Hermosa Beach City Council
March 24, 2026

City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885

CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO

PROVIDE AS NEEDED ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM CONSULTING SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND IK CONSULTING, LLC This AGREEMENT is entered into this 13th day of May 2021, by and between the CITY OF Hermosa Beach, a general law city a municipal corporation (“CITY”) and IK Consulting, LLC, a limited liability company (“CONSULTANT”).

R E C I T A L S
A. The City desires to receive consulting services related to the Accela Civic Platform implementation.

B. The City does not have the personnel able and/or available to perform the services required under this agreement and therefore, the City desires to contract for consulting services to accomplish this work.

C. The Consultant warrants to the City that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities to perform properly and timely the services under this Agreement.

D. The City desires to contract with the Consultant to perform the services as described in Exhibit A of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, the City and the Consultant agree as follows:
1 CONSIDERATION AND COMPENSATION As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, attached as EXHIBIT A.

As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.

As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a total of $29,725, for CONSULTANT’s services, unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement.

No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.

CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, by not later than the 10th day of each month, its invoice for services itemizing the fees and costs incurred during the previous month.

CITY shall pay CONSULTANT all uncontested amounts set forth in CONSULTANT’s invoice within 30 days after it is received.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT will perform the services and activities set forth in the SCOPE OF SERVICE attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

Except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space, and facilities necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement. 3 PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement, CONSULTANT must submit an invoice to CITY which lists the reimbursable costs, the specific tasks performed, and, for work that includes deliverables, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period in accordance with the schedule of compensation incorporated in “Exhibit A.” 4 TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The services of the CONTRACTOR are to commence upon receipt of a notice to proceed from the CITY and shall continue until all authorized work is completed to the CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, in accordance with the schedule incorporated in “Exhibit A,” unless extended in writing by the CITY.
5 FAMILIARITY WITH WORK. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that CONSULTANT has (a) thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed; (b) carefully considered how the services should be performed; and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement.
6 KEY PERSONNEL. CONSULTANT’s key person assigned to perform work under this Agreement is Connie Ingram or Melissa Kern. CONSULTANT shall not assign another person to be in charge of the work contemplated by this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City.
7 TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2022, unless earlier termination occurs under Section 11 of this Agreement, or this Agreement is extended in writing in advance by both parties. 8 CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties. 9 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number.
10 PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONTRACTOR will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. 11 TERMINATION. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. Notice of termination shall be in writing.

CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement. Notice will be in writing at least 30 days before the effective termination date.

In the event of such termination, the CONTRACTOR shall cease services as of the date of termination, and all finished or unfinished documents, data, drawings, maps, and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT shall, at CITY’s option, become CITY’s property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up to the effective date of notice of termination.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated.
12 INDEMNIFICATION. CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, elected officials and employees from and against all claims, demands and judgments (including attorney fees) made or recovered against them including, but not limited to, damages to real or tangible property or for bodily injury or death to any person, arising out of, or in connection with this contract, to the extent such damage, injury or death is caused or sustained in connection with the negligent performance or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, or its employee, agents or subcontractors. The City agrees to promptly notify CONSULTANT in writing of any such claim or demand to indemnify and agrees to cooperate with CONSULTANT in a reasonable manner to facilitate the defense of such claim.

The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 17, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification.
13 ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT’s professional services. CONSULTANT’s attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY’s written approval are prohibited and will be null and void.
14 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which is it performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only.
15 AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY, or designee, has the right to review, obtain, and copy all records pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to provide CITY, or designee, with any relevant information requested and will permit CITY, or designee, access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain such records for a period of three (3) years following final payment under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT will keep all books, records, accounts and documents pertaining to this Agreement separate from other activities unrelated to this Agreement. 16 CORRECTIVE MEASURES. CONSULTANT will promptly implement any corrective measures required by CITY regarding the requirements and obligations of this Agreement. CONSULTANT will be given a reasonable amount of time as determined by the City to implement said corrective measures. Failure of CONSULTANT to implement required corrective measures shall result in immediate termination of this Agreement.
17 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

A. The CONSULTANT, at the CONSULTANT’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies:

1. Workers Compensation Insurance as required by law. The Consultant shall require all subcontractors similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees. Any notice of cancellation or non-renewal of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by the CITY at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the CONTRACTOR for City.

2. General Liability Coverage. The CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit.

3. Automobile Liability Coverage. This requirement shall be waived, as this contract is for remote work, and CONSULTANT does not own any vehicles.

4. Professional Liability Coverage. The CONSULTANT shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors, or omissions which may arise from the CONSULTANT’S operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by the CONSULTANT or by its employees, subcontractors, or subconsultants. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit-peroccurrence basis. When coverage is provided on a “claims made basis,” CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of one (1) year after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement, and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect.

B. Endorsements. Each general liability, automobile liability and professional liability insurance policy shall be issued by a financially responsible insurance company or companies admitted and/or authorized to do business in the State of California, or which is approved in writing by City, and shall be endorsed as follows. CONSULTANT also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to do likewise.

1. “The CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.”

2. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the CITY, including any self-insured retention the CITY may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with this policy.

3. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.

4. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or agents.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

5. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers.

6. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by the CITY.

C. CONSULTANT agrees to provide immediate notice to CITY of any claim or loss against Contractor arising out of the work performed under this agreement. CITY assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve CITY.

D. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY.

At the CITY’s option, the CONSULTANT shall demonstrate financial capability for payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions.

E. The CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to the CITY as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the CITY on or before commencement of performance of this Agreement. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with the CITY at all times during the term of this Agreement.

F. Failure on the part of the CONSULTANT to procure or maintain required insurance shall constitute a material breach of contract under which the CITY may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 11 above.

G. The commercial general and automobile liability policies required by this Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-insured retention (“SIR”) and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the Consultant (as the named insured) should Consultant fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. Consultant understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by Consultant as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should City pay the SIR or deductible on Consultant’s behalf upon the Consultant’s failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against Consultant for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by City due to the breach.
18 USE OF OTHER CONSULTANTS. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY’s prior written approval to use any sub-consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must include approval of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation. 19 FINAL PAYMENT ACCEPTANCE CONSTITUTES RELEASE. The acceptance by the CONSULTANT of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of the CITY from all claims and liabilities for compensation to the CONSULTANT for anything done, furnished or relating to the CONSULTANT’S work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of the CITY’S check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by the CITY shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of the CONSULTANT, its employees, sub-consultants and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by the CITY for any DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

defect or error in the work prepared by the Consultant, its employees, sub-consultants and agents.
20 CORRECTIONS. In addition to the above indemnification obligations, the CONSULTANT shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during the City’s review of the Consultant’s report or plans. Should the Consultant fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction shall be made by the CITY, and the cost thereof shall be charged to the CONSULTANT. In addition to all other available remedies, the City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by the City or may withhold payment otherwise owed CONSULTANT under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction.
21 NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. Payments to be made to CONSULTANT by CITY for services preformed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that CITY does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT’S services beyond the current fiscal year, the Agreement shall cover payment for CONSULTANT’S services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which CITY appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year.
22 NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows:

CITY CONSULTANT
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
ATTN: Ken Robertson
IK Consulting, LLC
PO Box 17661
Tucson, AZ 85731
ATTN: Melissa Kern
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.

Courtesy copies of notices may be sent via electronic mail, provided that the original notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or personally delivered as specified in this Section.

A. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT’s bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT’s bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability.

B. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party.

There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT’s or CITY’s obligations under this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

C. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

D. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Attachments, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.

E. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

F. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment with signatures of all parties to this Agreement. CITY’s city manager, or designee, may execute any such amendment on behalf of CITY. 23 ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Contract, agreements ancillary to this Contract, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Contract will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
24 FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be impossible due to fire, flood, explosion, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties’ control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other. 25 TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence to comply with dates and schedules to be provided.
26 ATTORNEY’S FEES. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that each will bear his or its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees arising out of and/or connected with the negotiation, drafting and execution of the Agreement, and all matters arising out of or connected therewith except that, in the event any action is brought by any party hereto to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to all other relief to which that party or those parties may be entitled. 27 STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public agency.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

28 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. It is understood and agreed that the City shall own all documents and other work product of the Consultant, except the Consultant’s notes and workpapers, which pertain to the work performed under this Agreement. The City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion and without further compensation to the Consultant, but any re-use of such documents by the City on any other project without prior written consent of the Consultant shall be at the sole risk of the City. 29 DISCLOSURE REQUIRED. (City and Consultant initials required at one of the following paragraphs)
By their respective initials next to this paragraph, City and Consultant hereby acknowledge that Consultant is a “consultant” for the purposes of the California Political Reform Act because Consultant’s duties would require him or her to make one or more of the governmental decisions set forth in Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation 18700.3(a) or otherwise serves in a staff capacity for which disclosure would otherwise be required were Consultant employed by the City. Consultant hereby acknowledges his or her assuming-office, annual, and leaving-office financial reporting obligations under the California Political Reform Act and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code and agrees to comply with those obligations at his or her expense. Prior to consultant commencing services hereunder, the City’s Manager shall prepare and deliver to consultant a memorandum detailing the extent of Consultant’s disclosure obligations in accordance with the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials ______
Consultant Initials ______
OR
By their initials next to this paragraph, City and Consultant hereby acknowledge that Consultant is not a “consultant” for the purpose of the California Political Reform Act because Consultant’s duties and responsibilities are not within the scope of the definition of consultant in Fair Political Practice Commission Regulation 18700.3(a) and is otherwise not serving in staff capacity in accordance with the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

City Initials ______
Consultant Initials ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and year first herein above written.

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSULTANT
Suja Lowenthal, City Manager By: Melissa Kern, Managing Partner, IK Consulting, LLC
MOK Digitally signed by MOK
DN: cn=MOK, o, ou,
[email protected]
m, c=US
Date: 2021.05.26 10:37:56 -07'00'
Melissa O. Kern Digitally signed by Melissa O. Kern
DN: cn=Melissa O. Kern, o=IK Consulting, LLC,
ou=Managing Partner, [email protected],
c=US
Date: 2021.05.26 10:38:26 -07'00'
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

City of Hermosa Beach

ATTEST:
71-0883304
Eduardo Sarmiento, City Clerk Taxpayer ID No.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4CF9E314-29AB-4D72-9D73-7F1058BE4CCE

DocuSign Envelope ID: C838C279-F928-47CC-A0F3-917042A928B5

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO

PROVIDE AS NEEDED ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND IK CONSULTING, LLC.

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE

AS NEEDED ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND IK CONSULTING, LLC ("Second Amendment") is made and entered into this 24th day of May 2023, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation ("City") and IK Consulting, LLC, a limited liability company ("CONSULTANT").

RECITALS
A. On May 13, 2021 the CITY entered into an agreement with CONSULTANT to provide as needed Accela Civic Platform consulting services. This agreement expired on June 30, 2022.

B. On July 1, 2022 the CITY and CONSULTANT amended the Agreement to extend the agreement for an additional year to provide the continuing as needed services. This new contract is set to expire on June 30, 2023.

C. The CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the agreement for an additional year to provide the continuing as needed services.

The new contract is set to expire on June 30, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:
1 . Section 7 is amended to read as follows:

7. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2024, unless earlier termination occurs under Section 11 of this Agreement, or this Agreement is extended in writing in advance by both parties.

Except as modified above, the Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the date and year first above written.

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
ATTEST:

Myra Maravilla, City Clerk

CONSULTANT
Melissa 0. Kern
By: Melissa 0. Kern, Managing Partner
IK Consulting, LLC
71-0883304
Taxpayer ID No.

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE AS

NEEDED ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF

HERMOSA BEACH AND IK CONSULTING, LLC
This Third Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services to provide as needed Accela Civic Platform Consulting Services (“Third Amendment”) is entered into this 15th day of May 2024, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation (“City”) and IK Consulting, LLC. (“CONSULTANT”).

RECITALS
A. On May 13, 2021 the CITY entered into an agreement with CONSULTANT to provide as needed Accela Civic Platform consulting services for a term of one year and a not-to-exceed amount of $29,725. This agreement expired on June 30, 2022.

B. On July 1, 2022 the CITY and Consultant executed a first amendment to the Agreement to extend the agreement for an additional year to provide the continuing as needed services. The agreement expired on June 30, 2023.

C. On May 24, 2023 the CITY and Consultant executed a second amendment to the Agreement to extend the agreement for an additional year to provide the continuing as needed services. The agreement is set to expire on June 30, 2024.

D. The CITY and Consultant now mutually desire to amend the Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed limit by $30,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $59,725, and to extend the agreement for an additional two years to provide the continuing as needed services. The new contract will be set to expire on June 30, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Agreement is amended as follows:

1. Section 1 is amended to read as follows:

CONSIDERATION AND COMPENSATION. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, attached as EXHIBIT A.

As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.

As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a total not-toexceed amount of $59,725, for CONSULTANT’s services, unless otherwise specified by written amendment to this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B0CB0A0-C5B6-41E8-920B-342D3E7AA7E4

No additional compensation shall be paid for any other expenses incurred, unless first approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.

CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, by not later than the 10th day of each month, its invoice for services itemizing the fees and costs incurred during the previous month. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT all uncontested amounts set forth in CONSULTANT’s invoice within 30 days after it is received.

Except as modified above, the Agreement and each and every term and provision thereof remain in full force and effect. Except as above modified, in all other respects the Agreement is hereby reaffirmed in full force and effect.

2. Section 7 is amended to read as follows:

7. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2026, unless earlier termination occurs under Section 11 of this Agreement, or this Agreement is extended in writing in advance by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment on the 15th day of May, 2024.

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSULTANT
Justin Massey, Mayor Melissa O. Kern, Managing Partner
IK Consulting, LLC
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Myra Maravilla, City Clerk Patrick Donegan, City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B0CB0A0-C5B6-41E8-920B-342D3E7AA7E4

IK CONSULTING, LLC

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
Consulting Services
Off Site or On Site Assistance – Hourly $145.00 / Hour
• Project work for modifications to existing and new process creation, as assigned.

1. Workflow / Process.

2. Fees / Calculations.

3. User Setup / Security.

4. Custom Forms / Fields Layout.

5. User Defined Data / Tables.

6. Intake Forms / Status Groups.

7. Inspections / Result Groups.

8. Calendars / Events / Scheduling.

9. Accela add on products (such as Accela Citizen Access, Accela Mobile Office, Apps, etc).

10. Accela integrations and implementations for add on products (such as Solar App+, Bluebeam, Laserfiche, Finance Products, etc.)

11. Queries / Filters / Smart Charts.

12. Custom Reports / Ad Hoc Reports.

13. Events / Scripting.
• Support tickets, as assigned.
• Training documentation, as assigned.

Training – Daily $1,740.00 / Day
• End User and/or Administrative Training for the Civic Platform or add on products, as assigned.

Not To Exceed Amount $59,725.00
Note: This is a time and materials quote and client will be billed based on hours actually worked. All work to be completed based on request, and expenses to be reimbursed, as incurred.

PAYMENT TERMS
Payment for Consulting will be invoiced monthly for work completed the previous month. Training will be invoiced at time of scheduling classes.

IK Consulting, LLC expects payment to occur within 30 days of receipt of invoice unless otherwise agreed to.

Sales Tax or any other applicable taxes are not included in any of this proposal's pricing information. If Sales tax or any other tax becomes applicable, these taxes will then need to be added to the proposed pricing.

Quote valid for 90 days from date of quote.

February 22, 2021 Hermosa Beach, CA Page 1 Confidential & Proprietary to IK Consulting, LLC.

PO Box 17661 • Tucson, AZ 85731 • Voice: (520) 891-5376 • Fax: (520) 733-6282 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B0CB0A0-C5B6-41E8-920B-342D3E7AA7E4

03/18/2024
San Tan Insurance
625 N Gilbert Rd., Suite 107
Gilbert AZ 85234
John Boughton
480-391-3883 480-391-9484
[email protected]
IK Consulting, LLC
P.O. Box 17661
Tucson AZ 85730
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co
A
x
x
x
59SBAZM4677 12/08/2023 12/08/2024
2,000,000
300,000
10,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
4,000,000
A
x x
59SBAZM4677 12/08/2023 12/08/2024
2,000,000
A N 59WECGC6729 01/08/2024 01/08/2025
x
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
$1,000,000 each Glitch Limit
A Errors & Omissions Liability 59SBAZM4677 12/08/2023 12/08/2024 $2,000,000 Aggregate City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Dr.

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 <>

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?

INSR ADDL SUBR

LTR INSD WVD

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME:

PHONE FAX
(A/C, No, Ext): (A/C, No):

E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

INSURER A :

INSURED INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

POLICY NUMBER

POLICY EFF POLICY EXP TYPE OF INSURANCE (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EACH OCCURRENCE $

DAMAGE TO RENTED
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRO- POLICY JECT LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
OTHER: $
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $
(Ea accident)
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident)
$
OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $
CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $ $
PER OTHSTATUTE ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
Y / N
N / A
(Mandatory in NH)

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B0CB0A0-C5B6-41E8-920B-342D3E7AA7E4

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PW-013
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council

CITY COUNCIL DOWNTOWN LIGHTING AND BEAUTIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025–2026

BEAUTIFICATION FUNDING
CEQA: Determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente and
Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Determine the proposed improvements are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301;

2. Adopt the Expenditure Plan prepared by the City Council Downtown Lighting and Beautification Subcommittee; and

3. Authorize staff to undertake projects identified in the Expenditure Plan.

Executive Summary:

The City Council Downtown Lighting and Beautification Subcommittee was established in May 2025 during the annual budget process to identify and recommend an expenditure plan for a $100,000 set-aside of general funds for activities which would improve the downtown commercial district(s). The Subcommittee met on January 22, 2026 and again on February 24, 2026 and finalized an expenditure plan which focuses on projects which can be initiated immediately using existing staff and contracts to refresh landscape medians and community identity signage in high visibility areas before the end of the fiscal year.

Background:

This year’s budget created a pool of funds intended to improve the visual appearance of commercial areas within the City. The City Council also created a subcommittee to work with staff to review project options and develop a spending proposal for these funds. The Subcommittee met on two occasions this winter and finalized a spending proposal. This proposal is intended to be a demonstration of low-cost, high-impact projects to improve the public realm. The Subcommittee chose to focus on several planters along Hermosa

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 3
Avenue and the Strand for landscaping improvements and repairs to two vintage community identity signs at entrance points to the City.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
May 13, 2025
City Council created a subcommittee with Mayor Detoy and Councilmember Jackson to discuss downtown lighting and
beautification goals.

June 24, 2025 City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 Budget that established $100,000 set-side for beautification projects.

Discussion:

The beautification work is proposed to take place at 5 locations: raised planters at 2nd Street and the Strand, raised planters at 22nd Street and the Strand, raised planters at 26th Street and Hermosa Avenue, the vintage “Hermosa Beach” sign at Valley Drive at Longfellow, and the vintage “Hermosa Beach” sign and planter on Prospect Avenue near Ripley Avene.

The planters would each receive brick repair and painting, adjustments to the irrigation systems, as required, and installation with a new drought tolerant plant palette. Staff is proposing to create a small, new planting bed in front of the Valley Drive sign.

City crews would perform repairs and painting work necessary to restore the two vintage signs. The landscape design would be completed by one of the City’s on-call landscape architects to evaluate and recommend modifications to the irrigation system as necessary and to assist the City with the selection of plants suitable for the locations and to ensure longevity and ease in maintenance. Staff would retain licensed contractors to perform the brick repair and painting and the landscape installation and associated irrigation adjustments.

Options for Council Consideration:

The City Council may (1) approve staff’s recommendations and approve the Subcommittee’s Beautification Fund Expenditure Plan, (2) approve an aspect of the Beautification Fund Expenditure Plan
Project Description Estimated Amount
Vintage Sign Repair $ 500.00
Brick repair and painting $ 20,000.00
Landscape and Irrigation design
Landscape Installation and Irrigation Repair/Updates
$ 15,000.00
$ 64,500.00
TOTAL $ 100,000.00

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 3
expenditure plan and defer other(s), or (3) reject the expenditure plan and remand back to the Subcommittee for further refinement.

Environmental Analysis:

Maintenance and repair of existing public facilities are exempt from CEQA under Class 1 categorical exemptions when there is negligible or no expansion of use as is the case with these activities.

Fiscal Impact:

The $100,000 Beautification Project budget is currently budgeted in the Public Works Parks Division. There is no new fiscal impact resulting from this action, which is detailing the proposed use of funds currently budgeted in the City’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget.

Respectfully Submitted by: Alison Becker, Community Development Director Concur: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Henry Chao, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager



 





 

 

!"#$%#
&'#()*'"#+,-'.'"#+, /01!"&
("2
#
3'#"4'56
7"7+'8%#
&'#()9"7"4':'7( ;<=>?

@AABACA
DEBA F GBCH@IJBKL =MANAOMKLABAB?BNBBLPIBBAIAALMBMQBIQLLJIBIRASBMBAB?MIABQRAS? MML IJAEAF;OBJAMEJNIBAAMBNBBLPIBBAIJMBLQLEIQLBKAEMBNB BLPIBBAABBLLFDBBBMANBLBJMNBANJBEL<=KBLL?NKABLPBJAAF<BNBBLPIBBA AMELBLIBLBJBQAKLBLQELBLNJBAAJ;<=DIDNN?=BFAKBAFDTUVW  
XYX

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 16
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PW-014
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) 623 REGARDING MUNICIPAL PIER

STRUCTURAL INSPECTION AND EVALUATION, REPAIR, AND REQUEST FOR

DIRECTION REGARDING POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT
CEQA: Determine that the high priority structural repairs and removal and replacement of the Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques Project (“Project”) as part of CIP 623 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Determine that the high priority structural repairs and, removal, and replacement of the Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques Project (“Project”) as part of CIP 623 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities);

2. Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption within 5 business days;

3. Direct staff to complete the high priority repairs to the Municipal Pier (“Pier”) as part of CIP Project 623;

4. Direct staff to replace the Surfer’s Walk of Fame plaques with the railing-mounted option as part of CIP 623; and

5. Provide staff with direction on whether to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed replacement project.

Executive Summary:

Staff and the JMC2 Engineering (“JMC2”) team completed a comprehensive structural assessment of the Pier, including a cost-benefit evaluation, to guide the City in near- and long-term decision making. The assessment determined that the Pier is in poor to serious structural condition and will require reinspection and repair every 5 years for the foreseeable future as the structure continues to age in a highly corrosive marine environment.

While the City recently completed $3.1M in repairs in 2023-2024, it is estimated that maintaining the existing structure would cost more than $210M over the next 45 years.

The cost-benefit analysis found that replacing the Pier is significantly more cost-effective than continuing long-term repairs. A new Pier is estimated to cost approximately $58.6M

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 16
(in 2032 dollars) and would save the City more than $100M in lifecycle costs while providing a modern, resilient facility designed to serve the public for decades to come.

Due to extensive planning, environmental review, and permitting requirements, the replacement process is expected to take at least 6 to 8 years before construction could begin.

The City could choose to continue repairing the existing facility, but doing so would require funding increasingly costly repairs while deterioration accelerates as the facility approaches the end of its useful life. Staff recommends existing Pier maintenance projects cease after the 2027 repair; and that the Council direct staff to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed Pier replacement project to potentially start construction by 2032 (but no later than 2036, before experiencing substantial cost escalation).

To start construction by 2032, Council would need to direct staff to begin planning efforts by late 2026. If the decision is deferred to 2030, construction could begin by 2036. The timing of this decision will affect whether the City must reserve funding for the next major round of pier repairs scheduled for 2030, which would need to be budgeted in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2027–2028 budget cycle. Whether the Pier is replaced or not, careful consideration will be necessary to determine when major maintenance should cease to avoid potential pier closures, similar to those currently affecting other municipal piers throughout California.

Staff recommends the current Pier repairs project being advanced through CIP 629, which is currently in the final design and permitting phase, continue to move forward to address high priority repairs that must be completed by 2027 (regardless of a potential decision to replace the Pier in the future) to maintain structural integrity, prevent further load restrictions, and avoid potential closures of the Pier, while ensuring its continued use and enjoyment. Staff is also seeking Council direction for the replacement of the surfer plaques, which would be included as part of the current project.

Background:

Brief Pier History
The City’s first Pier was built in 1904 by the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company, constructed entirely of wood and extended approximately 500 feet into the Pacific Ocean1. In 1913 during a storm, the wooden Pier was partially destroyed and was subsequently demolished and replaced with a new concrete pier, approximately 1,000 feet long, paved with asphalt for its entire length1. In 1961, the Pier was demolished and replaced with the current concrete pier, which was completed in 1965 and remains today2.

1 Hermosa Beach Historical Society, https://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org/early-hermosa. 2 Daily Breeze, January 17, 2022, https://www.dailybreeze.com/2022/01/17/south-bay-history-former-hermosabeach-nightspot-becomes-the-ocean-aquarium-marinelands-precursor/

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 16
The existing Pier extends approximately 1,140 feet into the Pacific Ocean and is 20 feet in width, with a wider 50-foot by 68-foot-long turn-around at the end. Since its original construction, the existing structure has undergone a series of major repairs, with the most recent repair occurring in 2023-2024.
2023-2024 Major Repairs
In February 2024, the City completed an approximately $3.1M structural and electrical improvements of the Pier, partially funded by $2.3M secured by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi through the State budget process. The completed repairs addressed priority structural needs identified in the 2017 detailed structural assessment and as updated pursuant to an emergency, supplemental inspection completed in 2022. These inspections identified the highest priority needs at the time ( including repair of 29 concrete piles, 11 concrete pile caps, the lifeguard storage room beams and walls under the Pier; and replacement of wooden top rails on the existing guard rail and a fractured concrete deck panel). The project also completed major upgrades to the Pier’s electrical and lighting systems, replacing deteriorated electrical conduits and fixtures that were no longer operational at the time. These upgrades restored lighting along the north side of the Pier and ensured a more reliable electrical connection to the foghorn at the end of the Pier that is used for maritime navigational purposes and had been affected by electrical outages on the Pier. Prior to these repairs, staff had identified worsening concrete spalling conditions beyond those identified in the 2017 assessment. As a result, additional repairs were incorporated into the project scope and stall closely monitored tidal conditions during construction, which resulted in several full closures of the Pier during large storm events. Although the 2023–2024 repairs addressed high-priority pile and pile cap repairs, it was anticipated that the next major repair cycle would focus on the concrete deck system.

New Comprehensive Inspection
As part of CIP 623, the City commissioned a new comprehensive structural inspection, which is required approximately every 5 years in accordance with recommendations outlined in the California Building Code for Marine Structures. The previous full inspection occurred in 2017, with limited updates completed in 2022. Shortly following the conclusion of construction for the last round of repairs, staff retained JMC2 to perform the new detailed inspection and evaluation in September 2024, with the field investigations commencing in October 2024.

The inspection of the deck top, deck soffit, pile caps, and piles was conducted over the following periods: October 15-17, 2024 (through use of a rough terrain boom lift for close visual inspections from the beach), October 29 to November 8, 2024 (use of scaffold rig for close visual underside inspection over the water), October 15 to December 17, 2024 (top deck inspection) and December 17-18, 2024 (underwater dive inspection).

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 16
In addition to close-up visual, and tactile, inspections of the entire structure, the team also utilized ambient vibration testing, on 4 deck panels (November 17, 2024) and an additional 9 bays in March of 2025. The project team worked in close coordination with staff to evaluate and compare the results to refine the overall repair recommendations.

At the May 13, 2025 CIP Study Session, staff provided Council with a preliminary update on the findings of the assessment report that indicated the need for substantial repair work with a rough order of magnitude cost of $6.7M over the next 5 years, including $3.7M of high priority repairs within the next 1 to 2 years to address approximately 13 deck panel replacements, deck panel strengthening, and deck panel soffit repair. An additional $3M in repairs would be required within the next 3 to 5 years to address concrete pile cap repairs and additional concrete deck panel repairs. In May 2025, the data from the ambient vibration tests was still being analyzed for incorporation into the full assessment report. At the same time, the team was working to prepare the cost-benefit analysis of future repairs required to maintain the structure. To avoid further weight restrictions or closure(s) of the Pier, staff recommended allocation of funding in the FY 2025–2026 budget for the first phase of repairs to address the highest priority repairs within the required 1–2-year timeframe. This in turn required the design team to move very quickly to complete the design and expedite a lengthy permitting process. In August 2025, staff retained JMC2 to begin the final design and permitting efforts for the high priority improvements.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
August 22, 2017 Award of Professional Service Agreement for CIP 16-629 the Assessment and Design of Structural Elements of the Municipal Pier to JMC2.

January 11, 2022 Award of Professional Services Agreement for CIP 629 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs to JMC2.

November 29, 2022 Adoption of a Resolution for Pier Grant Funds.

February 27, 2023 Award of construction contract for CIP 629 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs and CIP 660 Municipal Pier Electrical Repairs to Jilk Heavy Construction.

November 14, 2023 Adoption of a resolution approving the first amendment to the Jilk Heavy Construction, Inc. contract for CIP 629 Municipal Pier Structural Repairs and CIP 660 Municipal Pier Electrical Repairs.

May 13, 2025 Staff presented initial structural assessment results to City Council at the CIP Study Session detailing the substantial repair work required at approximately $6.7M, with $3.7M in the next 1 to 2 years and an additional $3M in 3 to 5 years.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 16
Discussion:
2026 Structural Assessment Findings
The Structural Condition Assessment report was completed in January 2026 following extensive coordination between City engineering staff and JMC2.

The report summarizes the detailed inspection observations, structural significance, repair and maintenance recommendations, and cost estimates for repairs. The report also details construction repair programming to establish budgets and timelines to maintain and repair the Pier for the next 45 years through the end of the Pier’s serviceable lifespan.

Overall, the Pier is currently in poor to serious condition and will continue to require reinspection and repair at least, approximately every 5 years for the foreseeable future.

Repairs may be combined, at the City’s discretion, to realize economies of scale for design and permitting work, project management, and construction cost, but combining them may not be feasible due to funding constraints. The following summarizes the report’s repair and maintenance recommendations.

1. Near-Term – High Priority (required repairs by 2026) Required work includes:
 Replacement of 4 concrete deck panels.
 Structural strengthening of 14 deck panels.
 Crack injection and spall repair for approximately 35% of deck panel soffits.

Ambient vibration testing was used to refine the repair requirements and confirm no other major issues that could not be detected through other more conventional inspection methods.

The Pier was originally designed for 10-ton truck loads, but the allowable load rating was reduced to 5 tons in 2023 due to deterioration. Repairs to the deck panels identified as in serious condition must be conducted within the next 1 to 2 years (or by end of 2026 since inspections were completed in Fall 2024) to avoid a further reduction in the load rating, restriction of vehicle access, and partial pier closure(s).

Estimated Cost: $3.25M (2025 dollars); the design and permitting for these improvements is well underway as part of CIP 623.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 16

2. Near-Term – Medium Priority (required repairs in 3-5 years) Repairs anticipated around 2030 include:
 Concrete Pile Cap crack injection and spall repairs to approximately 80% of pile caps.
 Concrete Deck Panels crack injection and spall repairs to approximately 45% of deck panel soffits and 90% of deck panel tops.

Estimated Cost: $3.22M in 2025 dollars (or $3.92M in 2030 dollars).

3. Mid-Term (required repairs in 6 - 10 years)
Repairs anticipated around 2035 include:
 Concrete pile spall repairs and fiberglass jacket repairs to approximately 6 piles.
 Concrete pile caps spall repairs anticipated to be identified in future inspection efforts.

Estimated Cost: $4.38M in 2025 dollars (or $6.49M in 2035 dollars).

4. Long-Term (required repair beyond 10 years)
The field inspection did not identify any current defects that will specifically require repairs 10 years or more in the future. However, we anticipate the need for additional rounds of pile repairs, pile cap repairs, and deck panel repairs as deterioration continues to accelerate. The existing Pier facility is more than 60 years old and nearing the end of its service life. Concrete structures in the marine environment typically require concrete corrosion repairs on an average 5- year cycle after they reach 50-years of age. The volume and cost of these repairs accelerate until the end of the facility’s useful life.

Assuming that the high priority repairs are completed as recommended, the Pier will continue to need inspection at 5-year intervals; the next routine inspection should occur in Fall 2029. As the structure ages, and if subsequent inspections determine that the Pier has rapidly advancing deterioration, a more frequent interval may be required.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 16
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis
To assist in identifying the most cost-efficient timing for potential replacement of the Pier with new a new structure, a cost–benefit analysis was completed to compare long-term repair costs with full Pier replacement. The analysis compared the significant capital outlay cost of a new facility with the projected escalating cost of repairs as the Pier nears the end of its service life. The benefit of the new facility includes its very low to no maintenance costs typically for the first 15 to 20 years.

The following table provides a summary of the repair costs that are anticipated to be required to maintain the existing Pier over the next 45 years. The repairs have been grouped into reasonable projects that will typically occur in 5-year increments to reduce the number of individual construction mobilizations and minimize public impact. The budgetary cost estimates for each construction project include the costs of routine and design-level inspections, design, geotechnical investigation, environmental permitting, contract administration, and construction support efforts.

Projected Repair Costs to Existing Pier (2025 – 2070)
Repair Year Estimated Repair
Cost Cumulative Cost
2025-2027 $3,511,000 $3,511,000
2030 $3,916,000 $7,427,000
2035 $6,490,000 $13,917,000
2040 $9,459,000 $23,376,000
2045 $12,641,000 $36,017,000
2050 $17,654,000 $53,671,000
2055 $23,706,000 $77,377,000
2060 $31,676,000 $109,053,000
2065 $43,512,000 $152,565,000
2070 $57,670,000 $210,235,000
Notes:

1. 2025-2027 repair year is the current project under design (CIP 623)

2. Costs adjusted for inflation assuming 4% annual.

As detailed in the table above, the repair costs are anticipated to increase significantly for each successive 5-year repair, with a cumulative projected cost of more than $210M over the next 44 years to maintain the existing structure. Meanwhile, the cost for a new replacement Pier is anticipated to be about $44.5M (in 2025 dollars), assuming a structure of roughly the same size and amenities as further detailed in the assessment report. The budgetary cost estimate includes the cost for the demolition of the existing Pier and construction of a full replacement pier and the associated design and other administrative costs. It is anticipated that the replacement of the Pier will be a lengthy process and could take at least 6 to 8 years before construction could in order to complete the necessary

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 16
planning, public outreach, CEQA environmental assessment efforts, design, permitting, and advertisement.

To determine the most cost-efficient timing for the City to replace the Pier with a new structure, staff compared the anticipated maintenance and construction costs for the Pier based on what year the pier is replaced. The following figure details the costs for 45 different scenarios, one for each calendar year from 2026 to 2070, determining the total costs over the next 45 years if the Pier is replaced in that year. The costs include maintenance projects for the current Pier, the cost of a new facility, and the costs of maintaining the new facility (which are very low for the first 15 to 20 years following new construction).

As illustrated in the figure above, it is estimated that the scenario where the Pier is replaced in the year 2032 would result in the lowest, or optimal, replacement cost when considering costs over a 45-year period (2025-2070). The total Pier costs through 2070 are estimated to be $103.9M if the Pier is replaced in 2032 (this cost includes the cost of replacement which is estimated at $58.6M in 2032 dollars plus the ongoing cost of maintenance over the remainder of the 45 year period). For comparison, the total Pier cost $107.8M if the Pier is replaced in 2036. The costs begin to rise significantly after year 2036.

The following figure compares the total costs for the Pier (over the next approximately 44 years) for the scenario where the Pier is replaced in 2032 versus the scenario where the Pier is not replaced, but received the required repairs per the projected maintenance schedule detailed in the table above.
$80,000,000
$130,000,000
$180,000,000
$230,000,000
$280,000,000
$330,000,000
$380,000,000
$430,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Pier Replacement Year
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year the Pier is Replaced

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 16
When adjusted for inflation, the replacement of the Pier in 2032 is projected to cost approximately $58.6M ($44.5M in 2025 dollars). If the Pier were to be replaced in 2032, the overall savings of new construction are typically not fully seen until approximately 15 to 20 years after construction of the new facility; however, the City would realize net savings over the 45-year period of approximately $107M by 2070. It should also be noted that in the year 2070 the existing pier will reach an age of 105 years and will likely have no remaining useful service life and would then require replacement. 2026 Structural Assessment Recommendations
It is recommended that existing Pier maintenance projects cease after the 2027 repair project is completed and that the Council direct staff to begin planning and environmental review for a proposed replacement project to start construction in the year 2032. The Near Term – High Priority 2027 repair project must be completed as planned to avoid a reduction in the current Pier load rating, restriction of vehicle weight, or localized deck area closures. To break ground for construction of a new Pier in 2032, planning studies, public outreach tasks, and environmental assessment studies will likely need to be started as early as the second half of 2026 to avoid partial Pier closures and may not be achievable on that timeline given the lengthy permitting and funding requirements. It is important to note that there is only a 4% total cost difference of Pier replacement over the next 10 years, which gives the City some flexibility in choosing to replace the pier any year before 2036 without significant additional cost over replacement in the optimal year 2032.

If the Pier is replaced in 2032, the 2030 Near Term – Medium Priority recommended repair project would not be fully implemented as outlined, but instead a revised/reduced repair $-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Year
Cumulative Pier Costs (2025 - 2070)
Replace Pier in 2032 Repair Existing Pier through 2070

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 16
list may still be required with the goal of maintaining public safety prior to demolition; this may include some isolated repairs, restricting access to parts of the Pier, reducing the size of vehicles allowed on the pier, or temporary structural improvements. If the Pier is not replaced until 2036 or later, staff would need to continue inspections and repairs per the recommended repairs schedule until that time.

Current Project – CIP 623
For the City to ensure the continued use and operation of the Pier as detailed above, the Near Term High Priority repairs must be completed within 1 to 2 years regardless of any decision to replace the Pier in the future. The following details staff’s ongoing efforts to advance these repairs as part of CIP 623:
 Final Design: The Project is currently at 75% design and staff is actively working to finalize the design package, which may be subject to special conditions following the conclusion of permitting efforts.
 Permitting: Staff concluded permitting requirements with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Board. However, permitting is still ongoing with the Coastal Commission, who required additional supplemental studies further detailing construction methods and impacts and a biological and environmental assessment. Preparation of the supplemental studies are underway but will take through April 2026 to complete before staff can fully respond to Coastal Commission and receive a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”), and any potential special conditions that would need to be identified prior to advertising for construction.
 Schedule: Pending receipt of final permits, staff is anticipating advertising the project by Summer 2026, with start of construction targeted to begin as soon as October 2026.
 Funding: The FY 2025-2026 budget includes $3.7M for the Project, with approximately $466,000 set aside for inspection, design, and permitting; and approximately $3.24M for construction and construction administration. As the design phase nears completion, staff will determine if additional funding is required as part of the FY 2026-2027 budget process to further supplement the construction. Current funding for the Project is primarily general funds and staff has actively pursued grant funding from a wide variety of sources:
o Wildlife Conservation Board (“WCB”)– Following what was initially a positive review by WCB staff, the City was invited to submit a pre-application; however, WCB staff reviewed the information provided and the Project was not selected to move on to the full application phase due to receipt of a high volume of competitive applications and limited funding availability.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 16
o California State Coastal Conservancy – Conservancy staff reviewed the request in coordination with City staff and determined that the Project would not be competitive per their grant requirements.
o Federal Funding – Staff submitted requests as part of the FY 2026 request process via the offices of Representative Lieu, Senator Padilla, and Senator Schiff. However, these annual federal budgetary requests were deemed oversubscribed, and the Congress also eliminated all FY 2025 requests in its last Continuing Resolution. There were also no Federal discretionary grant programs that had direct alignment with this Pier Project; the potential exception was the federal PROTECT program that was eliminated by Federal Emergency Management Agency.
o State Funding – Staff submitted a request as part of the FY 2026 funding process through Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi’s office. Staff received a response that due to the state budget deficit, budget requests may not be granted during this budget cycle. Without further project-specific feedback, the project was not selected for funding.
o Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District – Staff submitted an application in October 2026 and was notified on March 6, 2026, that the project was not selected due to a highly competitive pool of applicants.  Surfer’s Walk of Fame (“SWOF”) Plaques: Currently, there are 60 bronze plaques installed, each measuring 15”x12”, on the Pier deck honoring South Bay surf legends inducted into the City’s SWOF from 2003 to 2019. The plaques display the inductee, the year of induction, the category in which they were inducted, and each plaque recognizing an individual inductee includes a brief biography. The program was initiated in 2003 by community member Roger Bacon, with the City collaborating until 2007; after which it assumed full management. Each year, plaques were installed in advance of the annual April induction ceremony recognizing the year’s inductees. An overview of the current plaques on the Pier deck and their layout is provided in (Attachment 2).

Plaque installation on the deck was paused in 2020 due to concerns regarding the installation method, safety concerns, and potential structural impacts to the Pier.

The City has inducted additional surfing legends into the SWOF in 2020, 2023, 2024, and 2025; with more inductees anticipated in April 2026. There were no inductees in 2021 or 2022 due to impacts from COVID-19. Those inducted into the SWOF since 2020 have not yet had plaques installed on the Pier deck in recognition. 6 plaques are currently missing and have been temporarily replaced with concrete to prevent tripping hazards. Ongoing maintenance, including the repair and replacement of plaques, as well as instances of theft, has been a recurring challenge. The plaques are deteriorating and many are now illegible.

Another concern is the lack of chronological order of the plaques on the Pier deck.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 16
The original installation of the plaques required chase cutting through the concrete deck panel surface to install the plaques flush with the walking surface. Any cutting into the deck damages the concrete panels since there is no topping slab present.

These modifications have compromised the protective cover over the reinforcing steel in the panels and other exposed elements and result in water ingress, which can lead to corrosion and more rapid deterioration of the structure.

Additional structural observations in February 2026 identified several plaques were depressed by about ¾” inch in the center indicating the sonotubes (hollow tubes inside the deck panels) may have been punctured. Further investigations are needed to determine the extent of damage at these locations which will require specialized repair beyond what had been originally anticipated.

The waterproof treatment at many of the plaques has been compromised at several locations or missing all together. All polymers used for sealing have a limited lifespan when exposed to sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and even if sealed properly cracked edges may persist. Once the sealant deteriorates and cracks, water ingress becomes inevitable.

Embedded plaques on the Pier’s concrete deck is no longer advisable.

Furthermore, staff is recommending removal of the existing plaques and replacing them at another location so that the existing locations can be properly repaired, to reduce further deterioration of the deck panels, and minimize maintenance needs.

Staff have evaluated various options for replacement:
o Option 1: Railing Mounted Plaque (staff recommended option): New stainless plaques could be installed on top of the wooden hand railings along each side of the Pier (Attachment 3). Based on staff research, stainless steel is more durable than the current bronze in a coastal environment, offering greater resistance to corrosion from salt air, moisture, and sun exposure, which will help ensure long-term legibility and reduce maintenance needs and can be replaced at a lower cost at approximately $216 per plaque. Instead of installing a plaque for each individual inductee, as was done prior to 2020, plaques would be grouped to represent each induction year, with 2–3 plaques used in years with a large number of inductees, reducing the total number of plaques to about

30. This option preserves the surfers’ “walk of fame” feel along the Pier, provides ample space for future plaques, and maintains proximity to the ocean (which prior inductees have demonstrated is important to them). Staff consulted the program’s current judges, consisting of members of the South Bay surf community, and past inductees; all of whom agreed that this is the most practical option to quickly resume plaque installations, replace missing plaques, and install plaques for the 2020, 2023, 2024, and 2025 inductees.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 16
o Option 2: Schumacher Plaza: In 2019, when concerns were presented to members of the surfing community regarding the potential structural impacts to the Pier, staff began considering two other options that were discussed with former inductees on Schumacher Plaza (Attachment 3):
 Option 2A: Build a lighted wall for the plaques surrounding the Tim Kelly Statue, utilizing the existing cement base. The wall would be roughly 58 feet long, with a height to be determined, but positioned below average eye level to avoid obstructing the beach view. The plaques would include only the inductee’s name, the category under which they were inducted, and the year; with the size to be determined but significantly smaller than the Pier deck plaques. Concerns with this option would be the limited space on such a wall to accommodate future years’ inductees, and it wouldn’t necessarily preserve the “walk of fame” feel.
 Option 2B: Plaques would be placed into the ground surrounding the Tim Kelly Statue, either forming a full circle around the statue or a half circle in front. The plaques would include only the inductee’s name, the category under which they were inducted, and the year, with the size to be determined but significantly smaller than the Pier deck plaques.

However, there were concerns with this location. The Tim Kelly Statue was made possible through donations from friends and local lifeguards and was specifically dedicated to honoring the legacy of service through the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Lifeguard Division. Using this site for a separate surfers’ recognition program could detract from the statue’s original purpose and might be seen as conflating two distinct programs. Additionally, placing plaques around the statue could be considered as diminishing the “walk of fame” feel, as well.

Under either option, the plaques currently embedded in the Pier deck would be removed.

The City would offer these plaques to the inductees or their families, and any plaques not claimed would be offered to the Hermosa Beach Museum for preservation.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 14 of 16
Key Considerations:

Staff completed a comprehensive analysis of the Municipal Pier Structure including a cost-benefit assessment to guide the City in decision making in the near- and long-term and has been aggressively working to complete ongoing design and permitting efforts as part of CIP 623 to address high priority needs on the structure that need to be completed by 2027. Staff is seeking direction from Council in the following areas:

1. Completion of the current round of High Priority Repairs to the Pier as part of CIP 623 – Staff recommends that Council direct staff to continue to expeditiously complete the Near Term High Priority Repairs by 2027 to ensure the Pier’s continued use and enjoyment, while avoiding a further reduction in the current Pier load rating and potential for partial Pier closures.

2. Replacement of the Surfer’s Walk of Fame plaques as part of CIP 623 – Staff recommends Council direct staff to replace the existing Surfer’s Walk of Fame plaques with a railing mounted option as part of CIP 623 so that the program can continue and in a way that eliminates structural damage to the Pier and reduces overall maintenance needs; and

3. Consideration of replacement versus continued repair – Since long-term maintenance costs are projected to increase, staff recommends existing pier maintenance projects cease after the 2027 repair; and that Council direct staff to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed replacement project to begin construction in the year 2032, or ideally no later than 2036, before costs are anticipated to rise substantially and project to save the City more than $100 million in lifecycle. Council could decide to continue to repair the facility; however, the City will be required to fund increasingly more costly repairs and overall lifecycle costs will accelerate. Replacement of the Pier would be a lengthy process and could take at least 6 to 8 years to start construction while completing necessary planning, public outreach, CEQA environmental assessment efforts, design, permitting, and advertisement. Staff thus seeks direction on whether to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed Pier replacement Project. Council would need to provide such direction by the end of 2026 to possibly break ground by 2032, or provide direction by no later than 2030 to break ground by 2036. This decision would impact whether the City will need to start reserving funds for the next round of repairs slated in 2030 that would need to be budgeted in the FY 2027-2028 budget. Careful consideration will be needed on when to end maintenance on the Pier to avoid potential closures as is currently being experienced on other municipal pier structures such as in Ocean Beach in San Diego (which has been closed indefinitely) while replacement is being considered. The availability of outside funding remains competitive and limited for maintenance projects or replacement projects and if replacement is being considered, the City would need to begin seeking outside funding sources as it is anticipated to cost approximately $58.6M by 2032 when adjusted for inflation.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 15 of 16
Environmental Analysis:

For CEQA purposes, the City has evaluated the Near Term High Priority Repairs and the removal and replacement of the Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques in the railing together as a single project.

The current Project is exempt from CEQA under the Existing Facilities Exemption identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15301. The Near Term High Priority Repairs component of the Project consists of the repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the existing Pier facility. The plaque removal likewise consists of repair and maintenance to the existing Pier, and replacing the plaques in the railing is a minor alteration of the existing Pier. If Council selects Option 2A or 2B with respect to the plaque replacement, the existing facilities exemption still applies because those options involve minor alterations of the existing Schumacher Plaza. In addition, the Project will not expand either the existing or former use of the Pier. The Project will complete required structural repairs to allow the continued use and enjoyment of the structure; however, the structure will still operate with a reduced load rating of 5 tons.

None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 applies. The cumulative impact of the Project is not significant because the repairs, and plaque removal and replacement, improve the safety of the Pier and have no significant adverse impacts. The Project does not involve any unusual circumstances and will not result in any significant adverse impacts. The Project is not located within a highway that has been officially designated as a state scenic highway or on a hazardous waste site. And the Pier is not designated as a historical resource, so the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in any historical resource.

Fiscal Impact:

Current Project CIP 623
Currently the City has budgeted $3.7M for the design, permitting, and construction of CIP Project 623, using a combination of available Tyco (122), RTI Tidelands (191), and CIP (301) funds.

Should Council direct staff to replace the Surfer plaques with the railing mounted option, it is anticipated that the cost would be approximately $12,000 for the fabrication and installation. Staff is still determining if additional funds for the larger project will be required as the design plans are being finalized and contingent on additional permitting requirements by the Coastal Commission.

Potential Pier Replacement
The most cost-efficient timing for the City to replace the Pier is 2032. A new pier is estimated to cost approximately $58.6M (in 2032 dollars). The total estimated cost to replace and maintain a new pier from 2032 to 2070 is $103.9M.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 16 of 16
If the decision is deferred to 2030, the total cost increases to $107.8M to replace and maintain a new pier for that same time period. Staff recommends a decision be made at the latest by 2030 since the costs begin to rise significantly after year 2036.

Replace
Pier by
2032
Replace
Pier by
2036
Repair
Existing Pier
to Year 2070
Decision Deadline 2026 2030 N/A
Pier Replacement and Maintenance Cost
from 2025 to 2070 * $103.9M $107.8M $210.2M
* Maintenance costs is up to year 2070 for projections.

If the Pier is replaced, the City could potentially save more than $100M in lifecycle costs.

Council would need to provide direction on whether to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed Pier replacement Project by the end of 2026, otherwise, if the decision is deferred, staff will need to budget approximately $4.0M in the FY 2027-28 budget cycle for the next round of repairs.

Attachments:

1. Pier Structural Condition Assessment Report, January 2026

2. Surfer’s Walk of Fame Existing Plaque Layout

3. Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaque Replacement Options
Respectfully Submitted by: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director Concur: Lisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Henry Chao, Finance Manager
Concur: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Jason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney
Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager

Corporate: 411 N. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 201, San Pedro, CA 90731 Los Angeles: T 310-241-6550 www.jmc-2.com
Orange County: T 714-444-2422

STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
MUNICIPAL PIER – HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 19, 2026
Prepared for: Prepared by:

The City of Hermosa Beach John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc. (JMC2) Joe SanClemente, PE John Cruikshank, PE & Vipul Ahuja, SE Public Works Director
ESN Engineering, PLLC
Eric Newman, SE & Cameron Duncan, SE
Sensequake
Farshad Mirshafiei, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................1

1.1. Assessment Summary.....................................................................................1

1.2. Repair Recommendation Summary ..................................................................1

1.3. Future Inspection Recommendations...............................................................2

1.4. Condition Assessment Limitations ...................................................................2

1.5. Cost/Benefit Analysis ......................................................................................3

2. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4

2.1. Facility Description .........................................................................................4

2.2. Structural Conditions Assessment ...................................................................4

2.3. Cost / Benefit Analysis.....................................................................................6

3. CONDITIONS & REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................7

3.1. Concrete Piles ................................................................................................7

3.2. Concrete Pile Cap Beams ................................................................................8

3.3. Concrete Deck Panels .....................................................................................9

3.4. Railing ..........................................................................................................12

3.5. Lifeguard Storage Area...................................................................................13

3.6. Utility Lines...................................................................................................17

3.7. Embedded Plaques .......................................................................................18

3.8. Light Fixtures ................................................................................................20

3.9. Benches .......................................................................................................22

3.10. Staircase ......................................................................................................23

4. SENSEQUAKE TESTING COMPARISON ..................................................................25

4.1. Concrete Piles ..............................................................................................25

4.2. Concrete Pile Cap Beams ..............................................................................27

4.3. Concrete Deck Panels ...................................................................................27

4.4. GENERAL CONCLUSION STATEMENT ON SENSEQUAKE TESTING ....................30

5. COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS....................................................................................32

5.1. Existing Pier: Maintenance / Repairs ...............................................................32

5.2. Replacement Pier: Cost Estimate ...................................................................32

5.3. Analysis Assumptions ...................................................................................33

5.4. Analysis Summary.........................................................................................34

5.5. Conclusions .................................................................................................38 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................39 Appendix A: Location and Vicinity Maps.................................................................39 Appendix B: Typical As-Built Drawings ...................................................................39 Appendix C: Photographs .....................................................................................39 Appendix D: Field Notes .......................................................................................39 Appendix E: Budgetary Cost Estimate & Estimated Repair Quantities.......................39 Appendix F: Inspection Procedure .........................................................................39 Appendix G: Cost / Benefit Analysis – Cost Estimates & Schedules ..........................39 Appendix H: Sensequake Panel Testing (October 2025)...........................................39

1 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Assessment Summary
Overall, the piles and pile caps are in Fair condition. The deck panels are in Poor to Serious condition. The load capacity of the pier is currently governed by the condition of the deck panels. The current pier load rating allows for pedestrian access and vehicles under 5 tons.

The pier was originally designed for 10-ton trucks. Repairs to the deck panels in Serious condition must be conducted within the next 1-2 years to avoid a reduction in the current pier load rating of 5 tons, restriction of vehicles, and partial pier closures.

1.2. Repair Recommendation Summary
The following summarizes our repair and maintenance recommendations. Repairs may be combined, at the Owner’s discretion, to realize economies of scale for design work, project management and construction cost.

A. NEAR TERM – HIGH PRIORITY (Repairs within 1-2 years) i. Concrete Deck Panels: Replace 4 deck panels; Repair 14 deck panels with fiberglass laminate; Crack injection and spall repairs to approximately 35% of deck panel soffits (13 bays). Note: Due to the high cost of scaffolding, we have assumed that all panel soffits in a bay will be repaired at the same time. Repairs to these deck panels in Serious condition must be completed within the next 1-2 years to avoid a load rating reduction and partial pier closures. ii. Estimated Construction Cost of High Priority Repairs in 2025 Dollars = $3.25 million (see Appendix E, Pages E-2 and E-3).

B. NEAR TERM – MEDIUM PRIORITY (Repairs in 3-5 years)
i. Concrete Pile Caps: Localized crack injection and spall repairs to approximately 80% of pile caps.
ii. Concrete Deck Panels: Localized crack injection and spall repairs to approximately 45% of deck panel soffits and 90% of deck panel tops. iii. Estimated Construction Cost of Medium Priority Repairs in 2025 Dollars = $3.22 million (see Appendix E, Pages E-4 and E-5).

C. MID TERM (Repairs in 6 - 10 years)
i. Concrete Piles: Spall repairs and fiberglass jacket repairs to approximately 6 piles. (Note: due to 41% of the existing 60-year-old piles not previously being repaired, we anticipate there will be additional piles requiring repairs in 6 to 10 years.

2 ii. Concrete Pile Caps: Anticipated future spall repairs to pile caps identified in future inspection efforts.

D. LONG TERM (Repairs beyond 10 years)
The field inspection did not identify any current defects that will specifically require repairs 10 years or more in the future. However, we anticipate the need for additional rounds of pile repairs, pile cap repairs, and deck panel repairs as deterioration continues to accelerate. This facility is 60+ years old and nearing the end of its service life. Concrete structures in the marine environment typically require concrete corrosion repairs on an average 5-year cycle after they reach 50-years of age. The volume and cost of these repairs accelerate until the end of the facility’s useful life.

The recommended repair for piles is to remove all loose and damaged concrete, install a fiberglass form around the pile, clean the reinforcing, apply a corrosion inhibitor or bonding agent, and then fill the jacket with pumpable grout. The repair recommendation for pile caps and deck panels with spall damage is to chip out the deteriorated concrete, clean the reinforcing, apply a corrosion inhibitor, and then apply a polymer modified epoxy mortar.

Reinforcing steel that is missing or exhibiting section loss should be supplemented with additional reinforcing of the same size and spacing. Wide cracks not caused by corrosion may be injected with epoxy. Panels that have Significant areas of weak concrete may require strengthening, which can likely be achieved using a wet-layup fiberglass or carbon-fiber laminate. Deck panels deemed in Severe condition from overstress require demolition and replacement-in-kind.

1.3. Future Inspection Recommendations
The Pier is currently in Poor to Serious condition. Assuming that the high priority repairs are completed as recommended, we recommend inspecting the Municipal Pier at 5-year intervals as recommended by the California Building Code for Marine Structures; the next routine inspection should occur in Fall 2029. As the structure ages, and if subsequent inspections determine that the pier has rapidly advancing deterioration, a more frequent interval may be appropriate. The inspection timing should also be coordinated with the timing of funding for repairs. Design Level inspection should be coordinated with the start of construction to provide the City with the best value and to reduce the number of Change Orders during construction for changed conditions.

1.4. Condition Assessment Limitations
Evaluation of architectural, civil, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing elements are outside the scope of this assessment. Structural analysis calculations including lateral capacity

3 analysis, design of repairs, and preparation of construction documents are outside the current scope of this assessment, but these services are available, if requested.

1.5. Cost/Benefit Analysis
The City of Hermosa Beach engaged us to develop a 45-year construction repair program for the Hermosa Beach Pier, including budgets and timelines, based on existing conditions, deterioration, and past repairs, with work grouped into 5-year projects to reduce costs and public impacts. We also prepared a cost–benefit analysis comparing long-term repair costs with full pier replacement, identifying the most cost-effective timing for new construction given its significantly lower maintenance needs in the first 15 to 20 years.

4 2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Facility Description
The Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier is a concrete fishing and pedestrian pier, constructed in 1965, located at the end of Pier Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA (see Appendix A).

The pier is 1,140 feet long by 20 feet wide with a wider 50 feet by 68 feet long turn-around at the end. The pier is constructed of 16-inch and 18-inch precast prestressed concrete octagonal piles, supporting 3’-0” high by 2’-8” wide cast-in-place concrete pile caps (see Appendix C, Photo 1). Precast concrete deck panels, measuring 1’-5” thick by 5’-0” wide, span between the pile caps (see Appendix B, Figures 1 and 2). There is a metal guard railing running around the entire perimeter
of the pier with a wood top rail.

There are three piles per bent in
Bents 1 through 18 and four piles
per bent in Bents 19 through 33 (see
Figures 3 and 4). The outer piles,
closest to the pier edge, batter
away from the pier (see Photo 2). In
Bents 34 through 36, two additional
piles are added to each side of the
pier for a total of seven piles per
bent (see Figures 5 and 6). There
are a total of 36 Bents and 135 piles. The typical spacing between bents is 32’-0” with a smaller spacing of 25’-0” between Bents 0 and 1 and Bents 34 to 36. The pier deck begins at street level, approximately 10 feet above mean seal level, and rises over the first 10 bents to an elevation approximately 20 feet above mean sea level, which is then consistent to the end of the pier. Bent 0 is a concrete abutment wall. Transverse expansion joints are located across the deck panels at Bents 5, 10 and 19 (see Figure 7).

Vehicle access to the pier is currently restricted to lifeguard, police, and maintenance vehicles under 5 tons. Structural drawings and previous inspection reports were provided by the City of Hermosa Beach for review.

2.2. Structural Conditions Assessment
The scope of work provides for the inspection and analysis of the existing pier conditions, above and below water, of the piles, pile caps, and deck panels, of the Municipal Pier in Hermosa Beach, CA. The scope also includes repair recommendations and repair cost

5 estimates. The inspection of the deck top, deck soffit, pile caps, and piles was conducted over the following periods: October 15-17, 2024 (use of Rough Terrain Boom Lift), October 29 to November 8, 2024 (use of Trailerable Scaffold Rig), October 15 to December 17, 2024 (Top Deck Inspection) and December 17-18, 2024 (Dive Inspection).

The Engineer Divers conducted a close visual inspection of 100% of the pier piling, pile cap beams, and pier deck. Marine growth was removed at 3 elevations from at least 10% of the piling to closely inspect the piles for damage, where surf conditions allowed. The underside of deck inspection was performed using two pieces of equipment to closely assess the deck soffit. Elements over the beach were inspected using a rough terrain boom lift and elements over the water were inspected by access from a trailerable scaffold rig. The surfaces of the concrete deck panels and pile caps were sounded with a hammer or solid steel headed putter to identify areas of delaminated, weak, damaged, or spalled concrete. A crack width gauge was used to record crack widths greater than hairline width. Due to the high cost of equipment rental to closely examine the deck soffit, a Design Level survey was performed for all observed damage and deterioration that is recommended for repair.

The engineering team was responsible for the assessment of the concrete piles, concrete pile caps, and concrete deck panels (both soffit and topside), guardrails, stairs, CMU walls, storage areas under the pier, and trash receptacles. We also assessed the impact on the structural deck panels of bench attachments (current, removed, and abandoned fasteners) and surfer plaques. The team was also tasked with
evaluating the conclusions by Sensequake of
ambient vibration deck testing of the four deck
panels between Bents 10 and 11 tested on
November 17, 2024, and comparing the
Sensequake conclusions with our visual and
tactile observations. Sensequake subsequently
tested an additional 9 bays in March of 2025, and
ESN Engineering has reviewed, evaluated and
incorporated Sensequake’s conclusions into our
recommendations.

This report includes a summary of observations, their structural significance, repair recommendations, and cost estimates for repairs recommended within the next 5 years. The report discusses the overall structural system and typical conditions of the structural elements of the pier, as well as recommendations to maintain the structure.

6 2.3. Cost / Benefit Analysis
The City of Hermosa Beach asked us to perform construction repair programming to establish budgets and timelines to maintain and repair the Hermosa Beach Pier for the next 45 years (through the end of the pier’s serviceable lifespan). We reviewed existing conditions, deterioration levels, and past repair projects to extrapolate into yearly estimates of work to maintain the pier. Anticipated repairs were grouped into projects on a 5-year basis to capitalize high mobilization costs, reduce temporary public use restrictions, and limit public impact. Budgets have been provided for each project year with supporting documentation.

We then prepared a cost / benefit analysis to define the most cost-efficient timing for the City to plan for the long-term replacement of the pier with new construction. We compared the significant capital outlay cost of a new facility with the projected escalating cost of repairs as the pier nears the end of its design service life. The benefit of the new facility includes its very low to no maintenance costs typically for the first 15 to 20 years.

7 3.CONDITIONS & REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Observed conditions, their structural significance, and repair recommendations are provided below for each element of the pier.

3.1. Concrete Piles
Observed Conditions: A total of 54 octagonal 16” and 81 octagonal 18” precast concrete piles support the Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier. The Engineer Divers conducted a Level I inspection (see Appendix F for Inspection Procedures) on all the piles both above and below water. Engineer Divers
conducted a Level II
inspection on 10% of the
piles. Between Bents 9 and
36, approximately 51 piles
have been repaired with a
grout-filled fiberglass jacket;
34 piles were repaired in 2023
(see Photo 3) and
approximately 27 piles have
been repaired with a
fiberglass jacket prior to 2017
(see Photo 4). The 2023
jacket repairs appear to be performing well. The first 8 bents of piles have been previously repaired by wrapping a fiberglass jacket tightly around the pile and no subsequent damage was noted (see Photo 6). Pile 16:A has been repaired with a steel jacket (see Photo 7) that appears to be performing well. Many of the older jacket repairs have split open with visible cracks in the concrete behind the jacket (see Photo 8) or show signs of degradation due to wave impact and/or UV exposure (see Photo 9). At approximately 7 locations, stainless steel straps have been wrapped around the existing fiberglass jacket to hold the jacket in place. A fiberglass form filled with concrete has been installed around the bottom 6 feet of Piles 36:F and 36:G extending into the mudline. Approximately 41% of the concrete piles have not been previously repaired. Overall, the piling is in Fair condition.

Approximately 23 piles have at least one area of corrosion induced Vertical Cracking or Spalling. Between Bents 9 and 36, there are approximately 4 piles with Moderate Open Corrosion Spalls (see Photos 10 and 11) and approximately 19 piles with Minor Closed Corrosion Spalls, typically at the top of the pile (see Photo 12).

8 Overall, approximately 58% of the piles show no visible damage, 25% of piles have Minor vertical cracking, and 18% of the piles have Minor to Moderate corrosion defects. The piles in the tidal zone experience a continuous wetting and drying cycle due to changes in tides and splashes from waves. This aggressive environment accelerates corrosion.

The Level II examination performed on a 10% sample of piles is intended to represent general pile conditions. The piles were cleaned at 3 water depths, where surf conditions allowed, and checked for softness and the presence of abnormalities (see Photos 5 and 14). Most of the concrete piles examined were found firm, which suggests that the piles are not under chemical attack beyond typical corrosion related defects.

Structural Significance: The concrete piling provides both vertical and lateral support for the pier. The previously performed pile jacket repairs appear to mostly be performing well.

The older pile jackets that have split open with cracked grout behind the jackets are indicative of advancing corrosion deterioration of the original pile reinforcing. As the original pile reinforcing continues to corrode, it expands, bursting open the fiberglass jacket and cracking the grout between the original pile and jacket. This frequently occurs near the jacket tops. This represents a Moderate loss of capacity and requires repair as a Medium Priority.

The jackets should be held in place with straps until repairs are made as the straps do slow the rate of environmental attack and hold the debris in place, so it does not become a hazard to beachgoers. No reductions in pile capacity are recommended currently.

Repair Recommendations: No repairs to the piling are recommended within the next 5 years. In 5 to 10 years, repairs will likely be required for the following:

1. Fiberglass Jacket Tears: Piles 9:A and 11:E

2. Closed Corrosion Spalls: Pile 15:A,

3. Open Corrosion Spalls: Piles 23:B, 34:F, 35:Y and 35:A

4. Future pile repairs which are identified in future inspection efforts.

3.2. Concrete Pile Cap Beams
Observed Conditions: The Municipal Pier is made up of 36 bents of cast-in-place concrete pile caps. The pile caps are 3’-0” high by 2’-8” wide. They are 18’-4” long for the first 33 bents and spaced at 32’-0” on center. Bents 34 to 36 are spaced at 25’-0” on center. The pile cap at Bent 34 is 48’-4” long and the pile caps are 52’-2” long at Bents 35 and 36. Prior concrete repairs can be seen on many of the pile caps. Overall, the pile caps are in Fair condition.

Overall, approximately 17% of the pile caps do not have any new visible damage and 83% of the pile caps have Minor to Moderate corrosion defects. There are approximately 27 pile caps that have Closed Corrosion Spalls (see Photo 15) and an additional 3 pile caps that have

9 Open Corrosion Spalls (see Photo 16). The spalling that was observed usually occurs along the bottom of the pile cap and at the pile cap ends.

Structural Significance: The pile caps are a critical vertical and lateral load carrying element. They transfer all the deck vertical loads to the piles and tie the piles together to share lateral (wave or seismic) loads in the transverse direction. The pile caps are continuous across all piles at each bent in a series of very short spans. Due to the short span length, the bottom reinforcing is less critical than the top reinforcing. For this reason, minor deterioration of soffit reinforcing does not create a significant reduction in load capacity. The estimated reduction in pile cap load capacity is 5% or less for all bents.

Repair Recommendations: Spall repairs are recommended within the next 3 to 5 years for all the pile cap bents except for 6 pile caps (Bents 1, 2, 12, 25, 30, and 32). A second round of pile cap spall repairs is anticipated to be required in 5 to 10 years. See Appendix D, Pages D-47 and D-48 for a list of the locations of pile cap defects for which repairs are recommended. Although the pile caps currently have a reduced capacity of 5% or less, we recommend their repair, prior to significant loss of the rebar section, to avoid a much higher future repair cost if rebar replacement is needed. Left alone, the corrosion deterioration accelerates.

3.3. Concrete Deck Panels
Observed Conditions: The deck of the Municipal Pier is constructed with 156 hollow precast concrete panels. The panels are 1’-5” thick by 5’-0” wide with four 10.5” diameter hollow Sonovoid Tubes in the middle of each panel. Between Bents 1 and 34, the panels are 32’ long with 4 panels placed side
by side. Between Bents 34 and 36,
the panels have an overall length
of 34’ (25’ span between pile caps
plus a 9’ cantilever overhang) and
6 additional panels have been
added to produce the wider pier
end. Each deck panel is
connected to its adjacent panels
with a concrete grout shear key.

Additionally, a steel tie rod
connects the panels typically at
midspan (see Figure 7). The Engineers visually inspected the top, underside and edges of the concrete deck panels. The Engineers also sounded the surfaces of the deck panels with a hammer or solid steel headed putter to identify areas of delaminated, weak, damaged, or

10 spalled concrete. Shallow delamination (separation of material into layers) in the concrete deck panels can be found by tapping a hammer on the surface of the concrete producing a distinct sound. This sound will allow the user to distinguish the difference between delaminated and solid concrete. Delaminated surfaces make a dull or hollow sound and solid concrete surfaces make a clear ringing sound. Many of the panels were observed to have existing patches, especially between panel joints. There is typically rust bleeding present at the edges of the patches on the soffit. Overall, the deck panels are in Poor to Serious condition.

Corrosion Spalls: Approximately 75% of the deck panel soffits have at least one area of Closed Corrosion Spalling, typically along the panel edges (see Photos 17, 18 and 29).

Approximately 7 panel soffits also exhibit Open Corrosion Spalling (see Photo 27-28).

Approximately 70% of the deck panel tops have areas with shallow spalls and delamination, representing approximately 12% of the total top deck area (see Photo 30).

Deck Fractures: Approximately 20 deck panels have Serious deterioration, typically due to overstress damage because of overload from a wheel or outrigger point load. There are approximately 13 panels that exhibit fractures from overloading, typically evident by continuous splits in the concrete along the panel edges and by vertical offsets either internally along the fracture or between adjacent panels (see Photos 21-26). A few of the panels with fractures have a large missing section of concrete at the fracture, typically with exposed reinforcing with Moderate section loss (see Photos 19-20). Approximately 7 panels have a significant area of weak and delaminated concrete.

Deck Cracking: Approximately 67% of the deck panel soffits have transverse full width cracks greater than 0.016” wide; approximately 45% of those deck panel soffits also exhibit longitudinal cracking greater than 0.016” wide. Approximately 67% of the deck panel tops have transverse full width cracks greater than 0.016” wide (see Photos 31-32); approximately 12 of those panels also have longitudinal cracks greater than 0.016” wide. The transverse cracks are indicative of flexural stress and shrinkage.

Shear Keys: Spalling was observed on the topside between deck panels at the shear key at approximately 14 locations. Vertical offsets between deck panels were observed at the soffit at approximately 6 additional locations. This indicates that the shear key has failed at these locations and therefore the deck panels at these locations are not adequately sharing loads.

Uneven Deck Elevation: The deck appears to dip in elevation at Bent 13. There was a slight elevation drop at Bent 13 shown in photos taken in 2012. In 2017, the drop appeared to be larger. We recommend that this elevation drop be reviewed during the next routine pier inspection in case pile settlement is ongoing. Specifically, we recommend obtaining

11 elevation measurements of the deck at Bent 13 within the next year that can then be compared to measurements taken in the future. Assuming that the recommended high priority repairs are completed, we recommend inspecting the Municipal Pier at 5-year intervals as discussed below. The next routine inspection should occur in Fall 2029.

Structural Significance: The deck panels provide the first and most important means to distribute pedestrian and vehicle loads to the pile caps and piles below. If the deck panels are not maintained, a safety hazard will develop.

The transverse hairline cracks on the bottom of the panels near their centerline are Minor because the bottoms of the panels are in tension and the steel reinforcing is carrying the flexural loads. However, longitudinal cracking and corrosion spalling on the bottom face of the panels is significant. This spalling is indicative of corrosion of the flexural reinforcing and can result in diminished capacity. Based on the level of rust bleeding, the current closed nature of the spalling, and location on the extreme edges of the panels, the deck panels with minor cracking have an estimated 5% to 10% loss in capacity.

The pier was originally designed to support a 10-ton truck. Due to the observed deck shear key failures, the current 5-ton load rating for the pier has assumed that a wheel load placed near a panel edge is supported entirely by the loaded panel, without assistance from adjacent panels. This assumption may be conservative in bays with in-tact shear keys.

The 7 panels with Significant areas of weak and delaminated concrete and the 13 panels with overloading fractures and displacements are a Serious concern. These panels have an estimated loss of capacity of 50% which is the basis for the current 5-Ton Load Limit (half of the original design 10-Ton Load Limit). As such, it is crucial that these panels are repaired or replaced in the next 1 to 2 years to avoid further load restrictions.

Repair Recommendations: Within the next 1 to 2 years, we recommend replacing 4 deck panels that have experienced Severe overstress damage. Within the next 2 years we recommend repairing approximately 14 deck panels with an FRP laminate where Significant delamination has occurred. Within the next 3 to 5 years, we recommend crack injection and spall repairs to portions of approximately 45% of deck panel soffits and 90% of deck panel tops where large flexural cracks, closed corrosion spalling, and open corrosion spalling have occurred. Due to the high cost of scaffolding, we recommend that all panel soffits in a bay be repaired at the same time. See Appendix D, Pages D-125 to D-131 for a complete list of the locations of recommended deck panel repairs.

12 3.4. Railing
Observed Conditions: Wooden railing on the steel guardrail condition was generally acceptable. However, several screws connecting the wood to the steel guardrail with the base plates were found missing as can be seen in the following photos. In September 2025, the City’s Public Works Department inspected and replaced all missing railing screws.

3.7n Missing screws between Bents 1-2
(North side)

3.7o Missing screws between Bents 8-12
(North side)

3.7p & q Guardrail post to structure bolts acceptable

13 Structural Significance: All the wooden guardrails have been replaced recently as they are an important pier safety feature. The railings should be properly secured to the steel railing system.

Repair Recommendations: None currently.

3.5. Lifeguard Storage Area
Observed Conditions: The CMU wall is a part of the Lifeguard Storage building that is located below the deck at the beginning of the Pier in the first three bays, starting with a low height retaining wall. See Photos 3.5a to 3.5e below.

The CMU wall was found to be anchored laterally at the top from the bent, where available or the slab soffit—see Photos 3.5f to 3.5h below. Clearly the wall is a non-load bearing structure, as the pier slab is independently supported by the bents and the end retaining wall.

3.5a Panoramic view between bents 2 & 3

3.5b Panoramic view between bents 1 & 2

14 3.5c Panoramic view between bents 1 & retaining wall—looking at retaining wall

3.5d Panoramic view between bents 1 & retaining wall--looking parallel to retaining wall.

3.5e Panoramic view between bents 1 & 2

3.5f East view looking at Bent 2 and beyond

15 3.5g Lateral support of CMU wall from bent 3.5h Lateral support of CMU wall from slab soffit
There were marks of running water with effervescence possibly from superstructure concrete. Minor signs if effervescence see Photos 3.5i to 3.5k. There was no sign of dampness nor rust, barring one or two places due to a metallic object being hung from it, though now removed. Generally, the condition of the CMU wall was healthy.

3.5i Minor signs if effervescence at bottom
left of photo

3.5j Close up of CMU wall between Bent 2
& 3—minor rust marks due to old metallic
object hung on the wall, now removed

16 3.5k Marks of running water with
effervescence possibly from
superstructure concrete
Slab soffit within lifeguard storage room Bents 1 to 3 & retaining wall All three bays the slab soffit showed signs of water damage. Between Bents 2 & 3 the soffit had been painted over relatively recently, and cracks were hidden, but water damage to paint was evident See Photos 3.5k & 3.5l. In other bays, where there is no painting done, the flexural cracks are evident like the slab soffits outside lifeguard enclosure, past Bent 3. There are also telltale marks of cracks being studied by a previous team highlighting crack locations. There are widespread water running marks along with effervescence.

3.5k Red marks on ceiling indicative of
cracks being studied by a previous team

3.5l Widespread effervescence indicative
of potential corrosion activity in slab

17 Structural Significance: There are no signs of structural significance to the pier even with observance of widespread effervescence.

Repair Recommendations: No structural repairs are recommended currently.

3.6. Utility Lines
Observed Conditions: It was observed that the clamps securing the electrical conduit to the deck were missing or detached at the following locations:
• Bent 25.3 on North side face (Photo 3.6a)
• Bent 25.7 on North side face (Photo 3.6b)
• Bent 29.3 on North side soffit (Photo 3.6c)
• Bent 29.3 on South side soffit (Photo 3.6d)

3.6a Bent 25.3 on North side face 3.6b Bent 25.7 on North side face

3.6c Bent 29.3 on North side soffit 3.6d Bent 29.3 on South side soffit The water line on the South side of the soffit has a steady drip leak at the following splice locations:

18 • Bent 27.5 (Photo 3.6e)
• Bent 31.5 (Photo 3.6f)

3.6e Bent 27.5 steady drip leak 3.6f Bent 31.5 steady drip leak Structural Significance: The missing conduit clamps and leaking water lines have a minimal effect on the pier structure.

Repair Recommendations: We recommend replacing the missing electrical conduit clamps at Bents 25 and 29 and repairing the leaking water lines as part of the upcoming pier repair project while the slab soffits are being repaired utilizing underdeck scaffolding.

3.7. Embedded Plaques
Observed Conditions: The plaques were found to be installed only between bents 13 and 18, both on North and South faces, see Photos 3.7a & 3.7b below. There were some “missing” plaque locations, that are potential water ingress points Photo 3.7c. Also, plaques that have been installed show signs that the waterproof treatment around them has been compromised at several locations or missing all together forming a source of water into the structure below (Photos 3.7d & 3.7e)

19 3.7a South side plaques 3.7b North side plaques 3.7c Potential plaque location—possible water
ingress points

3.7d & 3.7e Typical plaque showing gaps in waterproofing seal around its perimeter or missing entirely
Structural Significance: Plaques are non-structural architectural appendages. Their installation typically requires damaging portions of the concrete cover through chase cutting, as they must remain flush with the walking surface to avoid becoming tripping hazards.

We do not recommend cutting into the deck concrete, especially since there is no topping slab present. Such modifications may compromise the protective cover over the reinforcing steel in the panels and other exposed elements. Water ingress through these areas can lead to corrosion.

20 Cracked edges, as shown in Photo 3.7d, may persist even after proper sealing. All polymers used for sealing have a limited lifespan when exposed to sunlight and UV radiation. Once the sealant deteriorates and cracks, water ingress becomes inevitable.

From a durability and long-term maintenance perspective, embedding plaques into the pier’s concrete deck is no longer advisable.

Repair Recommendations: In consultation with the City, it has been decided to prohibit further installation of plaques on the deck and to remove the existing ones. The removal of plaques leaves recesses or craters in the deck surface, which should be properly sealed using polymer-modified cement mortar to prevent water ingress and deterioration.

Moving forward, both existing and future plaques will be installed on the handrails instead of the deck.

3.8. Light Fixtures
Observed Conditions: One low height light pole was found to be tilted over and needs repair.

3.7f Tilted Light Standard at Bent (South
face)

3.7g Possible old location of light
standard—water ingress

21 3.7h & i Light standard at gate on the pier having anchor bolts at wrong holes Structural Significance: Light fixtures are non-structural architectural features. When installed these require concrete cover portions to be damaged by drilling of holes. As stated before, there is no “topping” concrete slab above the structural slab, so installation of the light fixtures damages the structural concrete members. For the given situation, the best that can be done is repair any potential water ingress points to reduce corrosion.

Repair Recommendations: For safety reasons, it’s important to ensure all the light standards are securely fastened to the pier deck. The City should routinely check under normal maintenance that lights are being held firm and upright and replace missing anchor bolts. We also recommend monitoring cracks and repairing them with appropriate sealants.

No significant cracks were observed at this time, and no further action is required at this point.

22 3.9. Benches
Observed Conditions: Virtually all benches on both the north and south edges of the pier have empty holes in existing cleats, both to the ground as well as the legs. When either the fasteners or cleats or both are rusted, the following table shows they need attention:

Benches between Bent #
Replace number of bench anchorages (also number of
legs affected); “-“ indicates no bench; OK indicates
sound condition; greater than one line in a bent pair
indicates additional benches
South North
1-2 - Replace 4
9-10 - Replace 1
10-11 OK Replace 3
11-12 Replace 2 Replace 1
12-13 Replace 1 Replace 2
Replace 4 OK
13-14 Replace 3 OK
18-19 Replace 2 Replace 4
19-20 Replace 4 Replace 4
Replace 4 -
20-21 Replace 4 Replace 2
22-23 - Replace 4
23-24 - Replace 4

3.7j Example: North face bench between
Bents 1&2 needs replacement

3.7k Missing bolts

23 3.7l Rusted anchorages 3.7m Rusted anchors and bolt holes in deck beyond
Structural Significance: As stated already, any penetration into the pier’s deck is the start of future concrete and steel deterioration.

Repair Recommendations: Within the next 2 years, replace all the bench anchorages as denoted in the table. Remove the affected benches and reinstall them using an approved methodology that does not involve drilling holes into the deck or creating potential leak points.

3.10. Staircase
Observed Conditions: The external staircase has classic marks of rainwater running on the soffit of the slab due to capillary action, see Photos 3.7r to 3.7t. The soffit had previously been painted over, but upon request, the paint was removed, revealing a structural crack-- Photo 3.7u. The crack appears to be flexural in nature, possibly resulting from corrosion that has reduced the effective area of reinforcing steel available for bending. This crack should be repaired using the same methodology applied to the deck panels, including fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening.

24 3.7r Rust marks at top of column 3.7s

3.7t 3.7u

25 Structural Significance: For staircase, there is visible corrosion and immediate maintenance should occur. See repair recommendations below.

Repair Recommendations: A drip course can be provided at soffits where water tends to flow beneath to prevent further damage. This applies to staircase structure and other slab and even pile cap soffits. This is a one-time fix and should be a part of the Pier Repair Plans.

4.SENSEQUAKE TESTING COMPARISON
Sensequake and JMC2 conducted ambient vibration testing of the four deck panels between Bents 10 and 11 in November 2024. Sensequake summarized their conclusions in a PowerPoint presentation provided on January 13, 2025. Sensequake provided color-coded graphics of the structure showing their deterioration conclusions based on the scale shown to the right.

Sensequake subsequently tested all the panels in an additional 9 bays in March of 2025; the bays tested were 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 18-19, 21- 22, 27-28, 30-11, 32-33, and 35-36. Sensequake summarized their conclusions in a PowerPoint presentation provided in PDF format on May 2, 2025. Sensequake provided “heat maps” for both the vertical and transverse mode shapes, which summarized their conclusions on the level of deterioration in each tested zone of the tested deck panels. On May 12, 2025, Sensequake also provided separated vertical and transverse “heat maps” for Bent 10 to 11.

4.1. Concrete Piles
Sensequake Analysis Results: Sensequake concluded that the Piles at Bent 11 have Minor Deterioration and the Piles at Bent 10 have Moderate Deterioration. For the additional 9 bays tested between Bents 12 and 36, substructure conclusions were provided only at Bents 21 and 32. Sensequake concluded that there is High Deterioration of the pile cap and/or piles at Bents 21 and 32.

Visual and Tactile Observations at the Sensequake testing locations: ESN Engineering observed Minor Closed Corrosion Spalling at the tops of Piles 10:A, 10:C, and 11:C. In 2023, Pile 10:E was repaired with a grout-filled fiberglass jacket from the mudline to the underside of the pile cap. Pile 11:A was previously repaired with a tight fiberglass wrap at the top and a grout filled fiberglass jacket approximately 2 feet above the mudline. Pile 11:E was previously repaired with a grout-filled fiberglass jacket from the mudline to the underside of the pile cap. In 2023, eight stainless steel straps were installed around the jacket at Pile 11:E to Sensequake
Deterioration
Rating Scale

26 secure it in place due to a vertical split; ESN Engineering observed five diagonal cracks in the grout across the jacket split.

ESN Engineering did not observe any notable defects at Piles 21:A, 21:B, and 32:E. ESN Engineering observed an existing fiberglass pile jacket at Pile 32:B and fiberglass pile jackets constructed in 2023 on Piles 21:E, 32:A and 32:D. ESN Engineering noted a Moderate vertical crack in the outboard face of Pile 21:D.

Results Comparison and Conclusions: ESN Engineering does not recommend any repairs during the next 5 years to the piles in Bents 10, 11, 21, and 32, nor is there justification to reduce the current pier load rating based on the conditions of these piles. In 5 to 10 years, repairs will likely be required for the deteriorated jacket at Pile 11:E. ESN Engineering does not consider the deterioration in the piles in Bents 10, 11, 21 or 32 to be Significant. It is possible that Sensequake is seeing abnormal behavior in these piles and differing behavior between adjacent bents because of various types of jacket repairs modifying the relative stiffness of the jacketed piles compared to the original prestressed concrete piles.

The Sensequake analysis does not individually model the unbraced pile heights, which change with water depth, the depth to the stiff formational soil layer at each bent and the variation of top of deck elevation. Longer piles are less stiff than shorter piles and could appear to have excessive flexibility, interpreted as a deteriorated element, as opposed to a change in relative stiffness. ESN Engineering considers the deterioration in the piles at Bent 10 to be Minor; whereas Sensequake has categorized that same deterioration as Moderate – this difference should be considered negligible based on the different rating scales used.

ESN Engineering has used the ASCE Manual 130 rating scales (see Appendix F) and Sensequake has used a frequency-based rating scale for the vertical modes and a curvature distortion scale for the transverse modes.

ESN Engineering considers the deterioration in the piles at Bents 21 and 32 to be Minor; whereas Sensequake has categorized that same deterioration as High, which carries a general recommendation for repairs in the mid-term timeframe. (Note that the Sensequake scale recommends short-term repairs for areas with Severe deterioration). It is possible that the Sensequake testing has identified flexibility in the soil-pile interaction at these piles; however, ESN Engineering did not observe settlement damage in the substructure. It should be noted that Bent 13 appears to have settled but Sensequake did not note excessive flexibility in the Bent 13 substructure. It is possible that the soil interaction is more flexible at Bents 21 and 32 but has not resulted in any movement. ESN Engineering recommends that these bents be carefully checked for signs of settlement during the next routine pier inspection.

27 Since the Sensequake testing was focused on the deck panels, the data provided for piling was limited; the correlation between the Sensequake pile conclusions and the visual observations was Poor. As such, ESN Engineering found no justification for adjusting our pile repair recommendations at this time.

4.2. Concrete Pile Cap Beams
Sensequake Analysis Results: Sensequake concluded that the Pile Cap at Bent 11 has Moderate Deterioration. For the additional 9 bays tested between Bents 12 and 36, substructure conclusions were provided only at Bents 21 and 32. Sensequake concluded that there is High Deterioration of the pile cap and/or piles at Bents 21 and 32.

Visual and Tactile Observations at the Sensequake testing locations: ESN Engineering observed Minor corrosion spalling on the faces of the pile caps at Bents 10, 11, and 21. ESN Engineering did not observe any notable defects in the pile cap at Bent 32.

Results Comparison and Conclusions: ESN Engineering recommends making concrete spall repairs during the next 3-5 years to the pile caps at Bents 10, 11 and 21. Although the pile caps currently have a reduced capacity of 5% or less, we have recommended spall repairs be conducted prior to significant loss of the rebar section to avoid a much higher cost repair. ESN Engineering considers the deterioration in the pile cap at Bent 11 to be Minor, whereas Sensequake has categorized that same deterioration as Moderate. ESN Engineering considers the deterioration in the pile caps at Bent 21 and 32 to be Minor, whereas Sensequake has categorized that same deterioration as High. It is possible that deteriorated deck panel ends or inadequate lateral connections of deck panels to the pile caps are triggering some of Sensequake’s conclusions that some of the pile caps have High Deterioration. Refer to the Concrete Pile Results Comparison and Conclusions section above for additional discussion on the differences between the Sensequake substructure and visual / tactile substructure conclusions.

Since the Sensequake testing was focused on the deck panels, the data provided for pile cap beams was limited; the correlation between the Sensequake pile cap conclusions and the visual observations was Poor. As such, ESN Engineering found no justification for adjusting our pile cap repair recommendations at this time.

4.3. Concrete Deck Panels
Sensequake Analysis Results: Sensequake divided each of the deck panels into four sections, creating a total of 16 sections for their analysis of typical 4-panel bents. Between Bents 10 and 11, Sensequake concluded that 9 of the 16 sections have Minor Deterioration and the remaining 7 sections have Moderate Deterioration. Sensequake also concluded that

28 the shear key between Panels C and D (the two southmost panels) has High Deterioration.

Sensequake recommended that the areas showing High Deterioration should be evaluated but did not recommend any specific repairs.

For the additional bays tested between Bents 12 and 36, Sensequake concluded that the panels in the vertical mode exhibit:
• Slight to Minor Deterioration in Bay 12-13.
• Slight to Moderate Deterioration in Bays 13-14, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22, 30-31 & 35-36. • Slight to High Deterioration in Bays 27-28 & 32-33.

Sensequake concluded that the panels in the transverse mode exhibit:
• Slight to Moderate Deterioration in Bays 13-14 & 18-19. • Slight to High Deterioration in Bays 27-28 & 35-36.
• Minor to High Deterioration in Bays 12-13, 15-16 & 21-22. • Minor to Severe Deterioration in Bays 30-31 & 32-33.

Visual and Tactile Observations at the Sensequake testing locations: Between Bents 10 and 11, ESN Engineering observed longitudinal and transverse cracking on the east ends of the soffits of Panels A, B, and C, indicative of overload damage. There is a noticeable vertical offset along the overload cracks in Panels A and C. The soffits of Panels B and C also had Moderate Closed Corrosion Spalling at the intersection with the pile cap at Bent 10 along the longitudinal panel edges. Panel D has three Minor transverse cracks in the east end of the soffit that extend to the south face of the panel. ESN Engineering observed between two to four Minor to Moderate transverse cracks on the top surface of all four panels at their west end.

Typically, the deck panels are longitudinally tied together across the pile cap top pour strip with dowels from both deck panels and the pile cap; this detailing allows the deck panels to act as continuous beams across the pile cap at Bent 11. As such, the top transverse cracking at the west end is indictive of flexural stress in this negative bending region. ESN Engineering also observed that a large light pole has been removed from Panel A, as evidenced by a large diameter of abandoned anchor bolts on the deck surface, above the location of soffit overload cracking.

Note: Bent 10 is one of three locations along the length of the pier, which has a transverse deck expansion joint with detailing to allow rotation between subsequent deck panels (the end of the panel intersecting the expansion joint acts as a simple beam as opposed to the typical continuous beam behavior). Per the 1965 as-built drawings, these panels do not

29 appear to have additional bottom longitudinal reinforcing, which if present, may have provided additional capacity where the beam behavior changes.

For the bays tested between Bents 12 and 36, ESN Engineering observed the following range of deterioration:

Panel Soffits
• Minor to Moderate transverse and longitudinal cracking. • Minor to Moderate Closed Corrosion Spalling.
• Moderate to Severe Open Corrosion Spalling.
• Significant areas of weak and delaminated concrete.
• Major to Severe overstress fractures with vertical offsets between panels/fractures.

Panel Tops
• Minor to Moderate transverse and longitudinal cracking. • Shallow spalling and Minor delamination.
• Minor to Moderate shear key spalling.

Results Comparison and Conclusions: ESN Engineering recommends repairing the Closed Corrosion Spalls in the panel soffits near Bent 10 and repairing the larger cracks with epoxy injection. ESN Engineering also recommends strengthening the overloaded deck panels between Bents 10 and 11 with a fiberglass laminate.

For the bays tested between Bents 12 and 36, ESN Engineering recommends the following types of deck panel repairs:
• Crack injection and spall repairs.
• Strengthening of deck panels with fiberglass laminate. • Replacement of 4 deck panels with Severe overstress fractures.

ESN Engineering found that in the vertical mode, there was a Good correlation between the Sensequake conclusions and our visual conclusions in 30% of the tested bays and that the correlation was Poor in the remaining 70% of bays. For the transverse mode, we found that the correlation was Fair in 50% of the bays and Poor in the remaining 50% of bays. The bays with Good correlation assisted ESN Engineering with making more precise conclusions regarding the severity of the deterioration that was observed, both in the panels with Good correlation as well as in other panels with similar defects.

ESN Engineering has considered possible reasons for the Poor correlation in some bays and offers the following professional opinions which require physical destructive testing to prove, which is beyond the scope of this activity. It is possible that some of the Poor

30 correlation is due to previous internal repairs that are concealed by new deck topping, the shear keys providing connectivity and good load sharing between adjacent panels in some bays, or possibly some deterioration resulting in less of a capacity reduction than initially thought.

Sensequake concluded that the deck panels between Bents 10 and 11 have deterioration ranging from Minor to Moderate. The correlation was Poor between the areas that ESN Engineering observed as having signs of overload damage or flexural stress and the areas that Sensequake identified as having Moderate deterioration. It is possible that the shear keys and past grout injection repairs have bonded some of the internal delamination and are helping to share load between panels. Sensequake also noted that the shear key between Panels C and D has High Deterioration. ESN Engineering did not observe signs of shear key failure at this location, such as differential settlement between adjacent panels, longitudinal cracking along the joint or spalling along the joint, except for a Minor Closed Corrosion Spall at the east end.

In Panels 12-13:B, 12-13:C, 15-16:B, and 18-19:A the Good correlation between the Sensequake conclusions and our visual observations showed that the overstress fractures in the panel soffits with wide shear and flexural cracks and vertical deflections have less interior deterioration that appears from the surface, allowing ESN Engineering to recommend spall repairs and epoxy crack injection repairs with FRP laminate strengthening for these panels in lieu of complete panel replacement. Although, the correlation between the Sensequake conclusions and visual observations was Poor in Bays 13-14, 21-22, and 27- 28, Sensequake’s conclusions regarding the overall level of deterioration in the bay in conjunction with matching visual deterioration levels with corresponding data, allowed ESN Engineering to recommend repairs instead of panel replacement.

The correlation in Panels 30-31:C, 32-33:A, 32-33:C, and 35-36:B was Poor; however, the High Deterioration that Sensequake captured adjacent to Severe visual deterioration, helped ESN Engineering confirm that panel replacement is required in those 4 panels.

4.4.GENERAL CONCLUSION STATEMENT ON SENSEQUAKE

TESTING
It is ESN Engineering’s opinion that Sensequake was a helpful tool in evaluating the deterioration observed by traditional means. The Sensequake testing showed that the remaining internal continuity of several of the deck panels in Severe condition is currently sufficient to allow for repairs as opposed to replacement-in-kind. The use of Sensequake modeling assisted ESN Engineering in our decision to revise our original recommendation to replace 13 panels to replace 4 panels and repair the remaining 9 panels with a combination

31 of both FRP laminate strengthening and traditional spall repair and epoxy crack injection methods. ESN Engineering does not feel that Sensequake testing on its own can adequately identify all defects and areas of deterioration, nor can it adequately classify the level of deterioration as it relates to required repairs or specific reductions in load capacity.

Sensequake cannot identify specific structural members requiring repair or the type and nature of the required repair; however, Sensequake can assist in determining the remaining interior continuity of areas that are not visible.

32 5.COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the anticipated repair projects required to maintain the pier over the next 45 years, the cost for a new replacement pier, the assumptions used in the development of the cost estimates and schedules, our comparison of the costs to maintain the existing pier vs. a full pier replacement, and our recommendation for the optimal time to replace the pier.

5.1. Existing Pier: Maintenance / Repairs
The following table provides a summary of the maintenance and repair costs that are anticipated to be required to maintain the pier over the next 45 years. The repairs have been grouped into reasonable projects that will typically occur in 5-year increments to reduce the number of individual construction mobilizations and minimize public impact. The budgetary cost estimates for each construction project include the costs of Routine and Design-Level Inspections, Design, Geotechnical Investigation, Environmental Permitting, Contract Administration, and Construction Support efforts (see Appendix E for line-item cost estimates for near term projects & Appendix G for line-item cost estimates and schedules for each recommended future repair project).

Existing Pier Repair Costs (2025 – 2070)
Year
Estimated
Repair Costs
including
Inflation
Cumulative
Repair Costs
including
Inflation
See Appendices
for Detailed
Cost Estimates
2027 $ 3,511,000 $ 3,511,000 Pages E-2 & E-3
2030 $ 3,916,000 $ 7,427,000 Pages E-4 & E-5
2035 $ 6,490,000 $ 13,917,000 Pages G-2 & G-3
2040 $ 9,459,000 $ 23,376,000 Pages G-4 & G-5
2045 $ 12,641,000 $ 36,017,000 Pages G-6 & G-7
2050 $ 17,654,000 $ 53,671,000 Pages G-8 & G-9
2055 $ 23,706,000 $ 77,377,000 Pages G-10 & G-11
2060 $ 31,676,000 $ 109,053,000 Pages G-12 & G-13
2065 $ 43,512,000 $ 152,565,000 Pages G-14 & G-15
2070 $ 57,670,000 $ 210,235,000 Pages G-16 & G-17

5.2. Replacement Pier: Cost Estimate
The cost of the new replacement pier is anticipated to be $44.5 million (in 2025 Dollars) (see Appendix G, Pages G-18 and G-19 for full cost estimate and schedule). The budgetary cost estimate includes the cost for the demolition of the existing pier and construction of a full

33 replacement pier. The budgetary cost estimate includes the costs of Planning, Surveying, Design, Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental Permitting, Contract Administration, and Construction Support efforts. The schedule assumes that the planning, public outreach, and environmental assessment efforts will take several years to complete prior to the design, permitting, and construction of the new pier.

5.3. Analysis Assumptions
The following assumptions have been used in the preparation of the budgetary cost estimates for the existing pier repairs and new replacement pier construction. i. All recommended future repairs have been grouped into projects that will typically occur at 5-year intervals to reduce the number of individual construction mobilizations and minimize public impact.
ii. A 30% Construction Contingency Cost has been applied to all cost estimates. iii. All costs were developed based on 2025 estimated construction costs and have been adjusted for inflation using a 4% average inflation increase. iv. The analysis assumes that the existing pier will be maintained at the current load rating with no major changes to use and that the recommended projects will be carried out at the recommended intervals.
v. The new pier will have approximately the same dimensions as the existing pier (1,140’ long x 20’ wide with widened end) which is approximately 25,000 square feet. For an apples-to-apples comparison, upgraded features (such as a larger footprint, additional amenities on the pier, etc.) have not been incorporated into this analysis. vi. The new pier will have the same approximate height as the existing pier, which adequately accounts for future Sea Level Rise concerns. vii. This analysis assumes that maintaining some pier access during the construction of a new pier is important. An allotment for anticipated phasing costs has been included in the new pier cost estimate. The details of how phasing will be implemented, and the alignment of the new pier are not a part of this analysis. viii. Local economic impact of pier closures has not been considered in this analysis. The City may choose to adjust the timing of the pier replacement to consider the detrimental value which pier closures for repairs have on public access and economic impact to the community.
ix. After the new pier is built and in service, the piles of the existing pier will be cut-off at the current seafloor elevation (as opposed to being fully removed or cut-off a foot or two below the mudline, which would incur additional cost) x. A full CEQA Environmental Assessment will be required for the new pier and will likely be a 2-3 year long process.
xi. Repair costs will be very low to zero for the new pier during the first 15 to 20 years of its life.

34 xii. Notable repair projects will cease once the planning for the new pier begins in anticipation of the new structure, i.e., once it is determined that the pier will be replaced, repairs will only be performed to maintain the pier capacity until the new pier is constructed. The costs of those repairs as well as alternative approaches which consider partial pier access restrictions and temporary structural improvements have been included in the analysis. Repairs that would extend the life of the pier beyond construction of a new facility will not be performed. xiii. The Budgetary Costs are based upon commonly prescribed repair methods and the historical cost estimating experience of the estimators. For validation, costs have been compared to previous bidding information available for similar pier repair work.

The Budgetary Costs and Engineering Estimates are not guarantees of contractor pricing for future work.
xiv. The analysis and cost estimates cannot and do not predict future global and economic effects on the inflation of materials and labor nor do they address acts of accidental overload or Acts-of-God such as high surf or seismic events which can partially or destroy a pier.
xv. Modification of the approach roadway alignment and pierhead plaza improvements are outside the scope of this pier cost/benefit analysis. xvi. Modifications, upgrades and replacement of the LA County Fire Department building & Lifeguard tower, garage and parking are outside the scope of this pier cost/benefit analysis.
xvii. The analysis assumes that the City will seek grants to assist with the funding of the new pier and that the grant research and applications will be prepared by City staff; the cost of minimal consultant assistance has been added to the new pier cost estimate. All cost estimates show the full anticipated cost with no reduction for external funding sources and do not consider how funding will be provided. xviii. The analysis uses a 45-year evaluation period to compare maintenance, repair and new construction costs.
xix. The analysis assumes that regular minor monthly maintenance (outside of major capital improvement project repairs) is minimal and likely similar for both the existing pier and a new pier. As such, minor routine maintenance costs have not been included in the analysis. For the planning of a future replacement pier, we recommend incorporating lessons learned from maintaining the current pier into the design.
xx. The primary goal of this analysis is to determine the optimal economic timing for replacement of the pier.

5.4. Analysis Summary
To determine the most cost-efficient timing for the City to replace the pier with new construction, we created a spreadsheet which compares the anticipated maintenance and

35 construction costs for the pier each year for the next 45 years based on what year the pier is replaced. We analyzed 45 different scenarios, one for each calendar year from 2026 to 2070, determining the total costs over the next 45 years if the pier is replaced in that year (see Appendix G, Pages G-34 to G-37). The costs include maintenance projects for the current pier, the cost of a new facility, and the costs of maintaining the new facility (which are very low for the first 15 to 20 years following new construction).

The analysis shown on Pages G-34 to G-37 shows the estimated pier costs (including estimated inflation for the year the cost will occur) for each year over the next 45 years (green vertical axis) for 45 different scenarios – each scenario is for the replacement of the pier in that year (blue horizontal axis). The total estimated pier cost for each replacement year scenario is shown at the top of each column in orange and is a sum of the 45 annual costs in that column. The analysis incorporates engineering judgement based on carefully calculated unit prices and individual project estimates. The costs are derived from the detailed cost estimates shown on Pages E-2 to E-5 and G-2 to G-33 for the recommended maintenance projects to maintain the existing pier, the cost of a new pier, and the cost of maintenance projects on the new pier after the pier is replaced (very minor to begin and becoming more notable approximately 15 years after new pier construction). To refine the analysis by year, the cost of maintenance projects that typically occur every five years are divided into yearly costs over the period between maintenance projects. Similarly, the cost of the new pier construction is spread across several years since most of the soft costs will occur years prior to construction and the construction costs themselves will be distributed over a 2-to-3-year period. Repair projects on the existing pier are applied typically until 5 years before the pier is replaced. Engineering judgment is applied to adjust the costs for the last major project prior to replacement to focus on maintaining safety until replacement and minor maintenance costs have been included where appropriate.

The overall savings of new construction are typically not fully seen until approximately 15 to 20 years after construction of the new facility as shown in the following graph, which compares total pier costs for the scenario where the pier is replaced in 2032 vs. the scenario where the pier is not replaced. It should also be noted that in the year 2070 the existing pier will reach an age of 105 years and will likely have no remaining useful service life.

36 The following two graphs show the total pier costs for the next 45 years based on what year the pier is replaced. The first graph includes all the replacement years considered (2026 through 2070) and shows that the total costs are relatively similar for pier replacement within the next 10 years but will start to significantly increase in 2039. This shows that the existing pier has approximately 10 years of cost-efficient life remaining and the City has flexibility over the next 10 years to select a replacement year without a notable cost increase. The second graph focuses on 2026 through 2040 and is helpful in visualizing costs over the next 10 years.
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Year
Cumulative Pier Costs (2025 - 2070)
Replace Pier in 2032 Repair Existing Pier through 2070

37 The graph below shows that the total pier costs through 2070 are estimated to be $103.9 million if the pier is replaced in 2032. For comparison, the total pier cost is $106.1 million if the pier is replaced in 2030, $105.7 million if the pier is replaced in 2035, and $114.0 million if the pier is replaced in 2039.
$80,000,000
$130,000,000
$180,000,000
$230,000,000
$280,000,000
$330,000,000
$380,000,000
$430,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Pier Replacement Year
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced $103,000,000
$105,000,000
$107,000,000
$109,000,000
$111,000,000
$113,000,000
$115,000,000
$117,000,000
$119,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Cost in Dollars
Pier Replacement Year
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced

38 5.5. Conclusions
It is our recommendation that existing pier maintenance projects cease after the 2027 repair project is completed and the pier be replaced with new construction in the year 2032. The Near Term – High Priority 2027 repair project must be completed as planned to avoid a reduction in the current pier load rating, restriction of vehicle weight, or localized deck area closures. To break ground for construction of a new pier in 2032, planning studies, public outreach tasks, and environmental assessment studies will likely need to be started as early as 2026 to avoid partial pier closures.

It is important to note that there is only a 4% total cost difference of pier replacement over the next 10 years, which gives the City flexibility in choosing to replace the pier any year before 2036 without significant additional cost over replacement in the optimal year 2032.

If the pier is replaced in 2032, we recommend that the 2030 Near Term – Medium Priority recommended repair project not be fully implemented as outlined but instead the responsible Design Engineer should review the list of repairs and recommend a reduced scope of repairs with the only goal being to maintain public safety of the pier prior to demolition. The plan may include some isolated repairs, restricting access to parts of the pier, reducing the size of vehicles allowed on the pier, or temporary structural improvements.

39 APPENDIX
Appendix A: Location and Vicinity Maps
Appendix B: Typical As-Built Drawings
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Field Notes
Appendix E: Budgetary Cost Estimate & Estimated Repair Quantities Appendix F: Inspection Procedure
Appendix G: Cost / Benefit Analysis – Cost Estimates & Schedules Appendix H: Sensequake Panel Testing (October 2025)

A-1
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
APPENDIX A: LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS

A-2

LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS

LOCATION
MAP

VICINITY
MAP
Municipal Pier
Hermosa Beach, CA
N
Municipal Pier
Hermosa Beach, CA

B-1
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment ESN
Engineering, PLLC
APPENDIX B: TYPICAL AS-BUILT DRAWINGS

1" = 20' PROJ NO: SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ESN CHECKED BY: CDD MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE CONSULTANTS 1 2 BA 1 2 AB MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
2024 ASSESSMENT 35 NEWBERRY CT MORTON, IL 61550 508-954-3091 B-2

1" = 20' PROJ NO: SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ESN CHECKED BY: CDD MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE CONSULTANTS 1 2 BA 1 2 AB MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
2024 ASSESSMENT 35 NEWBERRY CT MORTON, IL 61550 508-954-3091 B-3

1/4" = 1'-0"
PROJ NO:

SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY: ESN
CHECKED BY: CDD

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT

MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
35 NEWBERRY CT 2024 ASSESSMENT
MORTON, IL 61550
508-954-3091
B-4

1/4" = 1'-0"
PROJ NO:

SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY:

DRAWN BY: ESN
CHECKED BY: CDD

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT

MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
35 NEWBERRY CT 2024 ASSESSMENT
MORTON, IL 61550
508-954-3091
B-5

1/4" = 1'-0" PROJ NO: SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ESN CHECKED BY: CDD MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE CONSULTANTS 1 2 BA 1 2 AB MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
2024 ASSESSMENT 35 NEWBERRY CT MORTON, IL 61550 508-954-3091 B-6

1/4" = 1'-0" PROJ NO: SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ESN CHECKED BY: CDD MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE CONSULTANTS 1 2 BA 1 2 AB MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
2024 ASSESSMENT 35 NEWBERRY CT MORTON, IL 61550 508-954-3091 B-7

NOT TO SCALE PROJ NO: SCALE: DATE: 1-16-2025 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: ESN CHECKED BY: CDD MARK DATE DESCRIPTION SHEET TITLE CONSULTANTS 1 2 BA 1 2 AB MUNICIPAL PIER

HERMOSA BEACH, CA
2024 ASSESSMENT 35 NEWBERRY CT MORTON, IL 61550 508-954-3091 B-8

C-1
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment ESN
Engineering, PLLC
APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS

C-2
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 1: Looking Southwest along the Hermosa Beach Pier.

Photo 2: Looking Southwest along the Hermosa Beach Pier during the Beach Soffit Inspection.

C-3
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 3: Looking West at Bent 29 showing 3 Fiberglass Jacket Pile Repairs completed in 2023.

Photo 4: Looking West at Bent 31 showing an older generation Fiberglass Jacket Pile Repair.

C-4
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 5: Looking West at Pile 15:A, Cleaned of Marine Growth at Mudline for Level II Inspection.

Photo 6: Looking East at Octagonal Pile Wrap at Pile 3:A and Closed Corrosion Spall in Pile Cap.

C-5
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 7: Looking Southeast at Steel Pile Jacket at Pile 16:A.

Photo 8: Looking East at Steel Strap Repair at Split Fiberglass Jacket on Pile 11:E.

C-6
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 9: Looking Southeast at Deterioration in Bottom of Fiberglass Jacket at Pile 35:G Photo 10: Looking Southeast at Open Corrosion Spall at Top of Pile 34:F

C-7
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 11: Looking Southeast at Open Corrosion Spall at Top of Pile 23:B.

Photo 12: Looking West at Closed Corrosion Spall at top of Pile 36:C.

C-8
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 13: Looking at Bottom of Fiberglass Jacket at Pile 32:A, 1’ above Mudline.

Photo 14: Looking at Bottom of Concrete Pile 34:Z at Mudline, Clean of Marine Growth.

C-9
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 15: Looking Southeast at Closed Corrosion Spall in Pile Cap above Pile 13:A at Northwest end.

Photo 16: Looking Southwest at Open Corrosion Spall in Pile Cap above Pile 13:A at Northeast end.

C-10
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 17: Looking East and Up at Closed Corrosion Spall and Delamination in Soffit of Panel 21-22:B.

Photo 18: Looking North and Up at Closed Corrosion Spall and Delamination in Soffit of Panel 21-22:B.

C-11
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 19: Looking East at Fracture with Spall in Soffit of Panel 15-16:B.

Photo 20: Looking East at Fracture with Spall in Soffit of Panel 15-16:B.

C-12
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 21: Looking Southeast at Longitudinal Fracture in Panel 32-33:C.

Photo 22: Looking Southeast and Up at Longitudinal Fracture in Panel 32-33:C.

C-13
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 23: Looking Up at Internal Fracture, Delamination and Vertical Deflection in Panel 30-31:C.

Photo 24: Looking South at Internal Fracture, Delamination and Vertical Deflection in Panel 30-31:C.

C-14
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 25: Looking Up at Internal Fracture, Delamination and Vertical Deflection in Panel 30-31:C.

Photo 26: Looking Up at Internal Fracture, Delamination and Vertical Deflection in Panel 30-31:C.

C-15
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 27: Looking West and Up at Open Corrosion Spall in Soffit of Panel 35-36:B at West End.

Photo 28: Looking West and Up at Open Corrosion Spall in Soffit of Panel 35-36:B at West End.

C-16
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 29: Looking Southeast and Up at Closed Corrosion Spall in Soffit of Panel 10-11:B at West end.

Photo 30: Looking West and Down at Delamination and Transverse Cracking in Top of Panel 1-2:C.

C-17
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Photo 31: Looking West at Transverse Cracking and Delamination in Top of Panel 29-30:C.

Photo 32: Looking West and Down at Transverse Cracking in Top of Panel 8-9:A at East end.

D-1
Hermosa Beach Pier
2024 Condi
on Assessment ESN
Engineering, PLLC
APPENDIX D: FIELD NOTES

Hermosa Beach Pier - 2024 Condition Assessment
Pile Inspection Field Notes
Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
1 A OFG, full height1 C OFG, full height1 E OFG, full height2 A OFG, full height2 C OFG, full height2 E OFG, full height3 A OFG, full height3 C OFG, full height3 E OFG, full height4 A OFG, full height4 C OFG, full height4 E OFG, full height5 A OFG, full height5 C OFG, full height5 E OFG, full height6 A OFG, full height6 C OFG, full height6 E OFG, full height7 A OFG, full height7 C OFG, full height7 E OFG, full height8 A OFG, full height8 C OFG, full height8 E OFG, full height9 A FG, bot. at ML, top at PC 1/4" x 8' long split in jacket, VCR, L 10/17: 3069-3072 Repair in 5 years
9 C FG, 9' long, bot. 2' abv. ML, top at PC 3/8" x 7' long split in jacket, 1/16" VCR, O 10/17: 3073-30769 E 10 A CCS, RO, top 4'10 C CCS, RO, top 3'
D-2

Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
10 E 2023 FG, 14' long, bot. at ML, top at PC 10/17: 307711 A OFG, top 1' blw PC to FG top 2' abv ML, bot. at ML 10/17: 3087-308811 C CCS, L, I, top 8' 10/17: 3082-308611 E FG, bot. at ML, top at PC 7/16" x 7.5' long split in jacket w/ (5) DCR visible in grout across gap, 8 steel straps 10/17: 3078-3081 Repair in 5-10
years
12 A 2023 FG, 22' long, bot. at ML, top at PC 10/17: 3089-309012 C 2023 FG, 22' long, bot. at ML, top at PC 10/17: 309312 E FG, bot. at ML, top 1' blw PC 10/17: 309613 A 2023 FG, 13' long, bot. 13' blw PC, top at PC; FG, 5' Long, bot 1' abv ML
10/17: 3091-3095
13 C CCS, R, RO, bot. 4.5'
CCS, RO, top 5'
10/17: 3096-3100
13 E 2023 FG, 13' long, bot. at ML, top 7' blw PC14 A 2023 FG, 20' long, bot. 0.5' abv ML, top at PC 10/17: 3112-311414 C FG, 13' long, bot. 9' abv. ML, top at PC CCS, L, LI, bot. 8' L2 @ ML: M, 4' abv ML: M 10/17: 3101-3111, 3117- 311814 E 2023 FG, 22' long, bot. 0.5' abv ML, top at PC 10/17: 3101-310215 A (2) VCR, R, O, 1/16" x 5' starts 4' abv MLCCS, O, RO, R, top 6'L2 @ ML: M, 5' abv ML: M 10/17: 3112-3114,3121-312710/30: 18-21, 29-31
Repair in 5 years
15 C 2023 FG, 22' long, bot. 1' abv. ML, top at PC L2 @ ML blw jacket: M 10/17: 3113, 3128-3131, 314315 E 2023 FG, 11' long, bot. 2' abv. ML, top 10' blw PC CCS, O, top 5' 10/17: 3121, 3127, 314316 A Steel Jacket, 15' long, bot. at ML, top 7' blw PC 10/17: 3141-314316 C CCS, I, L, LO, 9' at MTL L2 @ ML: M, 4' abv ML: M 10/17: 3140, 3145-3152
16 E FG, bot. at ML, top 4' blw PC Jacket ripped top 4', RI, I CCS, LI, L, LO, O,top 4' 10/17: 3134-3140, 3143 10/30: 74-78, 83-8517 A VCR, L, LO, O, 8' long at El. +10' CCS, I, O, top 5'
10/30: 140-144, 159-16012/17: 4927-4930
17 C VCR, RO, 4' long at El. +8' 12/17: 4931-4932
D-3

Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
17 E VCR, R, RO, 5' long at El. +6' 12/17: 4933-493418 A FG, 10' long, top at PC Jacket ripped top 5', 6 steel straps 10/31: 21-2318 C VCR, I, LI, 4' long at El. +5'18 E 2023 FG, 8' long, top at PC over FG, 4' long top 8' blw PC VCR, RI, I, 5' long at El. +5' 10/31: 149
19 A VCR, RI, LI, 5' long at El. +5'19 B 2023 FG, 9' long, top at PC VCR, R, 10' long at MSL 19 D VCR, I, L, LO, LI, 8' long at El. +5'19 E CCS, I, top 4' 10/31: 50-5120 A 2023 FG, 10' long, top 6' blw PC VCR, L, 3' long at MTL, below jacket 10/31: 9020 B VCR w/ bleeding, LO, L, 8' long at EL. +6'20 D OK20 E OK21 A OK21 B OK21 D VCR w/ bleeding, O, 8' long at EL. +6'21 E 2023 FG, 10' long, top at PC OK22 A OK22 B OK22 D CCS, O, top 4' 11/1: 82-8422 E OK23 A 2023 FG, 9' long, top at PC OK23 B OCS, O, top 4' 11/1: 129-132 Repair in 5 years
23 D OK23 E OK24 A 2023 FG, 6' long, top at PC OK24 B OK24 D OK24 E CCS, O, top 3' 11/4: 10-1225 A 2023 FG, 9' long, top at PC OK25 B OK25 D CCS, I, O, top 5' 11/4: 52-57, 63-6525 E FG, 8' long, top at PC Jacket ripped top 3.5', 5 steel straps 11/4: 47-51, 65-67 D-4

Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
26 A OK26 B (2) VCR, O, 1' long + HCR, 1' below top, OK 11/4: 103-10626 D 2023 FG, 9' long, top at PC OK26 E 2023 FG, 9' long, top at PC VCR, 2' long at EL. +5'27 A VCR, LI, L, LO, 4' long at EL. +4'27 B VCR, LI, L, top 3' 11/4: 136-13927 D 2023 FG, 8' long, top at PC OK27 E VCR, R, RO, 2' long at El. +5'28 A OK28 B FG, 10' long, top at PC Jacket ripped top 6', 8 steel straps 11/4: 161, 192-194 11/5: 12-1428 D OGFG, bot. 10' abv ML, top at PC 11/4: 16011/5: 16-17
28 E FG, 10' long, top at PC Jacket ripped top 6', 8 steel straps 11/4: 160, 200-20129 A 2023 FG, 7' long, top at PC OK29 B 2023 FG, 7' long, top at PC OK29 D 2023 FG, 8' long, top at PC OK29 E VCR, O, R, RO, 2' long at El. +5'30 A OK30 B CCS, I, Top 3.5' 11/5: 96-9830 D 2023 FG, 7' long, top at PC L2 @ ML: F, OK30 E L2 @ ML: F, OK31 A 2023 FG, 10' long, top at El. + 8', center at MSL 11/5: 112-11331 B FG, 6' long, top at PC Jacket ripped, RO, I, L, top 3' 11/5: 112-113, 160-162, 183-18531 D HCR + VCR at Top, OK 11/5: 18031 E OCS, O, RO + CCS L, LO, top 3' L2 @ ML: F, OK
11/5: 177-179
32 A 2023 FG, top 11' blw PC, bot 1' abv ML OK 11/5: 170-171, 208-209 12/18: 15-1832 B OGFG, top at PC, continues blw MSL Jacket ripped, R, I, top 2' 11/5: 170-171, 23132 D 2023 FG, 13' long, top at PC Minor CCS, O, RO, EL. +5', 3' below jacket 11/5: 170-171, 208-20932 E VCR, O, 3' long at EL. +5' 11/5: 170-171, 208-20933 A 2023 FG, top 10' blw PC, bot at ML 11/6: 17-18 D-5

Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
33 B OFG, top at PC, continues blw MSL 11/6: 17-1833 D FG, 14' long, top at PC Jacket ripped, 13 steel straps 11/6: 17-18, 64-6533 E FG, 14' long, top at PC Jacket deteriorated, 13 steel straps 11/6: 17-18, 66-6734 Y VCR, 3' long at EL. +5', L L2 @ ML: F, OK
11/6: 77-78
34 Z CCS, O, Top 3'
L2 @ ML: F, OK
11/6: 77-78, 139-142, 150-15312/18: 12-14
34 A 2023 FG, top a EL. +15', bot. at ML VCR, O, Top 3' 11/6: 77-78, 146 12/18: 9-11 34 C VCR, R, 3' long at EL. +3'
L2 @ ML: F, OK
11/6: 73-76
34 E FG, 8' long, top at PC 6 steel straps
11/6: 73-7611/7: 172
34 F OCS, O, Top 3'
11/6: 73-7611/7: 172-174, 183-184
Repair in 5 years
34 G L2 @ ML, F, OK 11/6: 73-7635 Y OCS, O, R, top 5'
L2 @ ML: F, OK
11/6: 157-15811/7: 11-14, 101
Repair in 5 years
35 Z OK 11/6: 157-15835 A OCS O, R, Top 5'
11/6: 157-15811/7: 17-20, 101
Repair in 5 years
35 C OK 11/6: 157-15835 E 2023 FG, 8' long, top at PC OK 11/7: 98-10035 F 2023 FG, 8' long, top at PC OK 11/7: 98-10035 G OFG, 6' long, top at PC' Jacket unwrapping top 2', deterioration at bottom 11/7: 98-100, 127-12836 Y L2 @ ML: F, OK 11/7: 23-2536 Z 2023 FG, 5' long, top at PC OK 11/7: 23-2536 A 2023 FG, 12' long, top at PC OK 11/7: 23-2536 C 2023 FG, top a EL. +6', bot. at ML CCS, I, Top 4' 11/7: 23-25, 97, 98 12/18: 5-736 E Vertical Sawcuts, Top 6', O, LO, Possible attempted / aborted repairs
11/7: 23-25, 91-9312/18: 1-4, 8
D-6

Bent Pile Jacket? Notes Photos Repairs?
36 F 2023 FG, 7' long, top at PC
FG, 5 ' long, bot. at ML
OK 11/7: 23-25
36 G FG, oversized, bot. at ML, top 6' abv. ML OK 11/7: 23-25 Pile Inspection Abbreviations
2023 FG = Pile Repaired in 2023 with Gray Round Fiberglass Jacket and Grout Fill FG = Pile Previously Repaired with White Round Fiberglass Jacket and Grout Fill OFG = Pile Previously Repaired with White Octagonal Tight Fiberglass Jacket OGFG = Pile Previously Repaired with White Octagonal Fiberglass Jacket and Grout Fill bot. = bottom
abv. = above
ML = Mudline
PC = Bottom of Pile Cap
blw = Below
L = Left (looking inboard)
R = Right (looking inboard)
O = Outboard
I = Inboard
LI = Left Inboard Face
LO = Right Inboard Face
RI = Right Outboard Face
LI = Left Outboard Face
VCR = Vertical Crack
DCR = Diagonal Crack
HCR = Horizontal Crack
CCS = Closed Corrosion Spall
OCS = Open Corrosion Spall
L2 = Level II Close Pile Inspection with cleaning of marine growth F = Firm Concrete based on L2 Pick Test
M = Medium Concrete based on L2 Pick Test
S = Soft Concrete based on L2 Pick Test
MSL = Mean Sea Level
EL = Elevation in MLLW datum
D-7

Bn+1
(o 2/2624 Fa
X |
E G A
Wes—
A E
C
/
1 A L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
+ngonal Ale
Wrap- ol&! (T90)
EA
3 fle 13 eA—
NoP+ E ~ J
HerwoSq Geach Pile CA0
Pier - 2024
D-8

o12/2.24 3e+ C
Fa CO
x i 1
E G A
Wes— W
A C E
/
A E
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
HerwoS< Ceach Pile - 3 file BeAR
Pier - 2021
NoPH E ~ J Sos J E A J
D-9

e1s/2-2"
F q cO
L
E G A
Pic I
C E
if
/
0 A L
ESN Ben* 3 Engineering, PLLC
Soo
CM v wall Fer
CooAA
Eas+ Fice
EA
Pile CA0 — 3 fle B3eA—
EA/
@ics 2-
7"*"> y’ccsR<PAi —-
27227
(A)
oc+agonu( fbero/nss""
Wrap - ol • Wes— Fac€
D-10

/S/zezy eA+ H
Fa cO
l
E G A
7 I
7"Avo. Heish*
A E
E
A E
+
C
• co
V
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Pile CAO — 3 f 1€ 5eA
Pic S
Oc+4gonal Fiberslss file
W,4o> ol!
Sos J EA
Wes— F A c&
- — - S ‘Av9. 0c*
D-11

Fa cO Ben+5
l
E C. A
11" Jong C
•J
► Rp.
q"
A
C
. 60 I ft X
/
L
FA CC
—A
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
A e*
( FibeslaSS fle
w<] wrp- ol! Cryo.)
to l1 s/2ozy
NoPl E
C2
s’g" %
W 0
y
ey 00
E2111
Pile CAo — 3 fle 13 eAR
Co5f*2
10 Cecs2S-21
CCS- deen i ‘ 2 /
P7755
D-12

Ben+ 6
x
E G A
A C E
/
A L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Soo
6‘-o"
q"
EA
teli $1202 4
Ens Face - 18/17/221
Pile Cao — 3 fe B3eA3
NJ oP+ E ~ J
-I" dee? C hle — - cCS-F
el- 6o*hr ] /. (hies 36-40)
-OcHjonol FiberolsS Ale
W4s+ ce Urapr oL‘ CTgP.)
Eas + Fa c&
D-13

F q cO
8e+7
s‘
4 x
E A
C ALe
Wes—
*
t
A C E
/
A L
qos/2e2y
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
was"
A
<Pics 44-9s
$ Avs. DeeP

CCS- F,
0c+4gon.( Fibers
WPP - olc !
Pile CAo — 3 fie 13
NJoH EA/ Sos J E A J
lons

A--------------------
D-14

loS/2o2“ 8 8 1
K2222227
E G A
Wes—
to”
C E
No/ E
A L
CCS' f’x
syESN
Engineering, PLLC
Soo
gh deep CCS P
(is$1-s9)
o"deer*
( 7" av9- hish
\ ccs - Fix 7 )Cncss9-D
E ~0
Lo ‘
0c+4jonal f flU.
ou * (T2P.)
2226,
(A)
Pile Cao • 3 f 1€ leA
A,7dee" —y
E as + Fa c&
1 D-15

Be- t
Fa cO
1 l
E G A
Wes—
11-13
it
a E
u
7 /
L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
lo16/2.2 -Wec+
2o’’
NoP+ EAD
V (ic IS)
ccs-fx
. 1.S"dece A* fce
Sos + E A .0
fic I’)
(cs- fix
) 7"dec®
2 H
3 flle 3eA—
cYe) e.C6, — A. % ++
HerwoSs Geach Pile
Pier - 2024
lois/2ozy
77—
—Y
D-16

Be-+ ) 6
Fa cO
<4"
4”
1 E
C Surface
Seal ,
21‘ O3 1+"
A E
32‘
>
1g"
n"
8O
@" c)
A L
1 12.

CCS
7‘Av,
n
16 2 Sars e YposeJ
s" (ies 76-79)
••
dacP
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
19 fur fAce P-
-No F...

Prc voUS
Pale 6
7’’
y"berc.C5
Clas Qrt
Fro.
0r. •
002 3
t
ocs- $‘ m
>1 7
It
22‘
18"

7.6‘ A3 Soj—
Wes+ F A C&
766.010 uae (3 .

Geach Pile C^p 3 file 3eA—
Piec- 2024
jo1o/2ozy
3 y•
?
• 2
• «
-°-9 J bar
qex"$..,
wIOrC
NoPJ
K
EAD
KAlk >
D-17

Fa cO
ll
1 E C A
X
202M Wesk Face Wes10"7
V
A E
10 4
A L
$
-
N
X
N
He/woS< Ge«ch
Pier - 2024
. ivluez1
s
Cit 11)
cos
.Sdsef
5ur8
Qoe
II"
II
0 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
L" 7"
, uet 3°w be*f
X" <
AS13
Pile — 3 fie B3eA—
(.5" dee CCS - Fix
NoH EA/ dos J EA
HM ‘

A-------
D-18

Fa CO
x 1
E G A
5 A E
A
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
q.-9
HerwoS4 Geach
Pier - 2024
1o2q/21
Wes+
7 Sos J E A J
wof
P22vo
o
Pile CA0 — 3 fe eAR
NJo+ EA/
D-19

Fa
(‘
x
E G
IcS 0o~0)
deeP
2 Pics( o
l'
33”
A E
—
X
(A Ao 2""
A L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
A(c I V"
1 2. 11
PC. 115
Soo
z‘
(" as 3
ql-2 ‘
7 *
a"
20712222s pzx
9‘
Ces 121’3, .
ecs 2"*S "deef
HrwoS< Geach
Piec- 2024
1/2
k

7.2222
7 4
7"
E+ 4
18"s
12Z7I
(A
Pile CA0 — 3 fie B3eA—
2""
2"
NJo EA/
Fic$.))YP
(0c12?-129
q"xq">
I" deer
Boll, C cS
Wes— F A c&
X3‘
D-20

T
oK
l
E G A
0o 7"
i
eK
V
r
(o"
1o" dece C E
C
A lo" L
$
e
r
N
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
(A)
CCS 0c1
V"
A
4"
€-6"
I
E ~0
CCS (cs 1-6)
NJ oPH1 E
3 fe 3eA—
(°3 6"4vs"127
RA/_
HewoSs Geach Pile CAO
Piec- 2024
jo/2
4"SoJ —1
r^z
Face benti
A
\
3‘ 1
■ 7
Wes+ F
—1P
Poo —
D-21

Fa cO Ben+iS I
14”
oK
3‘
PileISA la
E C A Ics 18-24
Wes—
eK
CoS
A
NoP-l E
%
it 00
A E 09 "
I."
J
II It
11 @
11 2o
CCS
<ics 21-29
‘Int
Ple IA©+
51 ce$ e Top
us21-3y
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
-
C6"deep
6"dee
11”
1"
11"
'it 22.

Sos J EA
*27
HerwoS< Ge«ch Pile CAp " 3 fle
Pier - 2024
lop
xs
hh

1.o ‘deep
A
q"
—
D-22

Pile l6E 1p
x
1 CC $
E G A
CCS

2.S‘
oV
E
CCS
/
A L
CC $
“xon
29 1
HerwoSs Geach
Pie- 202
io/ 3o/to2y
file I’Eot
(hs.83-95>
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
G37e-73) ($hh* t"*eep
- 207 ■, 2’2
272277777
Jo’’
ja’’

12.’
“ is" v
EA
Face ZBen+/6]
Pile • 3 fI& eA3
NoP+ E A J
obovt Jocke*
+y‘su+ nche*
Ges 29-79
Wes— F A c€
—
So
D-23

Fa cO Be-+- n
x
Pilc 17 E IA E G
/
CCS
(cs IS2 -ISS
Wes—
V
1c 5
6‘
A E
AN
/
v
A 13" L
HerwoSq Geach
Pier - 2024
1030/2011
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
ex solh+
.00 1
(13 18-10)
y‘*y"yy"l
Ccs _
CPucsas-(4173
y‘*s"*s"
co$2
77 Pile nA ou
cos@To
Acs )Sq-160
-—-—-------- NoP* E
File n E 0v*
cose Top
Pics /6y-16s"
Sos + EA
(A) eL P,le 17 A 1-
Pile - 3 file B3eA—
Ccsr^ s‘
(ics 140-yy
A
1"
Chstl-3)
b.s’x 1o" wele
90 Repair 1A
~ $ years ■ —5
D-24

Fa CO Ben+/%
(
E G
Wes—
A C E
/
A L
Ces 21-33)
Ple (QA o
HerwoSq Ce«ch
Pier - 202"
-/31/2024
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
17 7"high x
> S’deepccS
JackekTo
Top 5, t)shoe5
NJoP* E
Pile CA0 — 3 fe 3eA—
2222
(A)
Sos + EAO
Cis 19,20
G"iide x V"hi,-
* S6"49n2c"$2
D-25

eA+)4
4 ‘
3 /
CCS D 6
Te(
q"
///
4 E
8"
/
COS
1"
)" 7 12" E
(is 61,5/
ces s’x
e-
(A)
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
8 6
7 1"—9
—
e
535 6o
7 HeroS Geach
Per- 2oz4
1o/si/2-21
10 $‘
(cs$o,®)
Pile Hg ir
8"
27 NHL
W e S + F
Pas+ Fq c-e
Chits ..-3
cos
222222
(0)
D-26

444 CaeJ
ll
13’
, 100
v
E D 6 A
O
g’&sf
0 4 D
N41 2."
I
g‘
1*/
22221
It 1
CCS
8 G
I e
HernoS Geach
Per- 2oz4
jo/3i2o2y
1 I
I
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
<
3 qe
Soo
/ o’
(y‘
6 (get 2.

0.5 \
v\”
169
oyA o 6
u”
J
1$2.4-1
s L2‘
0es+ F
•1 |
Pas+ Fac-e
K20) IS"
4s 1 00 V lo
D-27

Be-+ 2)

2."
IS” 3.S4
A
S’ceep D 6 A
10”
9" IP" 13”
(‘
14”
A
4 D M4-7”
X
U
/
7 5
eo
HerreS Seach
Pier- 202 4
o/31/2024
e\e
< 3
e
P1U A
33 0123.49 11
r
et
V
200002
CCS
s 0 J +
ESN
Engineering, PLLC

1.* s’e
02 (3
_ 0 0
A q’l
Os+ FAc-C
/ 300
hup
L.” s” 3" 4*—+
62 21"
CCo"dree
Eas- Facs
-II 9, fl 74—22—*
27‘ 36" <e-------
7 -‘da) 5
59"
c" N>+ EA
(Pics5,e)
12 u
D-28

Ben+ 22 ]
€5 .A OI
11 IC?
72-73
3‘
7 A
?
e K
(ics 78-19
y3”
4 (o S‘
No E.
72 ()1
7 E
HerreSa Geach
2o24
1//2a2"
ics 62-8/
u
II

12. ESN
Engineering, PLLC
+
D
Soo
—
8 9
ccse
2-6
(1
-——
(E
0”
Pas+ Face
0 92%72s
D-29

Bes+ 23]
13”
A
M
I
5 0 D E
9" N E. 7“
2’
()1 ( E
1 CM
2 CCS
©
—
p
11 —
e
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
70 to’
("
4 8
.J
, $oc* 96 qof
J
s
s
s
U’s
6w”
AA—A
I' 0
a003
q” / $ A). R 2/3
< / n
HernoS
Pie- 2ol4
Eas+ Fac-e
Q
(30
D-30

V*
1%
n
qV
6 CCS
0 D
269 1
—=o=y l E
HeneSa Geach
Per- 2o24
1//2o2"
.1
W
_ %
A
(Pics13/201
oV
Soo
z‘-8‘
1o"
0 j
‘‘
t’
72 Pas- Fac13’
0es+ FAc-C
A
5"
/ 6ef
22222227 7 © " 0
, gildoer 4.9"daer
/----- 92-------- y
6) hoser ) @ — [o’deep —__ _
K.O
i / Nolt E.L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC 1 • W
ouk
(ile
ccsTo3

12. D-31

8on+ 2 SJ (7"
32"
A
IC
Top 2
C-2
• I
oK
A D
NH EA.
t
7 Pile
2SE i
HerreS Geach
Pie-- ZoT^
11/u/2024
e
—
o
6V
peve*4"7
(pi
lo’
- )
pleiso’
asssCCS To0 •
wes+ Pl"
P/z
E &S + Fac-e
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
z'-s" •
$”
—<e-51
out 25%’
costop).s 63-* (6P
Kkuesse
/ 3~04.S Sooth EAo -e(
022.5
D-32

Be- +26]
C
22" O6%
7 6%
D A
3" 7/7 3‘
0 D E
1"dep
No E.
(CS /o3-lo(
/
nile 206 ou*
— — '
‘Vcic+ HC
HerneS Geach
Oe- 2o24
1//+/2024/
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
—
e
Soo
(Pics1o7-)9
30" /
q"h6xG"deepcCS
—
8 West F
(A)
Eas- Fac-e
D-33

180+ 27]

4. 13" Po®
Pic 13S
€ A
•VC
0 0 E
19"
4‘
1/
1 E
°K
Ac)
HervoS Ultiick
Pe-- 2024
u/u/202y
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
—
p
—
e
°K
?o
1y2)
W e S + F A C -
Sos
Eas+ Foc-e
— file 276 in
vc« Top37 .
(Pcs 126-1323 1
6105 113,
3L
IM
D-34

z1"
7 3.S' 3 /
•J
$‘
"d? E A
Jack+S,l,+ top"
u/s/2e2M Oes +

0. 66
l’ Ci" ()
4 D
N-41 EA
Qr 2s 00"
cC> Q‘ 3
1 se* 6c5
O
NJ
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
s 2®®
202,
Fa C
(ics I68-
lU 246)
Jaclee 4 1+
191-1"
.—s"
6"
—
8 100/
Top"
11-1
/o ‘dee
L"
q"
. el 3
f Qo? '
c"*l
(0 ICccS

2.s‘x c"
222//
Eas- Fac-e Ben+28]
o" x ("doef
as
--- — • /S dee o XNLCf
HerroSa Geac6
Pier- 2oz4
u/1/2021
257
u"
Tile 28 6
0”— SplT-r"
1-My (ICS 1
/%
(
• ll
%
(6019)
KW
2 50u+4 EAo Q"
. Cle.
1"
-1---------
D)
1 , r
7'
11s-m73) k
12"
3‘go
1 .s ) 4—*
12 ‘
. 11 1o
“Qor
0\c5
D-35

s,° (U) L 3
/
1,Sl
o J
0 OKI
9 2°0,1 ehl O
I 22g 6 zo2/S)"
-10 202
vsowH y2v2p
d33P.8
533
bueubus ‘ Olid
NS3
9 -+
S 0 O
,.S
* oS 1
$53%
/i .

I v/
2 —
Z03w
2 -r
iib
5(.7
so)
fS- 3’ 2-5
(U
ao\0 W
SM — •. a-5
2 —
9 . 55
4CN 06
h
520 . ,c
8 44
—
g 0s 00
L ,8
D-36

8e-+.S0
oK
A
Pile 3o. 1
O
A 3 D L
tV—
/
T E
HernoSa Seach
Per- 2ol4
n/s/2o2y ESN
Engineering, PLLC
—
p
faJ. (4+oh
0 v
-
e
—
8 Eas- Face
Wesl F
Soo +1 E A o0
Nok E~
“7
D-37

Ben+-5/
117" -
oK 60
A’detf
CCS
9‘
D 6 A
(PciS2)
1 2
2 01c5
89 3" I/’ I" fof
1 o
Nozlt. E
04 • (CS
tr
5"
1 E
415
1584151
1°
fiC5
17-21)
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
bc5 a
\ 348
fl6"
. 15%
—
e
HerroSa Geach
- 2ol4
u/s/zezy
oV
Soo
g.s’’
Q • h s.
1 - 1?0) —o
11‘
u"
eol
(S y
6-0
s p
% P
E A s + Face
2222224
0es+ FAC-C
(
-----
(s00*.
— 2bn0
sel’s
04%
3o" H
1‘
- --- X
01o 3/
Ou.

D-38

hs/2ezH Be+ 31
n/e/Le2"
3 o E
NJ1 E.
/
1 E
-4
A
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
—
p
S 00
—
e
—
8 Eas+ Fac
W S + F
HerroS <U«ick file Cap — 7 file
Pe-- ZoZH
Pile 32 1 K.T
5pl,*1nT-po4 J-ck,+ Cockgeo)
Che 23),
D-39

file Cap - ‘l fr/e
Ow
A
il”
0 D E
No+ E.
oS
/
O)1 7 E
HeheSe Geach
Per- 2024
n ~/202+ ESN
Engineering, PLLC
Soo
—
8 —1--------------
(D)
Pics 66,07
II"
------ —1----------------
(
Geiest3,5>
Wes+ FA cu
Eas- Fe c-e
I2‘ .—)g V (PIcs 68.

D-40

Pi l e Car *7 Pile BeA+ —No—+A
DAs+ Fq CO
O) C
O ©
✓
• (01c‘39
LQ
(A)
ESN
Engineering, PLLC •
PicS 31-/92,
ISo-is3 ,
Cics 5 -9
0] @
1/559?"
N 0>41 EA 0
ccs Te
Wes- Face
1 •* 0.071/
Be+341]
m/ e/2024
D-41

•f
V
tr
[© 2 •
I
G ©] ©
G)|
Hermosa e nc6
Per 2.24
Prcs /$2-/83
u7 /lot 1
A
„ >1 I Prr
222
© r
P9,-ns
A . ,/ 1%

2.7/"
©14
V 0
$ o vh £ A c
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
+4
Pile Ce- 7 file *--- Sou+6
[8+ 3 1 )
We s—F4 ce.

C4x3lF:-6661785/85)
n/e/2ozy
Po ccs y"*/9"*z"dees
ccsu"*y "*4 ‘
J Gics117-)9)
D-42

File Car - 7 Pile BeA4 -No+A
Pier 2024
E 4S+ F q CO
167
q" 11
A L©, -2
7 CCS
7 file 354
ocs o.

Pic S
g-8
P(c3
0,63”$12‘
Ben+3s
11/ 6/2.24
ic5 /87,)90>
N o~41 E A c
p . o V
rof
(A c199

0.0z"* 2. ‘
T”e
@]
Pra 3SA ou+ 7
ESN
Engineering, PLLC i
Wes+ face 15"
14"x1%" J—ff 1*
LO o”
Ol /25”
Pile 3ST " 11
ocs q6
o6 U /
-—Pile 35 Y R
•.02"2-s‘
Ta ’
D-43

Hermosa (e
h/v-zi
n
.2
Uu
130,149
ee /

9.0^ 7 '
OIC
G C
ii"
13 %
G)|
n/?/2ez4
li
I
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
o. 01g” > y ‘
©---
J"
P12AA89
,42
30"
(Acs131-133)
•.02"* • .s^

1."
v
21‘
°0"r9‘
25 ©]
PIcS 1309
1"Jo]
"de,* s.s’ccs
62222
Pile Ce- 7 Pile BeA+ _ Sou+6
[Be+ 35
file Jacke*
OAwraPPlo
18p 2 7 /Pics.
s
-S"Sov+h IO), En &
/0ics132,)33)
-—— n
s"
D-44

File
Pi l
«" 0 »0
17 C
(192)
©
@
O]
LQ
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
7 f BeA + — Nor+h
[8e+30
()
L2
N0+1
W@s— Fa c&
) 60

2.S 4
•.02"*is‘ 4—-
— — —

11."
0 D-45

23. © U
11“
©} C
(
18 G)|
S
(G
©
Hermosa each
Per 2.24
nle 36CI
CoS%9 •
(Pis 73,741
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
n
Eas— 4 4
03 “Pop
* file 366,0
CCS 7op9‘
(ics 91-93
C 1 *

0.01" -
xy‘)ki
>1
2 n"
Djo • 01"1o? _______
Pile 7 Pile RA+ - Soo+A
csU"
(Picsoae
.1 joN
186s0
2//477
] 10] .

S o J4h Ene
€-P ,
1‘x11
D-46

Hermosa Beach Pier - 2024 Condition Assessment
Pile Cap Repair Recommendations
East West North South
1 2
3 1.36 CCS
4 0.93 CCS
5 4.93 0.47 0.52 CCS
6 1.88 CCS
7 5.03 CCS
8 3.06 3.59 CCS
9 1.22 3.37 CCS
10 0.63 4.12 1.31 CCS + OCS w/ exposed reinforcing West: Surface Spall 11 1.53 2.05 CCS West: Surface Spall
12 13 4.92 5.86 0.63 0.97 CCS + OCS
14 0.66 10.67 CCS
15 9.81 1.11 0.44 CCS
16 1.75 4.28 CCS
17 1.14 1.36 0.88 CCS
West: Soffit Spall
Repair in 5 years
18 2.10 CCS
19 4.80 9.21 0.44 CCS
20 12.99 5.97 1.69 2.16 CCS
South: Spall Repair in 5
years
21 2.14 9.75 1.02 CCS
East & West: Surface
Spalls
22 2.67 2.51
CCS
East: DCR 0.03" x 2'
23 1.64 1.13 CCS
24 8.17 1.66 2.35 9.43 CCS
25 East: Repair Previous
Patch in 5 years
26 0.75 CCS
27 1.02 CCS
28 4.61 2.01 0.32 CCS
29 1.25 1.03 1.00 CCS + OCS
30 31 4.09 10.00 1.25 1.90 CCS
32 Approx. Spall Repair Volume (CF)
Bent Notes Repairs within 5 years
Repairs Beyond
5 years
Observed Defect:

D-47

East West North South
Approx. Spall Repair Volume (CF)
Bent Notes Repairs within 5 years
Repairs Beyond
5 years
33 2.00 CCS
34 11.00 3.14
CCS
West: HCR 0.02" x 4', 0.07" x 16'
35 6.38 1.50
CCS
East: HCR 0.02"x 11.5', 0.03" x 4',

0.04" x 7'
West: HCR 0.016" x 4', 0.03" x 12',

0.04" x 9'
36 1.88 0.35 0.47
CCS
East: HCR 0.016" x 4', 0.02" x 15'
West: HCR estimated 40'
Estimated Spall Repair Total Volume = 218 CF
Estimated Total Crack Injection Length = 129 LF
Pile Cap Repair Assumptions
1) Spall repair depth is assumed to be 5" unless measured as greater than 5".

Abbreviations
LF = Linear Feet
SF = Square Feet
CF = Cubic Feet
bot. = bottom
CCS = Closed Corrosion Spall
OCS = Open Corrosion Spall
VCR = Vertical Crack
DCR = Diagonal Crack
HCR = Horizontal Crack
D-48

0 25‘—0"
8 7

PANEL A
P(c 33
2 PANEL B
o
C 1
C
(S PANEL C
3 E

PANEL D
es2 w

STORAGE ROOM BELOW
LlJ
1—
Li
Q
Q
o
O
2 z
—
D
m
S
3 D
t
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
5 s
5 ) •
X
3 v
Pcs .
31,33//
P?
o
I
P
C
C
—
5 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
2M
23 F^ll Qepk Hole 9 3 3
? s o
(o‘±
P11
8 6
+eel Brace •/
CMj wall +o
s •+
12 It
If
$ J S
+
PF
A /oo/2e2"1
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN
- 9 X
19* .%
D-49

2 9 • 12’+ s' ±
7 1
A
[:] PANEL A A ‘± A

PANEL B /
c A ©
3 I .? I

PANEL C
v
F €
2‘
E E
4 C PANEL D

STORAGE (ROOM BELOW
G
0 h
1 ft
r
G
s
W
3 w
t
c»
X
V
e
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
6 9
o
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
s —
’ I
farel c 1s 1“
lowr/k o
I
x
in
32‘—O"
1o.s £
**
ll
3 Panel C is 7/8" /ourer
~ 0 @ MidSpa— .
• A
5 1

5. 3 ■
CPics 3-373
- _ _
—s 2= Jy A w
+ 2% % +
. ?
— co
l o(i?/292*1
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
, — wsl Grace
T. 61ap)
----y
2 " 4—7
D-50

3 2
32’-0”
a‘± Y
1, A
:[: 4
3, PANEL A
A
t
Ic 2
6'2
Pic 4o
‘s39,9)
c c
x
PANEL C g /
E E

PANEL D
V
C
o
tl
1 CONC.
, STAIRS
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
H
3 NJ
Ge
?

PANEL B
i
I
ccs-^iet^i
4tq “
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
s
c
$
Pleqi d
( X
r
**ka"9PCncC} STORAGE ROOM BELOW
ace o f Oto wal(
*‘
) a
1 $ q‘4 g‘4 . 2‘±
1 (o\a/2-1"

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
‘z‘ 2‘ I
T A A
D-51

4 3
32’-0”
O,<
A

PANEL A
A
W 6
V, WA
vs
C C
1o‘
2 PANEL C
E E

PANEL D
V

CHAIN LINK FENCE BELOW
1s Pel
Acplice,
H 29)2-— t.

CCS
z"*z"A3.s‘
No <Pav
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
r
s.s
V
I
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
r

PANEL B
c. s
C
J
•,)
33 9
s
w
fno
c--M Apay
3"Avp.uide , glon xs"Deef*
(hes 1-
C. zC..
-eee cac’es
Mier Bleeduy tA 4re
Cracks .A kes P4~0l
Panel & •
( • ) Gllwid K
Cocks w/
E FPlrescence,
Jo BleeJins
? 1
CAUWqlE>l-s8“
_e$ 13-0 12. -6 (2222
NMR11 7744.
. lois/2-2"
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER
oK

2.s‘ . s’
7-----
3‘
7---etT----
’
-T7
D-52

5 32‘—0"
A A

PANEL A
A A

PANEL B
Rs cC
PANEL C 6" C
6‘
P
E © PANEL D

CHAIN LINK FENCE BELOW
Po &pt/ -
CA ks a 2
t.
9 c% y
w
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
CCS 1
s"hihy
s“Av3 widH
(22//X
(Pics 18-113
y •‘
Cap Pour Jo*
( c3 20-213
1 lo l1 s/ 2.2y
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
D-53

6 5
32‘—0"

PANEL A
A
/
CC. PANEL B
C

X PANEL C
CCS

E PANEL D
V
“aael thulness
Ansono A+ ( */
t os
l -O
•0.0l"—>
tn Face (Pic1‘
■CCS
Panel Fnce
©
X
*
/
I
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
©
3 ‘-7"
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
jo„7
•) i
IO P
Cent6-9
fic 6)
II •
9’
(A)
y*
, z‘-2"
wso-3 % ? ? ? s $ 0 1 a C
1’% 6 V.w

0.o3" .
•A Face?
(Picig)
( 3 ‘ 3—t.
' y Caf
. 350 .
/ soy*
1 12a) .9 •
s’o’’ Mioe cel -P iepa
Y..X ( 6-+. Face of
44244 &4lk-----
s” daep
, 3‘ 3
I 71
%,
A 172o2y

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
D-54

7 6
A

PANEL A
A A
3‘

PANEL B
q‘
C C
PANEL C 4
s
E E
it7 PANEL D
o
?
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
5 s‘- 7 v
CCS - Fix in 1 ear
Sou+h Face @Ter
s"hish* 4 "deer > j’long
Hl- ,
(7) 0.016"* $
Crack;*/
13 leedins -
-------' > £
r eAs 1163
?
6“> 6”
-He Crack
wi bleed~s -
E f f /orescence.
27/2227722
(Pres 47-49)
32,-0”
(he 3s-36) . a’q") s' hit* •" deep.ccs -Acpai- i । Yerof • Deck ferel N*/* Fcee Sottom 4/77777)
A
* (
3 “
H, 33
2s "3/
.ce
;
27 1
/

1.5/ 1.52. 2.57 . 6/ 2---- —-----* > *-----*----
1 /ol1
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
CCS- Fix
Sou+h Face 6.+4. _
D-55

8 7
32‘—0"
PANEL A A % P-cl A
J
3 PANEL B
©

PANEL C

E PANEL D
u"
fanel & Is 'Iz.'1 Jower
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
2‘-"
7//77
~ S "deep cc s
Kepai-) ye
Pics Sour,
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
re
* nppeso } RasT
ben eigrzal, sel
on Cs -no iss ve )
___________ 2e" -gdueces""YZ2Z, Pics szl ois/zoz"
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER N
D-56

9 8
32‘—O"

PANEL A A

PANEL B
C C

PANEL C
E

PANEL D
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
. fle) ML- Es. seaces Transverse
Cks, Rll Pa-d wd*h,N, bleediny.

A tois/2o2"

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-57

I® 11 • | la 14
10 9

PANEL A
4"
12 PANEL B
C

PANEL C
E CCS
t’-i. PANEL D
V V
“T‘
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering. PLLC
6"
(fi26 s13*
802/ 12"
(P
AAl
\gso
32’-0” (Pics 21-253
NoAh Pasel face @ 5o+om cS—
6"long > 9" his * 2" deee
e Jov+ •/ Cap P our sd p .
""—00
(” 2y07

N HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-58

10. 32 A-9sA90l vis,Gu ‘—0"
(• ssiblc ©‘
A r
5 PANEL A A A
c'1
S'
G
4" c
(hics 86-97) L
mAa).

E O

PANEL D
O
V
Pics >
Jey-jo?
J
—F
„.8‘
X
3’-"
77707
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
.oz"> 2
✓
Pics -
11-103

PANEL B
CCt- Fur
(Face 16”
le "
©os -(66-49
+2
/ s” ve}. offse+
• CeS

PANEL C
ce- nes)
(ics 62-s5) s"
Poss.bte
o *erl ono
ccs

2. "otde -

MSORPCC
(Pic so
{ {
117 .

Ceus exkd • tie
Sov* Edqeof 1 =
Paxet D — 2
A oliv)2ezH

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
** 2‘g‘
— <-----------
-----------
“00/555044.0 . %‘ I >' S'-m"
Ccs 4-------9—7-----------------•
63-76
D-59

12 1 1
32’-0”
A
I PANEL A A 5
,,5‘D 1
T H‘

PANEL B
Ic 37
.gy 21°
C
¥

PANEL C

1.4 E E
* PANEL D
142
7‘ ±
Y —C
r . -X
X
r
Y
t
X
8°Cce
Ccs
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
n
HL Full H+ vCr
Noh Face
(e 27)
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
32'0 $3 „°
2/000/
Cs3)
A-21
2 e1°C
36''
12 ‘
3 4
> e
$ “
3 .S
‘rP
¥
Ves
Sot.fAoimce
flcf 29-32,
I I
I
, ( x 1 ) e
- ) K
S Cs

0.o" full HF vcK
No-* Face (Aic 2g
28 VeK full
. __ __ Sooth Face cc3‘s.e2?/a1 202GPkea/8y-u3)
ICS 33,31
—
I
$ ,
14 •—*
1 s
I 1e29/2o21

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
X X
D-60

13. 12
32‘—O"
Lb t .077 — sw. ® y
PANEL A x r A
O
6 PANEL B
22" i
"P
e X I
C
ccS Gics6V,6S) I.Sy
6 3
X s E x 6 E

PANEL D
5/8 V
e Bo+. o£ Face
€ Bo- of Face
mEO’O
(d()
1"

1.S"
if
%
c
o
9 6
N
i
V
6r
w
o
6 •3
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
s‘©
__ .CCS

CC S II
dcss2-S13
Z
r
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
2$
o
3 v
(
8 3
C “
s’s
43 ~VC& @ Gof. 4 - P ce
•oj*fPics 69,7.:

OcS

PANEL C
fres 59-ct
X
C),o/
S’wide cc^ C
-C (a
I
I
IW 20/0///
/9419202000/2
11 W
2 *
z
“IA ,
CCS s‘
(sol‘nolS3)
/ 52„10x,*
-
(//45%,
rAs3")0he v&k
•‘ +“///
IX )I
w8050
f it
Panel G
*
(Plhs* -$12 C.)
(*ics7%,73 89,87)
A—
i
[
Asw *
(
===7--------------------
C3"*3"*)L"IoA5
ccs (Pics $7,68
fanel C
vy"lfew*
1 J1- Parol O'
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER X
Frachrt o.o3”yy‘
(s 98,11
D-61

Panel 33 - Tractor
14 13
C %
A e.
0 6&
0 A M
3‘
9^1^ 4
c 5’0
I C r

6.0 Cerr eSfen
S L. C
E
o E
r PANEL D

2.c‘ V
522%
"AE
«
I
r
£l Jg“lowes
i
r
T
P
X
r
©
9 heal • ffset >
Pard G-wts © Fraclcc
X
r
(C)
1 r
Los+
CiAc.

Nor Side o
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
Piece o
7 Cnc. 0

PANEL B
•'CCS 6"*2="ln, cI3G
ces 38" loas
(ic ।

PANEL C
S
Fracluce
(we
— CR•IEngineering. PLLC
xy o,-s 33,% *a2
y">t h 11 x 4 1 10n3”)
CCS e- Face Q hoJ.

Panel C-Phepics s/e"low
y
AKaP.
vs
I e
Cracks -
e,lend *
b.+. oAAe
(B)
s*
4-1)-
. 6 J Pelam @ lure 7)Fie
)7///////
"C&Bo+""of Face(ficis2
tcs
HL VC full H*
Necmh PceQ
I
3— —
cSMs-M9
s 6-PU
///7777777 Sv/,es))
‘-01",00>*
9 I
6 r
(z) o.ol "*i‘__ (eics.,
PANEL A us
_ HL VCK Go+. go 6.6% "Ci .C
Foll H+ face V
-38-M 11-5)
32‘-0"1_
Vcx c"hi,-
© b.t. of „„
PAce (T5/.) H- e0l 9. et * O.ol
1 1/29/124

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-62

15. 32‘—O"
C
o
i.S
8‘
O

X PANEL A
A A

4.s”
i

PANEL B
C

PANEL C
n L
G
E E

PANEL D
V 7 / w 20
Fotj H+ Vci’
3 r
S
o
Full Heish*
Fice vci’s
x
C
HL
S •
in
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
s (14 yi"yoo

0.03 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
(2)VCK aboueccs
-Ccs G-+ Face 95£6+
$"hish *? "deeps
2" /0n5
(Pics 12-) S
Ccs, Minor Slee,12
(Pics 16,17))
> 9 •
3,
CC 5 e G.+ Face
4"his- > 3" deep
» lo"
■ (C
13 •'
CCS “o’
8" 7////
3 s f
d
716
o
ILr $ 1
3 1
2 I 20
/ l' 14 5 I 5
».«l" H‘
6A So.y Fice
1 4(3./2o21

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-63

(-/3
15 32‘—0"
0 * Hu HL
3‘ 2‘
2 2'
X
I X

O PANEL A A A
8" /1/0/0///7 (o
o” MU 1 s 3
9"
flece . 1555 PANEL B
$* *2 10A5 Vol 4,
7 40
E q‘ E
9 PANEL D 2‘ Q
V P V
C C2)VC. Fil "x“"s 4'
Hu HU
EEVLEVoe
C)
q"
8 s
3 I
r
0 2
o
w
2 r
r
S • ‘o ste EAr. &

PANEL C
i
1?"
"Cs
6" 000
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
(1) PM) HU VCR
ork Ence.

0.ol” *
*
w
s
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
(ic.39)_
Cose 8.+. office
Poor
(See Pres.lnse.
y‘
Ccs
, Ches1i,2 t’lonscrs
2 2
4 ccs 7 .$‘
(‘-9 V
“S-42) .
y3
•••I ‘
6 2.42"
w .

V s) 6 6
r3 / (C
0 (PIcM‘
AEs f
8 V.
2, 27 4.S-2S
6 5ccs*g”
3222
le
•3
©.•i *>6 ,
e..” o.o*

2..2.0

XXNNCHL
4386,
IW
TUUE
r 9.02" 5
2‘ V 3‘
2‘ts /
<.« 4

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
Pane( G Frack
1 16) 622(2) Fell H+ vcR
Mo-4 Face
D-64

17 16.
32‘—0"
I
} " -0.53
*” ""

I I PAPP
v. ? / •
X , 405420** $
A
Z X

PANEL B
I

PANEL C
‘V
%.S
.$4, \ — y—% E PANEL D
9 a
x
i t
F
6 9 _
?"
2*

PANEL A
cos*e cs 9o-4).‘
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
A)
H"
»
e
oe
if
29)
,fvll Heshi
VCH-I
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
w rBP
Laqve*
(ics 80, 37)
ccs o+ of Face
6"}."Avs.
s c
J a
3534
289
oo’vCk
Above C(S
J
n
’ i
3 ,5"*„0e-MAxDZPEes (Pics 132,1335

0.oy "_____ - _ _
: (ies 129139
N
13 C
?94
254
J 3
V
•.0%—“
70es88,8% (92-97
CT Z/ ////7Zs"
s’s g‘
Pe - 0
J _ —
P
I
i1 r
2 , I |
3)
c+ ‘d 0 (sp
, ‘/on, HCK
7o-K face _
ou n, s.* H
F
_*
v
HL
** r
i o/3o)loZ“
s HERMOSA BEACH PIER
I.S’
— o vc 6
22471 A—— CCSSfacec 1sg0+.
(*HYl"wke
0 Shallews
Surface
SA4L V
03 /
19%* -1"
4 $ y‘ ccs
6‘ 22070
D-65

N
18 |o‘ *
32‘—O"
0 PANEL A A A
7‘ cc $
1 1o
Hi PANEL B
C t7 C feev P4+hof
x
•V
(res P«rch or
22429474 E E

PANEL D
face VCR 5
Pll Hash*
•. oz"
-JUeedins
fetv •
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024

PANEL C
1s‘*2‘xl"deer
Suc Face Spq(l
E S N
Engineering, PLLC

HERMOSA BEACH PIER
fo/So/2o2y AAbo4~
—
[wt
90, •
fcev. *hov 804 y/

0. <0
”9/..9o
a s’ J e1
* /—k
st
? J »
9 e Go ,2.9"* •"
o. • "
0* •
1 .

P s.oz"))
4" d
(17 —T
—727ZZtyss _____________________ Cn. (ficsu-19)
CccS 6‘/en9y
67fi
‘* 3 )
,910-0 (
9 s”Asx
. r i T' Sol Faee. . - ,
CCS 1* —13) H’C — bo+o-face$.£6+ ces *2.S" ceepGcs" Mi H+ VCKonSrome “hish % 8‘ ine yjl / Jod

0.o)
Z
o
D-66

19 8
23’3 ° 4°9
S
7 —
Gs-stsp

41.0 $32 SS 112007 % PANEL A
(A).2 2
ff 3 A
n$X,6 $23 Pu
6 9

B J X PANEL B
S33,S
,$
r ,h*„S530 C
1 9

D PANEL C
3,8 Cos-sz said)
E

PANEL D
2 3232
G.t. . face
PM DA
+GH
+44 (1)
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
*3V evd
2oq
(Ln2dxa •i -•
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
A—
,sa
=n*ts-t**-532,9
Xow ,°
ob
E)
,% ..
n
+ s
, e
.33
M5y ..h
33WJ 30*+8
.s)
-$23
7 s"ks"
sx
,,010
„ts—
2202/02/220/1/2/7//////7/77
222
- s-1”,
9 245 51
1 ■
9 o
6777777777
C
F
/*?"*
a
"4
s—,5*9x533
4 CCS
»CS
* 2.s "Ion, e C-A
l Elec 3 Fex uede )
=Glo, DDZR242 ft©•
” 71 /‘
5$30
_ she..
6"Aishx 17‘loAjceS e 6.+.. * Face 7 (Fics 25-27)
z*II**
ce (j
uSy,z XSve/,’
„ Svojoc?
32 —0 16,4,$X,6
i (o/31/2o2"1
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER M
D-67

20. 19
X8 $2)
f
r

PANEL A A Z A
*
M0 “f0 naA
,h3,00

B PANEL B
)
-°
x x

D PANEL C
-
E E PANEL D SaeC.
$92,h
CCS 2‘* "wide
* • " h ioh 6 of. Face
IPd
H2272E
YMAMA
9 5
-6"* 1"deep
Su7kee %P
?
P
X
r
f
C
r
GuP2319 /-
,0l¥,zoo
14 ,s
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
I
w
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
4€
00-99 S3l0
+s •
20J wes>0
7‘±
6icse7-

4./
522,
a
2/4) 1.
ccst*2‘H **l
>(" fxiSy-enrs
"hr.
32000
C Cg f*
l u
*Y*, 255252P
> „ 4°d •
32 —0 %v, vo 533
I
x
V777
Sn.
2 S2
•s e
“5 tm
,47 *t .
2222
Duoke-s v wy /ze o3Z2 7
•‘2 2
(‘Ho"CeS
: h
y, -01) £o0% '"0 2* E2 fzz)zz (ucs“$)7 Cccs .. &.+. .4
—
Ew*
- — ' = Face 64 x 7"y7"vo. (Pi cs?1-73
200.2 „°2 8.142"
• y” <l 1y s A.
• "o to
{
(x r
r ( r
«78 $33
6 %
A 1o/31/2-21

J, HERMOSA BEACH PIER
M
z
,5-01 * , - wGv.s 537
D-68

N
21 .20
32’-0” -E *e -*9
ft $33
(2622 l
I
z5i ,l ,S‘I
X
x x PANEL A
A X A
) )
2 x
X

B PANEL B
„fs*„t00
x°A*0 0248
D x © PANEL C
(
••
X ,5$4,2190.s
r fit
9 H
E E

PANEL D
(C
W.
cSlK'
a1
2 6e
(21-22) s31,
23‘J $**9
‘6n016y,9* „»/
6 FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
r abyJ 3‘ 4*9 (237—11%1*46822
~£00
X
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
)
wie
s e
h8
...23ts
, y
o/si/aez"

HERMOSA BEACH PIER
,7*1930 "t°8 • 27*3 VS CLi-hls20,
n b
, 2*„*1001
• —
, 53,3°°
2 .310
x
x
r
30‘s ve, e*,9/c
,51 1 .5-1
eroq"*o ‘ 0_.lt"
-(s) vca - fue ,Gua
Fce 3'% •03"
HCC sz"solos" 1
22722224
y“hu*xB"*1-3" ccs —Face—e6+, FixiSyerS (icst1o-03)
< too , 13, 29:o
3 | *
1H 119:0 14 1H
$22
O 92

1.Z
D-69

-ESN
15-$h 5310 122) Engineering, PLLC 21
te h
$3
18 PANEL A
A
------- (1,9----- 202, »838/57 w

B PANEL B
K
, 8 ,6
,$ <599

D PANEL C
// s

E E PANEL D
i
12’2 ‘fons
ol
i'
A
AcHer
dies 64-60
3o9 •
o500r,t
*2H +
‘=70 2v
o
o
0 33
t
22522
(153) $ £
S
,8
2/0021.6
- 533 Ciro9
ar G
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
zr„Zo-0 00l8a7d *H
‘ "y6yEv,,9 x JP,8
"P»tX,8522
------------- ,2 K.ho0
e a2vJ 33H
0r!n6A4.5 %„S-Li S.2
0-6
“r-9..
ehJ
,54,500
S"hss/o" wide dtswi-3)
/7s
£22424
32 —0 Jola33H
9 ,5*,9
- +,,80*
7 740 2P” C3)
k 4
x
r
Svo„E-£ +09
2ad *e S >0 F522-
122 .....

Cos’
Eza
a3"Jt9 S00
G1-s153>
,.1 **
G69‘32 919
J 9
* £*93a
2P1m CAv,,9
aym021-e $52 22s Y " 32H „h0o
54214%_____
32” y 4"hi4 xo"t1e
ccs 1 (s1-20)
— •
A)
•.63"*S‘ J 3o’’
Hc* VCKTo.oo (Pics Ho-42)
A u//2o2"
. HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
522.
1512/022
36 xoM*jr2.)
,9 x,,9°0
As $53 122
o))
• 854.2 “7,2*,%1j0-0
'0 4%
D-70

22 22
32‘—0"
/»
A
2 H

PANEL A
A A

B PANEL B
$23 ,01 b
jo-0

D PANEL C
aS
g’avs
$3D 4%)
E E PANEL D i

0. —444 o.o3"*lS‘
119
vst
l".

FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
X° —
70 yard -n3s)
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
@(cS %.S”hihX15-
6Av,9
s
CCS 7’2
(ics 9--19)
©I
-A°
. L
o- o2”3 ‘
zewsi"

0.0%"s l - ... _
x254. q’AvoWie , Pee V(IlaCS
, 55,8**%oW*3‘
.0%’
- ------------------
—B279zzs’-p" ccs chialyo"ud
—
e
19/ *ace@Gor GiAo-93)
2eh
,$1
„tl22
(? " 530,92
(-800 S),
_ ___ (s&2/
(s-qas50 o-Wy,i
tAMoy 1,9 o- »H 77
722 x »38 25*9 ,2 ,84,**e
*
10-0 .. $,1*7h
Y*d
•pas)
1 1//zo2"
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
/ —
is'

0.0)00
-----------------------------------■-------- —
oeo"XIX 1 o+.Face • I -0.91, -x
H‘ A R— 11) vC •, Fwet J
(-
520, 200
D-71

124
T ,$Z
2? oOfe

PANEL A
A A ,S

B B PANEL B
D o
6 D PANEL C
fees. A ,$
E E

PANEL D
-C
Acs
Q’wnic
WPIAA
r
wL
eH+
, £ K. f-a
GAV
Gvo/,2b 503
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
1" *,2‘
—
,8
»o y2vd
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
(S9(-24 $310
» J*„s • ,S *h
o39a+‘s
y6My.A/K/1
7*3 % 2
60,5°
-z15,5e0
art
GAPs-2
H
G, •
t •
PPWah
43*1° $33
— -------
,5311 kst
-
' w**„U
,1*,2***
o
/
‘rP** „Z
30J
%9n ve s „‘0°o -224
,S
22al-tsist
G13
cor,atS2? „i172222
f 9 X,2sro
/////////%/
„h=,?t $33
F(2W-1153‘
23 Chhl-Eh/s9W (zh-$£1 5310) ,
73r
52,1 3
-) -Ci) VcR HU
/ P-Hi 0121
6‘ccs 2444

3.+. o£ Face
. ef.
,st6-.
“3V •
1avS
70,,9100.
-52,3"°—
—--------- y
QS1-251 $2197
32’-0”
-----
woH
*0
tk TO •
V3A V ‘\ 73A
nt030 — h
n f k
43 r
20 J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN
Y./1 0.S”*4‘
Carcs 005193 2‘*S”x 1 1q%
D-72

.24
32‘—0"
20H
1/6

PANEL A
A A
,S‘I
5 „b

B B PANEL B
-2 Ge
sS‘6
D
•7 •
Cu E $00 E PANEL D

2.s /

0.ob H*
„9
»‘*
21--o

0.02”
x2/
«8
,Pl
s2-US20
T / 37 3
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
e
fAhoo
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
„6?
, L ,799
46iy ,*

6.0)
-th 2‘
200002002
527 Sirmm1
*PtoSas,4
12220000
$33
4654
^?2
**9.9
"he)
' ( Z*
o-ol H -
ics 39-32)
• 4
‘s 3 2,4
,9%, 2°

PANEL C
97—h19p)
** fif 27°
72A
11910-0
,2
r 7 f“O
>474 200
LeoXvl
o 2‘
W
09 ,,*2
197® /72777
,A +,,zo0 °a T 4
z‘) _____

0.2" 0.o2"
(St
$32
A n/1/2o21

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
125__-8c 5ou
.. 5 +
7 31+ 339s
-SY„r%*9
D-73

126 25
32‘—0" (ha
J* A “&‘u4531 A
,84,91°** PANEL A A A
0 B PANEL B
21 18/
tt S &

D D PANEL C
90 E E M

PANEL D
V
co3"A3‘
FweeTsp
,ol©a
Me
‘+° 03
,9 K.5100
"2A
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
r. o
»*9**d APd
71 93*
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
(
33A fC
r
al 99 ‘
Ge-$1 sal
'+•{' a oog
,$1%209
>1® 731/ N
voy38na
, 2-,100
522,4
,11200 289/30 ,
,3 12///// »"
1022
79 5a3,oc _
----*—, (Pics 7-7t 0.0l %5 - -------------
iFooce HcKO &.y
‘t8 023 —PW 32)
, 0 *„oo ,9„t0:0
(e‘4s30)
Gva,9 $22
5707070022 , 5*„3lo „fl
„s 00000/
7 5
Hi *L P HL ool Face vea’s Kel •+
-H .—
Pes t°'*
0laq"yu/
•**»l/s
*9V0 » W —___ _ "
<s-s$53P 933,92
202" 3
*2* .
(ele
,zx,co-o ooipo?,"
— ' * ...h
z
7_ _
| HERMOSA BEACH PIER
(91-33)
D-74

127) .26
32‘—0"
,2l
t

PANEL A A A
)
n9933 n ,$

B PANEL B
(%
„So h%lo..

D D PANEL C
4Q
1 E E

PANEL D

0.0242l

0.08 T
C
X
r
t
N
2/3H 3
,s2 *,290
2 2
s32
S
&
&
S3D,%=C
wipmn9l—
,94,910* *
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
, &*„800
70A
190
1 , i> 210
, +x,5o- 20/22 3
st‘‘1 - 5 210
QTi- fell 522
++u0 voy
4 Uss
o.oig"
ve A
x,2..0)
y 1
r r
—
5 o.o16" Boc NVC 4 • VC-
__________
S+,Soo / * 5h»6*t $».h-c
wiprna
(Piesii120-3 r

0.-139. HL
1 s HERMOSA BEACH PIER
M°
,< to-o ( "____
,s5,4o-9"1
o.1"*2.’ HC* N‘
"e—l f
•2"*s/o.ocoKCs H+
e,S
$33,22 If
D-75

tru S 6' G, 128) 27
, h
A »»2o°0

PANEL A
A A
Z X $33
412 $30 i
0 * PANEL B
nH
T
G
>10 G
t
D D PANEL C 6
3 S
// L
/

E PANEL D
,s4,501o
o|
i
V072
(E
9 o
o
t"
(,
" 1
)
1 S/
22/202 555,9h
*+°Q •
3H 2~3
,S *„ntor.
• •
.79
X
oPiceah’e Sn
S 23437
22222
9 L
0 FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
J9
y Srarjo

1.3 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
r ©
o
/* 2
sPan IC
-----"33 y
23-47
*s2 2
27--9
2 u
(B\—
€
as w
CCS
ns”xS"$9"
6 1$2
— y I JIr C
,3***o
.91
— jo-,
9 *
4 2 r
x 1H
▼
3 5 3 I Ao.otoMsi" neser-p
•.ol" •.pi" o.o" H- * ,
Cu HhReVer’s o.o"vc.-Enee full H+
A
ef
„hl*.s*
x
r
,9* 142©e -g p
SSt-Shi 931,) sh
$33 no AGntosh yAPew
v M0M2%c*0
1 A u/a/ee24

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
s‘*o ‘ Aa f —kd 32’-0”
14uosqun,oc (211-63153)))
V2H ( 7" apin,s*
‘*t* 090004 99P,2/*„8/
ibl
%"*.s‘ } —*!" / )
pence o.27" Hu 0.0)
e 6.4 (ics176-1063 Gics 197-159
// h
$0,23
D-76

129) 28
32‘—0"
Y

PANEL A
A A

2. I

B PANEL B
r
710 i
Mo
$)
LSo

D D PANEL C
- S $3 H $
10-e
I •

E E PANEL D
V P (1
-t
r
i
r
O
r
I
r
9 9
2 7 A
H
200
|O- o
1 ©
t
9 O
3 G
$
I
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
r
2 s
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
I
9 o
7h
•) + ^0-0
52l
CSz’zz
X „£o*9
(h6‘shso0)
734 2u_
hkjhoro
ea 7
•.04
1673
11000
„s ////1
>10
I
r
107nte %
7 s*s 1,310-0 2 —_ —1
(z‘oz51P 7
f 25
. .?h**9»)
■ t —7 7 77
-in 777722
1999 d*
,kix,0t0re
V3H l%„10:o
14 s Cd
10*0—7H
23 .%'
-H
9H
1 u/s/2o24
! HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
18X „C° 4
D-77

130 29.
(ahas 9v
„l0> 1 /
S
20A 2, A

J PANEL A
A A
S 30
2a ,,6
S

B B PANEL B
/o:o
... ///7///020/ Sl
$23,0 th
D
7020/000000
.If* 1 t
E E
( PANEL D
Y
CuiYs
0019)’
n
o
o
2 P
M
3*
S
c
2 77H
,£*„300 »100
_L
©
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
99se sot
334 2244
, s +,* 10’0
9 4
6 e
’__ _0.o2"
/ei 52‘
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
, C2
v.o"Y(‘
HUA OtCS
S
2 e
A
9 &
1 5
(02 2,
71 o
7)4 2)tJ
„20194,1
33A
)
(PANEL C
/)
o.," HL
-4$,22020077773
42-,L $3
* 20,20
2/20000/0.8
__________________32’-0”
73H 2014,7 *,,20 05
AWXXXXAAOLAWWX ‘
7— ,18*0 04
TX (30 -----
1 }
_____ •. ol 6" 0.01,"
its 6o-12)
9 1——
4—517
I
I s
9 J s/
1 n/s/2o21
! HERMOSA BEACH PIER
HI hl KUO.a"6-o"
—
1)
D-78

N
1 .30
32‘—0"
/21, /9 -o
, 6
($$20) °0

PANEL A A
, £/ $22
se C. ,5°0
n $32
B (S‘3‘ PANEL B
1113
,?
© 6 PANEL C
oo 115 1
E Y*P3 E

HU PANEL D
o.o “
X
r
$
V
4 7H
,20-0 s 1/
9 s
•==-
IN
©
(A)
6 ® t~Lseo
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
u/s/zez"

HERMOSA BEACH PIER
3/g ’ /ou
-C
4 HU
215, bll
A X) .
owvp „%/ ~42r+rp an r
rMMYl
a
t l
(sty-tilend
8“m
211 2/
R C J. 2S"/ow * Q
mL
,73
118 ▼
3 AL Jck Fon H +
1d3s "fan,,s*t
77 y
*/#,6 2(vdsh ? „o ; 3
lo
s-2
— -<h S,S1oo ______
2 "”■* g-ia9‘
$ C —
__ 4
11/5913) **
,?
1S J
HL KL
, -
“7 J
s o-ow1
($9
79A (ZI»« 4
(,242 4z
9 S — —
s -11
I
„lo‘s ,83„z°% .z1
D-79

32 31
32‘—0"
1 L A
Pare ) A A
,,29 s0p
s’S //22)
2 C ,tt r ‘ "
B B Pazel (3
5 D D
,.1
1 S33
E
s3? © P.&A e I D
T
V
5 L’2a
(00
„bl
o
2 9
2 J
vA
d
e
,s*2*
,.30°C
<
o
/
•
t
B
4 ' 9
s
!
«
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
70A
eolese
_L
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
A
4 3
fac@Top
cos 2*3
ub
€ 5 -
6 8. 6
U
$ acc (11,%
o
6 P
&
„48 •
1112
$i
3 £3)
„@8x
)
,,°S S93
(t) t
..
ju 3(71
s
__ 3
,,82 *
o o")
ar*‘8
voH,**,5*
J
(-l-30s2

49.91*,0
I- 295 +8+ «)
*3H 919*9
Paael C
J9 Qop~J®J ‘so,*
<-------------
-s, -5.

0.61"* H-
—%
/$-)
81 $710/,
//0/7 _ .... 7/1200,
i1 99,"*,*, g. * a I tr l ...
/($32, f
,.3L whh$22 „72/07
6A2.2***2 $22
„69 .
oA°, sy
79e ,1o-a H ‘
s
C
Cx
,Set-hz
(2b-9%/5314/ "US $27 1a9—* 1/07222
)a.o ).)

0.08 HL
i vs/zo?"
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
6s — a:olb"
D-80

N
33 71ds -ade
— £
A € A
,% $33 4 •
*
A (e:0 A
$37 rS°&X,9
*p 3 Ppt PoPey-
• * ..

B B nH 3 .11
,2 & L
f•
wh $39
$3,S
e-c3W. Co
D 6 D
501,8
s 33,S‘t
E E
?
V
0:)3"*3"x2"dp acs

52.72%
„ Si 9
„ v
?
o
w
st
S*,el
X
f
12910 Zete
4 HERMOSA BEACH PIER
01 ay 02
$32,81
2222
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
9 e
s
1 o.o©
5 o -ol”
. s' ol* •
. 531)
,%
[L
as Cd 0.ol9 IC
full H*
ESN
32) Engineering, PLLC
o .o(6"
2//2
:/533hh

54. ‘2
,} .
52?
* /
5 x
r i
x 2
$32.69 (. #/9

0.o1” o.o)’
ics 23.

2.5 SA*.5* $33,% )
X ,P000y.
oc/o J
E-62 S?‘d
, h-,sote
+° wvJ
11 sa.5*f 162 •
__________ 32’-0”
GE‘98s31
goog —------—\
,the <he-zs3
»3M,?0-0 oaoo 7H
H (143
33*3
,to- 1510-4
f_______ s-2 5
.31no ,3x.
1-7
0? -e6—192 U5u0 -7 * r
/24,Fo9
/20H (h5l) (
~3w4
Lalut
$90,3
f 1
s.ot" c.sp
es'oro S33,%
D-81

4 9‘—O" 23‘—0"
A »0y3”c3) 1? S
H
A A
H
d
».B£<.S
S
(1-$
c
©
o sJoal a
710
29*3 $202
S-1
E E x
M
2 -
or
X
F
Z
P
9 6
$
9 **
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
6 £2*2
Pvod e2s
-£*
,,39 e
9 6
7 )
(e
a
ESN
33) Engineering, PLLC
Lot-1"52‘.
wsvts
+50*81
,, hi
$33 11O%
0A
qA1-* 4" P J
)1222/
12/0/0
s 32,1
1 ne/zozy
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER N
40-Le5310)
,4"-o -H „tot
l l
D-82

35 34
Nor
PANEL A-3
,8
• GAb,L CJ3
PANEL A-2
r
$33,8 2
«4 8 Z
PANEL A-1

PANEL A
A A
ho
% 846
PANEL B “H II
ft h
c
1——(C
$39
Z5U
$
-0”
1K
(201310
44722
ss s3
£
<»
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
,6**
*
O
o
»
6 'A
19) -991537
,51 x 4 833
s32 „8t P
$10
9 6
s
h «*d
J 3,
2)
------0A
,/H „"lore
~ y.:
» N1 A2 56.

St
A
„11
«2721,
,2
(2) ,ol s92hh
1K
••
l w]o/2o21

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N „
I
f
D-83

N
35 4
25’-0”
y‘
C c
?( •816"*4 •
PANEL C 9
Ac MV
Psleh
E Hl E PANEL D 1/

0.s% n/e/22M1 ▼ 4e >
C.*Z,,3r2 2
PANEL D-1 N Hi
F
).(12
PANEL D-2 F %
ccs ss" CCS 44 <
S.S
J X PANEL D—3
(cS 7 “>225
44 dee Sov+K
VMZTMe
N
b
w
y Su" Ct $
..."
3‘ces
1/00
6"*is"*3.s‘cs K,
(isM7-is)
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC

6.s"Avg
y*
(icsii -102) ces"*26"
* S'hil
. sf al

2.k7
Pea KCC> * *
*3"hih
i2pdo”

HERMOSA BEACH PIER
- 3
esis1-1s9
(2) 0,06" e
*+‘4/ x
(1c$179-/89,
S' I
sos”2”XZle"
- CG .=)
_, e.,,, 2,e5")qs
C3""*3‘cs
. 772 “
Ccs B.th
7" * Jo” high
+ FiH Leah,
5TD
+2‘
Lu $
17159
33(
s/00/20 1"
4 s'avorG'ccs
s't P771
5—$
oKAS' "
6s‘••r
V 4 “Pop 64110”

0.os‘ 9.al
—------ 5
H U 0.03
4---- y
• Lo'1
------------- >
D-84

36 .35,
Nori
{,
6 5
PANEL A-3 ft (Y) G62 /~ SYJ ,9
ficri2,207
PANEL A-2
21 xo“90028
PANEL A-1
>€X,oe
A
,400°9
PANEL A A 2 O .12 hl
.Sb

PANEL B
C /Of C
[Geetand
4 Z
A
•) ee *
— $33
Ja?.?
*„5th
ccSC(Pic
9 A J
ccS
077
(25-$h
sh-hh S‘0
*o wadag -?100
-4
(Z)
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
s2.h*
*h*9
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
ss"
At
oe-s$ ? 521)
ir’sh
. 521
500
aynf
1aso
~ i, 17 "
ors,hh $20
/ 3320-,
,9
/9
/ eJ
/ NJ
w I
s ?
S. r)
2//2206.21
„S
<------ >
„Ss 120/
$33,2%
„1010
,2
n//2021
VOA
10-0 „990 H
,,b£/s?
li
-h) $33 27
„853 322
(02-A3 5310
PT3 •
/- s/kron y wewefVd’s
Mo y30o
,4 } ,5*
1—»*h
‘s,
4*
120000
523435,* ,
©Z2
25’-0”
+90% 2*„5*s $33
_______ 1___ 1

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN _
A
•w 0/
4 o
T
e
D-85

35 25‘—0" i/2o24
C
HL

XS PANEL C
I
O
E
PANEL D / 2‘
V 1
O PANEL D-1
44 © F PANEL D—2 o
S.S
4”>s‘CC $
(
ML PANEL D-3
G G
4 r
J
X
v
+
%
N
M
es
c
$
3 5,
FIELD NOTES: SOFFIT
OCTOBER 2024
J
**
s
9 o l
/"> ‘ccs
1/7//20/
S.s"*3 ' ,
222222
(Ficus)
o

0. 3‘ceis
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
09 3
J
4£//7//X( U S.s‘ces
3 ,
N)
A
w
o
6 G"deer Zl(8cs13)

15.7 a. o"x3.£ I • ‘
— 27
(
9 Hl
•.o1," Ht
o .of"*
2’7"
,pAA*V , 75 Ces *u.s"av
Yooo
is"xss"c c 8
(s09-ilo
ceS s"*
t
<
’ 2
Ey
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER
I )
(36)
D-86

0 25‘—0"
L‘
I
PANEL A (3 %
V

PANEL B
o
•3

PANEL C
w
7 T
e

PANEL D
t
j
—
L
F
ZD
(
O
C
U
Ld
Q
O
o
O
X4
- "Of
V ‘
A
$
—
•)
M
w
w
*
—
‘ €
a
$
B7
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
g’
M
es
w
$
<
3 -
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
vl R
v
8“
Delar Cics 191)

31.6 c
t
c
•
3 S—s

9. —----- L
STORAGE ROOM BELOW }——>
.52
—
w w *
~
*—. A A s
" i
9x $10’0 G
‘ * Od
1)33 S t 3 P
1<

1. st 3 y 34 ? C w
1 oi7/2.2u
1 HERMOSA BEACH PIER N
D-87

2 32‘—0"
s’ss’ Dela
e
Ns
te PANEL A

PANEL B
I
M

PANEL C
. © PANEL D
N

STORAGE ROOM BELOW
9 o
&
C
2 X
r
f
A
3 •e
y
e
3 w
VI
JI
-J
I
J
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
*
a
w
#
6 V
$
V &20 \.
eSes
A lel/2e2"1

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-88

3 2
2/
A □
w PANEL A
a
*4
°A

PANEL B
C
Sorlce top 1
v

PANEL C
KA e

V PANEL D
.)

STORAGE ROOM BELOW
I
CONC.

STAIRS
*
r
eb
6 w
>
1 V
c
ts
3 o
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
< Jr
as—P J % w G
8 3
V t
s— s *
O -
y w
>
i x I >
Oeaa ••
< o
2-s

V-T-----
3 * Jw
s‘4‘
ANS
. 9910v J
M
>
X
sh 7
x
is
es
32’-0”___________________
(w)Gench Les C1ye.)
, s‘-2*
i 1o/i/2ol"
! HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN
D-89

4 3
32‘—0"

4. 2‘

2.s‘
r
4‘

PANEL A
CCS 2 '
250 1 1/2 X
s' .7 w
I.s’ PANEL B
©
.l

PANEL C
Sur 1 l'
, A PANEL D
323 L

CHAIN LINK FENCE BELOW
Si
a
3 a
s
t
o
5\
s
3 3
1C
r»
o
c
C)
9 o
•3
9 ts
w
5 9
s
N
Panel (5 Replace, ta 2012
- Cracks likely olue + J,
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
§§
D
5 5
S
s
/
k
17 2
Exeoso, CcfnJeJl g.
-"decP
C
9 •
- o
5 )•

5. —
1 2.4
T
--- 2’—5----- 2‘o/
I.5‘ $‘

N HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-90

5 32‘—O" )
0 G

1.S P
?
(
2/
IC

PANEL B
cos(fss-6)

PANEL C
&
O(ics IjV) t
I.S‘
ortiak Ke Jo+ .8 CS
-C

PANEL D

CHAIN LINK FENCE BELOW
G
&
P3
S
o
e
ISS 2-3
Dela.

Oclav
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
/.

I
messort
lit" deep
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
3)
I
qthgakf srkxuoo

1.5 PANEL A
r
w
3;v s‘
2223"
oAA
A
A leiv/2e2y

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-91

6 5
32‘—0"
2 PANEL A

PANEL B
CCS

PANEL C
3 PANEL D
1 FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering. PLLC
1 2—
8 c
t
9 v
v.
--
I’
I
God SAfice
***i2
pahaA/
{ .sr
9 3).
2/35 L
: -
O • .
8 G
9 S
t
X 1
32 7
( M s
? *
J *
1/ , 7 Y 2 K
A 1olie/2-2y

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-92

7 6
32‘—0"
leeP 2‘ s‘ 12" .3S

0.0)3 •
s’

PANEL A
o s‘

PANEL B
L.s*
ecsCcs 2-93, 46
/
s‘

PANEL C
03 0.01”>2
9 G
1 y
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
YA"
/
I
CCS • Jep Copre
CA)S see ■ So£
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
7 4
a/s"deeccS
**-99

PANEL D
Ci 37,36)
Q
*
S
3 •.016"
029 s‘
ot"
V777777 7
h ‘
(edze ♦ ; --*h - Panuk (t cs so - s 2)
cs SJie"deer
ICS uu-y5 11
7 I ■
22222287*
3 1 oe/2o2y
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
, K
s
:— CCS_______ Cu$33-$3
. 3‘
+——
fiO0el2q-y 51 —
. * / 11 t l 6" z 1______ 1
—
2yu 1Y s‘
; gl
7*32 9
2‘HL 3 J
6‘,*S”wiLe _ 3.SX
D-93

8 7
32‘—0"
3/9 p
3 a PANEL A
X

PANEL B

PANEL C

2.’ 2.’
3) -I PANEL D
x
V
O
o
X
x
t.
6000 Surkue
Peav
6 o
s5
t
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
j
?
1 6
3 g
cCS wl
3/6"dep
oc$ -
(Tie $6-6 2)
C.

I •
2’2’
‘ 3 i
2174 2‘,
2’2

1.21$
Ha-
a
A l • 11 * 12o 2 1

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-94

y\ 9 8
32‘—O"

2.’ i
X 0

PANEL A
1 s w 2" '
w
O
/ PANEL B
M 9
vs 1

PANEL C

PANEL D
a
X
C
Y
I
x
3 M
X
x
T
X
6 ¥
t.
w.

I
t
4 P -
S
9 V
t
S
o
G
s
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
**
I
9 ©
t
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
H
W
s
IS"
2ly
-—t
2‘
o
©
u
5 *
+8
5 o
6 c
1 s
AC
. Ca? <031(90
(? 3, 2 63r
AT )
E y’s
* 43
/ •
‘ y I

3. ye I
53 /
3 2708007 17
**

N HERMOSA BEACH PIER
yzyl’
D-95

10, 9
32‘—O"
(*) denc” Lees
4 C •)
% O
1‘
4 $ PANEL C
P
2‘
6ePo54 PANEL D
JI
£
x
*
s
t
o •
$
)
+
V
w
th
%
e
J
o
>
Galefo
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
5 +
Delam 2*s‘
(PicsI2., 12.1)

PANEL B
L‘

1.S* .
- AFie Li — fol - —
A~+ */ 2 -A Al To,,
‘/t. •. Panel Sie
«ics 130,132)
'/mall Lik (Pic/2, PANEL A 23
* 9
259.

Mier OelamMo Repai
Is’s 2‘
11 8,1 1)
.S’ I.S’
1 beAch,
Ge
e:5{ 4 —---- 5 -
*
k
$s
COP— Lhtfole, fles
t HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-96

11 10.
32‘—0"
S
3 ©
4- PANEL A
V it 9’1”
7 $
&3 PANEL B
u • C >
I.S Qecl
.)

O PANEL C
Edge of
O

PANEL D
8 - Ter Aein- Ol-ceo • Panels B- Jes Mome- ?
— Aele,oale Pos Moma- 2
X
r
I
%
j
y
o
3—
3 y
I
I
»
I
X
*
4 Fxege *
l") beoch Leq s
Tye. Suqta L bmcleet
MaSAn-*s take
+ Fee .4 c 4
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
o.
5+
v
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
Geech leys 5 2
o d
Puels *-c, 6‘* Pes+of &+)o
Y.S3,bW 0vers*es30 Damaq-e C
0*/$eve0 •- so£6—
C .ASide • -T- Kes Mas po+ K
) '
, ,7
Change ~ Qec k
Slope a+
&e-1 ) o
‘5uc‘

17.S*
Fixt Cemov
Cus 130-11
T
.(
e
•
s
X
•
/
> , I
/
1 . I
C
pz’yz’
Ebls , j
k——
—9 (
w (
x* , • I
dmBeach qI
D___o

N HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-97

12. 1 1
32‘—O"
4 e
i

PANEL A
□
‘8
w M PANEL B
4 PANEL C
O
*4 N
0 0
v

PANEL D
8 X
0 n 0
2 A
I
f*
-
W
M
en
4A
<
N
a V
4 *
r
4 Jr
9 o
os
4 A
o
N
4 =
4 o
3 w
o
4 &
s I
o
21 • ' I)
o \
M‘
4 9
e
9 62
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
g $
} *
t
a
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
V \ •
wes
“d
s,V
3 n,
2) D -
o.

0. 6
$
9 I
t 6
0 9 I
. 3
Ma
* •
M s
A
?
M
o
w
i
s/ '
~Ski
ts * s
! d 6. s
——
Dej. - .ss‘
1 10/21 f Zo2 1

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
D-98

13. 12
32’-0”
0 0 Ov

PANEL A
o □
3 C
%
M

PANEL B
0 : --
el •$
h

PANEL C
‘±
e.oj”*6
0 a 4
HLYS • c PANEL D
o a
("4
w
*
z
MI 3 ?
II
M
*
r
o
s
9 %
o
4 w—5
V
st
O
©
2-
X
O.
s
»
g:

FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
I
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
9 G
0%
NJ .
)
3 *» - 08
je,l
P.+C
• o
o.o3"*I /
- — ---------
0 Pics)7,20) •
•.o3"iy/5
If X
v
A /e/29/2o21

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
l------ >
•
9/AO'
D-99

14. 13
32‘—0"
a ‘± + Lencl
V V
3 V O a
PANEL A % o 0
9 3 I3V‘

PANEL B
©
‘?
0)
0 0 PANEL C
tl 2-L" 2 M ‘? e
□ D □ □
0 3 0
“A
e
—
DA
s
0 ? PANEL D
□
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
3 (w) legs.4 2’*.’ Gerct
C190.)
a
o l
T
oe
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
(
S
G
$
3 1S ? ya. J 0*&r
—a %
I
.3
M
—
es
9 Molhple Abandoned
lase-+s e GencE
Les s > CoFroSto- desisk+
• e4
• ' 3 i I— c
w V y it
A
5 re l 20
02 33333 , $3 d5 £
u’i + Geach
i As
-
5*35 s * — — J F— < 0
V V
\
&3
w x )2 19
(Tje.) °K
—
— 1 X - 2’2 .7 2*< 23
92’ 40 3ra •
4, r ‘+f tax 0
•* Soj 373 ‘Gun
i 1o/o/2e2‘

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-100

Io/3o/1.24—Panel P, te/si/2o24 fsA,6,
15 “(14
32‘—0" •J
g
$
N
.S
X 40 PANEL A
9 O
O
(
( J
•3 X

PANEL B
AXXN. O
'J " J o 9
X
7 o PANEL C
A
=CL/R
W A ‘A
•-% PANEL D
e3 •)
•a/
9 J
I
%
M
V
o
s
<4
•(
M
y
V.
ee.
-
9 —
o
o
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
8 *,2
3 SC
5 Sr
793
s.______
3 o’
*
N
cvojs 391/ •
—
*
w J
—t X
*
W
&
d
E
" o
9 6
M
1 -
0 o
st
-
2 o
d— Cn kA 9
9 7 J 3P
7 .
:);/ g::2: at
V -
“ w -
y s
il46
1 1-
/ S 521-2 J J!J
„2-**,2 ve/e
B9•ip— v6
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER N
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK 4
OCTOBER 2024 « C 3
= r — s C
‘3e
D-101

1 6. 15.
32‘—0"
X
o
w 0 0 V w PANEL A
Ms O
•J
X
J
r*
$
I
0 X
W N
M0,8/<,S4 72t*d Ad
0 I : al W
(2) ef C
o
12d
e
o
o
, /
)3q
M
5 ?
3 9
o

X PANEL C
9 s

PPANEL B
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
r
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
3,
9 Ik?
£ x
3*
Y
8 PANEL D
5 F
= PH 2
‘ .g •
. J
—0
6 ' V
0 n
9 I
s
3 5
2 ?
6 / "/S’l
*tjad
“___
s )
1 u/5/2o24

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-102

II s/2o2y
17 16
32‘—O"
0 t
co
X
* B J
_ -
0 x
r t

PANEL A
WA W
S <4
2- 0 PANEL B
© 1
W
€3 M. (=
5 U
o

M PANEL C
599’/3*7H X
X
L
a 1301 PANEL D
1 M 3
s 2t, 2 **/°C
a
I
—s
o
J
r
M“a
o
o
•A
J
X
3,
t
o
A
B
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
3 o
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
0 1
9 es_ L
. &
M, A
x .
- 1
M
3 X
0 - 9
• s
s 3
? 1
M.—e
.6
o
y s
- 6
PCs

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
O t
. 0
D-103

18 17
32‘—O"
T @
X
63 33 .

PANEL A w 9 O A
V)
v

PANEL B
5 % 9
r
•3
“! M
re
$
o PANEL C
•.) *
•»
2 X) 0 : J20(21 - S
M V. PANEL D
3 O
v
z.s’* 23 1 —fakl —»
J
X
c
o
2 3
O
5 V
6 o
1 O
9 O
2 5M
,0? <
*,32 yabo—7
- C
c s
G 3?
_*
os
7 ©
e.

ESN
Engineering. PLLC
_
O
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
3 S
ri
5 t
d z' z h s ? *0
X
t
. 9
"? 2 •
I rs
"s
: 3] * .
/ G
3; E :

V? es
r Q
o
3) ?
( o

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
D-104

19 18.
32‘—0"
M
X (

PANEL A
C : 0
3‘>i Z’Pkk
3 PANEL B O
9 e9
o

O PANEL C
e
‘?
@6
92*0,324,%
0J a
0( PANEL D
a
2 t
s
3 r3
o 5
o
0 6
es
6 s
—
6 o
y
g
2en
3 e"
2 t
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
?
w
J
«
9 o
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
t % 1- oso
o
49 2 el
- 0
6 9
o
s
-V
(
0 j
y
)
•‘o, 3‘2*,S7—
A u/o/2o2t

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
X
( Cench
a -I
D-105

20 19
32’-0”
13 •
Q

X PANEL A
C U
N

PANEL B
M
> •3 £
00 $ C
e PANEL C
X
2 a a
s PANEL D
3 a 0 G
4 0
B2Ac k Rs~el
4 T
f
o
Mo
- J
, 3
@
©
J
I
M
s
o .
• 3
X
3 o
I
9 o
a

1.s1
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
©
ws Ow
- £
t -If —r Gw
X 5
w o
— a
< &
w
Beech
□
M
o
Ml
. 3
• 2
J
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER N
U:
42 D-106

21 20
32‘—0"
Q
I
I
<1
0 © PANEL A
A
c wn

PANEL B
- < —
PANEL C 0
O
IN N
G 0
5 PANEL D
r) V. $3
a 3
A
is0 •
0 4
o
J
I
o
©
»
9 o
3 s
<4
0 o
<
e
3 0
x
h
€
-5
3 4
x
<
w
0 0
I
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
G V
w
5 .

6. 2
" ‘y r) .
*
9 o
Zeack
■ 3)NNN N
s f
Tp
£
w
g
•lC—
5 !
/.I
: $
3 o
7 •

N HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-107

22 NJ J e
3 PANEL A
t

O' PANEL B
/Y7H
•) 1)
(4

PANEL C
<
<\
C
V
0 0 PANEL D
1 <4
$
s
CCS
~] Po, 6 C s
J
X
J
I
J
I
5 6,
r
9 o
W
<
c
X
s
4 ‘s
2 ?
Dels,
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
i 6
* — &
1 »0y2*0 =,
N
i
0 »092*d r,
X
$3 s
W
ESN
21) Engineering. PLLC
2 33 AX AP
1 . W 3
32’-0”
, /
: L N A . (
1 n/u/2o2y

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
?
> 7
* ;
J
D-108

23. 22
32‘—0"
•) a
2 3 PANEL A
□ 0
~J
23 i
5 o
6 0 r X PANEL B
R
I.S7
I
Ji N
%)
X
X ?

O PANEL C
V
a
1 4

X PANEL D
(3 C
S
9 6
o
4 o
\
w
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
M
J —
33 S “ < —
w
s ?
3*
f “
3 3
$2
9 J
Usa
“NNN
oltn *4)
- 77
93s y ak 21/1
Tn । i 7 7
Deke, 1.s‘
f 1% —-----—4
eb ( e
A n/1/2021

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
)
?
D-109

24 23
32‘—O"
“? Wre)yw ?
o
& PANEL A
o O
> S (
2 PANEL B
O
Q
1 N
M
9 0 PANEL C
9 19°o
e$
o ? PANEL D
3 O
"? A__I
v
MA
C
o
o
M
o
j
I
N
o
V
e
?
o
4 a
N
o
J
I
V
<
VI
?
o
s
7 2
o
s
5 o
0 o
2 o
o
P
?
9 FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
cl8
.9 5
- 8
XX)
s
s
o
t •
6 p
6 y
33 w G
2 o
s(

2.%
o
4 P
3 3* .
v o
0 6
o
VY.
ui“
2 k
1 2
ds 0
BWe/2,
= < •
— w
‘ .)s -(-(n
.. V
.S
, , $3
•nc ©
CJ__________
7$*4
* J
v — I t x
L ‘
N
D
o
6 A n/e/2o21

J HERMOSA BEACH PIER
N
D-110

.25 .24
32‘—0"
• 1 2
o'

O I PANEL A
‘?
n
•P
4 PANEL B
AARROk
o

D PANEL C
3 T
we •)
r eb NJ r)
V -
o PANEL D
r 1
t G
S(11 *r(d
I
• \ v
• 1
e
<4
M
5 w
I
©
0 6
2 s
o
2 s
6 2
9 5
o
8 @
3 "Ya
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
,h*,Sl
ww(g
-9
- 3
M
6 st
U
,419 Z
SO
V
—
s
9 *
.7
(
0 8
s
j.
!3” *

1. w —
• -S
- A EY
2 (
De lam 2 >2‘
C
ssN
_ / Z
I 3.5 ‘*•‘
n
L
0 ” 5»
o
73 w ( to
k M
: 3
• o
• s
A 12/17/2021

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IX
cesses'
£” •
4910- o
~0
|
D-111

.26 .25
32-0”
9 Beach
W
3 -40o
4 D
5 PANEL A
0 w
O 4 PANEL B
<A M
r r
e)
$

PANEL C
O
•3 -9 1

PANEL D
O o
8 ft e)
I
J
I
O
o
£
S
X
0 o
0 o
o I
o
2 $
c
9 o
2 I
o
o
8 ESN
Engineering. PLLC
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
N
0 o
M
• X
• w
w y
W
c A
J M
\

1. ol
A,to‘0 CS.

V
‘ L
33 e)
i s
x no
9 s
0 y3
J
9 o V
J
M
1 N
7 %
Mgs «
• 2 w 0
S3. U
sb i
0 oe el
9 A 12/17/2.24

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN
D-112

.27 .26
32‘—0"
s
5v
s

V PANEL A
a *4 % NyS

I PANEL B
O o N O
rJ
1) •e 5
0 “A V

A PANEL C O
J
0 PANEL D
,o too 1 9
J
ase
0 s
r
o
2 m
«
o
9 9
o
?
6 3
9 J
7 2
0 1 o
w
B
%
3 6
o
6 8
9 3
o ,44 lo.,
• sa
ESN
Engineering. PLLC
of”
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
X
n
2273 198 ( 2s V •
w Ui
3 o
2 s
‘3
o
o
o N
Ss
Uk w
J,*
y s
3 8
•133w)
.*u%/n,etr,s
99’ +3
s
5 V)
v
w6
v
V
sM
27 o.
• 3 ( *
k %
- o l
,, 0’0
3 I
3— o I (S“KM1 g n
CCS II AX 4
• (3>
5r ecs 2
A 12/17/2 24

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IM
0 s
D
o , %
D-113

11 Iloly
.28. 27
32‘—0"
e)
J ‘S
PANEL A LavA* PD
5 PANEL B
O
4 J&o
6 0 PANEL C
S w eb
0 PANEL D
3 •Sto- 4A
, 24,5 533
J
I
o
J
X
0 4
X
<
J
s<
8 o
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
!
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
?
I
o
5 «
<
s
2‘*2‘del..
%
&
0 I
CP
o
I
—y £8.“ -- *“
2554
3 3 ,
K”7
(2
• X
3t .
- 6
3 552
s 1

3. cS
Small ope- Spalls
V 2
N 0
z‘*s‘cc$ w/ s-aloper
4 K (
03 “Tel •
(“o \
o,Yo-c. I
: 3_
• •
w
. HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-114

.29, .28,
32‘—O"
oo)” PANEL A
*4

PANEL B
e-8
2 4
2)2
9 % PANEL C
Ml
o
9 PANEL D
r3
- ,S°C3,S MPo
4 9
O
o
O
o
X
%.
$
9 9 03”
-
s $
“ w
a
?
V
C
,2*
,o*
J
I
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024 ESN
Engineering, PLLC
0ics(1oS-t07
co s’yt’
1 )
s
o.p2">2‘
j)
a i
o
s
1 3"
7 3
s
o
<
H*
---- H.
_____ Mu___
Jl J
? V
- - RONNN RRSk NWJ)
/s) 3
31" .
—
t
O
1 s
S
4 o
317
3 T x
. $ 2
2 2 3
v *
- 5 • V •
es (3s

13. 9
> {
crCe
$— v 9
A 1/S/262“

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER
IN
D-115

.30 .29.
32’-0”
e8
f, l°‘O

PANEL A
SRNNsdoooooouo
t ,?!-
6 3/ 9 PANEL B
o
Ui
M
V
3 9
I

I PANEL C
S /
- 1
2 5 PANEL D
yys -/o ns/o )
V
VA
-
I
3 X
C
M
*
co
kA
•
2 o
o
2 1e
$
o
9 o
6 FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
9 4
I
st X
c ?
81 21
6 ESN
Engineering. PLLC
5 T
(00
1 4
1 *
« — —
38g
28 2 " ""*7r I is
t
&&}
ax
"4
X
- 4
940
o
. 9 x 5
9 6 .

AOOA00.NNAWAOORSSASNN]
\
l n/e/o24
s HERMOSA BEACH PIER
3 t 3 E
D-116

31 .30
32’-0”
CC $ lo”>2o”

PANEL A
I
BASS

X PANEL B
M)
9 f 3
P
o PANEL C
Rw
O

PANEL D
O
9 *7
XGAM7
2 T
s
V
(3 So
2 e
l
w
5 3
9 5 A773
? $ $ 3
9‘
(e
‘s
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
00°
h
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
2 o
WWM
/ 2
€ v
• >
as
£*.
— • *
**
XAAS
9 \
UNl
, 2
28 33 N
1 W 83!
De law w/
•-Spalls 2) 2
D
122
il
s HERMOSA BEACH PIER
D-117

32 31
32‘—O"
M @)
o

PANEL A
r3
M v

PANEL B
9 r
% M D
I X o

O PANEL C
N
o 0 PANEL D
3 □
3?
C
w
e
o
o
9 4
/ 974,1
e— ya*00
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
< *
0 *
s 8 ’
“ t)
es
O
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
9 &
<
2 id —
-£3 iis
M
{
223
3 " £ < s
V 9
• ex
r3
o
t
9 3:1
Wx,
s0
:»'“ U °32c - —U-6
• 99 9 J 5
o (
43 JA11303
.M -8• ( a Q s
0 • .o’ ‘ ♦ ——-

I HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
D-118

33 32‘—0"
M
M
9 PANEL A
O
0 c V
6 RR e PANEL B Py280
ro M e •a I
%
o PANEL C
9 r)
el

PANEL D
2 4
P
/£l
P
o
13 O
,‘*,3
PMPJ
7 e
0 tt
0 2 4
0 %
5 o
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
__
s
ces s‘*s.s '
•/Small op1 spa iff
20 2
<
- S
4 £
— •)
H o
ESN
32) Engineering, PLLC
• $
1 as 18)
M 3
o
3• —
= t
- .

LCS ^'xs'^1
cvetn *pals 3
NNTWNRRNs
WB
o k A o
y St i — ‘
5 3
, 10-0 I
U •
hts
ad
l n|e/2o2

T HERMOSA BEACH PIER IN
D-119

.34 33
9‘—O" 23‘—0"
O o
3 PANEL A
O
>
i PANEL B
e C. tP
O
a 0 PANEL C
-- —D •$ rS

T PANEL D
M
MM
M
o
-
X
I
A
M
o
s
M
6 J
X
4 T
J
I
o
i
%
8 6
o
o
9 o
%
8 V/apa P0Pccss‘>% '
3 ©
FIELD NOTES: TOP DECK
OCTOBER 2024
J
r
4 X
ESN
Engineering, PLLC
2 - •
o.onc”)
.» to
113‘ 3
A
aGO
V
t1
J. HERMOSA BEACH PIER IX
‘ (,
. ‘om
-- ■
—
e
8 —
7%% 3
D-120

35 .34
25‘—0"
No,h
t
V* 03
9 < PANEL A-3
% 0
2( 0
9 %9
o. 7
6 G
PANEL A-2 0
£3 — £
€.
o PANEL A-1 MV
R
PANEL A 09
0 L
18 r

PANEL B
•o r
rwaal

2.s‘xs‘ De law.
9 6
0 0
9 ft
I
r
a
3 m
n
c
o.
6 ©
8 c
i
c
Q *
G V
U —
ft
ft
63 o
9 s
v P.