lS expected
to be less than an all offshore breakwater
o Existing shorel~ne equ~l~br~um is expected to be sustained
o Potential increase In wave height between the promenade and
the offshore breakwater during h~gh seas due to wave
reflectlon from vertical face of promenade
o Offshore breakwater will be restored to +6 and will be
sl~ghtly more v~slble than orig~nal breakwater pr~or to 1983
storms
o Potent~al creatlon of small flshing harbor adJacent to
Newcomb Pler by extending promenade
o Possible inclusion of ferry landing or other boat launchlng
facility
o Creatlon of several dlfferent "protected" and "exposed"
habitats: substantial increase in number and d~vers~ty of
f~sh
o Noticeable change to the phySical conf~gurat~on of the Pier
Summary of Costs
This section provides a cost summary far each alternatlve. It
.
.
should be pOlnted out that these are rough order magnltude cost
estlmates and are by no means final, nor do they include further
englneering fees. The cost breakdown foe the Pler construction
includes the cost of strengthenlng and upgrading the existing
Municlpal and Newcomb Plers, restoelng the damaged portIon of the
Newcomb Pler and reconstructing the damaged portlon of the
Municlpal Pier. Also included is the cost of adding utllitles.
The cost noted here is the lnltial capital cost, the 50-year Ilfe
cycle cost is provlded in the draft report.
.
Descrl.ptl.on
PIER RECONSTRUCTION
a) Structural
Strengthen Existing Munl.cipal
Pl.er
Strengthen Existing Newcomb
Pl.er
Restore Damaged Newcomb Pl.er
Reconstruct Damaged Munl.cl.pal
Pl.er
- Upper Deck
- Lower Deck
b) Utlll.tl.es
Sewer and Water
c) E1ectrlca1
d) Upgrade Newcomb Pl.er
to 100 psf
e) Wearl.ng Surface for'
New Deck
f) Replacement of Existing
Pavement
TOTAL PIER CONSTRUCTION
.
Alternative A
Ral.se 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
~ ..
Alternative B
Promenade & StabiliZE
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
.
.
Descriptlon
A1ternatlve A
Raise Breakwater
to 15 Feet
Alternative B
Promenade & Stablli;
Breakwater
Pier Reconstruction
(total brought forward)
4,864,000
3,531,700
BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION
a) Raise outer breakwater
to +15 feet
9,526,000
N/A
b) Stabl11ze Outer Breakwater
at +6 feet
N/A
4,118,400
Promenade, 545 feet to
+18.5 feet
N/A
5,912,500
:;;10,030,900
TOTAL BREAK~ATER
$9,526,000
GRAND TOTAL
$14,390,000
$13,562,600
As lndlcated in the description of Alternative B, addltlonal optlons
are posslble inc1udlng the extension of the promenade to create a
fisQlng harbor and to provide a ferry dock or boat launch. The costs
for these dlscretionary options are:
Add Fishlng Harbor-Dock
574,000
204,000
Add Ferry Dock
Add Boat Launch
200,000
978,000
.
.
The Next Steps
As noted in the introduction, the draft report is being made
ava~lable to the Clty Council, Pier Restoratlon Corporatlon, and
the general publlC.
It w~ll also be sent to the funding
agencies. The PRe is expected to review and discuss the draft
report over the next sixty days and then make a report to City
Counc~l with the PRC's recommendation on the preferred design.
Following Councll's actlon and dlrection, a contract will be
negotiated with DMJM who will then begin work on Deslgn
Development and the Environmental Impact Report. They will also
perform hydraullc model-testlng on whichever breakwater system is
selected and perform addltional geotechnlcal surveys.
The PRC is expected to complete their reVlew and present a
recommendation to City Councll by August, 1984. At that tlrne the
City Council wlll be asked to make a decision on the selection of
the preferred alternatlve.
Recommendation
eauncll members are requested to review the attached document.
Attachments:
I Explanatory Dlagram of Wave
II Alternative A: Rebulld Offshore Breakwater to 15 feet
III Alternative B: Stabillze Offshore Breakwater at 6 fee
and Construct Promenade
Prepared by: JUdlth Meister, Manager
Pler Development Division
Department of Communlty and Economic Development
'-
.
?TCa.M. ~Ot
ATTACHMENT I
.
~
Hs I
T
HMA~ I
\
I
I
~~
..... ! ""
....~
"--- 'J/ __//
~
I
I
I
Mt..I,..W 0
"
y
TaouG>t1
(Cl.l Af:T pA. 'UM)
FoiZ. H./7 - oS FeeT
! WA.T~ 1>SPTH I D J
,
!
I
I
i
-..:.....
H.........." .. I e 1 H? = J [ t Z (
c ~e'7i H /'o'\Al( .. or '2.0. .., I
IkO()G-1-t .. ~ 9 t. 6 .
GR.e7!- HM"'X
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
/
/
~
,
....
EXPLANATORY WAVE TRAIN D1AGRAMS FOR SlGNIFiCANT WAVE (H,l AND (Hmaxl
.
~
~
m
::3
Z
>
-1
<
In
>
a- ,
J
r"'~-
,--..-
~ . "
L.".'-"...
~...:-~....
'_: ..~--
1':''':''- .
t - ~ -
J"':~ ..-~-::.
~: -~~ ~..~X
r . ;t"-
l -:.. 1I.:' ....
l-"'~ ~..= ~:.'-'"" :-
1 . --~'::':'~
I' :J. ~ -:r::'~- ....... .---
~~ ~~~~~:
~:~ ~1:':"-~~
I ... :;r:...."'-........
~~ :l..:.~,,:,.o.c:
(=;iJ ~~- ..... ...
I :3 -4':::-:':
I :t ':"1-':::
r~:- (..;";
I': J. r:::
l~ ~ ~rl-;:.I
rf-: <-
~/ :,-
L-"
i..
"""
.
~
-"""
~
-I
I
I
I
\
1
j
I
I
l
~ i
.. t
- I
!
=,
I
,
1
= 1
I
-- ,_-;;;.;;;..- -:..I-
i -
=1
.
~ ;
:ii
.5
-..--
=--1
I
j
I
--.f
~ - j
,
I
f
\
1
r
I
i '
==r---;
1
I
1
!~
C
i7
i'
,
~
~
- - --",~
-;1 :
-t
1 ~
! ;;
h )
, ' ..
, ....j
...
::1
~
Vi
~~i
I ;JI
l:!
m
rli
.
~ B~~""~
---I
I
\
II
1~
"
o
I J
I ]
I
I
I
I
I
1
j
]
I
r-
)
I
I
I
I
I
j
1
I
1
'! j/;
~{ :
!~
=-
..0
~
:::
i
...;
....
....
"':or-'C~ '" NO.
~
I
,
>
r-
....
. '"
;::
z
>
-l
<
...
~
~, .
--j ~.
7'<: ~~ ~ ;
'!
- "
~\~ t"
~ L,;;..---...,......
t-i\="r ~ 1l is
c.~~-~\ '
~??f\ : '
r :l~-,~
1-5'~l
II~V~~
" '.
;:r:-::l c,..""
:> .".
'.... "r_"'l
....;~~
~;.~ ':;'"
~
,,-.
(-
I
=- ..~~
r:1
>..<
...
n
~
"
~
..
i
j-~-
! -,
I
__ 1
~~\:-~;J. l' '1.
I'+f ~~-._ ...
: - ..?......_):::.:.. I
~v/- I
-::-:~; -- ~- ......
-"-- \ '-7--~~-:\.
~~r- : ~-
-r -'~~~
=1 -~-j'
= \ - - --~ ~
-t -~ -:-~'
-, -~~~.
~~\
=-....; - - -- ., - ~
t
=-11 ~~=~~~
= J I .J
l' '~!
- '-
i I
~ ' t;
-+-~-~ ;
-'-l~- -~ ~
::l--J -
-"'"
~
, "-
! I
V
"I.
,
.
o..r= ~l<."'lA"~
l!
"1_
.>11'
y.
'""-
i
nJ
r'
..,
i
~
r
,J
I '
I I
I I
~-~
~':
-.-I.... I
~~
>
-l
...
::-
!J
i
""l
Z
-l
....
....
....
--. --
.:s-~""'N.t;
~
.
ATTACHMENT B
.
Pier Restoration Corporation Review Process
As Indicated above, the draft feasibility analysis was
forwarded to the Pier Restoration Corporation for review and
discussion in May, 1984, Prior to that time, several Board members
had been involved in a working group with City staff to review
DMJM1s work in progress.
On May 23, 1984, the DMJM team presented the findings and
conclusions of the study to the full PRC Board. A follow-up
meeting of the Board was held on June 6, 1984 to raise questions
and further explore the alternatives. As part of this study process,
DMJM built a scale model of portions of the reconstructed pier
and the two breakwater alternatives. Additionally DHJM prepared a
photo collage of the scale model and the existing Pier from various
views as a means to visually depict how the alternatives might
actually appear. The PRe arranged for an exhibition of the model
and the photographs in City Hall during the first part of July.
On July 14, 1984 the Pier Restoration Corporation held a
Pub1 ic Hearing to provide an opportunity for the public to hear
from the engineers and to make comments about the design alterna-
tives, Over eight hundred letters and flyers announcing the
hearing were sent to community organization, local, state and
federal agencies and legislators, those who had participated in
the Pier planning workshops and others who have expressed interest
in the future of the Pier. Articles about the publ ic hearing
appeared in the Los Angeles Times and Evening Outlook and an
editorial in the latter publication urged citizens to attend the
hearing.
- 1 -
~'
~
.
.
Sixty-one members of the publ ic attended the hearing on the
morning of the f4th. The DMJM team led off with a sl ide presentation
of the study and the two alternatives. The PRe then opened the
publ ic hearing and heard comments and questions from twenty-one
speakers. Of the 21 speakers, nine (9) specifically voiced support
for Alternative A; six spoke in support for Alternative B; of the
remaining six speakers, one supported either alternative and the
remainder' raised technical or financial questions.
~ su~r.ary of the Public "earing and list of speakers follows. The general
consensuS of the hearing was that some type of protection to the Pier is needed
and the speakers acknowledged and supported the OMJM study.
- 2 -
.
.
.
SANTA MONICA
RfSTORA TlON CORPORA TlON
201 Santa MOnica Pier, Santa Monica, California 90401 (213) 458.8692
wn E Ma,1cem, b<<utwe Dlrecfor
Su~ary of Public Hearing
Saturday, July 14, 1984
9 am
Clty Council Chambers
PRC Present: J. Abdo, D. Anderson, H. Custis, R. Goldway,
C. Harding, H. Katz, E. Powell, B. Spurgin,
W. Wl1son, G. Markens, J. Melster, M. Miller
PRC Absent: C. Carlson, D. O'Malley, M. Power
PubllC in attendance: 61
DMJM Presentatlon
Mike Mltchell of DMJM presented an overview of the objectlves of
the feas~bllity study and a summary of the flndings and conclusions.
DMJM Project D~rector John Warwar explained the design cr~teria
and the structural components of the two alternatives. Dr. Sonu
of Tekmarine, sub-contractor to DMJM, discussed the issues of
beach erOSlon and shoreline protection. Mitchell concluded the
presentation with a cost summary and project schedule for each
alternative.
Highlights of Public Hearlng (Transcrlpt is available. Llst
of Speakers Attached)
* 21 members of the publlC spoke~ nine (9) speciflcally voiced
support for Alternative A; six (6) spoke in support of
Alternative B; of the remalng six speakers, one supported
either alternative and the remainder raised technclal or
flnancial questions.
* Most frequently mentioned reasons for support of Alternative A
stronger breakwater
more traditional and familiar look
higher breakwater preferable to concrete promenade whlch
will appear as cement wall from water
* Reasons for support of Alternative B
offers opportunity for addltional walkway and fish1ng
promenade is good substltute for lower deck
promenade provides more access over water
15 foot breakwater too obtrusive
...~
.
.
- 2 -
*
Frequently ralsed questlons and issues lnclude
need for protectlon from southeast storms; extend breakwater
to south
lmportance of harbor-related acitvities
how will reconstructlon be flnanced
need to preserve beach
problem of sand accretlon and dredglng if breakwater 1S
rebuilt
*
Other comments and suggestions
shorten length of Pier, do not rebulld to full pre-storm length
build a canal up to Santa Monlca Mountalns
bUlld caisson breakwater
lncorporate both of the alternatives into design; lower
deck and promenade
raise deck helght of promenade to 18~ feet so that sea
wall will not obstruct view
*
The few co~~ents about the lower deck referred to deslrabllity
of lockers, posslbillty of adding lower deck in future, and
problems of the lower deck 1n years prlor to storm
*
There was consensus that some type of protection to the Pler
is needed; speakers acknowledged and supported the study
Summary of Wrltten Comments Rece1ved
*
Consideratlon of small craft harbor
*
ReVlse conflguration of promenade to reduce "bath-tub" effect
of harbor wave-actlon between breakwater and promenade dur1ng
storm conditions
*
Consideratlon of boat lockers
*
Preserve and restore historlc P1er - do not approve promenade
*
Integrate handicap accesslblllty luto plan, espec1ally wlth
regard to lower deck and/or promenade
*
Support Alternatlve B since it provldes additional publlC
facilitles including ferry opportunity; 15 foot breakwater
1S too high
~l
.
.
List of Speakers at PubllC Hearlng
Anderson, Elalne 19 Seaview Terrace, Santa Monica 90401
Blston, Richard 124 Layton Drive
Eichelberger, Mark 220 Delware, Santa Monlca
Fay, Rlmmon C. P. O. Box 536, Venlce 90294
Finke, Pam 817 4th Street, Santa Monlca
Galanter, Ruth P.O. Box 66494, Los Angeles 90066
Gerber, Werner 16032 Miaml Way, Santa Monlca
Hansis, Wayne L. 334 19th Street, Santa Monica 90402
Holroyd, Mary 428 Rose Ave, Venlce
Horst, D1Ck 517 Alta Ave, Santa Monlca
Klrst, Ray 834 Wllson Place
Magness, Pat 1425 Paclflc Coast Hlghway, Santa Monlca
Kleffer, Louise 1008 B 9th Street, Santa Monlca
McGuire, Peter Pat 3100 Nellson Vllla Way, Santa Monica 90405
Rlsch, Ronald 322 Santa Monlca Pier, Santa Monlca
Roevekamp, John 2331 20th Street ~6, Santa Monica
Sonntag, Herman
Sturges, John 839 Yale Street, Santa Monica
Sturges, Steves 187 Paradise Cove, Mallbu
wilson, Rlchard 501 Ocean Front, Santa Monica
Zlngg, Peter 104 Paloma Ave, Venlce
~,
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
PURPOSE
This Bus~ness Plan has been developed by the Santa Mon~ca pier
Restoration Cornoration as both a MangementjOperations GUlde and
a gu~de for the pier's Reconstruction and Redevelopment. Specif1cally
as a ManagementjOperat1on GUlde, the Business Plan will establish
policy, procedure manuals, annual objectives and annual revenue
and expense proJections.
As lmportant, the Business Plan w1ll also clearly establish a
Basic Growth Plan, for capltal redevelopment and ~rnprovements to
the Pier. Specifically, ~t will establish the goals of the capital
redevelopment program, the strategy and plans to acco~plish these
goals and the financing required.
In sum, th15 document 15 to be used for:
. Internal Management purposes
. An Organizing Docunent for the Pier's Planned Growth
. Analyzing the Pier's Financial Status
'-.
.
.
A. ~~NAGEr~NT AND OPERATION
1. Descr~otion of the BUSlness
Briefly this section will glve an overview of the
publlC use mandate, the facts and figures that deSCYlbe
the Pler. (e.g. slze, uses, vlstors, income, expenses, etc.)
2. Management (annual objectlves)
a. POI1CY and operating authorlty - Executlve Director
to Board of Dlrectors
b. Meetlngs with the Board
c. Organizatlon structure and Job descriptlons
d. Flnancial controls and procedure: cash control,
payroll, cash management (short-term lnvestment) ,
fund approval, check requisltions, etc.
3. Adrninlstration (annual objectives)
a. Employment policy
b. Employee evaluation
c. Benefits program
d. Payroll system
e. Procurement of goods and services
4. Operations (annual objectives)
a. Tenant relations: leasing program, new tenants,
collections, tenant assistance, etc.
b. Parking Operations Manual
c. Pler Security Manual
d. Carousel Operations Manual
- 1 -
.
- 2 -
.
5. Maintenance (annual obJectives)
a. General Malntenance Manual
b. On-go~ng capltal lmprovements (e.g., decking, etc.)
6. Annual Capital Improvements
This section wlll 11st those on-going capltal improvements
(e.g. new bathrooms, decking, Sinbad's) that wlll be made
regardless of the major Growth Plan, for reconstructlon and
redevelopment.
7. Marketlng
a. Marketing Plan: advertising, promotlon, public
relatlons, special events, etc.
b. TenantjClty funded events or promotlons
B. FINANCIAL DATA
1. Balance Sheet
2. Income and Expense Projections: Budgeting annually
3. Pro Forma Cash Flow
4. Historic Financial Information: Last three years balance
sheet, lncome statements, etc.
C . GROWTH PLAN
1. Reconstruction Plan
a. Surrunary
b. Design options
c. Test of design options
d. Design
e. Secure funding
f. Implementation/Construction
g. Financial: budget to accomplish planning, impact on
Pler financial data, cash flow during constructlon
~-
.
- 3 -
.
2. Development Plan
a. Summary
b. P1er GU1de11nes
c. Market Analys1s
d. Parking Plan
e. Specific Development GUldelines
. uses - food, merchandise, recreation
square feet
lease rates
revenues
. 1nvestment costs to build
. flnancial feaslb1lity
f. Concept Development
. Slte plan
. Deslgn treatment
. Refinement of investnent, costs
. Fefinementof financial feasibillty analysis
g. Develop Leas1ng Program
h. Secure financing
i. Irnplentation of Plan
J. Financial Data: Budget to accornpllsh plannlng phase,
sources and applicatlon of funds, cash outlay during
construction, lmpact on income/expense proJections
~- 'J . /"YJ-r- CJ/
., ~ /y
4'~
~ /~ J/-C/
-/. Cjl. fJl1ld/& f
CORPORATION u-; ~cL.fA1 -;;'JeJ
~
fl. ,
.
, .
PIER RESTORATION
Statement of General ObJectives
Implement Pler GU1delines and Council Direct1ves
Secure funding for reconstructlon and protect1on of
the pier 1n cooperat1on Wl th the City
Manage reconstructlon of the Pler
Enhance the econOffi1C v1abll1ty of eX1st1ng tenants
BUlld and lease add1t1onal tenant space
Manage the operat1on and promotion of the pier
Manage the planning, design and construction of Pler
related improvements, i.e., parking, etc.
~,
Date: September 4, 1984
~.
.
.
PIER RESTORATION CORPORATION
Current Projects and Tasks
Develop bus~ness plan
Oversee DMJM contract and reconstructlon process
Manage Moore Ruble YudelljCampbell and Campbell contract
for design of entry park
Coordinate State budget process for securing funding
Submlt fundlng applicatlons to State and federal agencies
Initiate plannlng study for parking requirements lncludlng
parklng structure
Develop organ~zatlonal structure for PRC, lncluding job
descr~ptlons, personnel policles, salary and benefit plan
Review operations and needs of eXlsting tenants
Advlse Clty staff on current pier operations lncluding lease
admlnlstration and negotiation, routine malntenance and
speclal proJects, promotlonal actlvlties, and budget adminlstration
Date: September 4, 1984