SR-11-E (6)
.
--
II-e
OCT 1 4 1980
Santa M.:>nice., Californi.a, October 3, 1980
~R
TO:
Mayor and City Council
OCT 2 8 1980
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT: Santa. Monica. Pier Structural. Repair
/ =~.= ,A-
-./
Introduction
This report concerns certain structural defic1encies at the Santa. Monica Pier
and reconunends that City Council appropria.te funds to aJ.low repair and improve-
ment in the structural integrity of the Pier.
Backelround
Various areas of the Santa Monica. Pier are in need of repair or replacement o:f
structural elements to IlIRintain continued Pier use and to ensure structuraJ.
integrity of the Pier. For example, a.pproximately one-third (1/3) of the Pier
parking area must be repaired or closed. The area is becoming too hazardous for
continued public Use. Also it is impossible to proceed with an improved tra.t'fic
circulation plan until such time as structural repairs are me.de.
In the turn around area at the Pier's west.erly end (Harbor Of'fice area) a spot
check revealed eleven (il) piles which were 50 cj, to 75 cj, deteriora.ted. These
piles shouJ.d be repla.ced; an inspection of the entire Pier area. and replacement
01" "'-11_ deteriora.ted pilings is indicated by this partial. survey.
There are certain areas under existing buildings on the Pier wherein the buildings
bave 11 ttle or no structural support. Certain other hazardous conditions exist which
need to be el i~-i:_nRt.ed in the interest of public safety.
staf':f considers that Pier repair should be an ongoing project with funds a.ppropriated
from Pier Revenue as a.vailable and :from the General. Fund on a. loan ba.sis until
such time as the major repair problems at. the Pier are eliminated.
A. major Pier reconstruction project ha.s been completed in the former Bumper Car
(Fiesta Games) area. Staff believes it is impera;tive that corrective work con-
tinue in other critical areas. Correct! ve work will be limited by available funds
which at the present time is $472,944.00. This amount represents available
Pier net revenue as of September 30, 1980. Staf'f believes the prudent approach
is to appropriate this uncommitted revenue to continue the work in the reduction
of the major structural problems and safety hazards. This appropriation and
.tR
'OCT 2 8 f9S0
, ,. f-
OCT 1 4 19~
.
-
.Mqor and City Council.
-2-
October 3, 1980
'Work should be followed by a General Fund Loan to allow further work at a
future date.
AlterJ;lS;tive Actions
1. Do nothing.. Lack of action w:Ul. eventuAlly require closing of the
Pier. It could result in accident or injury to life and 11mb.
2. Terminate leases in the critical areas. This is onJ.y a partial solution
as a failure in one area couJ.d carryover to adjacent areas. It does
nothing to eliminate hazards 1n vacant or common use areas.
3. Require individual Lessees to correct hazardous P1er structural
conditions. This is required on maJor new Pier Leases, but is generaJ.ly
not practical for the present s!!'l.S311 pier business as the SlJIA11 business
lessee c~nnot finance the work.
4. Appropriate available Pier revenue in the amount of $400,000.00, to be
applied to Pier repair, together with authority for Staff to prepare
pJ.a.ns and advertise for bids for Pier repair work.
Recommendation
Sta:f'f' recommends the approval of alternative No.4, the a.ppropriation of
$400,000.00 from available Pier Revenue, together 'With authority for Staff
to proceed with plans and b1dd{ng f:or Pier repair vork.
Prepared by: David L. Shi-rey
DATE.
TO.
FROM
SUBJECT
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
October 2, 1980
~ayor and CouncilrnembeTs
Councilman Jennings
Agenda Item: October 14, 1980
It 15 requested that at the meeting of October 14, 1980
the City Council discuss the future of the Santa Monica
/'3-C-
~Cl 1. 4 \98lJ
Sf1n
OCT 2 8 198Q
Pier including any long range goals for future development.
511t9
eel' 2. B \980
li-G,
~C1 1. ~ \~~
e
___{ l L ? L
-.
l.. ( c'
-......-"~-
) ~
-.
-
., it'; l
. ,-::i l.
~ I '
_,.1 r/ t~- ^ JL-
'. -"') t
/.../.'l",
-f- "- --<-- i...~
,y,L. _ C/LL
'L
---'-
"- .:. .t"-
__ L- KL
'... .-J
, /
4t~
l'
l_ _ f..- ~')
C
. ..~. }
...._..;....L
Jl- ?/.-L ,c
{
i .
./
~(;~
q
...
-')
0(../
2 ~ SI c', (.
,.-
..'
v
~. v--;~
G
.-/
;:<:A
;!
_J
112
., -c- {/
:.......(,.-(
~ - 1J '
/ /' :. L' ,/? :.-.c.----'
, C1 C~-?-l-0 7'-&" < a{
t,-- ,~( [l
&.-~ c1 ?7~/
5~A A
,
i......
fL- L
.-'
II.::- .
., t
J'
~ -L~- 0/_2---t. ·
/
'-- JJ LL () 2.12-
'-
I
"
"
'--....- "t /1
... 1....(/';'-- ....._C
(. ,,//....-1.- ._.C-.....'\...
I
" L''' .1
Il. '__ (..~. ..... c..- ~.
y
'- J ~~^- V
/ /1...
,
'/
} 7
,I....
i
tZ ;
- !-
r
0-
'-J
'I fU.f! /:-)
--.,
-iz~
f '
/ (
e-?CidL
t. ~'-
L t~y,--
t-(
,.
C- (. l t^... c2.
I
--i---
/ .
!..-~ /~'-1.. 'l..A-~ i./ j.
.J
/'
:) (? 6 pJ- l C ~ /
f
t,
./
-",L~;
i ~.
Vl-"-t...&~
-)
"
.
--
'-
/Jtlcf~~t~ ~
SAlt
J'
OCT 2 8 1980
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
WILLIM1 H. JENNINGS
DATE:
October 17, 1980
RE:
DEVELOPt1ENT OF THE PIER
In connect~on with my agenda item relat~ng to the pier,
I would like for the Council to dlSCUSS the followlng lssues;
1. DO we want a small craft harbor? Several
groups have contacted me and other members of the Council
concernlng development of a small craft harbor around the
breakwater, and we should declde now whether there 1S suffl-
Clent Interest on the part of the Councll concerning such
ldea.
2. ~~lle malntainlng the eXlsting low-lncome uses on
the pler, do we wlsh to expand the range of uses and the
range of lncomes to which the pIer appeals?
3. To what extent and under what condltlons are
revenue bonds useful and practlcal for development of the
pler and replacement of deteriorated pll1ngs?
4. Is there lnterest on the Caunell for an appro-
priate development of the parkIng area on the pier and
canstruct~on of a new park1ng structure off the pier and
probably to the lmmediate north?
5. What optlffium IDlxture of restaurants, fast food
establlslli~ents, retall stores, enterta~nment, etc. do we
w~sh to see on the pler?
6. Do we wlsh to upgrade, remove or leave alone the
breakwater? In thlS regard, I am lnformed that the portlon
between the beach and the break,'later lS Itsllting up" and
dredging or some other mechanlsm wllllbe needed ln the near
future. Furthermore, lt may be necessary to retaln the
breakwater ln order to prevent gradual deterloratlon of the
beaches to the south of the pler.
7. Do we wish to have boat slips for the launchlng of
small boats into the ocean to the north of the pler?
rlt:ld~T(~ 10
~1I11
OCT 2 8 1980
.
-
8. Cons~der~ng the fact that the maJor damage to the
pler occurs to the lower deck, do we w~sh to retain such
lower deck?
9. Do we wIsh to upgrade the Promenade to the south
of the pler?
10. Do we wLsh to shlft management of the pler from
the City staff to a master lessee or a management company?
WHJ:wp
2 .