SR-11-A (10)
:>,
City Council Meeting: May 10, 199J
CED:MT:JM: jal :;anta Monica, California
Yt'2--00S-
TO-
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Ci ty Staff
RE:
Pier Staff Report
I) --It-
HAY 1 0 \~~1
current
and
staff's proposals
Attached please find the Pier staff report which deta~ls the
/
for the future
status
presents
management and reconstruction/restoration of the Santa Monica
Pier.
MT;JM: j<\l
Attachment
Il-f1
--~-
- . "" --- "- ... ~..... ...~ ~ -~
c. a 9o,I.L.
':;
'%
''t''
"\
~'O
'0 {\.
M011
.
I
o
Ca
'"
1~~
(!
I ~~~ 1V~-1"T'
. ."
-.,: ::;I:' ~""': :~
, '!t'.:::=s.~- t-- ,- -.-- ..~---
.. ." ...1!:' fL I.,.,
.)....rI.,r .r~. .;
;'7"__'- " 11~, I, ,~
.., rJ ~II ~ ..
I ' .,. . -
- I ~ (,I.
:-:-.;:t--
I r
~
'--.
d
TiIrg::-' ~
.JL....../
...!!, -q 1'::::::- ~
. ").. ;;fl - -
;_.... _..._.__.:.~.-:- .:--......:.::--~~-
- - ~- . '.--:: :-rvrr- ---~T,,;r.;A( ~-
. - . ,. t :::;-i"l'rll!'!l. , .: '.' :, ~ , ~
, ! ~I .d.~!,.1I , I- .,' .r,., · ~-
\" .." I r' . ~,,' ~-
~ I -f . I " , I _I r ,..' r
. ,~,\J.h~i~i TIl ~'~2'1(.ld ..i:..l~ ~,~
"
~
~~ -~ ~~ ~~=;;;"-~:-~-~\
--==~:~.::::. '-:::: _~_==-_l
....
.'
..":. -I
-.
-,
----
- ._----------.. --. -=--==-
-- '-- -- ~~--
-
.
~.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
II
~
1
CURRENT STATUS
A. Emergency Repair ~ork
B. Emergency Budget Appropriation
C. Federal Disaster Assistance
D. Debris in Deauvi11e Lot
3
4
8
16
III SHORT TERM ISSUES
A. Temporary Operat~ons for Bus~nesses Destroyed 17
B. Leasing Strategy for Existing P~er Tenants 19
C. Park~ng and Traffic Plan 22
D. Role of the Harbor Guards 23
E. Pier Promot~on 24
F. Role of the Pier Task Force 25
IV LONG TERM PLAN
A. Santa Monica P~er Restoration Corp. 28
B. Scope of Reconstruction/Restorat~onl 45
Breakwater Issues
D. Process for Reconstruct~ng the P~er Platform 51
V
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
62
VI
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix c:
Appendix D:
Breakdown of Citywide
Damage by DSR
Explanatory Notes on
Development Costs
Breakdown of cost for
Reconstruction of Platform
Calcu1at~on of Capitalization
of Lease Revenue
MAY 1 0 1983
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The two severe storms of this past winter caused much damage
to the Santa Monica Pier.
The scope of the damage and the
magnitude of the restorat1on have raised complex issues Wh1Ch the
City Council must address. Th1S staff report analyzes and makes
recommendat1ons for the maJor issues of future P1er management
and the process of reconstruction.
In add1tion, it ident1fies
decisions required to complete the emergency clean up work and
those relating to leasing issues 1n the interim period before
reconstruction 15 completed.
Summary of Major Findin~s and Conclus1ons
A. Current Status of Emergency Work
the rema1ning storm-damaged portlons of the Pier have been
secured and stab11ized;
uncertainty of actual extent of damage and unfavorable
weather condit1ons contributed to cost overrun of $15,,000
on Meek Construct10n Company contract;
Federal and State inspection teams have found $408,384 of
the City's claims for emergency work to be eligible for
reimbursement; surveys on the permanent construct10n are
not yet completed;
one necessary remaining act10n 1S the removal of debris
from the Deauville lot.
B. Short-term Leasing Issues
all leases for facilit1es lost on the Pier's west end
should be terminated;
temporary operat10ns for businesses destroyed during the
storm include proposal for Oatman Rock Shop to sublease
space from Beryl's studio and owner of Porthole Cafe to
operate a vending cart;
1
~
1eas1ng strategy for existing tenants 1ncludes negotiation
of three-year lease for all lessees with the opportun1ty
to negot1ate longer leases for those lessees wlshing to
commit to significant capital investment;
C. Long-term Plan
the lack of conSlstent management authority and overlap of
depart~ental responsibl1t1es h1nders the ability of the
current management structure to effect1vely oversee the
restorat1on and economic rev1tal1zation of the P1er;
the development costs include an est1mated $7.2 for
reconstruction of the platform {the port10n destroyed in
the storms} along with $5.3 million to accomplish the
restorat1on outlined 1n the Pier Task Force Guidelines for
a total of $12.5 million;
additlonal costs for a parking structure may range from $8
million to $14 million:
the process for reconstruct1ng the Pier platform
the selection of an Architectual/Engineering
Construct1on Manager, and a Construction company
the results of compet1tlve bldding.
includes
firm, a
based on
Recommended Actions
1. Allocate
$75,000
from the unappropriated General Fund
Reserves and appropriate $60,000 for removal of debris from
Deauville lot and $ 15,000 to cover cost overrun on Meek's
contract.
2. Approve
leasing
strategy
as outlined 1n the report,
spec1f1cally
a) approve sublease of 350 square feet of Beryl's Studio to
Oatman Rock Shop,
b) d1rect staff to return to Counc11 with proposed lease
agreements between September 1 and December 30, 1983,
c) terminate leases with bUS1nesses destroyed during storms.
11
~
3. Approve the concept of creating a Santa Mon~ca P~er
Restoration Corporation for the purpose of managing the
recons~ruction and restoratlon of the Pier and for ongoing
Pier operations, and d~rect staff to prepare the appropriate
documents to create the Santa Monica Pier Restorat1on
Corporation.
4. Approve the Pier Platform Reconstruction Strategy as outlined
1n the Staff report and authorize the City Manager to seek
proposals for an Arch1tecturaljEngineering firm and
Construct1on Manager and recommend award of contract.
1i1
...
I. INTRODUCTION
The fierce storms of this past w1nter will not be eas1ly
forgotten. There was much damage to Santa Monica's beaches,
sewers, roads, and most sign1ficantly to 1ts unique and historic
Santa Mon1ca Pier. Staff reported to Council after the January 27
storm and again after the March 1-2 storm. Estimates of damage
were g1ven along with recommended actions necessary to ensure
public health and safety.
Staff now returns to Council w1th this report which is an
affirmat10n of the City's efforts to secure and restore the Santa
Monica Pier.
This report has two purposes. The first is to present
1nformation .to Council about act10ns that have already occurred
as well as those that will occur 1n future weeks. These are
actions
Wh1Ch
staff
has
ta~en or will take wh1ch are
administrative rather than policy-related and do not reQU1re
Council action.
The second purpose of this report is to identify the
decisions that must be made by Council. These include policy
management decisions w1th regard to leas1ng, the future
management of the Pier, and the process of rebu1lding the Pier.
For ease of presentation, this report is divided into four
maJor sections:
1
CURRENT
STATUS provldes information on the results of
actions taken in response to the emergency.
SHORT-TERM ISSUES addresses actions to be taken in the
interim perlod such as parking, leasing, promotion, and
identifies POllCY decisions requlring Council action.
LONG-TERM PLAN analyzes the policy declsions that must be
made with regard to future management of the Pler and its
reconstruction and restoration.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS lists the steps which staff proposes
Council take to achieve the objectlves described in thlS
report.
2
II. CURRENT STATUS
The first part of this report will assess the current status
of actions taken immediately after the Mar~h 1-2 storm. These
include emergency repa~r work, emergency budget appropriation,
and appl~cat~on for Federal d~saster assistance.
A. Emergency Repair Work
The March 1-2 storm caused much destruct~on and left
portions of the P1er hanging precar~ously over the ocean.
The C1ty acted exped1tiously to stabilize the remaining
portions of the P~er. Moby's Dock and the bumper cars have been
secured through the work performed by John L. Meek Construct1on
Company. Work began 1n the area immediately adJacent to Moby's
Dock Restaurant, between Bents 26 and 38. During the period
March 3 to Apr11 20, 1983 {34 working days', the contractor
completed the following work.
mobilized manpower and equipment and moved on and off
jObsite,
replaced 20 miss1ng and broken p~les and reset and
reconnected f1ve piles that had been d~slodged from caps,
replaced longitudinal and transverse brac~ng, caps, and
all appurtenant hardware connections,
- replaced missing pile under the Bumper Cars.
3
Addl~lonal emergency repa1r work will be performed by Clty
forces. ThlS work 1S in the area on the southerly Slde of the
Bumper cars and western side of Newcomb Fier which is ~anging and
poses a threat to publlc safety due to its proximity to the
beach. The Pler Malntenance Crew will cut the hang1ng portlons
(approximately 3400 s.P.), square off the area, and haul away the
material that may not be salvaged. Santa Monica Fence will then
install a fence around the perimeter of the area. The cost for
labor will be absorbed by the operating budget yet it will be
subject to reimbursement by the Federal Government. However, the
use of City forces will delay the completion of work on the
mid-section of the parking area by approximately 30 days since
they will be diverted to perform these repairs. The work lS
expected to be completed by May 15. The summary of costs for
emergency repair work is included in the next section.
The City may antlcipate the re-openlng of the western end of
the Fler by the end of May. Both Moby's and the Bumper Cars will
be open for business and fishing will again be poss1ble off the
far end of the remainlng portion of Municlpal Pier. Thus the
festlvities for "Save the Pier Week," May 23-31, which will be
held in this area will be cause for celebration of the City's
efforts to repair thlS sectlon of Pier and provide for its use
and enJoyment by the public.
B. Emergency Budget Appropriation
The City Council appropriated $200,000 on February 1, 1983.
4
Following the March 1-2 storm, the Councll approprlated an
additlonal $216,368 to cover emergency costs lncurred as a result
of the storm as well as those costs deemed necessary in the near
future. Table I below summarlzes the status of the emergency
disaster fund and indicates the expenditures both incurred and
anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Clty
Council appropriated a total of $416,368 to cover emergency costs
related to both storms. Staff estimates that a total of $432,208
will be expended.
5
"
Table I: Status of Emerqency Dlsaster Appro~rlatlon
ACTIVITY
fu~OUNT APPROPRIATED
MARCH 8
Demo1ltlon
Salvage
FEB. 1
100,000
25,000
Reconstructlon
Admlnistratlon 25,000
Emergency
Costs (Labor
& Equlpment)
Chain Llnk
Fenclng
Concrete
Footlng for
Restroom
Englneering
Study for Salt
Water ~vells
63,243
15,000
50,000 108,125
20,000
5,000
5,000
200,000 216,368
TOTAL
APPROPRIATED
163,243
25,000
40,000
158,125
20,000
5,000
5,000
416,368
6
EXPENDED ESTI~~TED
THRU 3/83 THRU 6/83
187,362
7,644
9,098
145,092
12,043
361,239
3,700
30,902
TOTAL
191,062
7,644
40,00::
42,667 187,7:59
7,200
5,000
89,469
Less lne1iglb1e
expendltures returned
to Departmental
budgets
19,243
5,000
450,708
- 18,500
$ 432,208
The breakdown for the Emergency Dernol~t~on and Repair
work ~s as follows:
Healey Tibbitts
$ 37,469
+149,893
$187,362
(This represents
approximately a 10%
cost overrun on the
on the or1g1nal
budget)
John L. Meek
Equipment rental + 3,700
to complete repa~r
work by city forces
$191,062
The cost est~mate for the work to be completed by John Meek
was low. The estimate was made dur1ng a period of uncertainty as
to the extent of actual damage. As the exact demands of the work
became known 1t became clear that Meek would not be able to
complete the full amount of work to be done under the available
funds.
Weather conditions contr~buted to the cost overrun as
well since the crane was moved from the end landward in
ant~cipat~on of a severe storm in ffi1d-March. Luck~ly the storm
caused no damage but two working days were lost at a cost of
$7,000.
Council waived competitive bidding on a total of
$200,000 of emergency work in resolutions passed on February 1
and March 8. Staff will request an appropriat~on of $15,000 in
recommended act~ons sect~on to cover this cost overrun.
Based
upon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulat~ons, the City has determined that certain costs will not
be eligible for reimbursement and will be pulled from th~s
emergency fund and restored to the appropr~ate departmental
7
,
budget. These are costs that have been previously ~ncluded in
depar~mental budgets. The pr~mary one is regular hours for
Police wh~ch were charged aga~nst th~s account; only overtime is
eligible for reimbursement. The figure of $18,500 m~ght increase
as the City's cla~ms are reviewed by Federal government and staff
deter~ines that more costs will not be el~gible. The next
sect~on will provide an analysis of the impact of Federal
Disaster Assistance on the emergency appropriat~on.
C. Federal Disaster Assistance
Th~s section of the report will exam~ne what the City may
expect in regard to Federal Disaster Assistance reimbursement.
Following the March 1-2 storm, representatives of both the State
Office of Emergency Services (OES) and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) visLted the City for the purpose of
conducting Damage Survey Reports (DSR's). DSR's form the basis
for the determination of elLgible work but they do not constitute
any approval of work or commitment of Federal funds. The'DSR's
must be reviewed and approved by FEMA's Regional Director before
the Federal government w~ll obligate funds for el~gible wor~.
However, the DSR's do provLde a complete descr~ption of the
damages and a statement of the scope of eligible work along with
a detailed estimate of costs. Thus they do indicate to the C~ty
a reasonable assessment of what will be eligible.
8
;
~
In preparatLon for the inspection team visLts, C~ty Staff
painstakingly compLIed documentat~on to account for all labor,
equipment and materLal costs for each proJect and each claim. In
many cases this involved pulling records from as ~any as f~ve
departments. City Staff then had to Just~fy the work done and
the costs involved as well as negotiate for eligibility. Thus
the DSR's represent a combinat~on of staff's administrative and
negotiation efforts and interdepartmental cooperation. The
discussion wh~ch follows will cons~der four areas: (1) City-w~de
damage, (2) PLer damage, (3) ~mpact of Federal Assistance upon
emergency appropriation, and (4) hazard mitigation.
City-w1de Damage (Non-Pier)
As a result of both the January 27 and March 1-2 storms, the
City suffered damage to its beaches, streets, sewers, cemetery
and airport. Three DSR teams have visited the City to assess
elLgibility of cla~ms in the following categories:
A. Debris Clearance E. Public Buildings & Equipment
B. Protective Measures F. Public UtLlities
c. Road Systems
I. Other Damage
The results to date of the DSR teams' findings are
summarized below by category. A complete breakdown by specific
location is included in Appendix A.
9
"
..
Table II: Su~ary of ~on-P~er Damage Est~mates
Debr~s
Clearance
Protect~ve
Measures
Road
Systems
?ubl~c -
Build~ngs
Publ~c
Utiht~es
Other
TOTAL
CATEGORY
A
B
C
E
_ F
I
CITY CLAIM
$66,480
15,653
184,059
3,050
54, 804
52,568
FE.MA
ELIGI3ILITY
$53,949
10,623
4,694
2,744
35,985
21,000
eXPLANATION
Clty rates for equlpment
are higher than those
used by FEMA
Damage to fence In
pallsades Park was Judged
to have been caused by
prevlous sl~de
Sta~rwell on PCR was
damaged dur~ng prev~ous
storms and rules ~nellg~ble
($90,000)
$75,000 for trenches 15
class~f~ed as normal Clty
rrla~ntenance
$~7,000 for pothole and
pavement damage is classl-
f~ed by FEMA as normal
maintenance. This ~s
under appeal
Dra~nage channel at A~rpor~
was ruled to have been
damaged durlng preVlOUS
storms ($23,000)
C~ty clalmed $30,000 for
structural damage to Beach
restroom #5. DSR team
found no permanent damage;
emergency repairs were
covered under Cat.B
$376,614
Var~ance:
$128,995
$247,619
10
The DSR teams found $128,995 to be el~g~ble: $64,423 is for
emergency work and $64,572 ~s for permanent work. Emergency work
~s considered work that had to be done immediately to save l~ves
and to protect property. Permanent work is the restorat~ve work
that must be done to restore a facility to its pred~saster
design. As a study ~s conducted to assess the damage to the salt
water wells, it is possible that an additional $800,000 damage
may be claimed.
It should be noted that the city expected to lose out on
certa1n cla1ms, 1.e., sta~rwell on PC3, airport, wh1ch had been
Judged ~neligible in the past.
Santa Monica Pier Dama~e
The results of the DSR's completed to date on the pier are
another cause for C~ty pr1de 1n its response to the emergency.
Not only has the City secured the P1er, but it had the
documentation to ensure that the work performed would be el1gible
for reimbursement.
Dur1ng the week of April 11 the first of three DSR teams to
survey the Pier completed their investigation of emergency costs
(all Category B) and their assessment of replacement cost for
Pier superstructure (th1s 1ncludes decking, piling, rail1ngs,
stairways). A second DSR team will be assessing replacement
costs for the buildings, utilities, and City property destroyed.
The third DSR team will return to complete the1r survey of damage
11
"
to the breakwater once the City completes its own ~arine survey.
below.
The results of the DSR's completed to date are given In the table
Table III: Summary of Pler Emergency Work Estlmates
EMERGENCY WORK
DESCRIPTION
Emergency Repalr
Contracts wlth
Healey TlbbJ.tts
and John t-leek
Salvage Operation
Securlty
(includes costs for
Police, Harbor Guards,
Extra Parklng Attendant)
Pumplng
Barrlcades/Slgns/
Utlllties/Fencing
Clean-up and super-
VlSlon of contract work
Temporary Harbor Offlce
(lnc1udes 18-month
rental of trailer and
equlpment, labor &
materlals for set-up)
Repalr work to be
done by Clty forces
TOTAL EMERGENCY WORK:
CITY CLAIM
$187,362
12,24 1
77,623
15,137
22,881.66
13,306
10,661.40
31,350
$ 370, 562. 06"
12
FEMA
ELIBILITY
$187,36'2
7,644
65,597
14,960
22,537
12,319
10,542
23,000
$343,961
E XPLA.NA,TI ON
FEMA's equipment rates
are substantlally lower
than City's
After Storm 1 Clty clalnec
regular hours for Pollee;
these are lne11gible
Equipment rate difference
City estlmates 1500 L.F.
of fencing; FE~m
estlmate ~s 740 L.F.
.
.
,
Permanent Construction
As noted above, FEMA has completed one DSR relating to the
replacement cost for permanent construction. Th~s is
specifically for the pier superstructure. There is a substant~al
difference between the C~ty's estimate and FEMA's est~mate,
namely $2.5 million. This ~s due to the City's use of $7500 per
pile as compared to FEMA's rate of $2500 per pile. One reason
for the difference is that the City's Engineer~ng Department
gauged
wor~
the~r estimate on past contracts wh~ch did not ~nclude
on the same scale as will be done for the reconstruction.
As is the case with economies of scale, the unit costs drop
considerably as volume increases. It should be further noted
that the actual re~mbursement will be based not on the DSR, but
on the lowest b~d the City rece~ves when the work ~s put o~t for
contract. In summary, the cost for replacement of P~er
superstructure destroyed as a result of both storms is given in
the table on the next page.
13
Clty Estlmate
Superstructure
Pl1lng
Pavlng
Ralllng
Stalrways/Gangways
Float
Englneerlng
106,000 SFe $15
600 @ $7,500
65,000 SF @ $2
1,590,000
4,500,000
130,000
44,000
15,000
10,000
(l~cluded In above)
FEMA Estl.l'1ate'
$6,289,000
FEP~ combl.nes decking, pl1ing and pavl.ng lnto cost per SF
Lower deck:
26,486 SF @ $25
8400 SF 'e $19
662,150
159,600
821,750
1,092,344
1,398,937
112,750
24,800
51,600
190,000
$3,692,200
Upper deck:
Newcomb Pl.er
Ral.ll.ngs
Stalrways/Gangways
Float
Englneerlng
24,826 SF @ $44
45,127 SF @ $31
Impa~t
of Federal Disaster Assistance on Emergency Budget
Appropria tion
Staff estimates that the City will expend $432,208 for
disaster related activities. These are costs which fall ~nder
the category of emergency work. According to the DSR's which
have been completed on the emergency work, $343,961 has been
found eligible for Pier-related work and $64,423 for other
City-wide damage for a total of $408,384. If this amount is
approved by FEi~, the City would receive $306,384 which is 75% of
$408,384.
The net cost to the City for emergency work would be
$125,824 minus any other costs which might be absorbed by
departmental operating budgets.
Final settlement does not occur until the C~ty completes all
approved work and pays all related bills. However, the City may
apply for an advance of funds to meet current obligations for
14
"
elig~ble work and those ant~cipated for the next 60 days. The
advance of funds is based upon an approved applicat~on which
requires all OSR's to be complete. S~nce several OSR's are still
to be conducted, the City cannot antic~pate any advance funds for
at least two months.
Hazard M~ti9ation
The DSR ~nspect~on team for the P~er has submitted a
proposal for Hazard Mitigat~on along w~th the DSR. FEMA def~nes
hazard as any natural source of danger or element of risk which
is ~dent~f~ed after a maJor disaster or emergency. M~tigation is
the means to alleviate the effects of a major disaster and future
disasters in affected areas. They recommend that a study be made
as to the feas~bility of rebuilding the lower deck. The impact
of such a recommendat~on on the C~ty's appllc3tion i$ that review
of th~s DSR ~s suspended until the City responds to the proposal.
The C~ty will respond in the appropr~ate form of a letter
outllning the kinds of studies the City intends to undertake ~n
carrying out the reconstruction and by stating its intention to
investigate obtaining wave wash insurance aga~nst future damage.
It should be noted that the cost of whatever steps are taken
to mitigate future hazards must borne totally by the City.
Thus, as the City emerges from the emergency period of the
past 3 1/2 months, it can look to a Pier which has been secured,
15
"
which can st~ll provide recreat~on, and which has the reasonable
assurance of Federal funding for its reconstruction.
D. Debris ~n Deauville Lot
There is one rem~nder of the storm wh~ch requires Council
action. Th~s is the p11e of debris in the Deauville lot. The
C~ty sought b1ds prev10usly for salvage but the b~d did not
include hau11ng away the debris which is estimated at $60,000.
Staff will ask for authorization to bid and enter 1nto a contract
later in the Recommended Actions sect~on of this report. The
City is seeking Federal reimbursement for this work.
#
16
III. SHORT-TERM ISSUES
rhe second part of the staff report examines issues which
have an impact on the operat~on of the P1er during the period of
time pr~or to completion of restoration. The concerns which must
be addressed during the ~nter1m per~od Lnclude (1) Temporary
operat~ons for businesses destroyed, (2) Leas1ng Strategy for
remaining bus1nesses, (3) Parking and Traffic Plan, (4) Role of
the Harbor Guards, (5) Pier Promotion, and (6) Role of Pier Task
Force.
A. Temporary Operations for BUS1nesses Destroyed
Staff proposes that Oatman Rock Shop be relocated to sublet
space from Beryl's Studio at 250 Santa Monica Pier.
Approximately 350 sq. ft. of Beryl's 2500 sq.ft. would be turned
over to the Rock Shop. Th~s 350 sq. ft. includes the north-east
corner of the inter10r, includes one large window for display
and the large window/door in the north-east corner wh1ch w~ll be
opened for direct public entry into the Rock Shop. Under a
sublease arrangement the terms and conditions would be between
the Rock Shop and Beryl's Studio. Staff will request that
Council consent to the subleasing of a portion of Beryl's Studio
in the recommended actions section.
Porthole Cafe set up a food vending cart on the Pier on May
1st. The cart carries packaged items such as cold sandwiches,
candy bars, cookies and cakes, gum, Juice and soda cans and
17
fruit.
Mr. Seo, the owner of former Porthole Cafe, will operate
7 days per week at $12.50 per day wh~ch is the regular current
charge for all vendors.
Santa Monica Sportfishin~ & Santa Monica Bait & Tackle are
bus~nesses wh~ch can not be relocated. 8M Sportfishing requires
a loading dock in deep waters for the1r sportfish~ng boats. 8M
BaLt and Tackle sold fishing equipment to pier f1shermen.
Peterson Company HOLst: Mr. Peterson has elected to
relocate in Marina Del Rey, and has terminated h~s lease with the
City.
Because of the destruction of the lease premises, the city
Attorney has recommended that the month-to-month tenancies of any
lessee whose prem~ses were destroyed be ter~inated. This action
reflects the reality of storm-related destruction and the
recogn1tion that these tenants would only occupy new premLses
pursuant to a written lease agreement and not pursuant to the
current form of their month-to-month tenancies. Finally, the
City Attorney has concluded that the termination is necessary to
avoid a provision of the month-to-month tenancy that requires
either the C1ty or the lessee to rebuild the destroyed premises.
18
B. LEASI~G STRATEGY FOR EXISTI~G PIER TENANTS
At the present time, many of the Pier tenants occupy theLr
business premises pursuant to month-to-month tenanc~es. Tenants
have repeatedly indicated a desire for lease protection. At the
same time, outstanding ~ssues conSLder~ng Pier restoration place
constraints on both the ability of the City to enter Lnto long
term commitments and the ab1lity of tenants to commit the
1nvestment capital that must accompany any long ter~ leases. The
City Council had previously directed staff to enter ~nto long
term leases.
In 11ne with the Pier Task Force Guidelines and to
accommodate the interests of the tenants while protecting the
ability of the City to ensure an economically viable P~er, (L.e.
pay for itself) ~t is proposed that all Pier lessees be offered
the opportunity to enter into a three year lease with the City.
The lease negot~ation will be gu~ded by the following ter~s.
1. A three year term.
2. A variable minimum rent payment schedule wLth the rate
adJusted upward for summer months and downward for wLnter
months.
3. A reasonable common area charge will be assessed.
Promot~onal fee charges will remain unchanged from the
current charge of 4 percent of minimum rents.
19
4. A requirement that the lessee comply w~th operating hours
uniformly established by the City.
5. A requirement that the menu of the lessee be annually
approved by the City so that the C~ty can ensure diversity
in the serV1ces offered at the Pier.
6. A requirement that the lessee comply with rules and
regulat10ns adopted by the C~ty and un~formly applied to
all tenants.
7. A requirement that the CLty provide Santa Mon1ca Pier
Lessees Assoc1ation (SMPLA) an opportunity to comment on
common area charges, operating hours, and rules and
regulations before being implemented by the City. (SMPLA
approval ~s not required.)
8. A list of necessary repairs that the lessee ~s requ1red
to make. The lease will provide that if the lessee does
not make the specLfied repairs, the City may make the
repairs and increase the monthly rent according to a fair
formula to recoup the City's costs.
It is anticipated that the proposed lease documents will be
presented to Council between September 1, 1983 and December 30,
1983.
20
Lease rates will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
will be adjusted when necessary to reflect comparable lease rates
at other California Pier operations.
Any lessee who desires to commit to s1gnificant capital
investment will be offered the opportunity to enter 1nto a longer
lease with the City. The addit~onal term will reflect the amount
of the proposed eligible cap1tal Lnvestment. F~ctors wh~ch wLll
be considered include the a~ount of the Lnvestment, the tim~ng of
the 1nvestment, (including e11gible but unamortized ~nvestment)
the type of investment, and the cons1stency of the investment
wLth Pier Task Force Guide11nes. A threshold qualification for a
lease term exceeding three years is the lessee's demonstrated
ability to make the capLtal investment.
The longer term Leases exceeding three years will have a
provision authorizing the C~ty to terminate the lease any tLme
after three years upon payment to the lessee of the unamortized
value of the lessee's approved f~xed cap1tal investment, less
depreciat10n. Lessees whose leases have been termLnated will be
offered an opportunity to negotiate a new lease for comparable
space elsewhere on the Pier. Amortization of capLtal investments
made by longer term lessees will be allowed for improvements to
the building's shell or other capital expenses normally paid by
the lessor (i.e. not part of the da11y operat1ons of the lessee's
bus1ness). The amount to be credited shall not exceed fifty
(50%) of the total approved expense nor shall the amortization
21
perLod extend beyond the econom~c life of the improvement to
lessor's property. The annual amount to be amortized w111 be
credited aga1nst the lessee's percentage of gross sales rent.
All proposed leases and termLnat~ons negotiated pursuant to
above parameters will requ~re Council approval.
~. Parking and Traffic Plan
Following the March 1-2 storm, the City was faced with the
challenge of devis~ng a parking plan that would serve the
interests of the P~er lessees and that would offset the loss of
parking
P1er.
Santa
space from the storm-damaged southwest end of Newcomb
The following plan was developed in consultation with
Monica P~er Lessees Association (SMPLA) and the City's
Recre~t~on and Parks Department:
On-the-P1er Parkins: The fifty spaces which are currently
available on the P~er are now used for publLc parking. The
winter rates (October 1 to April 30) are $1.00 for two hours, and
$3.00 for all day parking with no val~dation. The summer rates
(May 1 to September 30) are $2.00 for two hours and $4.00 for all
day with no validation. Since the demand for on-Pier parking is
high and the supply is low, Lt was Judged that people would be
willing to pay a premium. Five spaces will be reserved for
handicapped parking at no charge. All City staff, business
owners, employees and contractors will park in the 1550 lot north
of the Pier.
22
l550 Beach Lot Parking: The Department of Recreation and
Parks will continue to operate this parking lot. To accommodate
and encourage use of the lot by P~er visitors, the current
operat~on of the lot must be modified. The proposed FY1983-84
budget 1ncludes funds to evaluate and purchase needed equipment,
security and va11dation system, which if the budget is approved,
could be ~n place by September 1983. The plan is to operate the
lot each day from 8:00 a.m. to midnight, to charge $3.00 per day
but provide a validation system to allow for reduction of park~ng
rates for Pier business customers, and to provide necessary
security. Until such t1me as the new system 1S set up, the rate
for the 1550 lot w~ll be $2.00 per day on weekdays and $3.00 per
day on weekends and holidays. It will be staffed daily from 8:00
a.m. to sunset. Since these are new procedures, minor
administratLve changes may be necessary to ~mprove effect1veness.
D. Role of the Harbor Guards
Harbor Guard roles will change substantially over boch the
short-term and long-term. Boat maintenance, anchor, bouy, and
mooring repair, and general mariner assistance responS1bilities
will decrease. The Harbor Guards will be responsible for
security patrol of Pier, the area beneath the P~er, and the 1550
parking lot. This change will necessitate the purchase of
walk1e-talkies, new uniforms, and will require additional
training.
23
E. Pier Promot~on
The winter storMS and resulting damage to the Pier were
accompanied by an outpour~ng of public concern. The SMPLA had
hired LOU1se K1effer as Promotion Manager for lessee's act~v1ties
and the C~ty contracted with Ms. K~effer to coordinate spec1al
events and focus attention on the reconstruct1on of the P~er.
Louise Kieffer then began work with a steering committee
representing City Staff, SMPLA, Pier Task Force, and Arts
Commission to develop the idea of "Save the pier Week." The
Steering Committee Judged that the objectives of raLsing public
awareness about the Pier and creating an atmosphere of comrnunLty
participation and support were the primary aims of the promotion
effort.
The highl~ght
Week" , May 23-31.
of the promotional plan is "Save the Pier
The Pier is booked solid with special events
for the week, ~ncluding an opening ceremony featuring 30 Arabian
horses in full dress parading down the Pier. Reggae, Jazz,
Indian, country and rock bands will also appear throughout the
week, along with clowns, dancers and other performers. There
will be an art exhibit and pie-eat~ng and baby contests as well.
On Saturday, May 28, a Variety Show will be held at the c~vic
Auditor1um which is be~ng produced by concert promoter, J1m
Rissmiller. Among those stars who w~ll appear are Tom Bosley,
Catherine
Helmond,
Linda Lavin,
L~nda Gray, Eddie Albert,
A Hollywood Film Tribute will
Mariette
Hartley and Tony Geary.
24
run on Sunday, May 29 featuring films which were shot on the
Pier.
"Save the Pier" has involved the ~nterest and generosLty of
the busLness community as well. General Telephone Company has
made a significant contribution by supplying and producing all
off1cia1 Save the P1er Week promot10n products, 1ncluding tee
shirts, V1sors, bumper stlckers, buttons, which are on sale ~t
stores throughout Santa Monica as well as at the "Save the PLer"
booth on the Pier. Advertising space in the promotional book,
also printed by GTE, which will be distr1buted durlng Save the
Pier Week has already been purchased by local businesses.
Merchants at Santa Monica Place, Montana Avenue and Main Street
will all participate in promotional events during the week.
F. Role of the Pier Task Force
The PLer Restoration and Development (Task Force) has played
a p1votal role 1n shapLng Pler policy SLnce the Task Force was
created by the City Counc21 in November 1981. It sponsored three
public planning workshops during 1982 and drafted the Pier
Guidelines adopted by the Councll on September 28, 1982. These
Guidelines were the bas~s of a $500,000 interest-free loan
awarded to the City by the State Coastal Conservancy 1n October,
1982. The Task Force also sponsored the recent pier Charrette
Design Competition.
25
,
,
Throughout the January and March storms, and the months of
Lntens~ve act~vity since then,
the Task Force has provided
~mportant guidance and information to staff on the full spectrum
of lssues conta~ned in thLS report.
In the com~ng months the1r
role w~ll likely include the follow~ng:
ass~sting staff to draft the Art~cles and by-laws for the
proposed pier Restorat10n CorporatLon,
definLng Board
member duties and recommending board nominees,
monitoring design and construction of the parks proJects
at the eastern end of the Pier which were the subJect of
the Charrette Des1gn competition,
~onitor1ng the preliminary design phase of the Pier
platform reconstruction process,
monitoring the ~nit~al operation of the P1er Restoration
Corporat10n,
monLtoring negotiatLons of new leases wLth existing Pier
business tenants.
26
\
IV. LONG TERM PLAN
The next part of the report focuses on the complex ~ssues of
the future management of the P1er and the process by which the
Pier is reconstructed and restored. The discussion of the
management question 1ncludes an assessment of past management of
the Pier, an examination of organizational models, and a
descript10n and Justificat10n for the creation of the Santa
Monica Pier Restoration Corporat~on.
The sectLon on the reconstruct~on and restoratLon of the
Santa Monica Pier identifies the scope of the reconstructionj
restoration, the costs of this future development, as well as the
sources of funding available. The final segment presents the
detailed process by which the city intends to reconstruct the
P1er platform.
27
.
\
A. Santa Monica P~er Restoration Corporation
The Santa Monica Pier RestoratLon Corporation is a proposed
public benefit corporation which would manage P~er operat10ns and
employees, and would part1cLpate in managing the process of Pier
reconstruction, and would oversee new pier commercial
construct1on. This section discusses problems w1th previous City
Management of the Pier and why a new management structure is
necessary. Alternat1ve management approaches evaluated by staff
are then described. Finally, the purpose, character~stics and
duties of the proposed Pier Restoration Corporat10n are
summar1zed. Specif1c staff recommendations are lLsted on page
The Need for a New Pier Management Structure
The history of the Pier is a colorful one already familiar
to most readers of this report. For purposes here, the most
relevant aspect of P1er h1story is its treatment within the C1ty
from a management point of VLew.
The present Municipal Pier was bU11t in 1921 following a
successful voter-approved bond 1ssue. The Newcomb P1er, wh1ch
comprises that port~on of the PLer supporting the commercial and
amusement buildings and the parking lot, was privately owned
until purchased by the CLty in 1970. At that t~me, the PLer
business leases were ass1gned to the City, which has
.
28
.
}
subsequently renegotiated some of the leases on an ~nd1vidual
basis.
From the time of the Newcomb P1er's purchase to the present,
Pier employees and lease agreements with business tenants have
been managed by var40US City departments. The Department of
Recreation and Parks was the first principal ~anager, with
responsibility transferring over the ensuing years to the then
Department of Environmental Services, where the position of Pier
Manager was created. The next stop for the Pier was the
Department of Entertainment Facilit1es in 1977, then the
Department of Administrative Services. The Department of
Administrative Services was e11mLnated in 1981 and the Pier was
d1rectly managed by the City Manager's Office. Since 1982 the
Pier has been managed by the Department of Community and Economic
Development.
Regardless of which Department has maintaLned pr4nc4pal
management responsibility for the Pier, numerous other
Departments played a role in day-to-day operat10ns. Even today,
at least six Departments are involved: Recreation and Parks
(Harbor Patrol, parking lot management and beach maintenance),
F4nance Department (data processing and payroll), Personnel
Department, General Services (engLneering, ma~ntenance and
sanitation), Community and Economic Development (planning and
code enforcement) and the C~ty Attorney's office. Although
29
certainly well-mean1ng, City staff has little experience in
managing place-speciz1c public enterprises.
Th1S constant transfer of respons1bility and changing
personnel together with a confusing overlap of respons1bilities
has resulted in an unstable management environment which poorly
serves P1er lessees, employees, vis~tors and Santa Monica
taxpayers alike. The storms of' January and March dramatically
underscore the need to recons1der how the City operates and
manages the Pier. Among the issues suggest1ng the need for a new
approach are the following:
now that a large port10n of the parking lot is destroyed,
decisions must be made about how to implement the Pier
Guideline's proposals for this space when the platform is
rebuiltl
complex engineering decis10ns must be made regarding the
best conf1guration for the westernmost end of the P1er,
including a lower fishing deck, a new harbor office, the
breakwater, and other issues;
rebU11ding the Pier w11l require the resources of the
Federal, State and potentially the C1ty treasuries, but
even this will not suff1ce. Private ~nvestrnent dollars
must be attracted to assist 1n rebuilding of the Pier.
Private sector 1nvolvement w1l1 only by forthcoming with
assurances of profess~onal Pier management;
30
the task of managing reconstruction as well as new
construction and the ongoing restoration process is very
time consum1ng and has placed a great burden on City
staff.
Other Council priorities will have to be delayed
or cancelled if C1ty staff 1S to carry out the task of
managing th1s effort.
.
Analrsis of Alternat1ve Mana~ement Models
In light of the problems with previous City management of
the Pier, and the var1ety of new management issues facing the
C1ty, an alternative management structure is required. Toward
this end staff has studied var10US models for manag1ng and
develop1ng projects like the Pier.
Each model was evaluated in
terms of the following general cr1teria:
-effect1veness in providing stable, professional management
of da11y bus1ness affa1rs 1ncluding operating costs and
revenues, and personnel management.
-ability to provide direct, open fiscal and operational
accountability to the C1ty.
-ability
to
attract and package human and financial
resources necessary for 1mplementat10n of development
projects like those descr1bed in the Pier Restoration and
Development Guidelines.
31
.
These management models fall generally into three
categor1es: a) pr~vate management and development organizations~
b) public Councils, Commissions, Authorities, and Districts~ and
c) quas1-public management and development organizations. In the
following paragraphs each of these categories is briefly
described, illustrative examples cited, and relative strengths
and weaknesses of approaches to manag~ng the P~er are noted. The
evaluation concludes that a quasi-publ~c organ1zation
representing both the private business community and the public
at large 1S the preferred alternative.
Pr~vate Mana~ement and Development organizations
Since the rate 1940's private management and development
organizat10ns, formed primarily by central city business leaders,
have played an important role in urban redevelopment and
revitalization proJects. The~r objective has been to apply
corporate planning techniques using an organizational structure
outside the normal governmental process 1n the belief that a more
flex~ble entity could better manage plann~ng and development
projects, and more readily attract public and private capital.
These organizations have assumed a variety of legal structures,
both for profit and not-for-prof~t. Most have elected
self-perpetuat~ng boards of directors, hired paid staff and
funded budgets from member donations. Where State law allows,
some local governments have granted them broad powers to plan and
implement, including the power of eminent domain. In other cases
32
a ~aster lease has been granted to develop and manage discrete
projects. Examples of this approach 1nclude:
-The Allegheny Conference on Community Development, wh1ch
was formed after World War II to revitalize downtown
P1ttsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
The Conference has over a
hundred members representing cross section of business,
.
labor and financial executives.
It 1S governed by a
39-member execut~ve committee including the Mayor and
County
Commiss~oner
and
been
very
successful in
st1mulating development 1n the downtown Golden Triangle
business area.
-The Greater Hartford Process, which was formed after racial
rioting in Hartford's North End ghetto during the summer
of 1967. Led by sen~or executives from the city's largest
corporations, Greater Hartford Process undertook ambitious
program
of
phys1cal
planning
and
adm1nistrative
reorganizat~on for the ent~re Hartford region.
-San Francisco's Pier 39 proJect which is managed by a
private for-profit corporation under a 65-year master
lease. Redondo Beach Pier also involves master leases but
to three seperate entities.
Wh~le useful and product1ve in certain instances, private
development
organ~zat1ons tend to exhibit problems 1n two
specif1c
areas
crucial to the successful development and
33
management of Santa Monica P1er: pub11C accountability and the
profit versus public benefit balance. Often, private management
and development organizat1ons ut~11ze decision processes which
involve small groups working outside of public V1ew unt1l a
hnished proposal 1S complete and ready for presentation to a
larger sometimes skeptical public. Second, the abili ty to
. balance business objectives with somet1mes conflicting social
objectives has proved difficult for many private management and
development organ~zat10ns to achieve.
Both of these problems were evident in staff's brief rev~ew
of the Pier 39 and Redondo P1er master lease examples. Problems
were not with the concept of master leas~ng a facility that is
both a business enterprise and a public park, but rather,
problems arose because the long-term master lease is with a
private rather than pub11c or quasi-public entity. In each case,
the C~ty's ab1l1ty to modify lease terms and conditions, or to
suggest changes ~n arrangement practices in light of
circumstances unforeseen at the time the master lease was
drafted, is more limited. Time consuming and expans1ve legal
procedures may also be required. Furthermore, should business
tenants, Pier V1s1tors or other members of the public have
concerns about Pier management issues, the lack of a pub11C forum
~n wh1ch to address these ~ssues means that the C1ty Counc~l or
City staff becomes the arbiter of management controversies. This
is precisely the kind of problem the P1er Restoration Corporat~on
structure should be designed to avo~d. A management structure
34
whic~ requires open public meet1ngs and periodic performance
reviews is more l~kely to resolve such issues and substant~ally
reduce the need for Counc~l and C1ty staff 1nterventions.
Special Purpose Councils, Commissions, Authorities, and Districts
Councils,
Commissions,
Authorit1es and Distr~cts
are
special
develop
formed
purpose governmental bod1es created specifically to
and manage ~ndividual plann1ng areas prOJects. They are
when circumstances arise that requiree a seperate public
body in addition to, and independent of, existing agencies. In
general, they have been formed to oversee geographic areas of a
much larger scale than Santa Mon1ca Pier. They are created
pursuant to state enabling law and frequently are empowered to
control land use planning and development within a specific
jurisdict1on. They may also assume a regulatory function through
the power to issue development permits. Their membership
composition often seeks to include broad public and private
representation. Examples of th~s management and development
model include:
Commission
wn1ch
Bay Conservation
was established by
and
the
Development
Ca11fornia
-The San
Francisco
legislature 1n 1965 to admin1ster development permits
along San Francisco Bay. The 27 member Commission's focus
is development review and its role resembles that of the
Coastal Commission.
35
-Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), like the Port
Author1ty of New York City, is an independent spec~al
purpose governmental entity established by State Law.
Massport has management author~ty over cargo transfer
throughout Boston Harbor and also manages Logan Airport,
operates several bridges and is a maJor landowner. The
State enabling legislation grants Massport broad
governmental powers including bonding authority, land use
controls, and the power to establish user charges such as
landing fees, docking fees and tolls.
While the above management structures do provide for
considerable pub11c visibility of dec1sion-making, they tend to
focus more on development review than day-to-day business
management. Furthermore, such a focus on development review
would oe redundant for Santa Mon~ca P1er given the City's and the
Coastal Commission's legal Obligations.
Quasi-Public Management and Development Or~an1zations
The third category of models to consider for the pier is one
that combines the best features of the prior two models. Here a
quasL-public ent~ty (typically a pUblic or public benefit
non-profit corporation) is formed to operate independently from
local or State government, but under local or State government's
general guidance. Its corporation status enables it to adopt a
third party role in negotiations between developers and local
government, one of the 1mportant roles played by private
36
management and development organizations. At the same time, ~ts
quasi-public character ensures that key decisions and policy
related documents are available for public reV1ew and comment.
Further~ore, its governing board is usually appo~nted by local or
State government and regularly renews an operating contract and
budget with that government. Examples of th1s management and
development organ1zation model include:
- Centre City Development Corporation created by the C~ty of
San Diego in 1975 to plan, implement, and provide
day-to-day management and admin~5tration of projects
w~thin the central Clty redevelopment area. This public,
non-profit, tax exempt corporation has a seven member
board of directors appointed by the Mayor and C1ty Council
and operates under a service contract with the City's
Redevelopment Agency.
- California Exposit~on and State Fair (CALEXPO) was created
by the California leg1slature in 1980 for many of the same
reasons the City Staff is herein recommending a new
organizatlonal structure for the Pier. Th~s public
corporation lS governed by an 11 member board of d1rectors
appointed by the Governor w1th Senate confir~ation. The
board serves as CALEXPO'S policy making body and has full
responsibility for the management and operations of ~ts
facilities.
37
Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority
(PDA) was authorized under ~ashington State law and is one
of several similar organizations chartered by the C~ty of
Seattle. The PDA is governed by a 12 member appointed and
elected Board of Directors.
It ~s respon1ble for bus1ness
and property management of the Market, and for preserving,
rehab~litating and developing buildings within the Market
Historical District.
The clear advantages of a quasi-publ~c organization as a
Pier management structure over e~ther private organizat1ons or
Councils, Commissions, Author1ties and Distr~cts include the
following:
-administrative
autonomy
combined
with
public
accountability,
-a legal status that permits undertaking certain act~ons not
availabl~ to a mun~cipal coruoration, ,
-publ~c-pr~vate partne~sh~p tliat ensures equal attent~on to
sound business pract~ce and public interest obJect1ves,
and
-ability to leverage and package both private capital and
public resources.
With these advantages and examples in mind, the next sect~On
presents the purpose, characteristics and duties of the proposed
38
Pier Restoration Corporation. Only the skeletal outline of the
corporation 1S posited. The details of the corporation's powers,
responsibilities and scope of functions will be developed over
the ensuing months through add1tional research, public comment
and deliberation.
Purpose of the Corporation
The purpose
of the Pier Restoration
Corporation is to
oversee the transition of the Pier from a storm-damaged,
inadequately managed public enterprise to one which is rebuilt,
restored and mainta~ned in a fashion that promotes economic
health and stability cons~stent with the Council-adopted Pier
GU1delines. - It 1S not the primary purpose of the P1er
Corporat10n to make a profit for the C1tY7 rather, it ~s
anticipated that eventually the corporation will be able to run
the P~er with a min1mum or no subsidy. "Breaking even" ~s the
financial goal.
To accomplish these tasks, the Pier Restorat1on Corporation
would have complete responsiblity for the maintenance and
operation of the Pier. All employees would work for the
corpora ton and be managed by ~t. For those employees who are
presently work~ng on the Pier, benefits and sen10rity these
employees now enjoy would be preserved. What remains for further
legal analys1s ~s whether or not these employees rema1n ~n the
employ of the C~ty or whether they work for the corporat~on under
contract. Th~s question will also be rev~ewed for new employees.
39
It would be the purpose and the duty of the Corporation to
enhance bUslness conditlons for lessees and to recommend for the
City Council's final decision, lease terms and conditlons for new
commercial development.
In addition to mainta~n1ng and operat~ng the P1er and the
direct management of P1er personnel and Pier leases, the
Corporation would have one other maJor function and purpose: to
raise cap1tal for reconstruction and to help coordinate the
process of rebuilding the Pier. The Corporatlon would work with
Federal, State and City funds, but would also be responslbile for
packaging investment capital from the private sector. Wh~le
these rebuilding and investment activities would be the
responsib11ity of the Corporation all such activitles must
conform to policy set by the City Council. The Council would
retain the right to approve the significant activit1es of the
corporation.
Duties of the Cor~oration
The proposed duties of the Corporation may be summarized as
follows:
-To implement the Pier Restoration and Development
Guidelines as adopted by the Council
.
-To ma1ntain and enhance accessibi11ty of the pier for all
user groups
40
.
'.
-To assist the City ~n secur1ng necessary State, Federal and
private funding for reconstruct~on,
ma~ntenance of P1er operations
new construct10n and
-In cooperat~on w1th City staff. to assist ~n managing the
process of P1er reconstruction, and all new construct10n
and restorat10n
-To develop for City Council consideration private/public
financing packages for new Pier construction and bus1ness
development
-To assist private ~nvestors in securing all necessry
approvals, licenses and permits
-To manage and admin1ster all lease terms and condi~ions
-To negotiate new leases and 1dentify potential new lessees
-To enhance and susta~n the viability of existing Pier
businesses
-To assume responsibility for the management of all Pier
personnel, including admlnistration, maintenance,
non-police security forces and harbor patrol
-To provide for cont~nuity of rights and benefits of pier
employees
-To recruit and h1re all new employees
41
-To be responsible for all management and operations on the
P1er, ensuring a clean, accessible and hospLtable
env~ronment for businesses and patrons
-To coord~nate, in cooperation with the Santa Monica Police
Department, Pier security
-To estab11sh and mainta1n necessary 1ndependent f1nance,
personnel and purchas1ng systems
-To produce a b1-annual program and f~nancial report for
C1ty Council review and approval.
Cor~orate Character1stics
Although the precise legal vehicle for creating the
corporation has yet to be determined, the parameters of the
corporat~on would be as ~ollows:
The corporation would be a non-profit public benefit
corporation under the laws of the State of California. It would
have a nine-member Board of Directors which would be appointed by
the C~ty Council. These nine positions would represent various
elements of the commun1ty, but ~n part1cular would 1nclude
representatives of the business commun1ty and the P1er lessees.
The D~rectors would serve staggered four-year terms to ensure
cont1nuity over the years.
The business of the Corporation would be pub11C in that all
sign~ficant issues and dec~s~ons would be discussed at publ1c
42
i,
meetings. The program and budget of the corporat10n would be
public and would be approved by the City Councll. The
Corporat10n would use a competit1ve bidding process for all
construction contracts currently covered 1n the City Charter.
The Corporat~on would hire its own Executive Director sUbJect to
the approval of the City Manager.
On-Going Role of the C1ty
The city would continue to own the
structures. The role of the City may
P1er and its existing
be divided into two
categories: a) guidelines or directives provided to the
Corporation upon its inceptlon and bJ approval rights over the
ongo~ng decisions of the Corporatlon.
The Council will be responsibile for establlshing Pier lease
parameters. The Corporat10n would be required to conform to th1s
policy directlon along with the adopted P1er GU1delines. In
addition, the Counc11 would reta1n the exclus1ve right to incur
indebtedness on behalf of the P1er.
~
The ong01ng role of the Council would be to approve lease or
business proposals brought forward by the Corporation. All lease
terms and conditions will be approved by the Council, as will the
corporat10n's annual budget. Any physical building plan must
obtain the normal approvals and perm1ts from Boards, Commlssions,
and city departments.
43
The Council will approve and nay mod1fy the by-laws and
Articles of Incorporation.
44
B. Scope of Reconstruction/Restorat~ons
The winter storms destroyed 400 l~neal feet of the western
end of the Munic1pal Pier and 37,000 square feet of parking area
on 8ewcomb Pier. The City Counc~l has expressed 1ts commitment
to reconstr~ct the Pier. Pr10r to the storms, the C~ty Counc11
had also endorsed a plan for restorat~on of the Pier wh~ch was
formulated by the Pier Task Force after extens~ve citizen
part~cipat~on. Th~s plan, known as the Santa Mon1ca Pier
Guidelines, had been initiated prior to the recent destruction.
The renovation of the h1stor1c Carousel and the Charrette
competition for the des~gn of the Entry Park to the Pier are
evidence of the City's determination to redevelop and revitalize
the P~er. The planning effort Wh1Ch is now required as a result
of the storm damage can best be served by a total view which
1ncorporates the need for reconstruction with the P~er Task Force
Guidel1nes for Pier development and restorat10n.
The descr1ption of Development Costs Wh1Ch follows includes
the elements of the Gu~delines which are expected to be completed
in 1983-84 as well as the proposed future development such as new
commercial and publ~c use construction and a parking structure.
Additional costs are the reconstruction of the destroyed area
including "betterments", and a loan fund for capital improvments
to existing build1ngs. These uses are not exhaustive of the
potential development opportun1tes not does th1s listing include
all possible costs. The purpose of this information is to
45
present parameters whereby the extent of the reconstruct~on and
fund1ng
be estimated.
restorat~on of the Pier may be gauged and the amount of requ1red
eng~neer1ng
and
design
These numbers will change as
work identify more precisely the
may
requirements for reconstruct10n, and as the commun1ty exerc~ses
choices.
TABLE V: ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS
1) Reconstruction (to begin FY84-85)
USE AMOUNT
a) Replacement of or1ginal footpr~nt
~ncluding square footage of
prev10usly existing building and
lower deck
(see Appendix C for breakdown)
b) Relnforcement of existing P1er
c) Betterment: Difference between
cost of construction "as ~t was
prior to storm" and strengthening
the pier structure
Total
2. A} Restoratlon Projects to be completed
1n FY1983-84
Entry Park
S1nbad's Rehabilitation
Design Study for Entry Park
Ferris Wheel Pad
Des~gn and Engineer1ng and
Construction Manager for
Reconstruction of Platform
Environmental & Parking Studies
B) New Commercial Construction
(based on Pier Gu~delines)
Restaurants, Reta1l, Vendors, etc.
27,600 sq.ft. @ $80 =
46
$5,200,000
500,000
1,500,000
$7,200,000
$ 415,000
400,000
60,000
25,000
366,000
50,000
$1,316,000
$2,208,000
c) New Non-Commercial Construction
(based on P1er Gu~delines)
1) Museum, public use space, off~ce
6,000 sq. ft. @ $80 =
Promenade, OverloOk
480,000
175,000
033,000
2) Des1gn and Engineer1ng
Total
~78,600
733,600
D) Loan Fund for Upgrading Exist1ng Lease 500,000
Facilities - FY84-85
E} Upgrading of Existing Ut11it~es 500,000
TOTAL RESTORATION PROJECTS: $ 5,257,600
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS: $12,457,600
3) Parking Structure
a) 1000 - 1650 spaces @ $8,000
b) Design and Engineering
$8,000,000 - $13,200,000
480,000 - 792,000
TOTAL PARKI~G:
$8,480,000 - $13,992,000
(Please refer to Appendix B for Explanatory Notes)
47
Sour~es of Fund~n9
G~ven the Development Costs l~sted 1n the prev10us sect~on,
the C1ty must seek fund~ng from a comb~nat~on of State, Federal,
and pr~vate sources. The table below ~ndicates the sources
for wh1cn the City has a cornm~tment as well as potent~al fund~ng
.
sources.
Table VI: Sources of P~er Reconstruct~on ~unds
1. Cornm1tted and/or Expected Sources
Coastal Conservancy
($500,000 is carryover
from FY 82-83)
$2,000,000
FEl1A (75% reimbursement
of reconstruct~on est~mate)
4,391,000
Recreat~on Un~t Tax
(carryover from FY 82-83)
400,000
Private Fundra~s1ng
50,000
$6,841,000
2. Private Development
Co~~ercial Construction
2,208,000
Cap1tal~zat~on of Lease
Revenue
(see Appendix D for
calculat~on)
2,408,600
$4,616,600
3. Other
$1,000,000
Sources may include DepartQent of
Boats and Harbors, ~lldllfe Conservatlon
Board, Env1ro~~ental L1cense Plate F~nc,
Nat10nal D1saster Rel1ef Fund, Urban
Development Act~on Grants, Econom1c
Development Adrn~n~strat10n
TOTAL ~LVELCP~E~T FUKDS:
S 12,457,000
.:8
In add1t1on to the funds necessary for P1er Development,
it 1S ant1c1pated that the the funding for a Park1ng Structure
would be secured through a Parking Revenue Bond. Depend1ng
upon the S1ze the of the structure, an est1mated $8,480,000 to
$13,992,000 would be raised by a Parking Revenue Bond.
At th1S p01nt, 1t m1ght be helpful to conceptual1ze the
develop~ent proJects in terms of a very tentat1ve timeframe for
the1r 1n1t1at10n and completion as shown 1n the time l~nes below.
.1983
July
1984
July
1985
July
1986
July
S1nbad's
RFP's & Des1gn/Bid Construction
Entry Park
Design/B1d Construction
Ferr1S Wheel
RFP & construction
Reconstruction
of Platform
Des1gn & Eng1neer1ng/Bid
Construction
)
:-;ew Cornmerc1al
Construct1on
RFP's
Design
Construct1on
)
New Non-Commerc1al
Constructl.on
:)es1gnjB1d
Construct1on
)
Parkl.ng
Structure
Park1ng Study
Des1gnjBl.o
,
Constructl.on ,
49
Breakwater Issues
At the present time the 1ssue of the breakwater remains uncertain
and complex. The City will study the question of repa~ring
and/or restoring the breakwater during the design and engineering
phase for the pier Reconstruction. The c1ty w1l1 also examine
whether or not the P~er can be rebuilt to stand without the
protect~on of a breakwater. The City has received suggestions
for breakwater design from a var1ety of sources and these will be
reviewed during the period of extensive study.
The City may be eligible for Federal Disaster Assistance for
damage to the breakwater caused by recent storms. The City is
currently conducting a survey to determine the loss in cubic
yards of rock as compared to the survey completed in 1972. At
completion of the survey, the DSR team will make an inspection
and determ~ne whether or not the breakwater is el1gible.
50
c. Proposed Process for Reconstruct1ng the Pier Platform
In accordance with the Council's previous directives that
staff investigate appropriate methods of re-building the Pier to
essentially its pre-storm shape and dimensions, th1s section
presents a process for accomplishing that obJective. The process
was developed after careful study of several possible approaches
and has been discussed w1th representatlves of the private
professional design cornmun1ty famlliar with similar large scale
proJects. The following paragraphs identify the key groups to be
involved In the process, how design and constructlon
professionals w1ll be selected, and an initital timetable for
beginning this complex task.
Reconstructlon Process OverVlew
The proposed process for reconstructing the Pier ~nvolves five
key groups:
City Council which wlll exerC1se its normal role of
setting policy direction for staff and consultants,
approving contract awards, and approving expenditures of
funds. Various City Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
will ma1ntain their advisory roles.
Pier Reconstruct1on Staff Management Team - a team of
senior level City staff responsible for regular rev~ews
and administrative dec1sion mak~ng throughout the design
and construction phases on behalf of the City, and for
51
making period1c reports to the Council, Boards,
Commiss~ons and Task Forces. The team will be cha1red by
the City Manager or designee and will include the General
Serv1ces u1rector, the Commun1ty and Economic Development
Director and the Pier Restoration Corporation's Executive
Director. Thls team w1l1 be staffed by Community Economic
Development Pier Division.
Construct10n Manager an individual with significant
experience managing design and construction proJects of a
scale and degree of complexity s1milar to the P1er. The
Construct1on Manager will be involved on a full time basis
throughout the bidding and construct~on phases to ensure
that the proJect remains on schedule and within budget.
The Constructlon Manager will report directly to the Pier
Reconstruction Staff Management Team.
Architectural/Engineer1ng Firm - an internationally known
professional design firm thoroughly experienced 1n the
design of marine structures. This company will be
responsible for all research, des1gn and environmental
analysis of alternative methods for reconstructing the
basic Pier platform and par~ing required to support new
development planned for the former Newcomb section of the
P1er.
S2
Construction Company
a h~ghly experienced company
selected through open compet~tive b~dding that can rebuild
the Pier in accordance with the approved construction
contract bid document. The construction contract will be
managed by the Construction Manager ~n cooperation with
the
Arch~tectural/Engineer1ng F1rm.
The hierarchical
relationship among the above five groups is illustrated in
the following diagram.
1 Ci ty council!
I
P1er Reconstruct1on!
Staff Management I
Team I
I I 1
construction]____J Arch1tectural/ 1
Manager I Eng~neer1ng F~rml
1 i
I' Construct~on
Contractor
53
The specific roles and process for select~ng the
Construct10n Manager, Architectural/Engineering Firm and
Construct~on Contractor are described below ~n more detail.
Construction Manaser
Wh11e 1ndividual members of existing City staff are capable
of manag~ng a complex construction project like that ant1c1pated
for reconstruct~ng the Pier, doing so would seriously detract
from their other dut~es since full time professional management
throughout t~e bidding and construction phases is necessary to
ensure that the project schedule and budget are be1ng followed.
Beg1nn1ng in the late 1960's a new professional discipline,
generally known as "construction management", emerged to play
exactly this role for public and private clients of complex,
large scale construction proJects. Staff recommends that such an
individual be hired to represent the C1ty'S interests in the Pier
reconstruction project. Among the responsibilities of the
Construction Manager will be the following:
o Bidding Phase
Advise Staff about any appropriate "fast tracking" or
other applicable construction methods to achieve cost
and time savings, Supervise preparation of all
documents required for construction cost bidding and
superv1se the bidding process, Assist staff
54
management team to evaluate bids and recommend award of
construction contract.
o Construction Phase
Monitor daily construct1on progress, quality control,
tLmetable and budget, - Monitor contractor compliance
with all local, State and Federal requirements,-
Coordinate architectural/engineering and contractor
commun~cations, - Review and evaluate all change order
requests, Manage construct~on contract payments, -
Make regular progress reports to the Pier
Reconstruct1on Staff Management Team.
The Construction Manager will be selected by a panel
consisting of the P1er Reconstruct~on Staff Management Team and
at least two outside professionals fam~liar with the
qualifications needed. The selection will be made wh1le
Architectural/Engineering firm is prepar~ng working drawings. A
limited group of highly skilled individuals or f1rms will be
required to present their qualif1cations to the panel. Following
select10n, a seperate contract between the City and the
successful Construction Manager will be negotiated and forwarded
to the City Council for approval. Funds for this work are
eligible for reimbursement from Federal Disaster Ass~stance.
S5
Architectural/En9ineer1n9 (A/E)Firm
A limited number of highly qualified A/E firms will be
invited to prepare formal proposals for reconstruct1ng the Pier.
This list will be derived from recommendations by professional
architectural, engineering and construction soc1et~es, County,
State, and Federal ~gency recommendations, suggest10ns from
distinguished academ~c faculty and other sources. A panel
consist1ng of the Pier Reconstruct1on Staff Management Team, the
Construction Manager and three to four recognized experts in the
field w11l evaluate each written proposal and oral presentation.
Rating factors will ~nclude overall design talent, marine
engineering capabilities, performance and degree of experience
w1th similar projects, professional background of key personnel,
capacity for timely complet10n of the proJect, record of meeting
pr~or client's t1me schedules and budgets, and posit~ve
references from previous clients. The Pier Reconstruct~on Staff
Management Team and Construct~on Manager will negotiate a
contract with the top rated firm and recommend that the city
Council award the contract.
The contract will include at least the following seven
pre-construction tasks:
I. Review Existin9 Data
56
A. Review previous P1er struct~ral and planning stud1es,
particularly 1973 structural survey and Task Force
Guidelines
B. Review files of 1nspection and repair reports by
General Services and Recreation and Parks Departments.
C. Interview key City personnel with Pier planning and
maintenance responsibilities.
D. Interview P1er Task Force members and other ~1ty
officials to elicit V1ews on P~er reconstruct10n.
E. Interview others knowledgeable about Pier structure,
ocean act1vity, breakwater (e.g. Corps of Engineers).
II. Perform On-Site Evaluatlon and Test~n9 of Structures
A. Review all data relevant to storm damage structural
failures.
B. After reviewing City's data, perform tests and
inspections as necessary to determine structural
integrity of rema1n1ng Pier.
C. Perform tests and inspect10ns as necessary to
determine structural integr1ty of remaining
breakwater.
III. ~nalyze Pier Reconstruction Design Issues
57
"
A. Analyze wood, concrete, steel or a comb~nat10n
structural system.
B. Study Implications for future recreation and
commerical uses:
1. ecological and phys1cal 1mprovements for fish~ng,
2. structural loading,
3. Pier shape and/or form,
4. how and where to accommodate parking demand.
c. Analyze wave forces, future t1de and weather
projections and their effects on design.
D. Consider and analyze deflect~on and compatibility
of new and existing Pier sections.
E. ~nalyze breakwater issues:
1. Whether needed to protect structure,
2. Sand build-Up, dredging, and other problems.
F. Analyze private insurance requirements and costs.
G. Provide written summary of maJor f~ndings and
conclusions.
IV. Develop Alternat1ve Designs (at least two)
A. Develop schematic draw1ngs,
B. Describe construct~on methods and approach,
C. Summarize environmental 1mpacts,
58
D. Develop preliminary cost est1mate,
E. Present alternatives to C1ty staff, Council,
P1er Task Force and others.
V. Refine Des1gn Alternat1ve Selected by City
A. Develop design development drawings,
B. Obta~n conceptual approval from appropriate City
Boards and Commissions,
C. Obtain Preliminary approvals from Coastal comm1ssion,
other State and Federal Agenc~es as required,
D. Conduct Environmental Impact Assessment,
E. Refine construct~on method and approach,
F. Develop construction schedule,
G. Refine cost estimate.
VI. Prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental
Impact Report/statement
VII. Prepare Construction Bid and Contract Documents
A. Complete construction drawings and specifications,
B. Complete final structural calculations,
C. Complete final cost estimate,
D. Obtain final approvals by City Boards and Commissions,
other governmental bodies,
E. Obta~n all reqU1red permits.
59
In order to better ensure that the AlE Firm's construction
cost estimate is accurate, the C1ty will retain the right to hire
an outside profess1onal est~mator or general contractor to
provide a "second op~nion". The A/E Firm's contract may also
contain a clause requiring it to amend or re-design the prOJect
at no cost to the City Lf the lowest respons1ble bid exceeds the
AlE Firm's cost estimate by more than an agreed upon percent.
Construction Company
In accordance with provis~ons of the Mun1cipal Code, the
c1ty will publicly advertise for b1ds from qualified private
construction firms. Bidders may propose alternative methods of
construction that produce significant cost savings. After
evaluat~ng all bids properly submitted, staff will recommend that
the Council award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
The contract will be in accordance with standard public works
contracts.
Reconstruction Process Timetable
Due to the complexit1tes of the design problems 1nvolved in
the Pier reconstruct~on project and uncertainties about what the
preliminary invest1gat~on and design studies w~ll reveal, target
dates for only the initial steps in the process can be identif1ed
at this time.
60
Yask
-Select and H1re Architectural/
Engineering Firm
-Begin Preliminary Design
-C~ty Selection of Preferred
Alternative Des1gn
Tarset Date
September 1, 1983
October 1, 1983
January 1, 1984
Working drawings and environmental ~mpact analysis could
take up to six additional months and actual construct10n twelve
to e1ghteen additional months. An optlm1st~c schedule would have
constructlon complete by January 1, 1986.
61
V. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In response to the issues presented in this report, City
Staff respectfully recommends that the Council take the following
actions:
1. Allocate $75,000 from unappropr~ated General Reserves
and appropr1ate $60,000 of this amount to Account 11-400-521-501
and authorize staff to bid and enter 1nto contract, not to exceed
$60,000, to have debris hauled away from Deauville lot. In
addition, appropriate S15,000 to account 13-700-278-000-638 to
cover the overrun on Meek Construction Company contract.
2. Approve the leasing strategy as outl~ned 1n this report,
and specif~cally:
a) approve the terminat~on of leases with tenants whose
businesses were ~estroyed.
b) approve the sublease of 350 square feet of Beryl's
studio to Oatman Rock shop subJect to the following conditions:
1. the sublease be on a month to month basis,
2. Beryl's not charge Rock Shop more than 36% of 3eryl's
payment to the City,
3. increase rent of Beryl's to $275 on an ~nterim basis.
c) Direct staff to return to Council with proposed lease
agreements between September 1 and December 30, 1983.
62
Restorat~on
Corporation
for
the purpose of managing
3a) Approve the concept of creat1ng a Santa Monica
reconstruct~on and restoration of the Pier and for ongoing Pie
operations.
3b) Direct staff to prepare the appropr~ate documents to
create the Santa Mon~ca Pier Restoration Corporation including
By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, and other agreements wh1ch
may be necessary.
4) Approve the Pier Platform Reconstruction strategy as
outlined in the staff report and spec1fically authorize City
Manager to seek proposals for an Architecture/Engineering firm,
Construct~on Manager and recommend award of contract.
Prepared by:
John H. Alschuler, City Manager
John Jalili, Assistant City Manager
Lynne Barrette, Deputy City Manager
Don Arnett, Director of Recreation and Parks
Bob Myers, City Attorney
Mark Tigan, D1rector of Community & Economic Development (C/ED)
Stan Scholl, D1rector of General Services
Ernesto Flores, Econom~c Develoment Manager (C/ED)
Peggy Gardels, Assistant to City Manager
Louise Kieffer, P~er Promot~on Manager (C/EO)
Judith Meister, P1er Development Manager (C/ED)
Susan Mullin, Pier Bus~ness Manager (C/ED)
Paul Silvern, Program & Policy Development Manager (C/ED)
Gregory Slaughter, Civil Defense Coordinator (Police)
Cover design by Sylv~a Gent~le
63
n
. ~
n n ;:. III ~ "1 "1 rI" I~
""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- In
'0 '0 t=l t=l t'l i:l ":I \.Q ,0
0 i~
1"1
'<
;f-,
r-' f-" ,..... I-' I
Co.> w 0 0 <::) <::) 0 ~
. ..n \Jl "'" ~ .l>. "'" "'" I~ c:.,
.." U'l 0\ 0- 0'1 0- 0'1 >'
Ul Ul 't) I.:> CC CC OJ Z
W hJ U1 W <.C CC -.J c::
::>
;0
":I1Jl :;; ::::":1 t"'<: t"<: t"'<: >'Ul '0 to-' i><:
1"11"1 I1l ;-0' OJ o '" o OJ o OJ ,....OJ 01.."
1-'.0 I-' \0 (1 '1 'i (1 " (1 " " ::;l Ii V' IhJ
;:l \)I I-'::r f-'. OJ ;-0 Oi f-" OJ ..... '0,..,. ::>1"0 t""' ,:-J
(10. :;; Hl ""'0 rtO rtO o OJ 1-" 0
. C1l ~ \)I ~ I-"S::: f-' s::: .....s::: Ii ;:l IJl () I~
=- rtPJ '<0 o Ul o Ul o Ul iT~ "1 I1l PI
0'< ;:l ;:l ;:l 0 ill rI"
;:l (/)() Ul n {J] () U1() ;:l t"'n f-'"
'" ..-0 I-' 1-" I-' ... o ::r 0
IJJ OJ rt it it 0 rt ;:l
oJ.(/) '< '< -<: A>
Ii rt
I
.
(/)"0 Ul ;o[JJ"O 1Jl'"1::l '0 no '0 OJ
rtPJ ,..,. r.l :;: s::: OJ to-' s::: ::rA> ill t:l !;;:l
o <: IlJ ::i C1l S ., OJ 3 D E:l <: (1) 19 t'l
>1 ro 1-" or:>'O ., Q '1j ;:l III C1l r.Jl ;l:t
3 ::l '1 <: '0 f-'. t-'. f-'. .... ;:l"1 3 () :>:
ro :;; f1l .... ;:l () ;:l ;:l f1l In r:> '" I~ t:l
O::l D ::l"1 1lJ<.Q "1 1-'0. ::l f-" 0
'1 rt '< :;:"1 ::l. rt 'tl ~
IlJ ~ 0 ro 0 0 0 it
.... 0 n Q.Il'>Hl 00'"11 >-h 1"1 0 "'"
::l OJ .., III III 0 I 0
::i III en::;: Ul "1 f-'. S :: Ig "1
o ill () ('J IlJ OJ to-' ::l IlJ
<:lJJ 7i" Ii rt ::;l 0 IlJ "1 0 '$ n
f1l ro ro ill C1l 0. 0 "1 f1l t"tI H >'
Ii 0. '0 >1 0- 0. ro Gl >-3 "0
Hl"'l f-' . ill ro C t=l ><: '0
to-'Ii 12'> ::l <.Q P, ~ ::<: t"l
00 "lUl r.Jl H Z
:;; ::l t::l it >' \II Z 0 0
1-" I-( rtl-( '" Ii ..0 0 t"l _H
;:l 0 o f1l CD z /;
"l 7i" f1l III ro I 0
t:l rI" [Il "j >'
::l H ~
~ ttj
!;;:l Gl
-u> -u> ttj
-u> <.C -u> -u> N -U> ~o.
- to-' 0 i-' N W to-' () t::l
- -u> inri" :::- ><:
0 0 to-' W N 0 \Jl [Il'< ,"':3
\Jl 0 cc 0 w 0 0 r1' L'l 0
<.C 0 I-' "'" .,. 0 0 ro Gl rJJ
0- 0 ~
!;;:l
H
-u> t"l"l ttj
-(I> -(/) -Vl- to-' to-'(\) [JJ
<.oJ i-' hJ <.oJ 1-'-0.
-(J} ..o(\) ::-
C1'\ w N 0 f-'"'1 ,.
0 cc 0 w <::) C'D1 1tJ;:
0 I-' '" ~ 0 to-' to-' I.
In 1':-
1"':1
:;::lO(l)>' H":I[JJ>'
roS:::rtli ::l r1 rT i-\
LJ.i'101n In 1-"0 In 1-4
(\) "'"i-\ III t-'Oi'1tu ::l
O;:l 3 t-"1"13 (\)
rI""l 00 0 "l 000 to"
(\) tu ~ Ct.l. ill f-"
o.":I<l"3 O"rI" ::i
i-\ ~ I-'OUlIll ....
1-'- en lJJ CDI"1S:::lJJ 0"
o to-' In 30-ro t-'''l
1"1 f-'. Q, U1SP, In (\)
Q, "'- ::L
D!1l0 l2'>iTO cro
f-"U) s::: rts::: CII 1'1
m . ..... om "'I iTtlI
IlJ 1-'- ro p. I-' lOt-'
[IlrJJ::l () ::l ~
rtS:::lJJ to-''''-O
roO' tu s::: ,...
1"1::1'0 1"11"1"0 ::l
"'"1"1 In 1-">1 III
\l'>rTro o.::lro r1"
.. rt'<: "l <: .....
ro ..... f-'. 0
0.0 0 ::l
s::: s:::
Ul rn
. :'l ~ t<J :'l ~ t=l :'l >' >' I~ Ul
,..
"'- "'- >-'3
t=l ttj ,\.Q 0
10 ~
,....
,,,< I~
f-' f-' f-' ..... f-' t-' t-' t-' i-'
0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 W
. ,j:>. ... 0 .... A .... .... .... 0 ~O I~
-l -l ..... -l -l l>,j l>,j -l ..... ':Jl ,~
t-' 0 f-' ..... U1 I..n 0 0 1:;;:1
U1 U1 CO 111 Ul W l>,j I-' 0'1 jg
'"O-l *0:1 t"'<: ":II-' 'tl :E:w Hn :Ilt;:lttj t"'toiJ1;l;t
~O 1J1C1l o ~ C1l1J1 III Ill..... ::J OJ llJ ,....;><: o to . ,.... ,I-'
.....0 )lJ o Ii ::l U1 I-' "<0 Il I-' ::l I-' 'C r1"1ll3:1i ' I
..... 0 III ,.... no .... 0 f--I t-t~ p.. ,.... 0 o . 'C 't'" I~
01 u:1 ::r .-to co (Jl ,... ,.." ::l Ul ::r 0 Ig
. OJ t-' ;-0 13 to III GJ ::l 0 t=l "l CD UJIi I~
p..o- ::0 o Ul co 0. )lJ (l) Ii IiUlo. i:lf:lr1" ~~
r.> Il I1l ;;l III Gl Ii ;;l 0 )lJ llJ II"'"
Ul;>;' ul ul n Il ul ::l ~ Ul 0 .... ,"" 0 I"'
I"'" ;-0' ::r QJ OJ ""'13 i-' ;>;"::r 10
-::l Ii I"'" t;:I Ii o C1l '= .... co l::l
llJ 0 "< H 01 0. ::l ::r ::l ul
Ii 0 0 Ii (i"C!) <L:
;>;" :3 rT ;>;" o Ii
.
:8 oJ CIl ":I 0 CIl 3: Il"> n n rt'tl:;;:l i~
III C OJ I1l (II OJ c: c: ~ o .... CD 0
rt ,.... ::l ::J ::I ::l Q, ::ort () '3 (\l
ro I-' 0. 11 OJ 0. I1l ttj :IlIiO Ul ttj
Ii 0. ::r I1l ~ Il'> :3 0 Gl rt ~ n I~
... QI ro ::0 0 ,.." 0 o Il"> III Ii
t'l ::l .0 ::0 CD ::0 <: ,.." :0 Ii t-'.
"1 ..c Ul ro rt '3 0 QI ...; '3 3:0 ''C
. 0 ::J 0 0 (} f-'l"l Ul ....(l) rT 1::-
Ul C <1'> .-t <: ;>;" ::J to Ul tT i-'-
t-' ::l III '::l QI Ul o 0. Il Ii 0
0 0. t:rl I-' co t-' ,.." ,...- ::J
::l CD ilJ ::l 0 0 Ul
Ii Ii 0 Gl 'tlH1 t;j 0 0 t:
'3 Ii III rr i-' el to 0 t>J
i-'- ... Ii 1-''"0 tTH1 '"'" i:D
::J n ,...- ,... ,.... >-'3 Ii 0 ;:;:I
C1l ilJ 00 ::J t-' ttj .... Ul H
0. Q" \.Q .... n Ul . !II Ul
. C1l Ul ::l >-'3 3: '3
Ul ~ H O. III n
Ul <: c l'#.l 1t""4
ttj ro IW
:;::
t=l ::0 I~
::>
CIl -U> r.> IQ
-U> -U> -U> -U> C 0'1 .on
. w w w [;5 V1 ~ i-"
-U> -U> -U> -U> (1)M"
1.." .... 0 U1 .... w -.j 0 CIl 0 00"<
U1 0 W W U1 0 -.j 0 0'1 M"
-.j 0 w 0 0 ;- 0'1 0 U1 to
0-
\0 /Xl t-'
-l CD \0
-U> r
t;jUl -U> -U> -U> U1 f-I(1)
. PI m t-' w .... IV t-"o.
'"'l ro -U> -U> -U> -U> ro
'" -l 0 U1 0'\ W .... W U1 i-'-Ii
'tl 0 w CD I-' 0 0 -l w O'lll
III 0 .... >0 oIlo I-' ... -.j .... .... l-'
.... C1l
,...,
Ul
III '"OCIl M"n ::::0
Q" Ii 0 ,...-,.... o ,....
. ro III '3 ::lrT ~ H1 Ig
00 <: (j) ~"< '1""
;-0' CD I-'CD
00 ::l ::0 '<:Ii I~
C III () III ro
Ul :3 '<:.0 ::0::1 r
III c III n
(J1\.Q ::0 III rtO
...... ro 11l IJl CD ;:;: l-''':I
i-" .ofT co ro
. Q"O C o III c.
ro C ro-u> H1Ul 0l1l
{Jl l1l IJl CD l1l Ii
rt.... ttj::I: M"$II
rt .... .0.... co f-I
0 C:~ Ii
..... ::r 3
'Ceil )0'-
n 3 Ii ::I
0 III $II
. ::l ::l n rt
I r1" ,.., t-'-
rT 0
'<: ::l
n
OJ
t;:l .., '1J "0 ":J '1J '1J '" rT I~
ro
..0 10
0 I~
'i
'<
H
~ l- I-' I-' -1--11- H
W 0 W 0 0 0 000 0
a ~ a .l'> ~ ~ .,.......... ~ I~
N C'I t.J "" tv tv tvtvN N
N 'J:) N cD Ln C'I en U1 L.,,"1 U1 :s:
I-' Q) N cD Q) I\.l o ~1 ~ I-' ,>
::::l
t"'<: ::;::en 'UN nnr:: ::C:'O-l t"' <: >1-' t"'n<: Ul I-' 9
o :lJ (1) ill Q1C'1 ro 0 0 "'OlO o PJ '1 0 o f-' PJ ~
(1 ., I-' I-' 'i 0 ::I::ll-' >.000 o " '" 0 o ri" '1 3: /-' ......
OJ i-'~ I-'ri" ","0 ri"::l f-' ::J" f-" jlJ f-" N ill '<: "'. <Xl .... I
ri"C tfI f-'- I'D C (l ;;; H1 to ri"O 0 to r+ 0 0 N
,....C ::;:: ::I tIl 'i ;:s (il Ol"'/-' '" C ::I /-' f-' C "l tv Ii
C Ctl f---IQJ '::' >'o(il "'. ,<:ao o (Jl QJ 0 0 (Jl 'i C'I j)J
:l ri" PI 00 a ::I a ::I CD rT rt" ,....
~(") \lOt'> t""'('J jlJ Q (");<;' III (') :>;' tIl m ::1 \.0
~. '1 o ::J" ri"'tl 0 1-" ;;; 0 j~
IT tv <T f-" rT 0> rT ilJ :l
'<: o . Ul '<: '<
::I ri"
en3: 'O"l 19 0'0 'O~ 'n 01Jl '0 '0 en 'Tj'1J '1J In
ill ilJ C t-' ill W OJ PJ I> c ,.... 0 jlJ C 1-0> jlJ 10 I~
iJJ :J ::l 0 >-':! rn 'i ::I rT >-3 ri"O IT <: ::I o <: <: ell >-:i
'-':J" '1:l 0 t:l rT;<;' (1) (il t'l /-'0 ::r I'D " o (D CD en t:l
U1 C 0- G1 11 1-" 1-11 G1 fD " 0 ::l m o.::l OJ C1 G1
,.... :s: f-'. 0 o ;:s 0 rrro ,.... ro ::I ",.ro ro t1 0
tIlr:l o :l ::0 '<:>.0 ",",0 ::0 0- (1) :l ::l ::J :l 1-" >tI
., r"..c ><: ill OJ ><: (Jl rr c:: ..crr rr '0 f<
or:: 0 Q.ttI ('):3 en ri" (T
"C '1 0 ''''1 ,... OJ PJ i:"l rr 0 1-" 0 0 r::
'D <: m H1 3 11..a 0 QJ /-' QJ ~ 1-"
::: ro 'tl 'tl(D '1 =:l 1-" OJ 0
., ::;: (1) ro OJ PJ rr PJ > :l
tfI CD 'd i1 rrrT 'd ..a '<: ..c Gl 0 :AJ
l- e:: Ul I-' 0 c:: 0 ro fl) :'l 0
ttI :l IJl 'i >-3 ..... >
t" LQ~ t'" QJ i1 0 0 Ci
IH OJ H I-' ro c
I~ ,.... (') ::I :l CD 01 en
..... (l ;g If<
to ::r ri" III 1~1 ~
e:: CD 0 .a ~
H rn III
.t" t'" 3:
I~ 0 en
H
0(1) Z 0(1} -{J} ~
w -u> G1 -(!10 ,.... -l -u> ~J> fl)
0 N en -l 0 U1 W ,.... n
V'. -(!10 -{J} s:::,...
w 0 l.l1 l.l1 "" N 0 0 0 .,.. 0 ro(T
0 0 U'1 0 co 0 0 0 \0 0 ['<
.,.. 0 0 0 t<:I ,.... 0 0 0 -l 0
to
c:: Q)
H N
-{J} '1J
N -(!10 :s: > ::- 1~"'1
N N t<:I Ul;;; en;;; 0(1) ,....ro
-(/) z C III C QJ I- (~
I.C /-' U1 >-':! ., f-" '1 f-'.
cc I.C .... <:rT <: rr 0 ;-O''i
U1 co C\ ro ..... ro ..... \.C trl>>
'<::l '< :l .,.. ,.... ,....
>.0 >.0 ro
ze:: rTV'>:J:l OJ c:: QJOlC:: xn
o Z ,... U1 El (JlZ tfI::l Z 011-'
i1 0 o 00 0 0 ",.QJ H
3 t<:I ::l OC Zt<:I Z>tIt<:I :l(Jl ::l
OJ :tl . ::l 0::0 0>-3>t1 ri"m C1)
;- oar\' 'i 1""'1 0 CD ..... ,....
r H1a El> OJ > ::IH1 1-"
(,)'d 0::;: 1ll'1J Oltl:l'tl III 1-"
'" '0 n. .... 1-''0 /-'c'tl :l CD ",.
ri"t:l l-" /-' t:l (Jlt:l no. tr
'<> rt>/-' n> n > CD ,....>,:j
t'" '<: ;;; ....1:"' ..... Ul I:"' OJ ro CD
:;::. QJ::::l rr . rr rT . tIl 0.
OJ en '" ;.-' '< '< 0 OCD
;.-'(') C rT (Jl 'tl Z (ll l"\
:l 0 '1 f-' CD 3:n :;::. I:"' 0 rt"1ll
ri"::l <: ::l Ill/-' ill 0 11 C1) I-'
Ii) m rD LQ ri" ....Ill f-" n () ;3 11
::l i'" '< 0 ::I 1Jl ::I f-' III QJ ;:l
QJCo (') r1'1Jl rTQlrt t-' 1-"
::l (1l o '0 ro ..... CD III ..... ::l
o 11 30 ::lHl ::I CIl 0 n 1II
ro ro 'tlUl QJ 1-" OJ ""::1 .... IT
Q. I-'(Jl ::I ro ::I H1 rt 1-"
CD ,... no. c:l "'...... '< 0
r1'0' m m CD (Jl :l
I I-' 0.
m
n
.- ill
. '0 "0 :=:1 1"1" I~
III
<.Q
0
>i I~
j'< I
Ii--!
f-' '-' f-' ~H
W 0 0 i
... 0 .,. .,. l?ii l_
... f-' '" ..... '~
0 '" ...... I~ l:a
..... ..... Ul
jQ
,....
::c n::;; ~tJj
c m 0 Ullll -'
3 :3 0 0> I
UJ lD P. q t-' N
.. ::I rt- ;:; 0
... Q W t"' n
=- h; UJ ~ III ......
0 '< :;: m rt- ' '"
Hl ::I Ul ..... iOJ
H'I rT 0 I~
i-' h; :s
(J 0
(f) 0
:3
...
.
>-3::0 03: IJl n
.., c ro 0 1"1" 0 i:3
c UI Ul UI h; ClI
(J rt- rt"0> C UI t'l
;>;"' h; .... n n Cl
0 o (J rt- Ii 0
0> '< C i-" ~
:3 (f) >-3 '> '1:l ><
OJ P. ..... OJ rt" I:
<.Q ...... t-' .....
lD rll 0
0 ::I
rt" 3: OJ
0 C :3 0
'> 0>
UJ cO Hl I~
2' f-' III 0
:3 I~
0> llJ
::I 3
(f) llJ
l!l
IClI
-U> ;:n ~
;:n N W .on
. t-' t-' 0 C .....
1ll!'1'
Ul 0 0 tIl'<
'" 0 0 !'1'
OJ 0 0 m
0-
;:n r
N t:lnlJl-U> t-'m
. ..... 0> Q f-' 1-'. P.
rt"ro~ ro
0 ro ..... 1-'...,
0 <.Q a Q"llJ
0 0 a t-' ~
l"'l m
'<
:"'0 02:
H'l11J CO
... rt-3 h; ][
- lD I1J .....1Jl
1i<.Q :s IT
ro t!lh;
(J) C ~
!'1'(j IJlrl
o llJ C IT .....
1'1 C h; c: tr
3 tIl <: 'i I-''''l
~ (i) ro OJ m !1l
c. '<I-' 05'
... z
00' 0 I~ ci
rt-'< OJ
:3 01-'
t:::l'ti W 1-1
'<llJ cO :3
rt" rll .....
1Jl'i ::I
1"1"0 "l :II
o I-' 0 rt'
. 1'1 ..... C .....
3 :s ::I 0
cO C. :s
.-
..
.-
-
APPENDIX 3
EXPLANATORY NOTES ON DEVELOPMENT COSTS
.-
-
(1) The reconstructon estimate ~s based on the estimates
provided
by the Federal/State Inspection Team.
The maJor
-
-
recalculaton is in the cost of p11ing. As noted earlier in this
report, FEMA estimates piling at $2,500; the City has used
$7,500.
The figure for FEMA re~mbursement used here is based on
.-
-
the DSR team estimate for replacement to condition pr10r to
storms. Th1S section also includes a cost for "betterment" whiCh
allows the C1ty to have flexibility in designing a stronger P1er.
The $1,500,000 for betterment is based on cost of $5,000 per p11e
.
which could be a stronger timber p1le or a concrete pile. The
$500,000 for reinforcement of existing Pier structure represents
...
-
the cost for reinforcing and/or replacing piling and existing
superstructure wh~ch were damaged by the storm. Staff estimates
that FEMA might Judge only 25% of the necessary repairs to be
.
related to latest storms.
It should be noted that the FEMA reimbursement w~ll be based
on the final bid the City accepts minus the ineligible costs and
betterments.
(2a) Funds for the restoration work to be completed in FY
1983-84 have already been committed, except for the funds for the
reconstruct~on
design and engineering study which will be
-
..
.
-
-
requested in advance from FEMA and the $50,000 for Environmental
and Parking studies which 1S included in Parking Authorlty
FY83-84 budget. The Recreat10n Un1t Tax 1S a carryover from the
-
-
FY82-83 pier capital Budget.
The $500,000 from the Coastal
Conservancy has been adJusted to reflect the results of the
Charrette compet1tlon. ~e $320,000 earmarked for the Entry Park
...
..
has been shown by the design f1rms to be insufficient to cover
cost of Entry Park.
Thus, the amount has been increased to
$415,000 by shift1ng Coastal conservancy funds formerly allocated
for the south Promenade and Overlook.
These projects wlll be
included in New Non-Commercial constructlon which will take place
1n several years. Staff proposes that Request-for-Proposal be
issued to private development community for renovat~ng and
leasing Sinbad's.
City funds will be used to repair the Pier
structure underneath the building. Staff will return to Council
with the draft RFP within Slxty days.
(2b) The new commercial construction 1S assumed to be built
by private developers and not the City. The maln advantage lS
that the tenant 1S able to depreclate construct10n costs whereas
the City would not ga1n any tax advantages through construction.
(2c) The non-commercial new construction may also be seen as
"betterment" over the pre-storm deS1gn since these projects may
be built at the western end of the P1er. The two proJects wh~ch
were scheduled for the first $500,000 of Coastal Conservancy
funding are included here. The funds for construction of these
.
.
revenues
may be provided by the
which will be used
capitilization of future lease
to fund those port10ns of the
prOJects
.
reconstruct~on not covered by Federal funds. The design and
engineering study for these "betterments" has been inflated to
account for the requirements over and above what FEMA w~ll pay.
.
(2d) The Loan Fund for ex~sting leased facilities may be a
lump sum pool that could fund capital improvements if the lessee
were unable to secure financing elsewhere. The repayment would
be in the form of e1ther a low-interest loan or an ~ncrease in
rent.
.
.
(2e) The $500,00 is an est~mate of necessary upgrading to
existing utilities on the Pier.
.
(3) Based on study, the City can expect to receive $1,217
gross income per parking space per year ($1,217 x 1650 =
$2,008,000). Expenses are estimated at $150 per stall per year
($150 x 1650 = $247,000.) Thus, net parking income per year is
$1,761,050. This income could cover the debt service on a 30
year bond as 12% to cover the cost of constructon, and 1t would
yield add~tonal revenue to be used toward the operat10n of clle
Pier. The number of spaces, 1650, represents the number
estimated to be required by Coastal Commission to replace parking
that was on the Pier and to provide for parking for new
commercial development and for any parking that might be removed
from the 1550 beach lot. The costs in the body of the report
.
.
.
.
.
.
reflect a range of spaces fr~~ 1000 to 1650 to give greater
latitude ~n the reconstruct Lon and restoration.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
..
APPENDIX C
BREAKDOWN OF COST FOR RECONSTRUCTION
COST FOR REPLACEMENT
(Based on FEMA Est~mates &
C~ty Eng~neer~ng Estimates)
Superstructure:
:-1un~c~pal P~er
Lower deck: 24,486 SF @ $25
8,400 SF @ $19
Upper deck: 24,826 SF @ $44
;:\/ewcorrb P 1er
45,127 SF @ $31
Bu~ld~ngs:
Harbor Off1ce (947 SF @ $80)
Santa Mon~ca Sportf~sh~ng (1,023
Peterson Boat Ho~st (116 @ $80)
Ed~son Vault (297 SF @ $80)
Restrooms (710 SF @ $100)
Port Cafe (849 SF @ $80)
Oat~an Rock Shop (280 SF @ $80)
Boat Storage Area (532 SF @ $80)
C~ty sump Pump Room (224 @ $80)
C~ty we1d1ng Roo~ (350 @ $80)
:-1ar1ne B1010gy Room (280 @ $80)
Harbor Storage/We~ght Rill/
Sorkshop (1386 SF @ $80)
T~de Stat~on (84 SF @ $80)
L~feguard Workshop (348 SF @ $80)
Lockers (7290 SF @ 580)
$ 75,760
@ $80) 81,840
9,280
23,760
71,000
67,920
22,400
42,560
17,920
28,000
22,400
110,880
6,720
27,840
538,200
Ra~11ngs
Sta~rs/Gangways
Floats
L~ghtl.ng
Water Ma1n (8") (400 LF @ $96)
,vater MaEl (6") (300 LF @ $72)
Sewer Maln (6") (400 LF @ $45)
M1SC. Ut111t1es (gas, power, telephone)
Refuse Bl.ns (12 @ 5300)
Ch11dproof fenc~ng (14000 LF @ $2)
Electr~cal SW1tchgear
Wooden Benches (50 @ $551
Hlstorlcal Photo Dlsplay
Boat H01StS
Pumps/Motors/Eng~nes
~"'ork Barge
S 662,150
159,600
1,092,344
1,398,937
1,191,480
112,740
24,800
51,600
70,000
38,400
21,600
18,000
82,000
3,600
2,800
30,000
2,700
20,000
70,000
35,000
7,000
.
.
Moor~ngs, Buoys, Dav~ts
D1v1ng Equ~pment
Water Heater & 2 showers
Fireboxes
F~re L~ne
M~sc. (EquLpment, Furnishings)
.
Total Cost for Replacement:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
12,000
3,500
2,000
700
825
32,000
5,105,776
.
APPENDIX D
. CALCULATION OF CAPITALIZATION OF LEASE REVENUE
Total
Base Lease
Square Foota<;;e Rent Pevenue
(annual (annual)
per SF)
3,600 Cornmerc~al $15 $ 54,000
(3,600 Publ1c)
10,000 S15 150,000
2,000 $15 30,000
2,400 $15 36,000
2,400 $15 36,000
2,400 $15 36,000
4,000 $15 60,000
2,400 $15 36,000
2,000 $15 30,000
31,200 $468,000
. New Construct1on
Phase ~ Phase II
S~nbads
. Restaurant
M1SC. Vendors
Farmer's :-larket
Fanuly Cafeter1a
Cafes-F1sh Bar
Restaurant
. M~sc. Reta~l
Famlly Arcade
The chart above ~llustrates a means by Wh1Ch Clty m1ght borrow aga1nst
.
the lease revenue of new comMerc~al development on the P1er. The con-
struct10n 1S d1v~ded 1nto two phases: Phase I could beg1n once the
ex~st~ng port~ons of ~ewcomb P1er have been re1nforced to carry a l~ve
. load of 100 pounds per square foot. Phase II would occur over a per10d
of 2-5 years.
The aIDount of lease revenue generated from the bus1nesses llsted under
. Phase I equals $306,000 annually. G~ven th1S cash flow the C~ty TI1ght
borrow $2.55 m~ll~on (30 year bond at 12% 1nterest).
The total annual
cash flow of $468,000 could be cap1ta11zed at 12% ever 30 years to
Y1eld $3.9 m1l110n.
Th~s scenar~o 15 based on the follow1ng asslli~pt~ons:
1) That $15 represents base rent SlnGe lenders would not lend on
a fluctuat1ng amount such as percentage of gross sales. The
f~gure of S15 1S based on Clty requ~r1ng $1.25 per square feat
per month as base rent.
-
.
.
2) The $15 ~s net of expenses.
3) Any adJustments w11l be made on percentage of gross sales
requlred and not ln the base rent, (~e. lower percentage from
10% to 5-7% of gross sales as means of enabling developer
to amort~ze lmprovernents.)
.
.
.
.
#
.
.
.
.
.
". ( ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..