Dock C Project: Options and Recommendations

November 5, 2013

April 16 City Council Meeting

City Council provided input on possible options and directed staff to conduct a public workshop plus look at an option to repair Dock C and make it ADA compliant.

Council Direction Requested today

Preserve or Extend the existing footprint of Dock C Should Dock C be: Maintained Retrofitted and brought up to ADA/DBAW Rebuilt with a new wood or concrete dock This is not for approval of a project
2

Events Since April 16 City Council Meeting

Received public input

Moffatt & Nichol updated May 2011 Report comparing the cost of various alternatives
Rothstein Kass was asked to prepare a Net Present Value Calculation on nine different options

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS FOR DOCK C PROJECT

Determining Best Option for Dock C Project

Criteria to Consider
Ability to acquire necessary permits and leases Net Present Value of dock options over 40-year lease Least potential environmental impact on eel grass and native species Desire to keep dock surface area increase to less than 10% Compliance with building code, ADA, DBAW standards Preliminary permitting agency input Public workshop input Ability to accommodate existing tenant vessels

MOFFAT & NICHOL DOCK C INSPECTION REPORT UPDATED JULY 2013

Moffatt and Nichol Dock C Inspection Report UPDATE

2011 Report detailed then current status of Dock C. 2011 Report based on City-Port lease expiring on 2036. New lease will expire in 2052. 2011 Report indicated expected service life of 12-15 years (without structural retrofit). 2011 Report indicated several flaws with current dock system.
Nailed connections not allowed under todays building codes. Lack of torsion tube to counteract finger twisting.

Source: Moffat & Nichol Report Update, July 1, 2013

7

Moffatt and Nichol Dock C Inspection Report UPDATE

Replace in kind alternative would eliminate four of the 34 slips. Replace in kind alternatives:
Does not meet federal ADA access standards. Does not meet California DBAW fairway width standards. Does not meet California Building Code requirements for fire. Does not address upsized guide piles to meet new wind loading codes. Wood treatment not as effective. Concrete dock improvements lower maintenance costs over life time of docks.
Source: Moffat & Nichol Report Update, July 1, 2013
8

Options in Relation to Dock C & Linear Park

All options stay within Pier Head line

62 104 140 190
Public Dock

2-A 2-B
Need for Port Master Plan Amendment to go beyond existing footprint

Public Dock

Option 2-A: Optimized Mix 34 slips; 1,360 rentable lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 16 (47%)

Slips Over 30 feet 18 (53%)

62 feet

PROS: Total dock surface area is smaller than original. Easy boater access. Accommodates all existing tenants. Limited dredging/impact to eel grass. Meets ADA & DBAW standards. Same number of small size boats.

CONS: Extends past existing footprint, but behind tree line. No transient berthing. Six slip occupants assigned to side ties. Relocation during construction. Less net 10 revenue than Option 2-B or 3.

Option 2-B: Optimized Mix 34 slips; 1,360 rentable lineal feet (+ transient)

Slips 30 feet and Under 16 (47%)

Slips Over 30 feet 18 (53%)

104 feet

PROS: Total dock surface area is only 2.1% larger than original. Easy boater access. Accommodates all existing tenants. Transient berthing provided. Limited dredging/impact to eel grass. Meets ADA & DBAW standards. Same number of small size boats.

CONS: Extends past existing footprint over 100 feet, but still behind tree line. Relocation during construction.
11

Option 1: Best fit within same footprint 34 slips, 1,188 rentable lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 23 (68%)

Slips Over 30 feet 11 (32%)

PROS: Total dock surface area is smaller than original. Layout stays within same footprint. Limited dredging/impact to eel grass. Meets ADA & DBAW standards. Maximizes linear feet within same footprint.

CONS: Will not accommodate 6 of 34 existing tenants due to smaller size slips. Relocation during construction. Lower net revenue than options that increase footprint.
12

Option 3 Current layout with addtl row of slips 41 slips, 1,578 lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 16 (39%)

Slips Over 30 feet 25 (61%)

140 feet PROS: No sister slips (compared to original option design). Seven more, larger slips producing most revenue. Accommodates all existing tenants. Meets ADA & DBAW standards. Same number of small size boats. CONS: Significant increase (18.7%) in total dock surface area. Permitting more difficult. Extends past existing footprint, just within tree line. Access similar to current layout. Significant dredging, impact to eel grass. Relocation during construction.
13

Maintenance Option: 34 slips; 1,303 rentable lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 16 (47%)

Slips Over 30 feet 18 (53%)

PROS: Maintains existing number of slips. No permitting agency approval required. Least expensive in the short term. Stays within existing footprint. No need for public dock component. No relocation.

CONS: Dock will have to be rebuilt in 9 12 years at a greater cost. Does not bring docks up to ADA or DBAW standards. Greater risk of structural failure. Lower net revenue than options that increase footprint.
14

Retrofit Options: 30 slips, 1,085 rentable lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 17 (57%)

Slips Over 30 feet 13 (43%)

PROS: Minor permitting agency approval required. Brings docks up to ADA and DBAW standards. Second least expensive in short term. Stays within existing footprint. No need for public dock component.

CONS: Dock will have to be rebuilt in 12 17 years at a greater cost. Loss of 4 of the 34 slips. Relocation during construction. Lower net revenue than options that increase footprint.
15

Re-build (in-kind) Options: 30 slips, 1,085 rentable lineal feet

Slips 30 feet and Under 17 (57%)

Slips Over 30 feet 13 (43%)

PROS: Brings docks up to ADA and DBAW standards. Stays within existing footprint. No need for public dock component.

CONS: Loss of 4 of the 34 slips. Relocation during construction. Lower net revenue than options that increase footprint.
16

Marina CONCRETE Cabrillo Isle Marina California Yacht Marina Chula Vista Marina Coronado Cays Yacht Club Crow's Nest Driscoll Gold Coast Harbor Island West Kona Kai (Shelter Island) Lowes Crown Isle Marriott Marina Pier 32 Marina Point Loma Marina Shelter Cove Sheraton Harbor Island Silvergate Yacht Club Sun Harbor Marina Sunroad Marina WOOD Coronado Yacht Club Half Moon Yacht Club (switching to aluminum) Marina Cortez San Diego Yacht Club Shelter Island Marina Southwestern Yacht Club CONCRETE AND WOOD Fiddler's Cove Montego Bay ALUMINUM Bay Club

Dock Type Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Combo Combo Aluminum

Dock Manufacturer BMI BMI BMI BMI (Portion) Not Verified Not Verified Sloan Not Verified BMI BMI BMI BMI BMI RE State Not Verified BMI BMI BMI Not Verified Not Verified Deninis Buller Not Verified BMI RE State BMI (Concrete) BMI (Concrete) Bluewater Marine

17

NET PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS

18

NET PRESENT VALUE

Beyond Existing Footprint?

NPV in 2013
(Over 40 years)

DOCK C OPTIONS
M&N: No retrofit; concrete replacement (30 slips) in Year 13 (2027) M&N: Retrofit (30 slips); concrete replacement in Year 18 (2032) No No

Total Income $2,756,620 $2,551,899

M&N: Retrofit (30 slips); premium decking; concrete replacement in Year 18 (2032)
M&N: New wood dock (30 slips), 40-year service life M&N: New concrete dock (30 slips), 50-year service life City: Option 1 New concrete dock; Optimized mix of 34 slips; decreased slip sizes City: Option 2A New concrete dock; Optimized mix of 34 slips City: Option 2B New concrete dock; Optimized mix of 34 slips; plus transient berthing City: Option 3 New concrete dock; Optimized mix of 41 slips; 18.7% larger layout

No
No No No Yes Yes Yes

$2,483,290
$2,654,939 $2,371,977 $2,621,336 $3,402,953 $3,421,092 $3,957,968
19

EVALUATION OF PUBLIC DOCK OPTIONS

20

Near Clubroom/Boathouse

Low Free Board

PROS: Least cost ($121K). No dredging required. Integrated with boat launch ramp. Dual use design ensures usage by general public (small boats, dinghies, kayaks, paddleboards, sculls, etc.) and power/sail boat owners. Proximity to new Boat House. All sides useable (200 ft.). Could incorporate disability launch.
CONS: Close proximity to eel grass mitigation site. Limited use to smaller size sail and power boats (up to 35 ft.).
21

Perpendicular to Linear Park Bulkhead

190 feet

PROS: Lower cost ($288K) as no dredging required. Less impact to eel grass. Functional use of both sides (224 ft.). Closer to downtown amenities. Close to showers/restrooms at Community Center. Can accommodate larger vessels. No navigation conflicts with Dock C options. CONS: Impact to Linear Park views/atmosphere. Proximity to Dock C poses potential security risk.

22

GBHG Proposal: Parallel to Linear Park

2-A

2-B

190 feet

CONS: Most expensive ($843K) due to required dredging and fortification of cantilevered sea wall to prevent sea wall from failing. Actual cost unknown. Significant impact to eel grass due to extensive dredging. Impact to Linear Park views/atmosphere. Use limited to one side of dock (120 ft.). Options 2-A, 2-B, and 3 would partially overlap this location creating a navigation issue. PROS: Closer to downtown amenities. Close to showers/restrooms at Community Center.
23

RECOMMENDATIONS
Direct staff to submit either option 2-A or 2-B to construct a new concrete dock and expand the Glorietta Bay Boat Launch Dock to include a free public dock to the Port District Authorize staff to work with the Port as the lead agency for CEQA processing and the permitting agencies as appropriate (Port District, Coastal, ACOE, SDRWQCB, U.S. Fish & Wildlife) Estimated time to complete above steps before Construction: 2.5 to 3 years.

24