DOCK C PROJECT: A LOOK AT OPTIONS - Coronado Common …
25
DOCK C PROJECT: A LOOK AT OPTIONS May 16, 2013
Transcript of DOCK C PROJECT: A LOOK AT OPTIONS - Coronado Common …
DOCK C PROJECT:A LOOK AT OPTIONS
May 16, 2013
Need/Benefit of Dock C Project
• Dock C does not meet ADA requirements• Dock C does not meet DBAW standards creating liability
issue for City.• Dock C is reaching the end of its service life and is
deteriorating faster than previously anticipated.• Dock C slip occupants were given commitment that Dock
would be upgraded in the future.• Glorietta Bay Marina is at 100% capacity and has waiting
list. Expansion provides increased recreational berthing opportunities.
• Opportunity to reconfigure dock system for easier access.• Possibility to add public dock component.
2
Dock C Condition
3
Moffatt & Nichol Engineering Study• Hired in 2011 to assess current structural condition of Dock C.• Key Findings:
– 41% of three key components are worn and/or require replacement within 5‐7 years (i.e., by 2015‐18). Components included: deck boards, stringers/facia and dock connections.
– Floatation system needed to be completely replaced due to cracking and exposed foam.
– 90% of the power pedestals are worn and/or need to be replaced.– A “retrofit” of Dock C would enable it to last another 15‐20 years
(maximum); – A “rebuild” as wood dock – another 30‐40 years (maximum);
“rebuild” as concrete dock – another 40‐50 years (maximum).– Conclusion: Simply maintaining dock comes at a cost. As dock
gets older, costs to maintain dock will become more expensive as structural integrity diminishes.
4
GBM Dock System
5
Eel Grass Issue
Photos taken on January 11, 2013 @ 3:00p.m. (‐1.89 MLLW)
6
Existing Dock C Layout34 slips, 1,303 rentable lineal feet
Growing eel grass mound
7
PROJECT OBJECTIVE: Similar to Dock A/B Project, at a minimum, maintain same number of slips and/or rentable lineal footage. If possible, increase both! Dock A/B Project resulted in increase of 214 rentable lineal within same footprint.
Retrofit/Rebuild – Loss of Four Slips30 slips, 1,085 rentable lineal feet
8
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
17 (57%) 13 (43%)
City of CoronadoMay 16, 2013
EVALUATION OFOPTIONS FOR DOCK C PROJECT
9
Criteria used to determine best option for reconstruction of Dock C
• Compliance with ADA requirements and DBAW standards.• Ability acquire necessary permits and leases from current
stakeholders.• Highest cumulative “net” slip revenues over new 40‐year
City‐Port District lease.• Least environmental impact on eel grass and native
species.• Mitigated increase in total dock area from the current
Dock C layout. Goal: <10% increase.
10Source: April 16, 2013 Staff Report
Map of Coronado Local Coastal Program (LCP) Developable Water Area
11
This developable water area is under Port District land/water use and coastal
permitting jurisdiction.Option 2
(190 feet beyond leasehold line)
Port Master Plan Amendment (PMPA)
12
PMPA required to: 1) modify water area between recreational boat berthing and open bay of Precise Plan; and 2) include Dock C Project on Port’s Project List.
Relationship of Dock C to Linear Park
13
140 Feet
190 Feet
Option 1: Best fit within same footprint34 slips, 1,188 rentable lineal feet
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
23 (68%) 11 (32%)
14
Option 1‐A: With Public Dock33 slips, 1,086 rentable lineal feet
15
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
23 (70%) 10 (30%)
110‐ft slip is converted to public dock cordoned off by fence.
Option 2: Optimized mix beyond leasehold linewith public dock
37 slips, 1,450 rentable lineal feet
16
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
19 (51%) 18 (49%)
Option 2‐A: Smaller Dock System, Larger Public Dock34 slips, 1,360 rentable lineal feet
17
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
16 (47%) 18 (53%)
Public dock increased to 190 lineal feet. Dock system extension
beyond leasehold line reduced by 49 feet. No
sister slips.
Option 2‐B: Smaller Dock System, Separate Public Dock34 slips, 1,360 rentable lineal feet
18
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
16 (47%) 18 (53%)
Separate public dock increasing functionality to 220 lineal feet. Dock system extension beyond leasehold line reduced by 29
feet. No sister slips.
Option 3 – Current layout with additional row of slips41 slips, 1,578 lineal feet
19
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
16 (39%) 25 (61%)
Option 3‐A: With Public Dock40 slips, 1,468 lineal feet
20
Slips 30 feetand Under
Slips Over 30 feet
16 (40%) 24 (60%)
110‐ft slip is converted to public dock cordoned off by fence. 40 and 50‐ft sister slips eliminated.
City of CoronadoMay 16, 2013
EVALUATION OFDOCK C OPTIONS: SUMMARY
21
Dock C Option Dimensions: Summary
Option Description
TotalSlips
RentableLinealFootage
TotalDock Area
Rentable LF as % of TotalDock Area
% increase in Total
Dock Area from
Current
Slips 30‐ft and Under
Slips Over30‐ft
CURRENT 34 1,303 8,931 14.6% 16 18
1 Best fit within same foot print 34 1,188 8,354 14.2% ‐6.4% 23 11
1‐A Option 1 w/ Public Dock 33 1,086 8,485 12.8% ‐5.0% 23 10
2 Optimized mix w/ Public Dock 37 1,450 9,152 15.8% +2.5% 19 18
2‐AOptimized mix: Smaller Dock System, Larger Public Dock
34 1,360 9,345 14.5% +4.6% 16 18
2‐BOptimized mix: Smaller Dock System, Separate Public Dock
34 1,360 9,506 14.3% +6.4% 16 18
3 Current layout with additional row of slips 41 1,578 9,492 16.6% +6.3% 16 25
3‐A Option 3 w/ Public Dock 40 1,468 9,652 15.2% +8.1% 16 24
22
23
Option Description
Estimated Cost of
Construction
Years to Pay offProject
Dock C Projected NET Revenues thru FY 2053
ROI: Cost vs. Net
Revenue
Increase InNET RevenueCompared to Option 1‐A
Status Quo (Retrofit)
Wood Construction ONLY: Loss of Four Slips
$1,198,239Cost of first.(2 required)
12.5 $1,186,029(after 2 retrofits) 0.6
Status Quo(Rebuild)
Concrete Construction: Loss of Four Slips $2,552,832 15.4 $5,935,538 2.3
1 Best fit within same foot print $2,481,850 14.4 $6,529,346 2.6
1‐A Option 1 w/ Public Dock $2,745,238 18.0 $4,314,287 1.6
2 Optimized mix w/ Public Dock $3,063,224 14.2 $7,725,841 2.5 $3,411,554
2‐A Option 2: Smaller System w/ Larger Public Dock $3,092,199 15.1 $6,806,179 2.2 $2,491,892
2‐B Option 2: Smaller System w/ Separate Public Dock $2,987,089 15.3 $6,813,882 2.3 $2,499,595
3 Current layout with additional row of slips $2,969,997 13.6 $9,061,891 3.1 $4,747,604
3‐A Option 3 w/ Public Dock $3,069,334 15.5 $7,280,206 2.4 $2,965,919
Costs and Revenues: Summary
NEXT STEPS• Accept additional feedback through end of May.• Forward recommended option for City Council approval.• Initiate CEQA Process
– Port District to serve as Lead Agency– City and Port will enter into agreement. City to reimburse costs.
• Develop Permit Applications– Port District, Coastal, ACOE, SDRWQCB, U.S. Fish & Wildlife.– Submit after conclusion of CEQA Process.
• Process Port District Master Plan Amendment• Process City‐Port Lease Amendment• Estimated time to complete above steps before
Construction: Up to 3 years!
24
