sr-012373-10a71-C-73
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
'~ ~
~~
DATE: ~ Nover''i~ier 5, 1971
~L '
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Perry Scott, City Manager
SUBJECT: Ocean Front Revitalization
Re c omme ndati o n
It is recommended that the City Council approve a-general plan for the
POP and Santa T/onica-Newcomb Pier areas which will:
1. Authorize negotiations with the State for the exchange of
land (shaded red on Exhibit B) wherein:
a. The City acquires title to the area adjacent to the
Santa Monica-Newcomb Pier;
b. The State acquires title to the area of the P. O. P.
Lease (except portion leased to Redevelopment
Agency) after the pier improvements have been
removed at Iocal expense; and
c. 'The City agrees to operate the area deeded to the
State for only public beach use.
2. Authorize the removal of the City Pier concurrently with
the demolition of the Newco*.r~b tier. The existing lease
(Newcomb Pier) expires February 28, 1973 and the Lessee
is required to demolish the pier •,cithin six months there-
after. (See August. 11, 1Q70 Report);
3. Authorize the creation of anisland of approxiraa-tel3r 30<a~~~e rte, ,:,• ~
behind the existing breakwater to provide improved rec2°z=atib4i"`
and tourist facilities; and ~`~~ T~' ~`
~~ , ,l ~ ~ a ~ ~s~
tdOV 9 1971
~rr~IS MUS1` sE
RETURNED TO THE
CITY CLERK'S OFI~ ICE
FOR FILING.
/~2 373
~te~ ~o°A
To: The Honorable City Council
November 5, 1971 (71-C-73)
page 2
4. Authorize the purchase of all propertg not presently owned
by the City or the State west of Appian Way between Colorado
and Arcadia Terrace as budgeted funds are available.
(Approximately 70,000 square feet)
In General
It is indisputable that Santa Monica beach and harbor facilities and
ancillary uses have been in a state of disrepair and deterioration. for
many years.. The existing breakwater, for example, is the remnant
of an imposing facility planned in the early 1930`s which:
1. Consisted of a planned reinforced concrete crib breakwater
which was not completed because the first concrete cribs
were destroyed overnight after they were. sunk into position;
and.
2. Was replaced by a rock mound breakwater which began to
collapse or deteriorate almost as soon as it was corsipleted.
Apparently, the deterioration occurred on account of inade-
quate rock size. Efforts directed toward rehabilitation have-
been quite unsuccessfulthroughoutthe intervening years.
(See Exhibit A)
The financial consequences (for the taxpayers) of the operation of the
_ public piers could be described in the same general terms.. The amuse-
ment park operation at Pacific Ocean Park was terminated by bankruptcy
proceedings which leaves the Taxpayer holding the sack for:
Not only unpaid rental and taxes; but the most substantial cost
of removing the pier and returning the area. to beach or some
other use.
The City Pier and harbor operation has not represented what one could
describe as afinancial success. Since the reconstruction of the pier in
1956-57 at a cost of $3. 70 per square foot the taxpayers have footed the
bill for maintenance costs at the annual rate of 26fi per square foot and:
i
To: The Honorable City Council page 3
November 5, 1971 (71-C-73)
1, Currently we are faced with a major structural rehabilitation
project if the pier is to be retained with an estimated cost
substantially in excess o£$100, 000, (See August 11, 1970
Report)
2, The cost of pier and harbor. operation (exclusive of pier
structural maintenance) exceeds. revenues from. pier use by
about $80, 000 annually.
3, Harbor dredging is not included in any of the foregoing costs
and there. is currently substantially in excess of 1, 000, 000
cubic yards of sand which must be moved if harbor use is to
be continued,
4, The cost of dredging in the past has been:
$250, 000 in 1949-50 at about 25~` per yard
$300, 000 in 1957-58 at about 50~` per yard
The current cost of dredging is estimated.
at 80~+ per .cubic yard.
5. Had we been setting aside annually the money required to
finance periodic dredging, the additional local taxpayers
contribution would have been increased $75, 000 to $100, 000
annually,
Recreation Use
The justification for Public Ocean FronYFacilities is quite properly the
recreation use of such facilities by residents and tourists. The principal
recreation uses consist of:
1, Swimming, surfing and beach use.
2, Recreation fishing from the pier,
3, Access to commercial sports fishing boats,
4, Limited pleasure boat open water mooring,
5. Limited small boat storage on the pier,
6. Sight seeing and dining in the beach area,
To: The Honorable City Council
November 5, 1971 (71-C-73)
page 4
I am sure it is agreed that the greatest use of such facilities is made
by those who use the beach to the exclusion of .the pier and harbor.
Even though the non-beach use is only a fraction of the total use, the
other recreational facilities should be maintained if such retention can
be accomplished with reasonable economy. This office is satisfied:
1. Except for permanent boat mooring facilities, other recrea-
tion and tourist uses can not only be retained but improved
without retention of the pier; and
2. Such improvement in the recreation facilities and esthetics can
be accomplished along with a reduction in cost to the local
taxpayer.
Proposed Island
A principal factor supporting the creation of an island is the existence
of the present breakwater and the probability that it will continue to be
impossible to obtain federal or state approval for its removal. .The
breakwater acts as a sand trap and is a major beach erosion control
facility. (See Exhibit A - 1950 Corps of Engineers Report. )
Another major factor. is the widespread belief (shared by this
office} that in the absence of dredging, the area between the
beach and the breakwater would fill.
In the May, 1950 Corps of Engineers-report on "Accretion of
Beach Sand Behind a Detached Breakwater" it was observed
that: ---"Left to itself, the Santa Monica Breakwater which was
the same distance offshore but is longer than the Venice Break-
water, will probably become connected to the mainland." ---
(underscore added)
The City has been unsuccessful in obtaining any financial assistance or
participation (since 1957-58)for dredging in the harbor area. Accordingly,
it is quite clear that such dredging must be done at local expense. In 1966
this cost was estimated to average $100, 000 annually over the succeeding
25 years.
To: The Honorable City Council
November 5, 1971 (71-C-73)
page 5
The proposed island will not correct the sand deposition problem
but will .provide the financial resources to fund the cost of dredging.
The island concept (in the opinion of this office) offers many advantages
as compared with the present or an expanded pier. These advantages are:
` 1. Greatly improved recreational use opportunities along the
perimeter of the island.
2. Greater opportunity for creativity in the design and esthetic
treatment of the island.
3, Greatly reduced structural maintenance expense as opposed to
a pier (about one-fifth) and, if properly constructed, the absence
of periodic reconstruction.
4, Greater revenue potential on account of difference in the perman-
ency of development and the expansion of quality tourist facilities.
An additional financial advantage in either case (island or pier) is the fact
that the City can now approve a 66 year lease which will permit financing
of the entire development by private capital,
Property Exchange with State
The proposed property exchange with the State, if approved, will permit
not only central location but single location of all marine development in
Santa Monica. It will also:
1. Increase desirable swimming or surfing beach area in Santa
Monica; and
use of the area behind the breakwater.
r
cc: Gity Clerk
City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Finance
Director_of Recreation & Parks
Recreation Commission
attachments: Exhibit A
Exhibit B
August 11, 1970 report
(70-C-5b)
BREAKWATER/HARBOR
1931 - 1971
Bonds in the amount of $690, 000 to finance the construction of a "reinforced
cement concrete crib breakwater, connected to the existing. Municipal Pier
by a suspension bridge", were approved in 1931 by a 3 to 1 majority and were
issued on September 1, 1932. The picture of the proposed harbor used in pro-
. moting the Bond Issue showed a fancy, smooth surfaced seawall capped by an
imposing promenade, connected by bridge to the-.Municipal Pier. Slips from
the wall and from the Pier provided easy access to small boats. Anchorages
were provided for large boats in the 100 acres of quiet water behind the seawall.
In September 1932 a contract for this construction was entered into with the
Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company in the amount of $539, 533. In a
memo to the City Manager dated December 7, 1950, the City Engineer, 'who
was in the City's employ (but not City Engineer) during this period, summar-
ized this sequence of events as follows:
"After the first concrete ca;sson had been constructed at San .Pedro,
towed to Santa Monica, and sunk into position, it was destroyed
overnight by the action of the currents in undermining both ends.
The City Council-then retained D. E. Hughes, rztired U. S. Army
Engineer, to advise the City as to what should be done. (Mr. Hughes
designed and supervised construction of the San Pedro Breakwater)."
"Mr. Hughes recommended a Change Order calling for a rock mound
breakwater, and the size of the cross section selected by Ivlr. Hughes
was governed very much by the funds available to complete the 2, 000
feet of breakwater. He was careful to point out to the City Council
that the cross section used was a minimum and that considerable
maintenance work could be expected in fixture. years. "
After receiving Mr. Hughes' report, the City Council, by Resolution
No. 1080 (Commissioners' Series), ordered the construction changed
_ in accordance with Mr. Hughes' recommendation.
On January 8, 1935, by Resolution No. 1347 (Commissioners' Series.), the City
Council requested the Federal Government to make a new survey of Santa Monica
Harbor. The City's Report, given at the March 12, 193o Public Hearing on the
proposed survey before the U. S. Corps of Engineers proposed an extension of
about 2, 000 feet in the existing breakwater and the addition of two more break-
water sections. One section north and one south of the existing breakwater
which would have created a harbor across the entire Santa Adonica frontage on
Santa Monica Bay.
EXHIBIT A-1
On April 1, 1936 the District Engineer, U. S. Corps of Engineers,
submitted his Preliminary Report on the proposed survey. He
concluded that "the improvement of Santa Monica Harbor. . is
not economically justified in the interests of general commerce and
navigation. He further concludes that maintenance. ,by
dredging is similarly not justified. The district engineer therefore
recommends that Santa Monica Harbor, California be not improved
by the United States. at this time, and that no survey be made."
The City's appeal was unsuccessful as was the October 26, 1939
- Report and request for funds--apparently a modification of the
March 1936 Report. The project now envisioned was a 2, 000 foot
southeasterly e:ctension of the existing breakwater--together, of
course, with breakwater rehabilitation and harbor dredging.
In 1946, in connection with a proposed Los Angeles. County Master Plan for
the development of Santa Monica Bay Shoreline between Topanga Canyon and
E1 Segundo, .the County proposed, and the. City of Los Angeles recommended,
the removal of the breakwater, for the reason that such removal would
accomplish the same result as periodic dredging and, in addition,. would
prevent further blocking of the littoral drift, Also, the stone could be used
for construction of groins. This plan also contemplated the acquisition (in
Santa Monica) of all private property between the ocean and the Pacific Coast
Highway north of Colorado and the ocean and about the old Speedway south of
Colorado.
On February 14, 1949 the Corps of Engineers announced that they
would hold a hearing on March 22, 1949 to "give local interests an
opportunity to present plans for the. .protection against
erosion. . of the shoreline owned by the State. . " On
March 14, 1949, in response to an invitation to make a presentation
at the Hearing, the City replied as follows: !'No plan of improve-
ment and protection against erosion of shoreline owned by the City
of Santa Monica is to be presented. City will. file a letter with
the District Engineer in answer to their question'What would it
cost the City of Santa Monica in direct cost and loss of revenue
both public and private if the breakwater were removed' ".
-0n November 8, 1949, by Resolution No. 361 (City Council Series) the Council
disapproved the Los Angeles plan of breakwater removal referred to above
and endorsed the not-yet-released report of the Chief of Engineers on the
Corps' Beach Erosion Control Study covering the California Coast from Point
Mugu to San Pedro. (lt was known that this Report would recommend reten-
tion of the Breakwater. )
EXHIBIT A-2
On September 1, 1950 the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers,
released the Beach Erosion Control Report referred to above.
This report, later concurred in by the Chief of Engineers and sub-
. sequently released as House Document No. 277, 83rd Congress,
2nd Session, recommended "rehabilitation of the Santa Monica
breakwater for use as a sand trap.."
By Contract 1005 (City Council Series) entered into October 22, 1957, the City
engaged George Nicholson, Consulting Engineer, to prepare a Master Plan of
Harbor Development. On February 10, 1958 Mr. Nicholson submitted his
report, together with a Schematic Plan of Harbor Development. This plan
envisions a southeasterly extension of the existing breakwater, .angling in
toward the shore, together with a northerly extension angling toward the
shore at California Avenue, with a bridged opening between the end. of the
breakwater and the beach, and provisions for dredging of the accreted sand
in this area, which would be required at about eight month intervals. No part
of this plan has been implemented.
On November 1, 1965 the City Council adopted two resolutions pertaining to
harbor development and breakwater rehabilitation. Resolution No. 3360 {City
Council Series) requested "the State Department of Water Resources to Pro-
ceed with Plans to Rehabilitate the Santa Monica Breakwater as a Beach Erosion
Facility. "
By letter dated March 16, 1966 the Department of Water Resources
informed us that the Gorps planned to restudy the rehabilitation of
the breakwater as part of the review of House Document No. 277;
however, said review Iaad not yet been scheduled.
Resolution 3361 (City Council Series) requested "Congress (to) Include Funds
in the Next Federal Budget for a Study to be Conducted by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers to Determine the Feasibility of Establishing a Small
Craft Harbor at Santa Monica. "
By letter dated February 7, 1966 the Corps informed us that the
preparation of a single report covering the North Coast of Los
Angeles County, and considering sites in the Santa Monica, Point
Dume, and Malibu Creek areas,. had been approved. This study is
now in progress, with the present emphasis on the Point Dume area.
In 1966 a plan was developed providing for a Harbor Island which would incor-
porate therein the existing breakwater. This plan was submitted to the electorate
as a Bond Issue in early 1967 but failed to receive the necessary two-thirds
majority.
EXHIBIT A-3
Qn April 20, 1967 the Corps of Engineers held another Public Hearing on a
Survey Report for Beach Erosion Control. This probably was the start of
the review of House Document 277 referred to in the Department of Water
Resources letter of March 16, 1966. City representatives appeared at this
hearing. and again requested an allocation of funds to rehabilitate the break-
water. We have received no reports or information on the status of this
'', study.
DREDGING
In November-December 1949 and January 1950, 960, 000 cubic yards of sand
were dredged from the harbor at a cost of approximately $250, 000. This cost
was shared as follows:
50% - State of California
50°jo - County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, and
City of Santa Monica.
Again in 1957-58 the harbor was dredged--about 600, 000 cubic yards being
removed at a cost of approximately $300, 000. A11 of this cost. was borne by
the State. This was not the total quantity that should have. been removed--
the size of the job was tailored to fit the available funds. In spite of repeated
efforts to obtain State and/or Federal financing for subsequent dredging, no
further dredging has been accomplished,
The quantity of excess sand deposition between the breakwater
and the shore has not been measured in recent years. It is
certain, however, that the amount which should be moved (for
harbor use) is substantially in excess of i, 000, 000 cubic yards.
EXHIBIT A-4
;_ `
CITY OF SANTA MONICA 70-C-56
DATE: August 11, 1970
TO: The Honorable Gity Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Newcomb Pier
Pursuant to the instruction of the Gity Council to determine the price at
which Mrs. Enid Newcomb Winslow would 'ooth transfer the unexpired terr_~
of the existing lease and sell to the Gity the parcel of land at the east end of
the pier, the administration has discussed the subject at seme length with
Mrs. Window's representatives. The attached correspondence and docu-
ments maybe more easily followed after reviewing the basic status of the
lease and the. location and size of the land sought to be acquired.
1. The pier is situated on tidelands held in trust by the City for
the people of California. The pier and the tidelands area were
leased to Walter and Er_id Newcomb for a period of 21 years
beginning March 1, 1.952 and ending February 28, 1973 for
$250. 00 per mon*.h.
The lease requires the Lessees to "at all tunes during the
term hereof, keep such wharf or pier and all structures
thereon, in good repair and safe condition" (Section 5).
The lease also requires the Lessees to "within six (6} months
after the expiratior, of the term of this .leas e, or after any
sooner termination thereof, remove at their own cost and
expense such wharf or pier; and any and all other structures
s from said premises . ".(Section 9).
2. The land owned by hors. Winslow is at the east end of the pier
between the 1921 Mean High Tide Line and the Promenade. The
parcel has a frontage of 247. 74 feet along the Promenade and
extends approximately 115 feet westerly from the Promenade to
the 1921 ivlean High Tide Line. The parcel contains 29, 714
square feet. (See Exhibit A--plat; Exhibit X--Preliminary
Title Report; and Exhibit XXX--Legal Opinion. )
-1-
The Honorable City Council
August 11, 1970
70-C-56
In view of the. Lessees' obligation to remove the pier and the structures
thereon (at an estimated cost of $180, OOO a few years ago}, it was the
opinion of the administration that Mrs. Winslow should be willing to
_ complete the sale and transfer on the following basis: (See Exhibit B. )
A. The City would waive the right. to insist upon structural
repairs or demolition in return for assigning the unexpired
term of the lease to the City without further compensation:
and.
B. The City would agree to buy and you would agree to sell
your fee-owned property at the value fixed by a panel of
three appraisers--one appointed by the City, one appointed
by you, and the third appointed by the appraisers selected
by the parties.
Or. the. issue of value of the 29, 714 square feet of land owned by Mrs. Winslow
at the east end of the pier, it should be noted that the City acquired the
Deauville Property at an average price of not to exceed $5. 13 per square
foot and that the remaining undeveloped property in the Redevelopment
Project Area was appraised for resale at an average price of $5. 00 per
square foot. In these cases:
1. The Deauville Property is bf greater area (68, 636 square feet)
. and has frontage on the Pacific Coast Highway, on the Promenade
and on the 1921 Mean High Tide Line. It is better situated in
terms of surrounding environment than is the Winslow Property
and can be developed with greater flexibility, due to size and
- location.
2. The Redevelopment Project Area does not have frontage on the
Promenade or the 1921 Mean High Tide Line. It is, however,
a consolidated parcel of 20 ± acres with frontage on Barnard
Way, Neilson Way and Ocean Park Boulevard. Existing
structures, as well as applicable development standards, make
the project area one of the more desirable in the beach area.
The economic suitability of the existing .pier for future development (on
account of probable structural deficiencies) is most questionable. If
-2-
The Honorable City Council
August 11,1970
90 -G - 56
reconstruction and annual maintenance equal the cost incurred by the City
on the city pier, we have a potential cost of: (See Report of Director of
Public. Works--Exhibit. XX. )
A. Reconstruction cost of $1, 033, 646 for piling superstructure
and replacement. (Exhibit XX--page 4)
B. Annual maintenance cost of $7I, 650 for Z75, 580 square feet
at 26~ per square foot.. , (Exhibit XX--page 5)
In any event, a detailed engineering examination of the Newcomb Pier shoald
be completed prior to the consideration of any payment to Mrs. Winslow for
the unexpired term of the lease or the consideration of any development
thereon even if acquired without direct cost.
The best offer we have obtained from Mrs. Winslow (Exhibit J) is $300; 000
which, in the opinion of the administration, is excessive for 29, 714 + square
feet of land and about 2 1/2 years of the remaining term of the existing lease.
It is the opinion of this office that the unexpired term of the existing lease
(vis-a-vis the ebligatior. to demolish) has no value and that the property owned
in fee (especially in view of its location) does not have a value approaching
$10.00 + a square foot requested by the owner.
PER~'~~SCOTT, City Manager
PS; j s
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
City Controller
Attachments
0
o ~
~ '
0
o ;,,
,,
,,
~,
`;, OCEAN AVENUE
,~
,,
~
,
`
~
~
,
~~
~,
'
~
,
~~ ~
~~
~ ,~
S~ A~%
o>~~
w
Q
w
I-
~ ~~ APPIAN
°~ WAY
m ~, ~
~ '`~ C]
~'
SCALE 1
i =loo ~
O ,~ cJ~
~ ~',
' ~ Q
I ,` w
1 H E
' 47.74' d _
PROMENADt ~
200 ,r, '
f~ 4
~1 ~ ,
I~
~
r \ ~ ~I.
PARCEL _
i N ~ N ~ PARCEL 2
I (V..
% ~I ~
I
`n
-
r.
'/'i .
~I
I; 1921 MEAN NIGH TIDE LINE
h
u
II LEGEND
11
PIER i~ AREA PARCEL 1= 30,556 a'
III „ .~ 2 = 7, 317 c'
li GROSS AREA = 37,873 a'
II
II AREA eZ11TIIJ = 6,65C c'
Q° f I I
Gp g^°I°^ I'"`1 AREA ~~ = 1,509 a'
i g 1 I AREA SEAWARD OF M.H T. = 8,159 a'
NET AREA = 24,)14 a' V~
CITY OF
SANTA
CALIFORNIA
OFFICE. OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL E%brook 3-9975
March 25, 1970
Mrs. Enid N. VTinslow, President
Bay Amusement Corporation
276 Santa Monica Pier
Santa Monica, California
Dear Mrs. Winslow:
b10NICA
As agreed during our meeting today I am furnishing herewith the substance
of the offer made for the unexpired term of your lease and the title to the
property you oven in fee adjacent to the pier. In our discussions it ~uas
pointed out that:
a) Paragraph 5 of Lease 514 (CCS) requires the lessee to "keep
the wharf, pier and all structures thereon in good repair and
safe condition. "
b) Paragraph 9 of the same agreement provides for an absolute
_ obligation on the part of the lessee to remove the wharf and
pier and all improvements thereon upon the expiration of the
lease.
c) You were advised that a few years ago a demolition estimate
for the removal of the pier was approximately $180, 000 and
that bids for such work could well produce a figure which was
somewhat higher or somewhat lower than the old quotation.
It would seem that under the terms of the lease the City has ar_ absolute right
to insist upon compliance with the contract and the removal of the pier upon
expiration of the lease. On the other hand it is certainly within the discretion
of the City to waive the demolition requirement, but in the opinion of the
administration they should not do so°unless a structural examinaiion_ of the
entire facility demonstrates that it is in "good repair and safe condition. "
Exhibit B
To: Mrs. Enid N. Winslow gage 2
March 25, 1470
I am sure I do not have any idea of the probable cost of putting the facility
in a condition of "good repair and safe condition. " It could be less than the
estimated cost of demolition or could run a great deal more.
Under the circumstances it was su,gested that perhaps we could negotiate
the acquisition of the remaining term of the pier lease as well as .title to
the property you own in fee on the following basis:
a) The City would v~aive the right to insist upon structural repairs
or demolition in return for assigning the unexpired term of the
lease to the City without further compensation; and
b) The City would agree to buy and you would agree to sell your
fee-owned property at the value fixed by a panel of three
appraisers--one appointed by the City, one appointed by you
and the third appointed by the appraisers selected by the
parties.
I understand that you wish to review this offer with your business associates
and advisors and that because of the tax reporting season you will not respond
until after April 15, It was also agreed that the City would order a prelim-
inary title report (vrhich has been ordered today) to determine the extent of the
fee-owned property for which you could deliver an insurable deed.
Ver truly yours,
~ ~
RE~SCOTT, City Manager
PS:Ss
PLUMEA S WHITING
CERTI PIED PU BLIC ACCOUNTANTS
EVER ETT T. PLUMER, C. P. A.
PHILIP E. WHITING, C. P. A.
April 23, 1970
Mr. Perry Scott,
City Manager, City of Santa Monica,
_ City Ha11,
Santa 1•fonica, California 90401
Dear Perry:
1244 SIXTH STREET
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORN IA 90401
EXaeooK 5-azz3
I just want to take a moment of your ti.,°'ie to let you loZOw
I that your letter of late Afarch to Mrs. Enid ti', t•]insloir regarding
your meeting and general discussion abo2rt the pier is receiving
my attention.
4ou were aware at the time that I would nat be able to became
involved in the matter until after the tax deadline of April 15th.
That mad date has passed and our office again survived the battle,
but it is becoming more difficult each year frith the added tax changes
and general complexities therein,
I will do my best to review the entire matter with Airs. Eainslow
and pass along our reactions in the near future.
tdould you be able to pass along a
report since I seem to recall that some
estate may have set forth less than the
acquired almost thirty years ago?
PEW:me
ropy of the prel~Tninary title
reference within Mr, I3e:acembys
entire fee property that was.
Very truly yours,
Exhibit C
PLUMER Fs WHITING
GERTI FIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
EVERETT T. PLUMER, C.P.A.
PHILIP E. WHITING, C.P. A.
1244 SIXTH STREET
SANTA MONICA, CALIFO RN IA 90401
EXBR OOe 5'4223
May 15, 1970
Mr. Perry Scott
City Manager, City
City Hall
of Santa Monica
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Mr. Scott:
RE: Mrs. Enid Newcomb Winslow
Bay Amusement Corporation
As an outgrowth of your meeting on March 25,
Mrs. Winslow, please accept the following comments
initial reaction to your proposal and comments in
the corporation's lease and her separate property
pier:
1970 with
as being my
connection with
adjacent to the
First, I have examined several documents that deal with a
description of her property and they appear to be consistent in
their legal description. I'll include a photocopy for Vou and
wonder if you might furnish Mrs. Winslow with a copy of your recently
received preliminary title report. I bring up this point because I
seem to recall some mention in the past about a different size to
the property, and I wanted to cover that point at this time.
Next, I failed to grasp the relevancy regarding the lessee.
being required to keep the pier in, good repair and safe condition.
We have been working since December in doing additional repairs---
and have done so from time to time, especially back in the 1950's
and early '60's. Copies o£ earlier operating statements set forth
the fact that several hundred thousand dollars was spent for repairs
from about 1955 to 1965. Almost an exact $100,000 has also been
spent over the last four calendar years for repairs, and our con-
tractor reports to us that {1) the pier is in good condition and
(2) with nominal repairs it would enjoy a substantial fu-lure period
of present use. Also, the structural report of M-r. Edward H. Parker
to you on 1/28/65 would seem to support my observation along that
same line.
There are other points that are most difficult for me to resolve
within my mind, Perry, and they concentrate along the theme of price,
terms, demolition and the City's apparent desire of upgrading and
improving the area.. Certainly the substantial, but unknown, dollars
that would be involved if the City was desirous and successful in
enforcing the removal of the pier constitute a negative aspect to
the present value of the properties taken as a whole. Also, the
value of the separate in fee parcel is influenced by its openness
Exhibit B
PLUMER 8 WHITING
CER TI FIEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To: Mr. Perry Scott
May 15, 1970
2.
or surrounding improvements on the adjacent tidelands. Further,
the expected net income to be realized over the remaining term of
the lease provides a positive aspect to the property., So, hesitating
to become a party to an agreement wherein the net value would be
totally beyond our control by agreeing to accept the value of a panel
of appraisers, we would request that you consider a sales price in
the amount of $400,000 for the in fee property of Mrs. Winslow's and
_ with the corporation's lease being transferred back to you without
consideration but releasing her and the corporation in all respects.
Lastly, cannot some method be employed wherein the seller would
make transfer but receive security for amortization of the sales price
over such term as would enable the City to handle the matter without
the hardship of immediate total payment? I am somewhat. aware of the
restrictions on debt by a municipality but I also thought that the
restriction had been partly overcome by some newly devised approach
in certain instances. I cover this because I do want you to also
realize that it is Mrs. Winslow's desire in this matter to achieve
a two-fold purpose; one is to dispose of her holdings at a fair price
while co-operating and assisting the City in improving and developing
the area. Having lived here for over fifty years and been blessed
in numerous ways with benefits, it would please her to help you
commence a program and plan of rehabilitation.
Further, Perry, I promise you that your replies in the future
will receive much quicker. acknowledgement now that my office. work
is under control. Glad too that your mother is feeling much improved
and I hope that all goes along well in every respect.
Very truly years,
Phi. Whiting
PEW/saa
CITY OF
SANTA
MONICA
CALIFORNIA
OFPICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL EXbrook 39975
May 22, 1970
Mr. Philip E. Whiting
Plumer & Whiting
1244 Sixth Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Phil:
Pursuant to your request, I am forwarding a copy of the preliminary title
report concerning the fee owned property of Mrs. Winslow in the beach
area adjacent to the city pier. In connection with this title report, I
would call your attention to the exceptions and exclusions which would be
contained in any title policy issued by the Title insurance and Trust
Company. Those which would be of majgr concern to us are:
A. Exception No. 2 concerning the Southern Pacific Railway
Company easement.
B. Exception No. 3--the effect of Ordinance No. 188 (Commissioners
Series) establishing the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean.
G. Exception No. 5, which concerns an adverse claim based upon
the assertion that a portion of said land was tide or submerged
land or was created by artificial means or so accreted to such
lands created.
I have not as yet had the time to review the prior litigation concerning the
ownership of such land. However, I believe there were a number of
decisions which clearly vested the title on the ocean side of the 1921 tide
line in the City as trustee for the people of the State of California. In the
event this proves to be true with respect to the parcel we are discussing,
it would make a difference in gross area of about 7, 000 square feet (23, 560
square feet as,opposed to 30, 540 square feet).
Exhibit E
Mr. Philip E. Whiting
May 22, 1970
page 2
Prior to determining a value of the property to be acquired,
it seems absolutely essential that we establish the gross
area to be acquired. If, in fact, the City already holds the
property in trust for the people of the State of California on
the ocean side of the 1921 tide line, then the area to be
acquired would be approximately 23, 560 square feet.
I have asked our attorney to review this matter and to provide this office
with and opinion with respect to the impact of the prior litigation, as well
as the current claims of the State and what is apparently pending litigation.
In the meantime, i am sure it would be beneficial if your attorneys were to
review this matter and provide you with an independent opinion as to the
status of title.
Very truly yours,
PERRY SCOTT, City Manager
c. c. City Attorney
PLUMER 8 WHITING.
CERTI FLED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
EVERETT T. PLUMER, C.P.A.
PHILIP E-WHITING, C. P. A.
1244 SIXTH STREET
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA ~J040I
EXea00a 5-4223
June 11, 1970
Mr. Perry Scott
City Manager
1685 Main Street
Santa rionica, Calif. 90401
Re: Mrs. IIiid Newcomb Is~inslrna, Pier matter
Dear Perry:
It was too late to telephone you today when I was able to get
any word together regarding the title status and I aT.n sure that
nothing in a very specific technical Legal opinion wz31 come into
being taithin the near future.
Jimmy McCarthy talked z~rith me this morning and he probably Frill
be contacting Bob Cockins after having a reeting z~rith tire. I~inslow.
One other thing jumps into my mind regarding the area, Perry,
and that question concerns k4aat happened to the Parcel r2 that is
set forth isz the attachments that I sent to you z~rith my letter of
iday 15? By my information there would be another 7,300 feet, more
or less, and I think that you asked a question about the size of
our parcels a cauple of years ago during a meeting held in your office®
If there is same foul-up it is probably amix-up during the probate
_ proceedings by Fegel-McInerny°s office of Fir. Newcombgs estate back
in 1954-55.
Ipll pass along anything else that comes to my attention just
in case it might be helpful to either party, i"nanlcs again for the
telephone call, Perry, and a second glance at the papers I mailed to
you hfay 15 may be helpful too.
Yery truly yours,
~~~
Philip E. I~hitirag
PEW:me
Exhibit F
OFPICE OF THE CITY MANAGER.
CITY HALL EXbrook 3-9975
June 22, 1970
Mr. Philip E, Whiting
Plumer & Whiting
1244 Sixth Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Phil:
We have discussed with the title company your letter of June 11 in which
you point out that there is an additional parcel owned by Mrs, Winslow,
Although we have not as yet received the preliminary title report. con-
cerning the second parcel, the title company has confirmed by phone that
the vesting of Parcel 2 is the same as Parcel 1 and that we will receive
a preliminary report covering both parcels on or before the 24th.
Based on the information received from the title company by
phone, the attached plat illustrates the relationship of both
parcels to the 1921 mean high tide line. Accordingly, it
would appear that Mrs. Winslow owns in fee 27, 714 square
feet between the 1921 mean high tide line and the Promenade.
I am also forwarding two copies of the City Attorney's opinion concerning
the 1921 tide line survey which includes appropriate citations to the litiga-
tion which has confirmed that the City or the State owns all property on
the ocean side of the 1921 mean high tide line. Friday, June 19, I talked
to Mrs. Window's appraiser, Mr. Guercio, who has requested a copy o£
the subject opinion. Accordingly, one of the copies is for your files and
one for Mr. Guercio,
Exhibit G
Mr. Philip E. Whiting
June 22, 1970
page 2
The City Council is most interested in determining the price at which
Mrs. Winslow would deed the fee-owned land as well as the unexpired
term of the existing lease to the City. Accordingly, I would appreciate
confirmation of that price as soon as Mr. Guercio has finished his
appraisal.
Very truly yours,
PERRY SCOTT, City Manager
Attachments: 2 copies of legal opinion dated June 12, 1970
2 copies of plat showing Parcels 1 and 2
PLUMER 8 WHITING
CERTI FIEO PUBLIC ACCUUNTANTS
EVERETT T. PLU MER, C. P. A.
PHILIP E.WHITING,GP. A..
1244 SIXTH STREET
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90401
EXeaooa 5-azz3
June 24, 1970
Dear Perry:
I am hurrying out of the office for the day but do want to
` drop you a very informal quickie reply to pour 6/22 letter.
I am glad that the title company is expected to send you a
revised preliminary report that trill include the second parcel of
frontage for Mrs. Winslotz. If conv2nient would you kindly furnish
me with a photocopy at your convenience, please?
Carl Cuercio noticed a 2,000 error within the square footage
as determined by Mr. Kennedyes department, I think, I have made
photocopies and indicate thereon the error for you to note on your
office copy too.
Jimmy McCarthy is out of town -- ira Hawaii for a vacation -
but Carl trill be proceeding frith has appraisal and we :rill contact
you as soon as anything develops. Neither Carl or I have the
professional capacity to deter9+.Line the legal aspect, it appears to
us, of the matter involving the mean high tide line. ].though the
are familiar with the generalities we do want legal confirmation or
opinion - and o:e are having an independent survey to see tahat that
discloses too.
Thanks again, Perry, for your attention and I41Z be contacting
you when I have anything ready for you,
V~truly yours,
Philip E. Sdhiting
r r ~,
~.~:,
~`% ,. y ~ -
_, r:; ~ z
.;~ ;.
'. . ,:
` ' - ~ Exhibit H
CITY OF
T
C~I.IFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL EXbtoak 3-9975
June 25, 1970
Mr. Philip E, Whiting
Plumer & Whiting
1244 Sixth Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Phil:
Pursuant to your letter o£ June 24, I am forwarding herewith a copy
of the additional preliminary title report received from Title
Insurance and Trust Company. This report covers the parcel
which is 47. 74 feet in width and immediately south of the 200 foot
parcel upon which ycu received the earlier preliminary title report.
Mr. Guercio is correct in his reference to the 2, 000 square foot
error in computing the net area of both parcels. The net area is
29, 714 square feet as opposed to the incorrectly reported area of
27, 714 square feet.
Very truly yours,
i
l~
i a
~~ P ~COTT, City Manager
Exhibit I
~ n .,,-~: .-rte .. .,.~ -- - . _ •-~-i:~ a
... :
a ~ p _~
~ ~ .JY
A
~
a 1
I
~
_1 i~
~ ~
` ~s~~ Ae~~ss~~a~~~ c®~~e r~ Q.
_
..
1 ~' ,
3 i
(FORMEF LY NE WCOMB PIER)
! _ L-
~
~ ICA PLER ~ "
~
x ~ -
276 SANTA MON ~ _
,. v
' ~ ~ ~ A
CALIFO RNIA
A
N
~ , ,
S
NTA MO
IC -
_
ENID NEWCOMB WINSLOW. Pftes.
~
.
~ ~
~
~ '~
TEL. EX 5-1984 - ~ ~1
~
.
~~
~
~ ~ ~ e'
~~.~a,~.~m_~~~.isai,t3t~~t_v August 6, 1970 `€~ i~a,i.~=~~:....~,;.~~ti
Air. Perry Scott
City of Santa Monica
City Afanager, City Hall
1685 Aiain Street
Santa Afonica, California 90401
Re: Sale of beach property
Dear Sir:
I will sell to the Cit~* of Santa Afonica the real property an
the Ocean Front adjoining the Nei;~omb Pier, legal description of
which you already have, on the follozring tercis and conditions:
1. 1snid Newcomb 1~linslow, individually, and Bay flnusement Corp.
to be released from any liability in connection with the provisions
of the City lease covering t•.~at 4s h;Ynocm as the Newcomb Pier, The
leases of the present tenants to be honored by the City, they vary
for the several locations but none extend beyond Febsliary 28, 1973.
2. The real property o~,med by mid Newcomb Winslow to be sold
to the City of Santa 2fonica for the sum of _$300, 000,
3. In order to get our negotiations moving, tahich have been
pending for a long tir-~e, I will place a 30-day limitation wl_thin
which the City will accept or reject the offer,
Very tnily yours,
1 i -
Airs. Yhid Newcomb tlinslow
ENtd: me
d
BOATING -FISHING -BOAT RENTALS
FISH ERMANS WHARF FISHERMEN'S SUPPLIES
MERRY-GO_ROU ND -POTTERY SHOP
RESTAURANTS -FISH MARKET
ARCADE -GIFT SHOP
AUTO PARK - 600 CARS CAP
"Wleere /iahing is good and the
Fishermen like it"
DP 23 I1-4D}
ma
;Title In~uxance and r~'x~ISt ~~ilip~ny
10 ~r33 S0~ SPRING ST., LOS A~36ELES, CALIi=DRS{ZA 9005~r TEL.{213) 62b-241I
APRIL 30, 1970
T0: CITY OF SAtvTA i~;Di~ICA
CITY HALL, ib85 ~AI;V STREET
SAP+ITA ~iOiaTCA, CALIFDRA3IA
ATTENTIO~d: ROBERT G. CDCKIt~S
YDDR ~D. e ESTATE DF 'FALTER D. i~lE~aCD'N'~B, ,)R.., DECEASED DEGREE
DF DTSTRIBUTiDN RECORDED ,iA1~UARY 25, i45b, ~;D.
_- 3557
DUR ~0. 700382b
I~~° RESPO~dSE TD THE ABOVE REFEREPS.CED nPPLIC#:TIDi; s= R A PDL.ICY DF
TITLE IlS1iRAdCE, TI-fLE I1~}'SURAF!CE A~;D TP.UST CD;PAPvk' ?EPuRTS T~1f-iT IT ~S
PREPARED TD ISSiiE, D: CAU5E TD BE ISSUED, :9S DF THE DATE HEREOF, A
CALIFDRi~iI.A LA~SD TITLE ASSDC`aiaT2 D;~? STAi~3DARD COVERAGE FOR"~ RDLIGY DF TITLE
IPdS;7RditiCE DESCIBIrdG SHE LY.~D A~)D THE ESTATE DR a;gE;"sEST THERE Z"
HEREINAFTER SET rvRTH, I~:SURA~CE AGAINST LOSS :;?-ITCH f1A?~ BE SUSTAIA~ED 8Y
REASD~ DF A''~!Y DEFECT, LIE}'*$ OR E~dCUhli3RANCE RiDT SHD~i't DR REFERRED SD AS AN
EY.CEPTID~? BELDSd DR CDT E){CLUDED F RDA COVERAGE PURSLAaT Ttl SHE FRI,'~TED
SCI-iEDIILES, r..CiAiDIT"aD~S A;VD STIPULATIGt~e1S DF Sa;ID POLICY FGRhi.
THIS REPORT {AND A~!Y SJPPLE~SEh1TS DS< AsiE~iDP~EP3T5 THERESD) IS
ISSUED SOLELY FDR THE PJfSPQSC Dr FACILITATi1G TF,E ISSeJAnLE Dr N POLICY
DF TITLE Ii'!SURAi>?CE AidD ~tit3 Ld~zBILITY ?S AS:,L~i'ED HEREBY. IF.i iS
DESIRcD Ti-iAT LIABILITY 3E ~?SSUSED PRIC3l~ e°J Ti:E iSSUAJCE DE ;'t Rf;LICY DF
TITLE I~SDRA~CE, A BIf~DER DR CDN;~iIT„E~T SHOULD RiE REQUESTED.
DATED AT 7030 Ae;9. AS DF ?3ARC1-3 ~9 I970
TITLE DFFICERoJ. SITS ~~ ij~wt~
20 TITLE TO SAID ESTATE O~ItdTEREST AT THE DATE HER.EDF IS VESTED it9e
ENID ~® ~lI1~!SLD6d, S;}-~D ACQUIRED TITLE AS E(VID I. ~SEE~CDi7B~,
36 THE ESTATE DR IPITEREST IBS Tt;E LAID HEREIPVAFTER DESCRIBED DR REFERRED TD
COVERED BY THIS REPORT ISM A FEE.
EXHIBIT X_
OP 23 f1JUi ~•~\' gg
d
Title Insurance and Trust company
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TD THE PRINTED
EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORM §dOULD BE AS
FOLLOWS:
40 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY AND CITY .TAXES
50 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1970-1971, A LIEN NDT YET PAYABLE.
b0 2. RIGHT OF THE SOUTHERN. PACIFIC RAiLi:lAY COMPANY; AFFECTING
PARCEL 2, TO F1AItSTAIN AN OUTLET FDR ITS STORfsi DRAYN AS NOW
CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, AS PROVIDED IN
THE DEED OF LOS ANGELES-SAi~3TA EIONICA BEACH COMPANY, A CORPORATIONy
TO CHARLES i. D. LODF, RECORDED APRIL 26, 1916 IN BOOK 6277
PAGE 43 OF DEEDS.
70 3. THE EFFECT DF DRDil~7ANCE Nllm 188 CDA9i~9ISSI0NERS SERIES,
ADOPTED BY THE CITY DF SANTA MDNIGA UN JULY 25, i92i, ESTABLISHING
THE HIGH TIDE LIiaE DF THE PACIFIC OCEAN, A COPY DF slHlf.H
i.AS RECORDED IN BOOK 4Bi PAGE 909 OFFICIAL RECORDS.
80 , 4. THE EFFECT DF THE FOlLO#-iING:
90 AN EASE°~iENT A;=FELTING THE PORTION OF SAID LAP?D AP1D FOP, THE
PURPOSES STATED HEREIN, Ati3D Ii~3CIDENTAL PURPOSESz
IN FA1.'DR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CD~SPANY, A CORPORATION
FOR : CONDUITS
RECORDED DECE34BER 229 1960 IN BOOS; D°i072 PAGE 497,
OFFICIAL REl:ORDS
AFFECTS A STRIP 4 FEET IN t~IDTN LYING 1dITHI'v SANTA
MONICA P~UNICIPAL PIERm THE CEPdTER LINE DF
SAID STRIP BEING DESCRIBED AS FDLLDi9S:
BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF SDUTH;aESTERLY
PRDLDNGATIDN DF SOUTHEASTERLY LINE DF COLORADO
AVEP:UE, AS NDW ESTABLISHEDa AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE DF THE PROtiENADE9 AS SHO1•iN ON THE NlAP
OF idOSS TRACTS AS PER FiAP RECORDED RECORDED
IN BOOK 36-PAGE 64, OF S~iAPS, IN THE OFFICE
DF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID CDU~iTY9 THENCE
SOUTHt~ESTERlY ALONG SAID SOUTH;~ESTERlY PROLONGATION
OF THE SflllTHE:~STERLY LINE OF COLORADO AVEi+:UE,
A DISTA?dCE DF 85fl FEET; T'riENCE SDUT!-(EASTERLY
AT RIGHT ANGLE TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION
A DISTANCE DF 85 FEET.
I00 THE GRANTEEy ITS SUCCESSORS A~UD ASSIGNS9 AND ITS Ari`D THEIR
RESPECTIVE AGE;dTS AND E?~PLOYEES, SHALL HAVE FREE ACCESS
TD SAID ELECTRif. LIiJE AiID EVERY PART THEREOF9 AT ALI. TIitESs
FOR THE PURPOSE DF EXERL'iSING THE RIGHTS HEREIN GRANTED.
EXHIBIT X
~nr+~Q~.c nnr_c ~
DP 23 (1.901 ~ '7p~'g@
L 1
Title Insur~an~e and True C~rll~any
110
120
10
AT THE TSME SAiD DOCt1MENT 4aAS EXECUTEDs SAID GRANTOR: BAY
AMUSEMENT CDRP.s HAD Pd0 RECORD INTEREST IN SA3D LAND.
5. ANY ADVERSE CLAIM BASED. UPON THE ASSERTION THAT A
PORTION DF SAID LAND i~tAS TIDE OR SUBMERGED LAND OR ktAS CREATED
BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS OR ACCRETED TO SUCH LAND SO CREATED.
DESCRIPTION:
CDUNTYs 8DL1dDED A~aD DESCR38ED AS FOLLORS:
ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF RAP3CHC SAN °~ICE^!TE Y.SANTA ~90NICAs
IAS THE CITY DF SANTA tsDNICAy IIV THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:
STATE OF CALiFDR~JIAs AS PER MAP RECORDED IN 80010 3 PACE
31 OF PATENTS, I THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
ZD BECINNI:V'C ~T A POI:dT ICJ THE SOUTHELY i.I~3E OF COLORADO AVENUEY
DISTANT 429 FEET, F1DRE OR LESSs 4~ESTERLY FROF~ THE ~,ES7'ER%Y
LItvE DF DCEi~t*I ;?°~EtaUEs IC?0 FL=ET AIIDEs SAI!~ PDI°IT BEIi~BG ALSO
IN -#'HE U'ESTELY LINE DF A ZD FOD3~ STRIP OF LAND OVER 6~JFiICH
AN EASEi~,ENT FDR SIDE~aALK PUZT-OSES BIAS COi4VEYcD ?-D THE CITY
OF SANTt1 ,'D~ICAs 8Y DEED RECORDED iN BODt; ~O1D PAGE 182
DF DEEDSs Ti-tE"aCE SD'+JTH k-I3 ~3® EASE ALD~1G THE zES7'ERLY LItdE
DF SAID ZD FOOT STRIPS A DISTa?tilC.E 'DF 200 FEET9 T1-:;=.tvCE 4:!EST?_t2LY
PARALLEL !•1I TH CDLD~.ADD a; VEIIIE 1» FEET t-:ORE OR LESS; T 0
THE DRDZi~JARY HIGH ~iDE LIi3E Ot- THE PACIFIC DCEAN,.~HE?JCE
NORTHERLY ALDNC SAID ORDINARY Hi CH -FIDE LIP7E TD THE SDGTHERLY
LINE OF CDi.DRADO Ab'Et~'UEe THEi°7CE E.QSTERLY ALONG THE SOUT:iERL.Y
LING OF COLORADO A'JE~UEs 15S FEETs ~70r":E OR LESSs TG THE
POINT OF BECINt~!iPSG.
10 .;S:EO TRIP. PLATS Et`]CL.
EXHIBIT X
DP 29 It->01
TI
Title Insurance and Txust Company
i0 433 50. SPRING ST., LOS ANGELES, CALIFOP,I~I$A 90054 dEL.6213D 626-2411
JUNE 22, 1970
T0: CITY OF SANTA NONICA, CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MOidICA, CALIF02NIA
ATTENTION: ROBERT G. COGKINS
YOUR NO®: ESTATE OF 6IALTER D. NEWCONB, JR., DECEASED DECREE
OF DISTRIBUTIDN RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1456, N0.
3557
OUR N0. : 7017993
IN RESPONSE TO THE ASOVE REFERENCED APPLICATIOtd FOR. A POLICY OF
TITLE INSURANCE, TITLE I?ISt)RANCE AC~sD TRUST COC~iPANY REPORTS -THAT IT IS
PREPARED TO ISSUE, OR CAUSE TO 5E ISSUED, AS OF 3'HE DATE HEREOFa A
CALIFORNIta LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION ~TAE4DARD CO?1ERAfE FORM POLICY '0F TITLE
INSURANCE DESCRI8IN6 THE LAND AND THE ESTATE OR INTEREST THEREI;~7
HEREI['Js~FTER SET FORTH, INSURANCE AGAINST LOSS t~HICH I~AY BE SUSTAINED BY
REASON OF ANY DEFECT, LIEN OR E;~3CUidaRANCE y;flT SH04•ti~1 OR R€FERRED TO AS :!.E+.'-
EXCEPTICtN BEL0~1 OR NOT EXLLEIDED FROM CDVERAGE PURSUANT 1'ia THE PRINTED
SCHEDULES, CONDITIONS Ai:D STIPULATIONS OF SAID POLICY FORM.
THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AI•~EtdDh1ENTS THERET03 IS
ISSUED SD!_ELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY
OF TITLE I,~SSURAh;CE AND NO LiAuILITY IS tSSUt~~ED HEREBY. IF II' IS
DESIRED THAT LIABIiITY BE ?',SSUi+:ED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF
TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR COANITP:ENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED.
DATED AT 7:30 A.N. AS OF JUNE 19, 1970
TITLE OFFICER: J. SINS
20 TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED iN:
ENID N. 4~IidSLOu3, 6~dH0 ACQUIRED TITLE AS EPaID I. NEblC0~;8.
30 THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAF-TER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED '6U
COVERED BY THIS REPORT I5: A FEE.
EXHIBIT X
~.~.n ~s r.ny nnrr ~
o a za ~i-ro; TT
TR
Ti'cle Insural~ce and Trusts Company
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED
EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN SAID POLICY FORMkeDULD BE AS
FoLLO'<as:
40 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY AND CITY TAXES
50 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1470-1471, A LIEN NOT YET PAYABLE.
60 2. RIGHT OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL4tAY COMPANY, AFFECTING
PARCEL 2, TO MAIi~TAIN AN OUTLET FOR ITS STORM DRAI,ii AS NOW
CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE ABUTTI?~G PROPERTY, AS PROVIDED IN
THE DEED OF LOS ANGELES-SANTA MONICA BEACH GOhSPANYx A CORPORATION,
TO CHARLES I. D. LOOP, RECORDED APRIL 2b, 1416 IN GOOK
6277 PAGc 43 OF DEEDS.
70 3. THE EFFECT OF ORDIfJAPiCE NO. I88 COMMISSIONERS SERIESg
ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA OfJ JULY 25, 142Ix cSTABLISHING
THE HIGH TFDE LINE OF T;~RE PACIFIC OCEAN, A COPY OF WHICH
WAS RECORDED Iiv~ SOOK 431 PAGE 40, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
80• 4. ANY ADVERSE CLAih9 BASED UPON THE ASSERTION THAT A
PORTION OF SAID LAP;D WAS TIDE OR SUBf=:ERGED BAND OR YEAS CREATED
BY ARTIFICIAL f^3EANS OR ACCP.ETED TO SUCH LAND SD CREATED.
10 DESCRIPTION:
ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF RANCHO SAPJ VICEYJTE Y SANTA fONICA,
IN THE CI T1` OF OF SA~lTA P~ONICAx IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANa;ELES9
STATE OF CALIFOR~JIA, AS PER ttAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3 PAGE
31 OF PATENTSx IPF THc OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORC~Ef OF SAID
COUNTY, BOUidDc[3 AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOS°~S~
20 SEGI?~NiNG AT A POINT 200 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUTH LINE
OF COLORADO AVEiJIIE ON T;iE PatESTERLY LIhJE OF A 20 FOOT STRIP
OF LAND OVER 4dHICH AN EASEa•?ENT FOR SIDEr,ALK PURPOSES iJAS
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF S~-:PJTA i,ONICA, SY .DEED RECORDED IPJ
BOOK =x010 PAGE I82 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTHERLY AL^uh,G THc
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 20 FOOT STRIP OF LAND$ A DISTANCE
OF 47.74 FEE TI THEP4CE ~~ESTERLY PAP.ALLEL WITH COLORADO AVEiJUE,
154 FEET, iSDRE OR LESS, TO THE ORDiiJAR1` HIGH TIDE LINE OF
THE PACIFIC OCEAPJ4 THEiICE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID ORDINARY
HIGH TIDE LIB"!E TO ITS I;~3TERSECTION %•~ITN A LIiv~E r^A~cAL LEL
WITH AND 200 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE SOUT4-E LINE OF COLORADO
AVENUEa THE<JCE EASTERLY ALOivG SAID LIfJE, A DISTANCE OF I53
FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POTENT OF BEGIPvNIft6.
EXHIBIT X
7017443 PAS E 2
TO 236 VG
° OCEAN AVE. S
0
PACIFIC OCEAN
~~ss reQCr
Bock.3o Popes 6~i,'65oFmoPs
This is not a survey of the land but is compiled for information by the
Title Insurance and Trusf Company from data shown by the officio/ records,
CITY OP SANTA MONIGA
~3- • e ~T
DATE: June 22, 1970
TO: Perry Scott, City ~4anager
FROM: Bartlett I,. Kersiedy, City Engineer
S[TBJECT: i?~wriciral Fier and IJevrcomb Pier - Sar.+mary of
Reconstruction and i~.aintei~ance Costs.
In compliance fait h your ti=erbal request, the °ollolring info-r^a-
tion relative to 1.*or?~wecomlisned, a.nd the cost thereof, on both the
i+iunicipal Pie?' and the i'Ievacos.:b tier is flzrnis'red herewith.
I i?i[,1?ICIPri~ PIER
^lhe Santa P'cnica i+''anic=pal Pier vans financed throug'_n a Bond
.issue in the a.nou'~t Of W75,000 i.n.1919, lne pier 1'ras constructed in
1920 and opened to the ],ublic in 1921. to records of maintenance costs
prior to 1938 are available,. but vae rinol'r that the pier vaas redecked :n
1928 and a.ll of the decl: plar.~.i ng '.,as turned or replaced and the pier
SUrI O.Ced ~~ 15K5 ahe ~'~tJ CO ~'rOlier~S OfiiCe ^~rorted, 1n ~~'j7~ `}~a%
ll;alntCna.!iCe ~CSt•., ~!.: iz.aC vE'r_Od frC":: 1938 ttl'rOt,ig~1 =i J1'- T'?Cr2 y ~.17~, 7.-~ •O
an aV^crage O j~U, o70 ,er year. iKeT?a1rS C'lU 'ing tP;iS 7; r~'C!CCi 1nC!'tid2li
COlilplete nC-i`i deC'~ing in ~ 9''-E3 'LCF'2thEI" t'i1tr. :1214 pi l e.S, Ca.DS and ST,.-C'-.?gPrS
as required to replace those damaged o'r laeakened by dry rot or ::urine
borers.
bSaintenance COSTS incurred St;"bser_aert t0 i956 are SunL"tlarized
belota:
1956_7 ____________________________
1ti57°5~ -®----_-__®-----------------
195~-5.> --_____-_-._______...-___-.___~._
1959-50 __°___°-----___..-------_----
,.
10~;~_~i ______~____-__-_-°-a°-_-_°-_
1901-02 ______________._____________
1.902_~;8-___~°_-°--__°--______°__----
1°65-66 ----°-------------------___--
~..~ ,
-~
1107_E;3 _______®____________________
19'08_69 ___°____._______________..____
_ ,
;goof-70 ___.._-----°---------°----- -
Ar~nua,l .i-vera.ge ----_°_______________
u 3,33
:~ ~~
34
12,231
1C, 175
7,603
15,781
13,028
5,100
a~~E47
10, 2L~0
10,247
23967
30,000 (Est.)
12,740
_ .., ~.n,te.na.nC2 COStS, aS SU."; _.. .r1.7ed horsy =._n,C,_~dP_ t~"ie COSH C~ Sl'Ga!~
pi . -'ng rej ...Cnt ~'irC~~'.'.;La b'.Ai, u0 r.Gt 7.nC...L' :t,a~01" pi2r re,.OT:.`'.t J.C i.1CY1
COSTS,
-1-- Exhibit X