SR 09-27-2022 7A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 13
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services
Subject: Memorial Park Expansion
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on restarting the Memorial Park Redevelopment and
Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is still in line with the
approved master plan;
2. Provide direction to staff to reengage Santa Monica College (SMC) and Santa
Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in negotiations for potential
fiscal and use agreements; and
3. Direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the Public Landscape
Division’s operation yard and return with a recommended alternative.
Summary
The City of Santa Monica parks system includes 32 parks encompassing more than 130
acres. Memorial Park was established in the 1950’s and is geographically located in the
center of the City. It is important to the overall park system, serving as the primary park
for baseball and softball, offering a space for pickleball and tennis and being the home
of the City’s only public gymnasium and skate park.
The Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project (Project) would combine the
existing 10.3-acre Memorial Park with the former Fisher Lumber site – a City-owned,
2.9-acre property adjacent to the existing park – into a 13.2-acre newly renovated and
expanded community park that meets the increasing demand for recreational activities.
The combined site is bound by Colorado Avenue to the north, 16th Street to the east,
Olympic Boulevard to the south, and 14th Street to the west. The Project would
7.A
Packet Pg. 171
2 of 13
integrate components of the Pedestrian Action Plan and Bicycle Action Plan and require
the relocation of the City’s Public Landscape Division (PLD). An extensive community
outreach process guided the development of a master plan layout and park program for
the future renovation and expansion of Memorial Park that would include additional
diamond sports fields and other highly desired community amenities. A subsequent
community outreach effort identified potential relocation sites for PLD. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic both the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project
and the PLD relocation effort were suspended. With reduced funding available and
significant increases in construction costs over the past two and a half years, Project
implementation today would require segmenting the Project into smaller phases than
originally planned.
Staff recommends the Council review and provide direction to staff on the Memorial
Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project with a reduced initial phase that is in line
with the approved master plan; provide direction to staff to reengage Santa Monica
College (SMC) and Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in
negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements; and direct staff to study possible
temporary relocation sites for the PLD’s operation yard and return with a recommended
alternative that includes costs and timeframes.
Background
The need to expand and redefine the role of Memorial Park was established in Santa
Monica’s 1997 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Attachment A). The City purchased
the Fisher Lumber site in 2004 with the intention of expanding Memorial Park. The City
took occupancy of the site in 2005 and has since used the property to house the PLD
staff, materials and equipment.
7.A
Packet Pg. 172
3 of 13
Figure 1: Site Map
In March 2016, the Council adopted and formally selected the expansion of Memorial
Park as one of the City’s highest priority park projects and incorporated it into the Los
Angeles Countywide Parks Needs Assessment Report (Attachment B). After a
competitive procurement process, Council awarded an agreement to AHBE Landscape
Architects in January 2018 to provide professional design services for the development
of a feasibility study and master plan layout for an expanded and redeveloped park that
would meet the following objectives:
• Maximize opportunities for fields with a focus on diamond sports;
• Consider community programs such as the gymnasium, Santa Monica Police
Activities League (PAL), and fitness facilities;
• Integrate appropriate buffering along busy vehicular corridors;
• Integrate the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plans; and
• Consider the park’s relationship to the surrounding neighborhood and City
context.
7.A
Packet Pg. 173
4 of 13
On October 15, 2019, City Council reviewed the Memorial Park Redevelopment and
Expansion Master Plan that was the product of a community engagement process and
directed staff to seek proposals for the design and preconstruction services of phases 1
and 2 of the park redevelopment and expansion. In addition, Council authorized staff to
negotiate Fiscal and Use Agreements with SMC and SMMUSD.
On February 11, 2020, City Council awarded a design-build agreement to W.E. O’Neil
Corporation to begin design of the Project, but before the contract could be fully
executed, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, and the project was suspended.
Public Landscape Relocation
The City’s PLD has been operating out of the former Fisher Lumber site adjacent to
Memorial Park since being relocated from the airport in 2005. From this location, the city
Park Maintenance and Urban Forestry crews care for the landscaping and irrigation in
28 parks and nearly 300 medians and public open spaces throughout the city and
maintain over 35,000 public trees. The site hosts over 40 city employees, contains staff
locker rooms and offices, repair shops, bulk material and equipment storage, as well as
parking for staff and their work vehicles. The site also accommodates a limited number
of parking spaces for the City’s contracted land care and urban forest contractors.
As part of the original effort to expand Memorial Park in 2019, staff explored a variety of
relocation sites including the City Yards, and other publicly owned property at the Santa
Monica Airport (SMO). Public Works ultimately selected an underutilized maintenance
hangar on the airport property as a temporary location (5-10 years) for the PLD
operations until a permanent location could be identified that would adequately meet the
space and logistical needs of this critical work unit. Concerns from local residents about
the proximity of municipal operations to a residential neighborhood led staff to conduct a
broader citywide evaluation of alternative sites. In early 2020 staff developed and
implemented a public outreach process to identify and assess additional sites that could
be well suited to house PLD staff, equipment and materials storage. Assessment criteria
included availability of land over twenty-five thousand square feet (PLD’s land size
requirements are actually closer to fifty thousand square feet), functionality for PLD
7.A
Packet Pg. 174
5 of 13
operations to access all parts of Santa Monica efficiently and effectively, neighborhood
impacts, and development costs and timeline, among others.
Staff, along with a community advisory working group, analyzed the feasibility of 42
potential sites over twenty-five thousand square feet throughout the city before
narrowing it down to four final scenarios that met the balance of the criteria as shown in
Figures 2 and 3 below. All four final sites were on the Santa Monica Airport campus,
including the original site that had been identified previously. No other public or private
parcels in Santa Monica were identified despite rigorous analysis and vetting by the
community advisory working group. Each Airport alternative required the undertaking of
the design/development process (2-3 years) as well as several million dollars in
development costs for facilities. In addition, siting PLD at SMO would require significant
land lease expenditures (the City is required to pay fair market value to the Airport Fund
for use of airport land) between $250,000 - $500,000 annually. Before those final
options could be presented to Council, the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, and all
additional work was cancelled. The final report is included here as Attachment G.
Figure 2: Map of All Parcels Greater than 25K Square Feet in City of Santa Monica
7.A
Packet Pg. 175
6 of 13
Figure 3: Map of Four Final Relocation Scenarios and Original Relocation Site at SMO
If directed to proceed with Memorial Park redevelopment, a critical first step is to
accommodate the needs of the City’s PLD on a separate parcel. Without an operational
base of sufficient size and location, the City’s 28 parks, 300 medians and public open
spaces, and urban forest of over 35,000 public canopy trees cannot be adequately
maintained to the City’s standard of care.
Discussion
Restarting the Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project comes with
several challenges that would need to be addressed for the project to move forward:
• A revised project budget and funding schedule needs to be established;
• The project scope needs to be revised to accommodate the new budget and
available funding; and
• A temporary location (5-10 years) for the PLD operations must be selected until a
permanent location that adequately meets the space and logistical needs of this
critical work unit can be identified.
7.A
Packet Pg. 176
7 of 13
Funding
In 2016, Santa Monica voters passed Measure V, a Santa Monica College bond
measure that included up to $20 million in funding for construction of Phase 1 of the
Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project. Upon approval of the master
plan in 2019, staff also began working with SMMUSD to potentially identify additional
construction funding with a goal of approximately $5 million for the project from Measure
SMS bonds. The contributions of College and District funding were conditioned upon
programmed joint uses of the completed Memorial Park facilities. These funds, along
with approximately $5 million in City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding, made
up the previous project budget of $30 million for the design and construction of phase 1
and the schematic design of phase 2. The total cost estimate to complete design and
construction of all three phases of the Project was $100 – $116 million in capital costs in
2019. In addition, the estimate to relocate PLD in 2020 was between $1.4 - $3 million in
capital costs for facility development and would require significant land lease
expenditures between $250,000 - $500,000 annually depending on final location
selection.
Currently, the only project funds available may be up to $20 million dedicated to park
redevelopment from the SMC bond measure that have been preserved for this park
expansion since the project was suspended by the City as a result of the pandemic.
Staff would need to engage in new negotiations with SMC and SMMUSD on potential
fiscal and use agreement terms. No funding is currently available for PLD relocation and
staff would return with funding requests based on a recommended location.
Scope
The feasibility study and master planning process included an examination of existing
conditions and park program elements, and the completion of an extensive community
outreach process. The result is a single, cohesive master plan layout that addresses
long-standing issues at Memorial Park, including but not limited to inadequate field
functionality, restrictive perimeter and edge conditions, poor connections to the
surrounding neighborhood, and misused restrooms and other amenities. The existing
condition and approved master plan are shown below in Figure 4.
7.A
Packet Pg. 177
8 of 13
Figure 4: Existing Memorial Park and Approved Memorial Park Master Plan Layout
The master plan always envisioned a phased approach that would be implemented over
time as funding was available. Phase 1 is shown below in Figure 5 and was originally
conceived as the northern half of the park, including four synthetic turf baseball/softball
combination fields, a temporary natural turf practice field, the covered parking lot,
pickleball/tennis courts, the Community Hub building, and the playground.
7.A
Packet Pg. 178
9 of 13
Figure 5: Approved Phase 1 and Anticipated Reduced Phase 1 of Memorial Park Master Plan Layout
In order to begin implementation of the master plan now, it would be necessary to
segment the Project into additional smaller phases. With a reduced project budget and
the significant increases in construction costs over the past two and a half years, staff
now estimate phase 1 of the Project could include construction of fields 1-2, the covered
parking lot, and the pickleball/tennis courts. Mobility and streetscape improvements on
14th Street and Colorado Avenue would be included to the extent the budget allows.
7.A
Packet Pg. 179
10 of 13
The reduced scope of the proposed phase 1 aligns with the objectives that were
outlined in the development of the feasibility study and master plan layout for an
expanded and redeveloped park. However, due to funding limitations, the remaining
scope of the original phase 1, including fields 3-4, the temporary natural turf practice
field, the Community Hub building, and the playground would now be included in phase
2. This would leave the park without a playground until phase 2 was complete.
The balance of Memorial Park would be maintained in its current condition and the
remaining land of the former Fisher Lumber site would be used temporarily as a dog run
and park maintenance material storage until funding is identified to begin phase 2.
The proposed expansion would convert an additional two acres of the northern parcel
(formerly the Fisher Lumber site) into public park land to allow for the development of
the reduced phase 1 that would include:
Sports Fields
Fields 1-2, referred to as a combination (or combo) field, would utilize synthetic turf to
create adaptable play space for baseball and softball groups of all ages. It is designed
for flexibility. The combo field could accommodate a single regulation high school
baseball game, adult softball game or collegiate softball game. Additionally, the field
could be divided with temporary fencing to accommodate two youth baseball, or two
youth fast pitch softball games played simultaneously. The field would feature covered
dugouts, shaded spectator seating, and LED sports lighting. A batting cage for shared
use sits adjacent to the combo field. Amenities such as pitchers’ bullpens and additional
batting cages would be considered in the design phase and in coordination with the
fiscal and use agreements with SMC and SMMUSD.
Pickleball/Tennis Courts
Sixteen pickleball courts with overlapping striping for four tennis courts would be
elevated over the new on-site surface parking lot and would include stairs and an
7.A
Packet Pg. 180
11 of 13
elevator. The courts would feature LED sports lighting, wide perimeter clearance
spaces, and dedicated equipment storage immediately adjacent to the play area.
Parking
The covered parking lot would increase parking inventory to be used exclusively by park
patrons and would include a safe and convenient passenger loading zone and
turnaround area. The parking lot’s central location would make it easily accessible from
all areas of the park.
Mobility and Streetscape Improvements
Mobility and streetscape improvements on 14th Street and Colorado Avenue would be
included to the extent the budget allows. The proposed master plan includes 4’-wide
planted areas that would provide a buffer between generous 8’-wide perimeter
sidewalks and field activity within the park. Street trees and parkway planters would
create a sense of comfort for pedestrians walking along the street and a shared use
bike path completely separated from the street along the Colorado Avenue park
frontage (Class I bike path) would allow for future connection to the Exposition Corridor
Bike Path.
Public Landscape Relocation
If directed to proceed, staff would restart the study of possible temporary relocation sites
for PLD’s operation yard and return to discuss findings and outline a potential
recommendation that includes costs and timeframes. At this time no additional new
sites at the scale required to host PLD are known and some of the previous alternatives
may no longer be viable as other plans have moved forward in the past two and a half
years.
Next Steps
If directed to proceed, staff would restart the Memorial Park Expansion Project with a
reduced initial phase that is in line with the approved master plan, reengage SMC and
SMMUSD in negotiations for potential fiscal and use agreements, and study possible
temporary relocation sites, including associated costs, for the PLD’s operation yard.
7.A
Packet Pg. 181
12 of 13
Staff would return to Council by April 2023 for approval to proceed with Request for Bid
for design and pre-construction services of the reduced phase 1 of the Memorial Park
Expansion Project, enter into fiscal and use agreements with the SMC and SMMUSD,
and begin planning the relocation of the PLD’s operation yard subject to a Council-
approved location and budget.
If directed to do so, the relocation of the PLD’s operation yard would be submitted to
City Council for approval as part of the CIP exception-based budget in 2023. If
prioritized and approved, staff anticipates the design, construction, and relocation would
be completed by the end of 2024.
If approved to bid the reduced phase 1 of the Memorial Park Expansion Project in April
2023, and contingent on available CIP funding and the schedule outlined above for the
relocation of the PLD, it is anticipated that bidding, design, and permitting of the
reduced phase 1 would be completed by Spring of 2025 and construction would be
completed in 2026.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
07/01/97 (attachment A) Adopt Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Master Plan
03/22/16 (attachment B) Selection of Priority Park Projects for Inclusion in the Los
Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation
Needs Assessment Report
01/23/18 (attachment C) Award of Design Agreement for the Memorial Park
Feasibility Study and Master Plan
10/15/19 (attachment D) Review of Master Plan layout and park program for
renovation and expansion of Memorial Park
02/11/20 (attachment E) Award Bid and enter into a Design-Build Contract with
W.E. O'Neil Corporation for Memorial Park
Redevelopment and Expansion Project
05/05/20 (attachment F) Santa Monica: A Plan for Our Future - City Restructuring
and Associated Modifications to the Fiscal Year 2020-21
Budget Resulting from Economic Impacts of COVID-19
Pandemic
7.A
Packet Pg. 182
13 of 13
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. However, no City funds are currently available to restart the
Memorial Park Redevelopment and Expansion Project or to relocate PLD and these
projects were not included in the City’s 5-year CIP projection. Currently the only project
funds available for the park redevelopment and expansion may be up to $20 million
from the SMC bond measure. Staff would return with a recommended location and
funding request for the relocation of PLD. Any City financial contribution to these
projects would require additional revenue recovery or reprioritization of projects.
Prepared By: Amelia Feichtner, Senior Architect
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. July 1, 1997 Staff Report
B. March 22, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. January 23, 2018 Staff Report (Web Link)
D. October 15, 2019 Staff Report (Web Link)
E. February 11, 2020 Staff Report (Web Link)
F. May 05, 2020 Staff Report (Web Link)
G. Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary
H. ADD-TO: RPC Letter to Council re Memorial Park SMC
I. Written Comment
7.A
Packet Pg. 183
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: July 1, 1997 Staff Report (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 1
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Public Landscape
Relocation Process
www.smgov.net/pldrelocation
contact: peter.james@smgov.net
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
February 19, 2020
Site Alternatives
Analysis
April 2020
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
2 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Public Landscape Division (PLD) occupies a portion of a large industrial
parcel adjacent to Memorial Park, which has been its headquarters
since 2005. In 2017, the City Council approved to develop a masterplan
to renovate Memorial Park. The masterplan included expanding the
park into the parcel currently occupied by PLD and anticipated that PLD
would be relocated off site. The Public Works Department (PW) with
Architecture Services Division (ASD) has looked at several alternative
sites throughout the City (private, institutional and City Owned)
including numerous sites at the Airport. PW staff developed a public
outreach process to identify and assess which site/s would be the best
suited for the temporary home for PLD. Assessment criteria included;
functionality for PLD operations, neighborhood impacts, development
cost and timeline, among others.
Community Workshop and Engagement
At a February 19th, 2020 Community Workshop, staff provided
information related to PLD’s operational activities, as well as the
scale of their workforce and required vehicles and equipment. Over
50 community members were invited to ask questions of staff, and
to address a large format map of the city that identified parcels of
significant size adequate to contain the division. That exercise resulted
in the identification of 42 individual sites for further analysis.
Initial Analysis and Formation of Resident Relocation Committee
Staff analyzed the 42 identified sites for potential feasibility. The sites
were organized into broad ownership categories (privately-owned,
institution/utility-owned, and City-owned) for the purpose of better
understanding the methodology for acquiring or leasing the land.
This analysis included descriptions of the site characteristics, available
infrastructure, real estate availability, impact evaluation, and congruency
with operational criteria.HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
NotesSewerLight/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork Required?
Access to Parks and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Justin Blakefrom the Noun Project120,000+ sq. ft.
37
City of Santa Monica
Airport North East None.
Wouldrequire full build out.
Complicatedby Measure LC. Very costly tobuildout this area. Staff is exploring.
Adjacentto LA residences. Good access to OceanParkBlvd.
Twodevelopment sites, each approximately 60,000 SF. Largesitecould facilitate all of the PLD operations.
Connectionto all utilities will be difficult, particularly connections
inLos Angeles. Earthwork would be required for easternmostportion.Measure LC does not allow for development ofpermanent uses. Adjacent to LA residences.
42 inidividual sites were identified as potential alternatives at a February 19th Community Workshop that drew over 50 particpants.
The 42 sites were further analyzed for feasibility and operational effectiveness. Also included in the early analysis was a consideration of potential community impacts.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 3
On March 9, 2020, the PLD Relocation project team met with the four
members of the public review “Relocation Committee” that volunteered
to help assess the selected sites and provide guidance from a resident
viewpoint. During this meeting, the team presented findings from the
analysis of the 42 sites and discussed the inhernt tradeoffs associated
with the selection of private, institutional or City-owned sites. From the
initial list of 42 identified sites, only 9 sites were agreed to be potentially
available and feasible. These include:
•3402 Ocean Park Boulevard - Santa Monica Business Park
• 1757 Stanford Avenue - Private Warehouse Facility
• 3402 Pico Boulevard - Creative Office Building
• 1734 Colorado Avenue - METRO Owned Lot
• 402 Colorado Avenue - City Owned lot at EXPO Station
•1636 5th Street - City Owned office building and small parking lot
• Airport Northeast Corner (undeveloped raw land)
• 2800 Airport Avenue - City Owned land leased to SMC
• 3011 Airport Avenue - City Owned hangard
Analysis of 9 Shortlist Sites – Further Refinement
Staff further assessed these nine potentially viable sites. Staff
investigated in depth the ownership and lease scenarios, operation
functionality, and estimated costs of improvements. From this effort,
five of the nine shortlisted sites were eliminated as follows:
• 3402 Ocean Park Bouelvard - Lease would be $55,000 per month ($660,000/
year), the area offered for lease was a vacant restaurant that would require
$1M in renovation costs. Space was adequate for office work, but did not provide space for bulk storage, parking, or equipment repair.
• 1757 Stanford- Lease would be $98,067/month (1,176,810/year), the
area offered for lease was only for warehouse space leaving office, locker
shower, toilet, or repair shop spaces to go somewhere else. Vertical/vehicle
requirements for bulk storage and delivery is not possible.
• 3402 Pico- lease would be $33,770/ month ($405,240/year) and only provided
for office space and a small modicum of personal vehicle parking. All other
requirements would have to be provided elsewhere.
• 1734 Colorado- Owned by METRO. Actual lot size (12,000 sq ft) can only
accommodate Bulk Storage requirements.
• 402 Colorado- METRO Terminus parking lot- Actual usable space (28,000)
cannot accommodate all equipment, bulk storage, and repair areas. Vehicle
access to/from site would be problematic.
• 1635 5th Street- Provides required office space, but does not provide parking
for staff and does not have space for equipment, bulk storage, and repair areas.
9 alternative sites were identified through the research and refinement process.
40
35
42
34
17
18
19
27
12
39
25
21
30
32
24
9
4
3
26
13
20
2
11
5
23
28
1
14
16
22
31
3
33
15
6
29
7
10
8
36
37
37
38
41
43
Privately-Owned Sites
Eligible Sites as of 3.17.20
All Ineligible Sites
Ineligible Sites as of 3.17.20
Institutional/Utility/Other
City-Owned Sites
Airport Sites (City)
40
35
42
34
17
18
19
27
12
39
25
21
30
32
24
9
4
3
26
13
20
2
11
5
23
28
1
14
16
22
31
3
33
15
6
29
7
10
8
36
37
37
38
41
43
Privately-Owned Sites
Eligible Sites as of 3.17.20
All Ineligible Sites
Ineligible Sites as of 3.17.20
Institutional/Utility/Other
City-Owned Sites
Airport Sites (City)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
4 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Final Four Scenarios
The removal of these five shortlist sites left only three other viable site
alternatives to the 2950 25th Street property. Staff was able to establish
four potential scenarios from these three sites, which were all center in
and around the Airport facility, specifically:
• Existing Option: 2950 25th Street Hangar with surrounding parking areas for maintenance equipment and staff and Clover Park CCS/PLD trailer for
supervisor staff.
• Scenario 1: Airport NE Corner (Car Dealership Storage area at S. Centinela Ave
and Bundy Ave).
• Scenario 2: 3011 Airport Ave Hangar, office and tie down space.
• Scenario 3: 2800 Airport Ave Santa Monica College office building.
• Scenario 4: 2800 Airport Ave SMC modular trailer building.
The four scenarios are described in detail on the following pages. This
content includes information about proposed layouts, construction
budget, and lease assumptions (Airport land must be leased at a fair
market value. The City’s General Fund would be responsible for paying
rent to the Airport Fund, per Federal statutes).
Impact of COVID-19 on PLD Relocation Process
City staff finalized their assessment and started preparing to present
the remaining four sites to the public review committee. Due to the
Covid-19 global pandemic the Memorial Park Expansion project
has been put on hold thus eliminating the urgency to finalize this
Alternative Location Assessment process. This summary report
has been written to act as the starting point when this project is
started again in the future.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 5
HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3
SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
NotesSewerLight/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork Required?
Access to Parks and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Justin Blakefrom the Noun Project120,000+ sq. ft.
37
City of Santa Monica
Airport North East None.
Wouldrequire full build out.
Complicatedby Measure LC. Very costly tobuildout this area. Staff is exploring.
Adjacentto LA residences. Good access to OceanParkBlvd.
Twodevelopment sites, each approximately 60,000 SF. Large
sitecould facilitate all of the PLD operations.
Connectionto all utilities will be difficult, particularly connections
inLos Angeles. Earthwork would be required for easternmostportion.Measure LC does not allow for development of
permanent uses. Adjacent to LA residences.
HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
NotesSewerLight/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork Required?
Access to Parks and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Justin Blakefrom the Noun Project90,000 sq. ft.
41
City of Santa Monica
2800 Airport Avenue
Staffis exploring potential to break lease,or
leaseportion of site in combination withother sites.
Largesite could facilitate all of the PLD operation needs.Existingbuildings could be ready for move-in.
Currentlyin a 5 year lease with SMC. Very expensive leashold(approx$500K per year to airport fund).
HACK THE MOVE!!
Site #
Owner
Site Characteristics Real Estate Evaluation
Impact Evaluation
Operational Criteria
Biggest Opportunities
Biggest Challenges
Lot Area Available 12/20?
Construction Required?
Electricity Noise
Equipment Storage
Building Onsite
Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3SF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ex. OK Poor
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Description
Description
NotesSewerLight/Air
Facility for Staff
Dimesions x
Gas Air Quality
Bulk Storage
Water Traffic
Adjacent to Residential?
Potential Impacts
Vehicle Parking
Consolidated Split
Sale
Value ($)
Lease
Infrastructure
Map View Street View
ADA
Earthwork Required?
Access to Parks and Urban Forest
Notes
Address APN #
Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Made by Madefrom the Noun Project Created by Justin Blakefrom the Noun Project35,800 sq. ft.
8,800
42
City of Santa Monica
3011 Airport Ave 4272-026-902- Part of 3223
Staffis exploring this site in combination
withothers.
This site facilitates a portion of PLD requirements.
Thissite requires areas that are currently used by aircraft (tiedowns).In order to use this site, these ties downs need to berelocated,which is challenging.
Three Viable Sites for Study and Exploration
Analysis resulted in the identification of only three remaining
alternative sites to the 2950 25th Street property. All of the
sites are located at the Airport campus, and include a range
of constraints that needed further study. These sites include:
• Airport Northeast Corner
• 3011 Airport Avenue
• 2800 Airport Avenue (SMC)
These three viable sites form the basis of the four scenarios
that are presented in this report in the following pages.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
6 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 1
(Airport NE Corner- car dealer storage)
This scenario proposes a consolidated operation on the area currently
occupied by “car dealer’s storage.” The area would accommodate PLD
supervisors, muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing
rooms in a new 36x60 Modular Trailer at this site; PLD Vehicles and
three conex boxes to be stored in the parking lot open to the sky; small
equipment, hand tools, equipment repair and bulk materials would be
stored in a tent structure; and staff personal vehicles would be parked
on the parking lot open to the sky (45 spaces).
The ROM cost is $2,924,348 for construction and $250,600 lease per
year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the
actual start of the project.
Pros-
• Good access to/from the site from City streets- Centinela Ave
• Consolidated Operation
Cons-
• Must access into secure gated area (airfield)- adds to time to get in/out of the
airfield.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required
The “Northeast Corner” of the Airport is largely undeveloped. This particular area is currently
improved with a 80,000 square foot surface parking lot.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 7
43,613 sf
PERSONAL
VEHICLES
OFFICETRAILER26'-
0
"291'-10 1/2"CONEX BOXCONEX BOXCONEX BOXCONEX BOX181'-7 1/2"EV CHARGING65,255.6 sf
25'
-
1
"
ADA
1
5
10
15
20
PICK UP TRUCKS25'
-
1
"
S 1
5
10
11
19
20
27
28
35
42
45
43
40
SCENARIO 1273'-8"BULK STORAGEEQPT STORAGE28'-4"ABELSite layout of Scenario 1 at the Northeast Corner. This exercise helps determine the capacity of
the site to accommodate the operational requirements for the Public Landscape Yards.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
8 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6" 1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =
° PL
38 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN 8'-5 1/16"
4"
6" 1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =
° PL
38 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-
MOVABLE.
AA
AA
BBBBBBBB
30"x30" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-MOVABLE.
439.4 sf
18'-4 1/2"19'-10 1/2" 8'-5 1/16"
4"
6" 1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =
° PL
38 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-
MOVABLE.
ABEL'S SHOP1,037.4 sf
PUSH BLOCK CALCULATIONS: 30"x30"x5'.
L (back wall)= 7 x 21'= 145'/ 5' (block length)= 29 blocks
L (8 Dividers)= 8 x 20'= 160'/ 5'= 32 blocks
Total length= 305'
5' long blocks= 61 per lift-
7'6" tall walls = three lifts…
3x61=183 blocks required.
$100/block= $18,300.
SWEEPER7x12
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6"
1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =° PL
3
8 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-MOVABLE.
SWEEPER7x12
SWEEPER7x12
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6" 1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =
° PL
38 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-
MOVABLE.
SWEEPER7x12
TOOL STORAGECAGE7.5x21
8'-5 1/16"
4"
6" 1-1/4"
8"
1-1/4" EQ EQ
10-1/2"
14'-0"
8'-1 11/16"
6"
EQ EQ
10-1/2" 8"
1-1/4"
1-1/4"
1'-9"
10"
6-1/16"
8-1/2"
6-1/16"
10"
1'-2"
2-3/4"
2-3/4"
8-1/2"
7" 1-1/2"
4" 4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
168'-0" OUT TO OUT OF STEEL
9 Rigid Frames @ 21'-0" oc, Typical
BASE PLATE SCHEDULE
°PL3/4 x 10 x 1'-9"C =°PL3/4 x 5 x 1'-2"B =
° PL
38 x 6 x 0' 10-1/2", 50 ksiA =
C
B
BBBBBB
B ALL OTHERS FRAMES - SIMILAR
SHOWN
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT for "HELICAL" PILE SUPPORT
4"
A
A
1
A
A
O.H.1
9
4" OUT-TO-OUT32'-0"9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"B
C
A
D
CENTER-TO-CENTER168'-0"
21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"21'-0"8765432
91
NOTE: All Base Plates @ 100'-0" (U.N.)ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
B
CCCCCCC
X-Bracing
do do
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{PCB} PEAK COVER BRACE
RIGID FRAME, TYPICAL
{ECB} EAVE COVER BRACE
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
do
do
do
do do
do do do
do do do do do
do do
do do do do do
do(LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE (LB & AB) LATERAL & ANGLE BRACE
A
D
1
2 3456 78
9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4/19/2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E1SHEET:SHEET TITLE:FRAMING PLAN24"x24" CONCRETE PUSH BLOCKS-
MOVABLE.
TOOL STORAGECAGE7.5x21
TOOL STORAGECAGE7.5x21
MOWER10x10
DINGO4x9
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
MOWER10x10
WEED4x4TURF4x4TURF4x4WEED4x4
146'-8 1/2"42'-4"84'-8 1/2"
273'-8"
SCENARIO 1
Diagram illustrating the configuration of temporary strutures that could acommodate bulk and equipment storage and a mechanics shop.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 9
A DIVISION OFENGINEERING SERVICES & PRODUCTS CO.1440 18TH AVENUE SWDYERSVILLE, IA 52040P: 563.875.6113F: 563.875.2317WWW.ESAPCO.COM
DEVELOPED BY
CUSTOMER INFORMATION:CITY OF SUFFOLK, VA442 W. WASHINGTON STREETSUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23434CUSTOMER CONTACT:ANTONIO JORDONSTRUCTURE SIZE:32'-0" X 168'-0"CONTACT PHONE:757-541-7624STRUCTURE SKU #:116100STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:CUSTOM I-BEAM MONOSLOPEORDER #:7410555
CUSTOMER #:8748676
DRAWING DETAILS
SHEET SIZE: 11X17NOT TO SCALE
JJM
4
CREATION DATE:3/29/2018DRAWN BY:CCC
4//2018
3
2
1
REVISION DATE:BY:NO.
REVISIONS:
E2SHEET:SHEET TITLE:LATERAL BRACING CALL OUTSEND RAFTER: 11592C18EL/RMID RAFTER: 11592 C18M
PCB
ECB
END RAFTER: 11592 C18EL/RMID RAFTER: 11592 C18M
END RAFTER: 115922C18EL/RMID RAFTER: 115922C18M
AB2
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
LB
AB
32'-0" OUT TO OUTTYPICAL RIGID FRAME
21'-9"
18'-9 1/4"
[E2]LATERAL BRACING CALL-OUT
BRACE SCHEDULELB = LATERAL BRACE (SKU: LB40G10STL248T)•ECB = EAVE COVER BRACE (SKU: AWT2PBAL25137)•PCB = PEAK COVER BRACE (SKU: AWT2PBCL25137)•AB = ANGLED BRACE (SKU: LB23G14SDL01512)•AB2 = ANGLED BRACE (SKU: LB23G14SDL01913)•
SCENARIO 1
Cross-section of a temporary “tent” structure protecting bulk storage and equipmnt from the elements.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
10 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Interior layout of temporary modular structures showing work stations, locker room, muster room, and other features.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 11
SCENARIO 1- AIRPORT NE CORNER
Scope: Convert existing car dealership parking lot to house all PLD activities.
Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 190,296
Design Contingency - 15% $ 19,030 Subtotal: $ 209,326
Construction
Contractor $ 1,585,800
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 158,580
Utilities $ 450,000 Subtotal: $ 2,194,380
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 7,929
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 15,858
PM/CM Consultant $ 39,645
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 31,716
Public Works Staff Labor $ 39,645 Subtotal: $ 134,793
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data equipment $ 100,000 Subtotal: $ 100,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000 Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 2,658,499 Project Contingency: $ 265,850
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,924,348
Lease Costs per year $ 250,579
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
12 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 2
(3011 Airport Ave Office-Hangar/2800 Airport Ave SMC Offices)
This scenario proposes a split operation on the areas currently used
by “Cars with Class”, SMO aircraft tie down area, and the SMC office
building at 2800 AA. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors,
muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms in a
renovated “Cars with Class” office area; PLD vehicles and three conex
boxes to be stored in the parking lot open to the sky; small equipment,
hand tools, and equipment repair would be housed in the hangar area;
bulk materials to be stored in a tent structure; and staff personal vehicles
to be parked across the street on the 2800 SMC office building parking
lot (37 spaces).
The ROM cost is $1,798,012 for construction and $374,600 lease per
year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the
actual start of the project.
Pros-
• This scenario is considered split because personal vehicles are across the
street, but the PLD functions are consolidated.
• Ample interior storage space for Abel and equipment.
• Ample space for truck and equipment parking.
Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave.
• Minimal space for personal vehicle parking (lot only accommodates 37
vehicles).
•Minimal space for Office, locker and shower, and muster room.
• Fire sprinkler water service would need to be established.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required
The 3011 property is a former home of the Public Landscape Division. Scenario 2 contemplates
combining this site with one across the street to consolidate operations.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 13
43,848.2 sf
5
0
'
-
1
"
43,848 sf
9,120.4 sf
43,848.2 sf
9,120.4 sf
6,559 sf
2,560 sf
Inventory of existing surface area square footage, internal hangar space and office.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
14 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
This scenario contemplates using the 3011 Airport Avenue site as the base for operations, and leveraging another City-owned property across Airport Avenue as staff parking.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 15
This diagram shows the internal configuration of the space utilizing the program requirements for PLD operations.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
16 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
108.8 sf39.9 sf
8'-3 1/2"10'-8"5'-9 1/2"232.8 sf
379.3 sf
7'-1 1/2"9'-8 1/2"17'-2 1/2"
12'-4 1/2"18'-8 1/2"20'-5"12'-10 1/2"24'-1"10'-4 1/2"
Internal hangar and office space configuration of the 3011 Airport Avenue property.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 17
SCENARIO 2- 3011 AA HANGAR WITH 2800 AA PARKING LOT
Scope: 3100 AA- Tenant Improvement to existing hangar, office space and aircraft tie down area to house all PLD activities.
2800 AA- Parking lot - 37 spaces for staff personal vehicles.
Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 107,477
Design Contingency - 15% $ 10,748 Subtotal: $ 118,224
Construction
Contractor $ 895,639
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 89,564
Utilities $ 400,000 Subtotal: $ 1,385,203
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 4,478
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 8,956
PM/CM Consultant $ 22,391
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 17,913
Public Works Staff Labor $ 22,391
Miscellaneous
Subtotal: $ 76,129
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 35,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 35,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000 Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,634,557 Project Contingency: $ 163,456
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,798,012
Lease Costs per year $ 376,737
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
18 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 3
(2800 Airport Ave SMC office building with adjacent parking lots)
This scenario proposes a consolidated operation on the areas currently
used by SMC; office building at 2800 AA and adjacent parking lots to
the east and west. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors,
muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, and
hand tool storage in the office building; PLD vehicles and three conex
boxes would be stored in the west parking lot open to the sky; small
equipment, hand tools, equipment repair would be housed in the office
building warehouse; bulk materials to be stored in a tent structure on
the west parking lot; and staff personal vehicles to be parked on the
2800 SMC office building east parking lot (37 spaces).
The ROM cost is $1,392,493 for construction and $355,130 lease per
year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the
actual start of the project.
Pros-
• Ample room at 2800 AA office building for staff requirements.
• Ample room at 2800 AA warehouse for repair and indoor storage requirements.
Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave.
• Minimal space in the PLD vehicle lot- does not accommodate all the equipment.
• Minimal space for personal vehicle parking (lot only accommodates 37
vehicles).
• Assumes that SMC will remove the modular trailer.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required
2800 Airport Avenue is a City owned Airport site that is leased by SMC. The College has vacated large portions of the site, making it eligible for potential reoccupation.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 19
In this scenario, PLD would occupy a portion of the existing office building, utilize an existing small 3,974sf warehouse, occupy the modular trailer setup, and make use of the existing surface parking lot.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
20 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Layout of site with potential configuration of offies, storage, employee parking on adjacent lot, and PLD equipment and vehicle parking.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 21
SCENARIO 3- 2800 AA OFFICE BUILDING AND ADJ. PARKING LOTS
Scope: 2800 AA: Tenant Improvement in the existing office building and adjacent parking lots to house all PLD activities.
Activity Notes Budget
Design
Consultant $ 91,896
Design Contingency - 15% $ 9,190 Subtotal: $ 101,086
Construction
Contractor $ 765,802
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 76,580
Utilities $ 185,000 Subtotal: $ 1,027,382
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 3,829
Environmental Consultant $ 10,000
PM/CM Consultant $ 19,145
Public Works Staff Labor $ 19,145 Subtotal: $ 67,435
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 50,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 50,000
MISC
Relocation Costs $ 20,000 Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,265,903 Project Contingency: $ 126,590
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,392,493
Lease Cost per year $ 355,129
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
22 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Scenario 4
(2800 Airport Ave SMC warehouse and modular trailer building with
adjacent parking lots)
This scenario proposes a split operation on the areas currently used by
SMC; office building warehouse, Modular Classroom Trailer and two
parking lot areas. The areas would accommodate; PLD supervisors,
muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, and
hand tool storage to be in the renovated trailer office area; PLD Vehicles
and three conex boxes to be stored in the west parking lot open to the
sky; small equipment, hand tools, equipment repair would be housed
in the office building warehouse; bulk materials to be stored in a tent
structure on the west parking lot; and staff personal vehicles to be
parked on the parking lot in front of the modular trailers (49 spaces).
The ROM cost is $1,770,619 for construction and $370,943 lease per
year. The timeline for this project would be 34-38 months from the
actual start of the project.
Pros-
• Ample room for personal vehicle parking and staff office needs
• Ample room for repair shop and indoor equipment storage.
Cons-
• Difficult access to/from City Streets- 23rd Street/Walgrove Ave.
• West parking lot shape could create challenges due to drive aisle width, PLD
to investigate.
• Ownership of modular trailer (SMC or City) and how to remove a portion of
the trailer to be negotiated and coordinated.
• Parking for SMC ceramics kiln building needs to be relocated/negotiated.
They could share the parking lot in front of the modular trailer.
• Fire sprinkler water service would need to be established.
• SCE upgrade for EV charging stations required 2800 Airport Avenue is a City owned Airport site that is leased by SMC. The College has vacated large portions of the site, making it eligible for potential reoccupation.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 23
9,451.9 sf
20,052.4 sf
5,883.2 sf
80'-1"
SCENARIO 4
This diagram depicts use of the modular trailer and surface parking lot.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
24 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
20,052.4 sf
5,883.2 sf
STAFF PARKING
PL 3
ABEL
9,451.9 sf
225'-1"5
0
'
-
1
1
"
RESTR
O
O
M
S
225'-0"50'-1/2"25'-1/2"
OFFICE/KITCHEN MUSTER LOCKER
SH/T/C
1
21
22
49
10
20
30
40
EQPT
CAGE
STOR
SCENARIO 4
The modular trailer provides more than enough space for PLD, however, it is more space than actually needed, which has cost implications.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 25
79'-11
1/
2"
41,907.5 sf
SCENARIO 4
The remaining component of this scenario involves utilizing the triangular parking lot at the southern end of the site. This is generously sized, but its irregular shape creates a challenge for PLD’s larger vehicles.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
26 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Site programming diagram showing the potential location of bulk storage, equipment and vehicle parking, and other storage units.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 27
SCENARIO 4- 2800 AA- SMC TRAILER WITH ADJ. PARKING LOTS
Scope: Convert existing car dealership parking lot to house all PLD activities.
Activity Notes Budget A
Design
Consultant $ 96,096
Design Contingency - 15% $ 9,610 Subtotal: $ 105,706
Construction
Contractor $ 800,800
Construction Contingency - 10.0% $ 80,080
Utilities $ 450,000 Subtotal: $ 1,330,880
Project Management & Other Direct Costs
Survey $ 4,004
Geotech/Soils Consultant $ 8,008
PM/CM Consultant $ 20,020
Inspection & Labor Compliance $ 16,016
Public Works Staff Labor $ 20,020
Miscellaneous
Subtotal: $ 68,068
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
ISD Data costs $ 75,000
Telephones, Data, and Security System
Subtotal: $ 75,000
MISC
Site Assessment
Relocation Costs $ 20,000 Subtotal: $ 20,000
Total: $ 1,599,654 Project Contingency: $ 159,965
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,759,619
Lease Cost per year $ 370,943
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
28 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Alternatives Analysis
Existing Option
(2950 25th Street- Airport Maintenance Hangar/ Parking Lot/Clover
Park Trailer)
This scenario provides a spit operation in the area formerly occupied
by Airport Maintenance and SMPD SWAT and the Clover Park PLD/CCS
office modular trailer. The PLD/CCS Modular Trailer would accommodate
PLD supervisors. The Airport Maintenance Hangar would accommodate
the muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms,
hand tool storage, and equipment repair; PLD Vehicles, personal vehicles
and three conex boxes to be placed in the parking lot around the Hangar
open to the sky.
The actual project cost was $1,236,317 for construction and $406,629
lease per year. The timeline for this project was 12 months and is
complete and could be occupied immediately.
2950 25th Street was renovated in 2019 to accommodate the Public Landscape Division.
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
APRIL 2020
PLD RELOCATION | 297.A.g
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Public Landscape Division Relocation Analysis Summary (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion
1685 Main Street, Room 240, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8310 • ccs@santamonica.gov
santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
Recreation and Parks Commission
April 4, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Memorial Park Plan/Santa Monica College Negotiations
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council Members,
At its Thursday, March 17th meeting, the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
discussed and by unanimous vote agreed to request that you direct city staff to restart
negotiations with Santa Monica College and its Board of Trustees as to when the College plans to
fulfill its promise and obligation to pay “Up to $20 million dollars” from the Measure V Bond of 2016 to
help pay for the Memorial Park Redesign.
We also request you or city staff provide us with an update on the progress of the above
negotiations within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
In 2016, Measure V also promised $20 million to SMMUSD for the new JAMS Auditorium and did fulfill
that promise, but the City of Santa Monica is still waiting for the $20 million dollars SMC promised in
the same bond measure for Memorial. At the time, commissioners were assured by city officials,
staff and SMC representatives that the full $20 million would go towards Memorial Park.
Negotiations between the City and College stalled in 2019, then the pandemic hit.
Thank you for your leadership and efforts to help push the Memorial Park Plan forward. It’s time. Sincerely,
Lori Brown Lori Brown
Chair, Recreation and Parks Commission cc: Recreation and Parks Commission
Andy Agle, Director of Community Services Department
Jeanette Gant, Community Recreation Manager
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: ADD-TO: RPC Letter to Council re Memorial Park SMC (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Heather Baroff <lamunchkin@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 4:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam
Davis
Subject:Agenda Item 7.A
EXTERNAL
Thank you for your attention.
As a resident of Santa Monica, I object to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the
pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park. During the day, Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts
for classes and tennis practice leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball. Pickleball as you know has
become the fastest growing sport, and Memorial Park is now a haven for folks to get out, have fun and get
much needed exercise. There are very few courts with pickleball lines in Santa Monica. Joint agreement
would impinge on accessibility - when throughout Santa Monica, most courts are tennis specific. We need
more pickleball courts, not less.
I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city.
Thank you for your help and understanding.
Sincerely,
Heather Baroff
2618 Arizona Ave., #3
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 7.A 09/27/22
1 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Bocanegra <ebocanegra@ucla.edu>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 12:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam
Davis; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Hello ‐‐
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts. It is
difficult enough as is to find space on the pickleball courts. A joint use agreement would only further make playing on
the courts inaccessible. SMC already uses the courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to
play pickleball.
Best,
Liz Bocanegra, M.A.
Doctoral Student in Clinical Psychology
University of California, Los Angeles
Culture and Anxiety Lab for Mental Health Advances (CALMA)
Item 7.A 09/27/22
2 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Benjamin Tillis <btillis94@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 12:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
lananegrete@me.com; david.white@smgov.ne
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concer.
My name is Ben Tillis and I am a Santa Monica resident (2638 28th Street). One of the main reasons I moved from Silver
Lake to Santa Monica was the proximity to Memorial Park, which has a lively, welcoming and fun pickleball community.
I am writing to say that I strongly object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts
because this would further restrict the times that the very active pickleball group could play. With open play, not
reserved by the college, the courts can be used for many many people, being social and staying fit. It's great for the
community. Closing the courts off for use by Santa Monica College would restrict that. It would take away a huge reason
why I live in Santa Monica.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Best,
Ben Tillis
btillis94@gmail.com
720‐839‐6186
Item 7.A 09/27/22
3 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Lesley Bracker <lesleybracker1@me.com>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 11:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Regarding Agenda Item 7.A.:
As a 30 year Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the
pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park. SMC already uses the courts during what used to be public play
time, which means no pickleball allowed on the only pickleball courts in the city, whereas there are plenty of
other tennis courts. Memorial Park is the only pickleball court in all of Santa Monica.
I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city of Santa
Monica. However, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park.
Thank you,
Lesley Bracker
30 year resident of Santa Monica
Item 7.A 09/27/22
4 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Seth Prandini <sethjprandini@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 11:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A
EXTERNAL
As a Santa Monica resident, I'm writing to express my objection a joint use agreement with SMC for the pickleball/tennis
courts at Memorial Park.
Pickleball at Memorial has completely transformed my physical and mental health. It is a thriving community and needs
to be encouraged and supported by the city council. Anything that limits the public's use of Memorial Park tennis courts
for pickleball is bad for the city and for its citizens.
Please vote NO on this joint use agreement.
Thank you,
Seth Prandini
Item 7.A 09/27/22
5 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Lynn Soodik <LSoodik@lynnsoodik.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 22, 2022 8:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; David White
Subject:Agenda Item 7A September 27, 2022 and in particular joint use agreement with SMC and Memorial
Park master plan
EXTERNAL
Hello, I am Lynn Soodik, a long-time resident of Santa Monica (over 30 years) and a board member of the
nonprofit corporation known as the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, hereinafter “SMPC”. SMPC was formed in
January of this year so the public could have use of public courts to play pickleball. We have 855 members as
of September 21, 2022 and we are growing weekly. We currently pay in excess of $4,000 a month to the city to
reserve courts to the public to play pickleball and we would pay more if we could reserve more courts. Players
don’t have to be a member to use the courts that SMPC pays the city to grant us a permit to play. If we did not
pay for permits we would not be able to have the time reserved for the public. It was the only way we could get
use of these public courts. Still, we don’t have enough courts and Santa Monica College and Crossroads’ use of
the courts has minimized the public’s use of the Courts.
We are requesting that:
1. The City consider pickleball in the Memorial Park master plan. While you do say you want to
continue to have sixteen pickleball courts/tennis courts, that doesn’t address the important issue that
the pickleball public should not always be treated as second class citizens, where SMC, Crossroads
and City of Santa Monica Tennis Classes always have priority and pickleball players are only
allowed what is left over after the others get their first choice. What is left over is not enough! If you
are not aware of the situation, the public often has only four pickleball courts (one tennis court)
available for pickleball in the entire city for a continuous block of time because of the extensive use
of the Memorial courts by SMC, Crossroads and the City programs that allow tennis instructors to
have priority to have classes which I believe is allowed because they share revenue with the city.
While we have over 800 pickleball members there are also player that are not members of our
organization that want to play on those courts. Come out on a Monday or Wednesday morning and
see how few SMC players are on all three courts and how many pickleball players are on the one
court we are allowed to use. Come out on Monday and Wednesday evenings and see how people are
waiting 20 or more minutes to play one game. The other nights are also busy.
2. The City acknowledge that pickleball is growing and that four tennis courts is not enough for the
entire city of Santa Monica even if we had exclusive use of them. Currently we only have use of
them when they are not reserved, as set forth above. We would ask that you direct your staff to look
into this issue.
3. The City provide pickleball courts to the public when the four tennis courts at Memorial Park are
shut down for the Memorial Park Redevelopment Project. We have nowhere else to play. Your
agenda recommends that you direct staff to study possible temporary relocation sites for the PLD,
please instruct them to study possible relocation sites for pickleball.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
6 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
7
4. The City should stop permitting out Memorial Park to Santa Monica College and Crossroads and
move the Santa Monica City classes to a different location. If the City wants to permit out courts to
SMC, choose a different location.
5. While there is no objection to the City forming a joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for
the fields as required by Measure V, we request that they DO NOT enter into a joint use agreement
for the current and future tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park. I read the agenda for September
27, 2022 and the language could give readers the wrong impression of Measure V and I want to be
sure no one has the wrong impression. On page 7 under “Funding” the agenda states that “[t]he
contributions of College and District funding were conditioned upon programmed joint uses of the
completed Memorial Park facilities.” That is not what Measure V requires. If you look under
“Community Joint Use Projects” in Measure V, the language specifically states that “[t]he College
will provide up to $20 million in bond funds for the expansion of the City of Santa Monica’s
Memorial Park to accommodate soccer and/or other field sports for use by College students and
the general public. (emphasis added.)” Your agenda implies that there needs to be a joint use
agreement for the tennis/pickleball courts too and Measure V does not require the same. One could
read your agenda and be under the misunderstanding that the city must have a joint use agreement
for the tennis/pickleball courts to obtain funds and that is not required under the measure. SMC can
play on other city courts, or they could build courts. They shouldn’t have first right to use the public
courts at the expense of the public. Pickleball can’t be played on many of the City courts because
they are too close to residential areas. SMC could play tennis on those courts. SMC could play at
Ocean View Park where they play their matches. Crossroads could play at Marine Park. Ocean
View Park has six tennis courts. While Ocean View Park may be booked, the courts are used quite a
lot by tennis instructors. Why shouldn’t instructors for profit be pushed out. They are tennis
businesses that run classes at public parks because they don’t have their own courts. In fact, some of
these private businesses advertise the public courts as their courts! Look at the Beach City Tennis
Academy and Santa Monica Tennis Academy websites. I believe tennis instructors use one-half of
the available courts in the city every day. If you go to the various locations, you can see their
reservations which are posted.
6. The City must address the issue of pickleball. Memorial Park is the perfect place for Pickleball since
no one needs to be concerned about the noise level. We are asking that the City make all four tennis
courts into pickleball courts, or if the City decides to continue to use the four tennis courts for both
pickleball and tennis the City should build a pickleball center at the Santa Monica airport on the land
immediately north of the dog park which is just west of Bundy. Build it to accommodate the city’s
growing need for space for pickleball and make it a tourist destination and a place for tournaments to
be played, which could bring in substantial revenue to the city in terms of hotel occupancy, dining
and shopping.
7. As mentioned above, the City must address where pickleball players will play during the
redevelopment of Memorial Park. If they started building on the Santa Monica Airport area now
perhaps the courts could be finished before the courts at Memorial Park are removed. Have a master
plan for a pickleball center with restrooms, water bottle filling stations, perhaps a restaurant, even if
you need to build it in phases. Build two stadium courts for tournaments. Put in lighting for night.
8. Consider building pickleball/tennis courts on top of one of SMC’s parking structures for use by
SMC and Crossroads for classes and tennis team practice and games while making it available to the
city for city run classes in the evenings.
9. Put Pickleball on your agenda for an upcoming meeting. Don’t ignore us.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
7 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
8
For your information, on Mondays and Wednesdays, SMC has the Memorial Park courts reserved from 9:30 –
11 and 12:30 – 2. Is the gap in between classes designed to give the coaches time to provide private lessons in
between classes for their own profit? Their block of time chops up the time for the community, giving the
public from 8-9:30 and 11-12:30 to use courts 1, 2 and 3 in the mornings on Mondays and Wednesdays. On
Tuesdays and Thursdays SMC has three courts from 11-12:35 and two courts from 12:45 – 2:05. Move SMC to
another court in the city, or if you won’t do that, at least give them one block of time at Memorial Park, which I
would suggest being between 1:00 pm and 3:00 p.m. to give pickleball players the morning on all four
courts. Also, why does Crossroads, an expensive private school, which does not allow the public to use their
swimming pool, basketball court or fields, have the courts every day from 3-5? Why is the public treated so
poorly? Why do they not have priority? Why do pickleball players pay taxes for courts that they can rarely
use? Why is the City Council ignoring this issue? Players can sit on a court at Memorial Park for three hours
and only play three 20-minute games because of the lack of courts and the use of the public courts by the
college/private schools/ private instructors etc. This is not right, and we are asking you to address this issue.
You should come to the courts in the mornings on a Monday or Wednesday and see how few SMC students
occupy three courts and how packed court four is with pickleball players, as that one court is the only court in
the entire city open at that time for pickleball.
I understand that everyone is clamoring for the same courts, but why does SMC and Crossroads get to exclude
the public? Of the 23 public tennis courts in the city, pickleball is only allowed to be played at four, and
because of the City’s continual permitting of three of these four courts to Santa Monica College, Crossroads,
camps and private instructors, the courts available to play pickleball to the growing number of players is
minimal
We started the non-profit club to make the activity of pickleball available for recreational play for all levels of
players and at no charge. We provide equipment, we pay for permits at peak hours on the weekend and
evenings, we organize round robin tournaments, and we provide pickleball instruction, with some classes
limited to Santa Monica residents. We have hosted Men of Color from Santa Monica College and given them
free pickleball lessons. A member has taught pickleball classes at a local elementary school. We would do
more of this, but why teach children a sport where they will have no court to play on? SMPC is trying to make
this city better, but we need your help.
Please address these issues. Please let me know what our group should do to get more time. Do you want
hundreds of letters from our members? Do you want a petition? What do we need to do to get this issue
addressed?
For now, give us at a minimum two courts at Memorial Park during the week that you do not permit out to
tennis. With all the other tennis courts in the city, we are not asking for much.
Allow our organization permission to purchase nets on wheels for those two courts to stay on the court all
day. They could be moved to the side if necessary. Currently we have volunteers set up the nets every morning
and take them down every afternoon. Then on Mondays and Wednesday evenings volunteers set up the nets
again and take them down again. When we have round robins in the evenings, we again set up the nets and take
them down. It is labor intensive. We aren’t even asking the city to purchase these nets but asking that we be
able to purchase them for use by the public. Everyone gets to use the courts which we permit out and the
equipment we purchase, even if they are not members of the club, but still our club is ever growing!
This issue is not going away. Please solve the problem before it becomes a crisis.
The language from Measure V that I have referred to is:
“Community Joint Use Projects
Item 7.A 09/27/22
8 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
9
Providing for a Joint Use Project with the City of Santa Monica. The College will provide up to $20
million in bond funds for the expansion of the City of Santa Monica’s Memorial Park to accommodate soccer
and/or other field sports for use by College students and the general public. (Emphasis added)”
Very truly yours,
Lynn Soodik
Item 7.A 09/27/22
9 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jessica Sklar <jess.sklar@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 23, 2022 4:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern ‐ re: AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
Memorial Park is one of the few places in Santa Monica to play pickleball‐ and we share the courts with tennis that get
priority already. I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts ‐ we need this
space for our pickleball club (Santa Monica Pickleball Club) ‐ which allows residents of all ages, from children to elderly
to enjoy a healthy, fun, community driven sport. Each tennis court has room for 4 pickleball courts, or 16 players,
making the most use out of this space, with many more players on the courts, cheering and waiting. If you come to any
open play time you’ll see literally over 100+ people lined up and ready to play, be healthy, socialize and enjoy our Santa
Monica park space. Sharing this space with yet another organization when we have limited hours and courts already
does not make sense.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jessica Sklar
Item 7.A 09/27/22
10 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Helen Ario <tennisbandit@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Letting down the older citizens of santa monica
EXTERNAL
Im surprised with the councils regard to the tennis courts at memorial park.
The 1 court is packed with over 60 players per each morning playing pickleball. The other courts are occupied with smc
students learning tennis. Possibly a max of 10 players.
The many courts available around santa monica including courts at john adams school available to smc is shameful that
with so many pickleball players the city refuses to give over the memorial park courts to pickleball.
Getting the older generation to get out and excercise along with allowing them social activity should be a prime
consideration of the council.
Other cities and states have created exclusive pickleball courts for its residence. Considering that Santa Monica is
considered forward thinking looking to create housing for homeless and sports fields for children. The fact that the
residence who are paying taxes and have been for decades are limited to borrowing 1 court to play a sport that keeps
them active and social is a shameful attitide.
I look forward to rhe. COUNCIL looking closely at this issue and decide to create an exclusive center for its pickleball
residences.
Regards
Helen Argyriou
Item 7.A 09/27/22
11 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Barbara Eskowitz <info@lemonadetolace.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; David
White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
To The Santa Monica City Council,
I object to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the Pickleball / tennis courts at Memorial
Park. However, I do not object to the joint use agreements regarding the fields.
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for 15 years. I began playing Pickleball 14 months ago and it has become
increasingly difficult for me and other Santa Monica residents to get a court to play in Santa Monica due to the use of
these courts by Santa Monica College. While the sport is becoming increasingly popular in every city and every
community nationwide, as a Santa Monica taxpayer, I am finding myself having to go to other areas of Los Angeles to
play because of the Santa Monica College tennis players using the Memorial Park courts. While there are many other
tennis courts in Santa Monica, this is not the case for Pickleball courts. Memorial Park is the only place where Pickleball
players who are Santa Monica residents can play.
Once again, I do not object to the joint use agreements of the fields, but I do object to any joint use agreement with
Santa Monica College for the Pickleball / tennis courts at Memorial Park.
Sincerely,
Barbara Eskowitz
Item 7.A 09/27/22
12 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mara Berke <mara@berkefamilylaw.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis 'gleam.davis@smgov.net'; 'Phil Brock' <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; 'Christine Parra'
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; 'Lana Negrete' <lananegrete@me.com>; 'Sue Himmelrich'
<Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; 'Kristin McCowan' <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>;
'Oscar de la Torre' ; 'David White' 'david.white@smgov.net'; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
My name is Mara Berke. I am a Santa Monica resident. I was a former tennis player and now an avid pickleball player.
Please do not enter into a joint use agreement with SMC for the Memorial Courts. They are the only courts where we
can play pickleball during the week. It is unfair to residents that SMC reserves two or three of the four courts on most
weekdays for a few students while pickleball players are crowded into one court where we need to wait to play. SMC
also does not have contiguous time leaving very small blocks of time for the public. Then they take courts again in the
afternoon for their tennis team. I assume they could build their own courts or move to tennis courts where pickleball is
prohibited. Please make these four courts permanent pickleball courts and keep the college off those courts. In the
evenings and weekends the court is full of players of all ages. The courts in the mornings have many 50 plus players. You
need to have a place for us. Also, where are we to play when you start the Memorial Park renovations? Please make
pickleball a priority.
Thank you.
Mara Berke
Mara Berke
Berke Family Law
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any typos.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
13 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Meehna Goldsmith <meehna@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 1:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; david.white@smsgov.net
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
As a resident of Santa Monica and an avid pickleball player, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the
pickleball/tennis courts, but don’t have an issue with the going use agreements regarding the fields.
As it is, it’s hard enough to get on the courts with all the people who live here in addition to the city tennis clinics and
weekday practice hours that take up 3/4 courts five days a week.
Please, do the right thing and do not allow joint use with Santa Monica College.
Best wishes,
m
Meehna Goldsmith
Mobile: 310 210 8226
Item 7.A 09/27/22
14 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Jasmyne Boswell <jasmyne@jasmyneconsulting.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 7:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
The Santa Monica Pickleball Club doesn’t object to joint use agreements regarding the fields, but we do object to a joint
use agreement with SMC for the tennis/pickleball courts at Memorial Park..
Jasmyne Boswell
1347 Oak St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
808‐268‐5807
]
Item 7.A 09/27/22
15 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Stephan H. Wasserman, CPA/ABV/CFF <swasserman@gursey.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:17 PM
To:'councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov'
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; 'Lana Negrete'; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de
la Torre; 'David White'
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A
EXTERNAL
Hello‐
I have been a resident and homeowner in Santa Monica for over 25 years. I
believe this is my first complaint to the city. You need to acknowledge the growing
number of pickleball players, both young and old, both fit and not so fit who love
the sport. In Santa Monica, Memorial Park is the only place we can play. I know
that is in large part due to the noise of the game. It doesn’t make sense why you
permit out the space to Santa Monica College, Crossroads and private tennis
instructors who teach tennis classes? I object to any joint use agreement with SMC
or anyone else. If you must share courts with SMC why not choose a location
where it is not crowded with pickleball players? Why can’t they play on the courts
where they play their matches? Why do you let tennis instructors rent courts in
the city when you can move Crossroads or SMC to those courts? It makes sense to
turn Memorial Park into a pickleball only venue or build pickleball courts at the
Santa Monica airport or somewhere else. You should not put SMC before the
public but if you go to the courts on a weekday morning it is clear you do. I also
object to a plan to redo Memorial Park unless you have a plan for where pickleball
will be played during the construction. Please note Pickleball is the fast growing
sport in the country. When you look at allocation of public resources, Pickleball is
a no brainer compared to Tennis. Each tennis court typically services 2 players at
a time. Whereas one tennis court can be used for 4 pickleball courts where a total
of 16 players can be playing. It is time to recognize the Santa Monica residents are
demanding access to Pickleball courts and to address the issue.
Thanks
Item 7.A 09/27/22
16 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
5
Stephan Wasserman
Stephan H. Wasserman, CPA/ABV/CFF
|
Managing Partner
Litigation Services
GURSEY | SCHNEIDER LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
P: 310.552.0960
|
F: 310.557.3468
|
www.gursey.com
An Independent Member of DFK International
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, subject to copyright, or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or
dissemination of this message, or attachments, is strictly prohibited. Any tax advice expressed in this communication by Gursey | Schneider LLP should
not be construed as a formal tax opinion unless expressly stated. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
17 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Sharon Hearn <sjhearn@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members
I am a longtime resident and homeowner in Santa Monica and would like to express my objection to a joint use
agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.
Pickleball is a wonderful sport, easy to play and appealing to all age groups, with physical and emotional health benefits
for the community. Pickleball is an aerobic sport; since I started playing pickleball in January of 2022 I have lost weight
and my A1C (diabetes blood sugar indicator) level has come down significantly.
As pickleball continues to grow rapidly in popularity, availability of the courts at Memorial Park is extremely important in
keeping pickleball accessible to all.
Sincerely,
Sharon Hearn
Homeowner
1323 Maple St., Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A 09/27/22
18 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nick Bicanic <nick@never.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; lananegrete@me.com; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the
pickleball/tennis courts because there are no dedicated pickleball facilities in Santa Monica and there
more people wanting to play than there are courts available every single day. It's the fastest growing
sport in the US for the fifth year running.
By all means come to Memorial Park on any given weekday and see all the people that live locally
lining up to play pickleball. On most days well over 100 people are waiting.
Compare that to tennis on any given day and I challenge you find any court where there are more
than 4 people on average per court.
In actuality there should be some tennis courts converted to permanent pickleball use - but if we're
not gonna do that - then absolutely there should be NO JOINT USE agreement.
Not to mention that there is nowhere for people to play while Memorial Park is being renovated.
Last (but not least) the lights should be fixed.
Nick Bicanic
Item 7.A 09/27/22
19 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Grace Benn <gepbenn@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 25, 2022 8:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Agenda Item 7A Sept 27 2022 Joint Use Agreement with SMC and Memorial Park Master Plan
EXTERNAL
My name is Grace Benn and I’m the Vice President of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club (SMPC) a non-profit
organization dedicated to creating and growing the inclusive community of pickleball players in Santa Monica.
We are requesting that the city of Santa Monica not form a joint use agreement for the current and future use
of Memorial Park tennis courts. People want to be playing pickleball in Santa Monica. We desperately need
more court space and the joint use agreement unfairly prioritizes tennis over pickleball at Memorial Park.
SMPC formed in January of this year and quickly grew to over 850 members of all ages, ethnicities, and
income. Our numbers increase weekly which tracks with the current trend of pickleball being declared the
fastest growing sport in America.
The good news is that so many Santa Monica residents are taking up the sport and engaging in this healthy,
social, outdoor activity. The unfortunate news is the lack of court space. Currently, pickleball is only allowed to
be played at Memorial Park and we are unable to accommodate all the players due to courts being reserved by
SMC, Crossroads, and City of Santa Monica Tennis Camps/Classes. As a non-profit, we are able to reserve
courts at a cost and currently pay over $4000/month. We’d love to reserve many more hours, but unfortunately
priority is given to those other non-paying entities.
Santa Monica only allows pickleball at Memorial Park, yet we are unable to play on those courts for much of
the day due to unfair reservation policies which favor those entities. One tennis court fits four pickleball courts.
Typically, our courts are all doubles games. So one tennis court easily accommodates 32 players; 16 playing,
16 waiting. Currently due to the lack of courts, we often have 48-64 players per tennis court vying for play time.
The number of pickleball playing adults displaced from utilizing the courts at Memorial Park grossly outweighs
the number of SMC students, Crossroads students, city tennis camp or private class participants. Please help
us address this inequality.
SMPC provides free Open Play for anyone. We provided paddles and balls if needed. None of these other
entities do that. Pickleball can be played by people of all ages; multi generations can play together. SMPC is
open to everyone; are these other groups providing the same reach of age, ethnicity, income etc? SMPC is
inclusive and welcoming to all players of all levels. Isn’t this what Santa Monica is all about? Inclusive,
welcoming, and healthy? Santa Monica has a unique opportunity to be the SoCal destination for pickleball
players, but we need to act. We need dedicated courts.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
20 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
2
Additionally, we are requesting Santa Monica act now to proactively determine where pickleball will be played
during the redevelopment of Memorial Park. We recommend building pickleball specific courts at the Airport
Park facility in the current parking lot north of the dog park.
Thank you very much for considering our requests. We invite all council members to join our Open Play
sessions. We provided paddles, balls, and instruction; come see what’s taking America by storm!
Regards,
Grace Benn
Vice President SMPC
Item 7.A 09/27/22
21 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Elbinger <relbin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 2:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; lananegrete@me.com; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A / Don't reduce Pickleball
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council:
The City has a shortage of places/times to play Pickleball.
I am informed that at the upcoming City Council meeting there will be a
recommendation to provide direction to staff to re-engage Santa Monica
City College in negotiations regarding joint use of the pickleball/tennis
courts at Memorial Park.
As you may know, during the day, Santa Monica College occupies many of the
courts for classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents
to play pickleball.
Please don't take any action that could reduce Santa Monica residents
access to pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park.
Respectfully,
Robert Elbinger
By Robert Elbinger
2628 Kansas Ave. Unit 1
Santa Monica, CA 90404
cell phone (310) 279-2109
fax (310) 453-7032
e-mail relbin@yahoo.com
Item 7.A 09/27/22
22 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Theresa Abrook <722tma@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 10:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; lananegrete@me.com; Kristin McCowan;
0scar.delarorre@santamonica.gov; David White
Subject:Agenda item 7. A
EXTERNAL
To all it may concern:
I am a long time Santa Monica resident and enthusiastic Pickleball player. I strongly object to the joint use of the
Pickelball/tennis courts with SMC.
These courts are really the only location currently used in Santa Monica for Pickle players of all ages, gender and socio‐
economic backgrounds.
I know of many other tennis courts within close proximity to SMC…Ocean View Park, Clover , Marine and Reed to name
just a few, none of which are painted/marked for Pickleball. Surely there must be an equitable solution for us all. The
growth of Pickleball has been well documented, as a strong sports and health minded community let’s not get left
behind!
Thank you for your consideration.
Theresa Abrook
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 09/27/22
23 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ben Kiel <bpkiel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 11:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; 'Lana Negrete'; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
Gleam Davis; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Hello, folks,
First time reaching out, but going on year eight as a resident of Santa Monica, and wanted to weigh in
on the pressing and momentous issue of. . . pickleball.
I started playing at Memorial Park a little over a year ago - it's very convenient to where I live on
Cloverfield and Pico. In that time, I've seen the community grow exponentially. The lines to play
games have consistently gotten longer and longer, and people are arriving earlier, staying later, and
playing all days of the week. And this is a special community. Unlike most sports, pickleball is great
exercise and community for all types of ages, classes, and social groups.
For example, the youngest person with whom I've played games was 10, and the oldest was a couple
aged 89 and 92. Additionally, the group of volunteers who supports the open play with set up, take
down, beginner lessons, etc., continues to grow, and the Santa Monica Pickleball Facebook group,
which had around 1,000 members when I started last year, is up to almost 3,500 as of today.
It's an incredible phenomenon, and one that the city should do everything it can to support, maintain,
and expand.
It is for these reasons that I write to request that the city reject any joint-use agreements with SMC or
other organizations for use of the tennis courts at Memorial Park.
Additionally, I feel like I read a few years ago that there would be a Memorial Park renovation - is it
possible to include pickleball courts as part of the renovation? Also, what are the plans to provide
pickleball courts for use during the renovation?
Thanks!
Ben
2207 Cloverfield Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 09/27/22
24 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lynn Bowers <lynn31751@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 1:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; David White; Oscar de la
Torre; lananegrete@me.com
Subject:Agenda item 7.A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members‐ As a long time Santa Monica resident and member/supporter of the Santa
Monica Pickleball Club, I strongly object to to any joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the
pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park (Agenda item 7.A) Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for
classes and tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.
I, and I understand the board of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, has no objection to a joint use agreement for the
fields or other tennis courts in the city.
Pickleball is one of the fastest growing sports in America, encompassing a wide spectrum of age groups. It is affordable,
easy to learn and easy to play, attracting a variety of people. It brings together and is a common bond for community
members, which in this time of some division in our communities and in our country, I think can be seen as a good thing.
Memorial Park is a wonderful place to play Pickleball and Santa Monica residents who play should be able to count on
regular hours and multiple courts for Pickleball. A joint use agreement with Santa Monica College will greatly affect the
hours and number of courts where Santa Monica residents can play Pickleball.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lynn Bowers
240 34th St.
Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 09/27/22
25 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sharon Friedman <sharonmfriedman1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 2:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam
Davis; David White
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A - Santa Monica Resident
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident of 3 years, I object to a joint use agreement with SMC for the use of the pickleball/tennis
courts. As a resident of the neighborhood, I'd like to have more time available to play at our courts. The courts today are
crowded today as they are and residents should be able to play at their courts. I don't object to joint use agreements for
the fields, but do object to this for the pickleball/tennis courts.
Thank you,
Sharon Friedman
1247 11th St, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 7.A 09/27/22
26 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Chen <karenychen9@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 2:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
'david.white@smgov.net; Gleam Davis
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Hi City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident, I object to a joint use agreement with Santa Monica College for the use of the
pickleball/tennis courts at Memorial Park because Santa Monica College occupies many of the courts for classes and
tennis practice, leaving minimal time for residents to play pickleball.
I have no objection to a joint use agreement for the fields or other tennis courts in the city.
Thanks,
Karen Chen
Item 7.A 09/27/22
27 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Alicia Cortrite <acortrite@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 5:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam
Davis; David White
Subject:Agenda Item 7.A.
EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica for 35 years and my husband has lived here for over 50 years. We raised our children here
in Santa Monica schools, both worked for the city for a total of 62 Years, and have been very active in the community. It
absolutely baffles me that, of all cities, our progressive city of Santa Monica can't see the importance of the sport of
pickleball. As many, many people have told you over the past few years, it is a game that is far more inclusive than
tennis and a far better use of space. Tennis players have courts all over the city. Pickleball players have a single location
to play and, increasingly, the City is renting out these courts to SMC and Crossroads School. They have the money to
build their own courts. So let them. And now taking these courts away for a number of years to build a parking structure
for still‐shared courts on the roof? This simply isn't good planning. Would you take all of the tennis courts in the city
away from tennis players? All of the soccer fields away from soccer players? All of the basketball courts away from
basketball players? How possibly can this make sense?
Pickleball is becoming so popular for a reason...and that's what so many other cities are seeing. With the demographics
that Santa Monica holds, it's simply a matter of time before you all realize that the city needs designated pickleball
courts. It is a perfect sport for all ages but it holds for each age group certain unique benefits. For kids and older adults
alike, it is a sport that can be played successfully by an ace athlete, a non‐athletic type or an aging body. Kids need to
feel successful and not be the one left as the "last one picked." Older adults need to socialize and, if you have never
been down to Memorial Park on a weekend, I beg you to come see what this community socializing looks like. It has
huge health benefits, not just because of the exercise but because of the community and camaraderie it holds. For older
adults living alone, it is a new lease on life. Everyone is always welcome.
Please take a moment to realize that it's time for Santa Monica to embrace pickleball rather than ignoring it. Its
popularity isn't going to go away and I would hate for my city, the city my family loves, to miss the boat. Thank you all
for the time that you put into this work. I know you've all been invited before but I'll say it again: Come join us any day of
the week to see what all of the buzz is about!
Item 7.A 09/27/22
28 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Julie Roback <juliejroback@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 11:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Memorial
EXTERNAL
I am a long time Santa Monica resident (28 years) and a tennis player and Pickleball player. I have fallen in love with
pickleball and love going to open play at memorial! My dream would be that Santa Monica had a fully dedicated pickle
area that would be an amAxing way to bring more tourists to our city! Th recent news that memorial is considering
providing smc more time and the rest of us residents get left with having to leave the city to enjoy the sport. Make
memorial exclusively for pickle and not for the college to usurp!!! Please!!! Or put some lights at ocean view courts!
Begging you not to take our pickle courts away at memorial!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 09/27/22
29 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve C <steveyfchung@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Memorial park
EXTERNAL
I write to address the proposal to restart the expansion of Memorial Park.
I am a member of the Santa Monica Pickleball Club, which consists of over 2000 dedicated and passionate members who
regularly meet to engage in the type of friendly and engaged communion that many thought impossible amongst
strangers in this day and age. The tear down of the courts, which could leave the club with no courts for years, is of
substantial concern. It would destroy the community and break apart something that is truly unique and special in Santa
Monica and even Los Angeles.
The plan to create shared courts on a rooftop is, while I am sure well intended, a measure that will neither avoid the
dissolution of a robust community but also present its own problems in terms of play. Players need more space than the
rooftop will provide between the service line and the wall and your plans will potentially lead to injuries and collisions.
I implore you to rethink the restart of expansion plans. I know they are well intended but at what cost will these
improvements be made? For the thousands of members of the club, yeas of lost opportunity for strangers to get to
know one another, for seniors to have an outlet to exercise and socialize, for old and young to engage in friendly
competition with one another…it is a loss that is truly difficult to measure especially without seeing what the community
has done for people’s lives.
Item 7.A 09/27/22
30 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sam <sam.mcafee@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Concerning Memorial Park Community and Pending Park Construction
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident, parent of two kids at SaMoHi, and a frequent user of Memorial Park. It has been a blessing
over the last few years of Covid to have recreation and community at this park.
In this time an amazing, supportive, diverse, and very large community has formed at Memorial Park and I fear that the
outdated construction plans for this park does not take into account the sizable negative impact that this pre‐covid way
of thinking will have on this thriving park community.
First, I am at this park frequently and the baseball fields are often empty. They are not at full capacity by any means, and
yet additional baseball capacity is what the plan is for this park. How does this, and the multiple additional soccer fields
planned for the airport, remotely close to considering a balanced recreational opportunity for all SaMo residents using
SaMo tax money? The answer, It is not!
Yes, I am a Pickleball player. When I first moved to Santa Monica I was told by many friends in the area about the "cult"
that meets at Memorial Park on Saturday mornings. Fanatics who spend hours hitting a wiffle ball. After some hesitation
I gave it a try, and instantly understood the love. Stand up pingpong, that I can play using my retired racquetball skills,
against division 1 tennis player half my age. Not a cult! Total fun!
After 20 years of being a couch potato and dad of two, I became an athlete again. I am more fit now at the age of 49
than I have ever been in my life to this point thanks to Memorial Park and the "Pickleball cult".
But if you are on the outside to Pickleball then you probably don't understand the scale of this "new" sport. Here are
some local facts and figures for you to consider in order to gain some respect for the state of Pickleball today.
According to pickleballtournaments.com, the keeper of all things related to Pickleball events, over the last 12 months
ending on 9/26/22.....
1090‐ Total number of tournaments in the USA
138‐ total number of tournaments in California
51‐ Total number of tournaments in the LA extended metro area (Santa Barbara to Oceanside, east to Morongo
Valley)
10,755‐ number of individual registrations to the LA regional tournaments
$478,000‐ total amount of professional prize money offered at LA regional tournaments.
$738,150‐ Total amateur tournament registration fees collected at LA regional tournaments. (this is the
minimum, not all events reported final player numbers)
Community facts:
1st Primetime CBS Pickleball broadcast was from Riviera Country Club on 8/12/22
3400‐ Number of members of the Santa Monica Pickleball Facebook group.
859‐ Current number of Santa Monica Pickleball Club members (is this the largest sports community in SaMo??)
Item 7.A 09/27/22
31 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
2
And a few focused data points about Newport Beach Tennis & Pickleball club, one of the few local LA venues that has
fully embraced Pickleball regionally.
9‐ Total number of tournaments hosted in last 12 months
4492‐ number of individual registrations to these events
$175,000‐ total amount of professional prize money offered at their events
$394,220‐ Total amateur tournament registration fees collected at Newport Pickleball events. (this is
registration fees only, events have additional bracket fees on top of this)
31‐ Total number of Pickleball Courts at this club
$12,717‐ Per court tournament registration fees collected over last 12 months.
Backup data can be found here: Google Sheets
Do we really need to "sell" Pickleball to Santa Monica at this point? With sizable revenue numbers, explosive regional
growth, and a massive local community size shouldn't the city be asking us how to get into the game and not the other
way around? Do we really need to "save" Pickleball in Santa Monica in this day and age?
I ask the City Council to please fully consider the impact that the outdated Memorial Park renovation plan will have on
the current thriving Memorial Park community when deciding if and how to move forward with this park's renovation. It
is also time for Santa Monica City Council and Santa Monica Parks to show the love and support to the local Pickleball
community that it deserves by fully embracing the opportunities that are Pickleball instead of treating it like a second
class citizen to be tolerated and pushed to the side.
Show some love and we will give back in multiples!
Sam McAfee
Item 7.A 09/27/22
32 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 9/27/22 agenda item 7-A - concern over where to relocate the Public Landscape
Division
EXTERNAL
Agenda item 7-A -- Memorial Park
1) In looking at the last alternative for relocating the Public Landscape Division, 2950 25th Street, please be aware that
this location is right across a very narrow street from Homes in Sunset Park on the west, and right next to the Clover Park
below-grade ball fields on the east.
2) In looking at all the alternatives on the Airport campus, don't understand why the City has to "lease" City-owned land.
Zina Josephs
"Existing Option (2950 25th Street- Airport Maintenance Hangar/ Parking Lot/Clover Park Trailer) This scenario provides a
spit operation in the area formerly occupied by Airport Maintenance and SMPD SWAT and the Clover Park PLD/CCS
office modular trailer. The PLD/CCS Modular Trailer would accommodate PLD supervisors. The Airport Maintenance
Hangar would accommodate the muster area, gender neutral locker/shower/toilet/changing rooms, hand tool storage, and
equipment repair; PLD Vehicles, personal vehicles and three conex boxes to be placed in the parking lot around the
Hangar open to the sky. The actual project cost was $1,236,317 for construction and $406,629 lease per year. The
timeline for this project was 12 months and is complete and could be occupied immediately."
Item 7.A 09/27/22
33 of 33 Item 7.A 09/27/22
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comment (5314 : Memorial Park Expansion Study Session)