CC SR 20191015 02 - CCAC presentation to CCRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/15/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to receive a presentation from the Civic Center
Advisory Committee; approve the Civic Center programming document prepared by M.
Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc.; and authorize an environmental impact report for
Point Vicente Park/Civic Center, authorize staff to develop a Request for Proposal with
two phases for an architect to provide master plan design services and construction
drawings, and hiring an experienced consultant to evaluate financing options
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a presentation from the Civic Center Advisory Committee
(CCAC);
(2) Approve the Civic Center programming document prepared by M. Arthur Gensler
Jr. & Associates, Inc.;
(3) Authorize an environmental impact report for Point Vicente Park/Civic Center;
(4) Authorize staff to develop a Request for Proposal with two phases for an
architect to provide master plan design services and construction drawings; and
(5) Authorize hiring a professional consultant to evaluate financing options.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Amount Budgeted: $227,300
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s): 330-400-8503-8402
(CIP Fund – Civic Center – Building Improvements)
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Timeline of Civic Center and CCAC milestones (Page A-1)
B. Citywide survey and open house results (Page B-1)
C. CCAC-approved Civic Center draft program document (page C-1)
D. September 3, 2019 City Council land use update staff report (page D-1)
E. Civic Center project schedule (page E-1)
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City Council approved a Parks Master Plan Update on October 6, 2015, which
included a recommendation for a separate Master Plan process for the Point Vicente
Park/Civic Center property. Following a citywide survey conducted in late 2016/early
2017, the City began recruitment for a Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) on
March 7, 2017. A seven-person committee was selected on August 15, 2017 and the
CCAC met for the first time on September 28, 2017. The CCAC’s primary goal was to
develop a Master Plan for City Council review. A summary of the Civic Center Master
Plan process and the activities of the CCAC is attached (Attachment A).
This report addresses the following items:
Program document
Projected schedule
Programming Document
The CCAC began the process of preparing a program document for the Civic Center
site on May 24, 2018, when it directed Staff to request authorization from the City
Council to proceed with the preparation of a request for proposals (RFP) to find a
qualified firm. Before the RFP was distributed, M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc.
(Gensler), one of the largest and most esteemed architectural and design firms in the
United States, offered to perform pro bono services for the City for civic center
programming work. The CCAC voted to recommend Gensler’s offer on June 28, 2018
and the City Council approved it on July 17, 2018. Since that approval, Gensler has
worked with Staff and the CCAC to refine the program document and develop draft
conceptual designs.
A program document numerically and statistically depicts the size, relationships,
connections, and barriers between and among the various uses, functions and activities
within a site or building. It is created to have a specific and measurable plan for a
project against which to measure the multiple phases of design and to determine
compliance with these original specific goals. It depicts the relationships between the
functional areas within a site or building, rather than a specific arrangement of rooms,
corridors, buildings, and open areas. It also establishes the same criteria and
relationships for all outdoor spaces on a site.
In order to develop a thorough and thoughtful program document, the CCAC, staff and
Gensler undertook the following steps:
Conducted meetings with Staff and focus groups
Met with all City departments
Visited the site
2
Studied historical documents, past Civic Center plans, the 2016 -17 citywide
survey, and other relevant documents
Conducted an open house on August 8, 2019, which was attended by 93 people.
Attendees were afforded the opportunity to learn about the project’s history,
physical dimensions and constraints, and potential components. Attendees
indicated their preference for particular components and offered comments about
the project (Attachment B).
The program document was discussed and refined at multiple CCAC meetin gs.
Below is a correlation of public responses from the 2016-17 survey and August 2018
open house.
In both the survey and the open house results, active recreation components scored
relatively low. Passive elements and public safety components scored consistently high.
City facilities (City Hall, Council chambers, and maintenance yard) were only addressed
at the open house. These results played a significant role in CCAC’s decisions as to
which components to recommend. A detailed review of the open house and survey
results was presented to the CCAC on August 23, 2018 (Attachment B)
The CCAC approved a draft Civic Center program document on July 8, 2019 and
directed Staff to present it to the City Council (Attachment C).
Below is the Civic Center Program Document Summary:
3
The program document includes detailed square footage based on office space,
meeting and storage areas, and other needs for each City department: Administration,
Finance, Public Works, Community Development, and Recreation and Parks. The
recommended 32,891 gross square footage (GSF) for the existing City Hall buildings is
smaller than its current footprint of 38,700 (GSF). The program document also includes
common areas such as the lobby, conference rooms, production rooms
(copiers/scanners/printers), server room, and record storage.
The document also includes details for the following components:
City Council chambers
Parking
Overflow parking
Potential Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy leasable office space
4
Trailhead parking
Service/loading area
Trash/recycling component
Emergency generator enclosure
Helipad
Monopole
AT&T equipment enclosure
Emergency communications antenna and yard
Proposed Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System
monopole
Public Works maintenance yard
Village green open space
Public plaza
Park amenities/picnic pavilion
Shade structures
Children’s play amenities
Dog park
Amphitheater
Open space for future amenities
Community center
Trailhead facilities (restroom building(s)
Café (5,000 est. gross square feet or GSF) (While the committee thought a café
would be a good use of the property, a stand alone café would not be an
allowable use given the approved uses of the property)
The document also includes analysis and square footage estimates for a Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department substation (12,323 est. GSF), a medium fire station
(12,885 est. GSF), and an emergency operations center (4,106 est. GSF). Staff has
held ongoing discussions with the Sheriff’s Department and the L.A. County Fire
Department about the possibility of locating stations at the Civic Center site. Both
agencies have expressed interest in being part of the project. Representatives from
both agencies have met with the CCAC.
The report appendix includes an inventory of existing buildings on site as well as other
considered uses (pool, gym, skate park, ball fields) that were not recommended by the
CCAC. These components received low levels of support in the citywide survey and at
the public workshop.
Gensler has also produced draft conceptual d esign studies and a model of the site that
were presented to the CCAC. These designs were done to graphically demonstrate how
the potential components could be laid out on the site in a functional and aesthetically
pleasing manner. They were done for illustrative purposes only; they were not intended
as final or recommended options. These conceptual designs also assumed a “blank-
slate” site with no land use constraints. The current status on land use constraints is
discussed below.
5
Land Use Update and Constraints
Significant progress has been made recently to address the site’s land use constraints.
The City Council was updated on these developments on September 3, 2019
(Attachment D). Since the Civic Center property was acquired f rom the federal
government as part of the National Park Service's (NPS) Federal Lands to Parks
Program, it has been overseen by the NPS. Significant conservation easements have
been in place on part of the property, thus limiting uses. The area outlined in yellow
below shows the portion of the property restricted to “general government use.” The
area outlined in red has been restricted to “passive recreational use.”
The City worked unsuccessfully with the NPS for 25 years to lift deed restrictions on the
red outlined area, most recently to allow the placement of public safety facilities such as
a fire station, Sheriff’s Department substation, updated helipad, and emergency
operations center. Recently, the City received formal approval to transfer overs ight of
the property from the NPS to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This transfer changes the allowed use of the
red outlined section from passive recreation to public safety use.
6
While the shift to FEMA and DOJ oversight is a positive and long-awaited development,
broad constraints are still in place. The permitted uses in the red section are still limited
to public safety components. Permitted uses in the yellow zone are still limited to
general government use. The City is looking into the possibility of receiving permission
to exchange or “swap” equivalent sections of the yellow and red sections of the property
to allow for maximum flexibility in placing components. This would allow a “general
government use” component, such as City Council chambers, to be located in the red
zone, while a public safety component, such as a helipad, could be located in the yellow
zone.
Projected Schedule
The CCAC directed Staff to put together a projected committee schedule, showing both
past and potential future CCAC/Civic Center Master Plan milestones at its July 8, 2019
meeting. The schedule was approved to be sent to the Council by the CCAC at its
September 17, 2019 meeting, pending a final review by the CCAC subcommittee
consisting of Chair Carolynn Petru and member Lisa Jankovich (Attachment E).
The draft proposed schedule took a very conservative approach in terms of time and
spans five years, beginning on October 15, 2019 with City Council review of the
program document and continues through construction completion in March 2025.
Certain phases could be shortened.
The project is divided into four main stages:
Planning/environmental review
Architecture and design
Financing
Construction
The proposed planning/environmental review stage consists of two main elements: a)
an environmental impact report; and b) coordination with the L.A. County Sheriff’s and
Fire departments to formalize their participation. Extensive public outreach with the
community, including homeowners associations, interested parties, and public
workshops would be a part of this stage.
The proposed architecture and design stage consists of conducting an RFP process
prior to entering into a contract with an architecture design firm. The selected company
would first develop a Master Plan/schematic design for City Council review and
approval. Assuming the master plan is approved, this would be followed by the second
phase of its contract, the development of detailed construction drawings and cost
estimates for Council review. This stage would also include extensive, ongoing public
outreach.
7
On the schedule, it shows the proposed financing stage running concurrently with the
last few months of the architecture and design stage when there is a more accurate cost
estimate. However, various financing options and approaches could be analyzed sooner
to assist the City in understanding each option and the costs and benefits. It is
recommended that the Council hire an experienced consultant versed in construction
financing to perform this analysis, including working with the County on potential
financing scenarios. The consultant would prepare a report to be presented to the
CCAC and the Finance Advisory Committee, and ultimately to the Council. The
expected cost of this analysis would be $25,000 or less.
The proposed construction stage consists of an RFP process prior to entering into a
contract with a qualified construction company. Construction is estimated at 500
working days or approximately two calendar years. The schedule includes regular
Council updates on construction progress. It is anticipated that the CCAC’s involvement
with the project would cease after the architecture and design/financing stage.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Direct Staff not to proceed with an environmental impact report for the
Point Vicente Park/Civic Center site.
2. Do not approve the Civic Center program document.
3. Provide alternative direction to the CCAC.
8
CCAC Timeline (Excerpt from July 25, 2019 CCAC Staff report/August and September
2019 items added)
DATE Milestone Event
Oct. 6, 2015 City Council approves Park Master Plan Update. Recommends
separate Master Plan process for Civic Center.
Nov. 15, 2016 City Council approves Civic Center Master Plan Survey.
Dec. 2016/Jan.
2017
Community survey for Civic Center Master Plan project mailed to all
RPV residences. 2,300 returned: 17% return rate.
The highest-rated components identified in the survey included picnic
facilities, trailheads, public safety first responder facilities/heliport, village
green/public plaza, shade structures, community center, amphitheater,
playground and permanent dog park.
March 7, 2017 City Council receives Staff report summarizing survey results. Adopts
resolution to form the CCAC.
April-July 2017 Recruitment and Interviews of Committee Candidates
June 20, 2017 City Council receives a report summarizing the status of the Civic
Center Master Plan Project.
August 15, 2017 Council selects seven (7) candidates to serve on the Committee
Sept. 28, 2017 Council selects Bill Gerstner as Chair and Noel Park /Committee holds
its first meeting September 28. Received overview of survey results and
Master Plan process to date. Reviewed draft work plan.
Oct. 25, 2017 CCAC Mtg. Received Civic Center Site Timeline and analysis of survey
results.
Nov. 30, 2017 CCAC Mtg. Reviewed and approved report on existing and needed Civic
Center services and amenities.
Jan. 25, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Discussion of US Coast Guard acquisition process. Report
presented on ALTA survey status; Report on survey of recent Civic
Center projects
Feb. 22, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Update on land-use restrictions, review of existing
uses/additional needs matrix and proposed outreach plan. Early
discussion of program document.
March 22, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Presentation by LACO Fire Dept. Chief John Mancha.
Discussion of program document/securing firm to produce the
document. Presentation of Current usage levels at park facilities.
May 24, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Discussion of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment-
Staff directed to proceed with RFP. Staff directed to proceed with RFP
for development of programming document.
June 28, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Presentation by PVPLC, Update on
administrative/legislative remedies to land-use restrictions/review of
Phase 1//2 ESA/discussion of M. Arthur Gensler Jr. and Associates, Inc.
(Gensler) providing pro bono work on programming document
July 17, 2018 City Council approves pro bono services from Gensler
A-1
July 26, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Approved RFP for Phase 1/2 ESA. Review of Gensler’
involvement in Programming document and upcoming community
outreach meeting.
August 8, 2018 Community Outreach meeting at PVIC. Facilitated by Gensler with
support from Staff and Committee members. 93 attendees.
August 23, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Update on development of preliminary program document
by Gensler. Review of workshop results. Provided direction to Gensler.
Oct. 4, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Presentation/discussion with LA County Sheriff’s
Department Commander, Keith Swensson, provided direction
Nov. 1, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Update on development of program document. Received
design presentation from Gensler. Discussion of corporation yard
alternate locations, fire risk, and fire station. Committee approved
program components.
Dec. 6, 2018 CCAC Mtg. Received update on Civic Center Master Plan Conceptual
Design. Received analysis of possible inclusion of LA County Fire
Station in program document main section. Recommendation for
inclusion of fire station not accepted.
Feb. 7, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Land Use Update-NPS plans to turn over control of site to
General Services Administration (GSA). Discussion of programming
document components-no action taken.
Feb-March 2019 Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments performed by AEI
April 16, 2019 City Council Mtg. Received update on CCAC progress.
April 25, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Discussion of status and future direction of Committee
May 7, 2019 City Council Mtg. Council appoint Carolynn Petru as new CCAC Chair.
Directs all advisory boards and the Planning Commission to report on
activities at a Council Meeting bi-annually.
May 21, 2019 City Council Mtg. City Council assigns City Council liaisons to City
Committees and Commissions. Mayor Jerry Duhovic and
Councilmember Susan Brooks to serve as CCAC liaisons.
May 23, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Presentation on land use restrictions. Committee directed
Gensler to move fire station and corporation yard into regular section of
programming document. Received report on Phase 1/2 investigations.
July 8, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Approved revised programming document and directed
Staff to present to Council at future meeting date. Received
presentation from Gensler on programming document and revised
conceptual design.
July 25, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Scheduled meeting to discuss CCAC timeline
August 21, 2019 CCAC Mtg. Review/refinement of Civic Center Master Plan schedule
Sept. 3, 2019 Update on Land-use restrictions presented to City Council. Shift from
NPS to FEMA and DOJ. Passive recreation constrained section of
property shifted to Public Safety.
Sept. 17, 2019 Review of presentation materials and format that will be presented to
Council in October, including program document, schedule, and Gensler
presentation.
A-2
Rancho Palos Verdes Civic Center Advisory Committee
AUGUST 23, 2018
B-1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 2
Agenda
+ Open House Analysis & Key Findings
+ Preliminary Programming
+ Q + A
+ Next Steps
DRAFT
B-2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 3
RPV Civic CenterOpen House Summary
AUGUST 2018
DRAFT
B-3
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 4
Open House Context
Methods
Assigned Stickers
Comments
Conversations
+93 RPV Sign-In Sheet 8-8-2018
+9 Completed Open House Comment Forms
+106 Individual Stickers (Live / Work)
+842 Total Stickers Votes for Elements
Attendance Summary
DRAFT
B-4
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 5
RANCHO PALOS
VERDES CITY HALL
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
AT HESSE PARK
Where Do You Live / Work?
SITE PLAN 1: Completed Open House
Board with Realtor Boundary Overlay
SITE PLAN 2: RPV HOA Boundary
SITE PLAN 3: Completed
Open House Board with RPV
HOA Boundary Overlay
DRAFT
B-5
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 6
Where Do You Live / Work?
RPV Realtor / HOA Boundary Individuals Percentage %
La Cresta 177 28 26.4%
Del Cerro 27 25.5%
The Island View 1 0.9%
NA*16 15.1%
NA*16 15.1%
Palos Verdes Drive South 169 13 12.3%
Ladera Linda 5 4.7%
NA*1 0.9%
Portuguese Bend Community 3 2.8%
Seabluff 2 1.9%
Seaview Residents 2 1.9%
Country Club 171 10 9.4%
La Cresta 5 4.7%
Monaco 1 0.9%
Monte Verde Property Owners 1 0.9%
Monte Verdes Estates 3 2.8%
Los Verdes 173 7 6.6%
NA*4 3.8%
Pacific View 3 2.8%
PV Drive West 170 7 6.6%
Oceanview 3 2.8%
Vista de Pacifica 1 0.9%
West Palos Verdes Estates 3 2.8%
Crest 174 4 3.8%
Mesa Palos Verdes 2 1.9%
Ridgegate 1 0.9%
Stoneridge Palos Verdes 1 0.9%
Mira Catalina 168 4 3.8%
El Prado Estates 2 1.9%
Mediterrania 1 0.9%
NA*1 0.9%
Silver Spur 176 4 3.8%
Littlebow 2 1.9%
Lower Grandview 1 0.9%
NA*1 0.9%
RPV Realtor / HOA Boundary (Continued)Individuals Percentage %
PV Drive East 167 4 3.8%
Colt Road 2 1.9%
Miraleste 1 0.9%
Miraleste Hills Community 1 0.9%
Eastview 177 2 1.9%
Rolling Hills Reviera 2 1.9%
Redondo Beach / Torrance Area 2 1.9%
Redondo Beach / Torrance Area 2 1.9%
Huntington Beach Area 2 1.9%
Huntington Beach Area 2 1.9%
Coastal San Pedro Area 2 1.9%
Coastal San Pedro Area 2 1.9%
Peninsula Center 175 1 0.9%
Peninsula Rim 1 0.9%
Grand Total 106 100%
NOTE:
* The large amount of undefined groups "NA" were a result of either: individuals participating in the voting
exercise but did not identify their location, identified location does not fit in any of the boundaries and/or the
individual's designated number was obstructed/overlapped by others.
= Realtor Boundary
= RPV HOA Boundary
DRAFT
B-6
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 7
LEGACY FOCUS ON
COMMUNITY
FLEXIBILITY +
FUNCTIONALITY
Site Vision | Aspirations
Key Themes
CONNECTION TO
NATURE + VIEWS
WELCOMING +
ACCOMMODATING
DRAFT
B-7
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 8
FOCUS ON
COMMUNITY
CONNECTION TO
NATURE + VIEWS
WELCOMING +
ACCOMMODATING
FLEXIBILITY +
FUNCTIONALITY
Site Vision | Aspirations
+Let’s not duplicate facilities
that are already available at
parks in RPV.
+No bond/tax measures.
Changing demographics.
Youth consideration should
be taken into account.
+Modern, low key and
functional. Representative of
quality and city.
+Efficient working
environment for city
employees. User friendly
for public state-of-the-art
facilities all in one location
for proper management.
+Expand and improve facilities
while maintaining the natural
‘feel’ of RPV.
+Quiet, hospitable, climate-
appropriate and versatile.
+What are the real costs?
+Simple and welcoming!
+Renovate City Hall to receive
visitors.
+A place where people can
gather for contemplation and
meditation.
+Safe and accessible.
+A city this beautiful should
have a more welcoming City
Hall.
+Cater towards youth, seniors
and those with accessible
needs.
+Passive use + public safety.
+Adequate parking for all
activities and meetings.
+Entrance for trails at City
Hall.
+Provide exhibits for
interpreting the surrounding
nature preserve.
+Landscape grounds for
passive recreation with
drought resistant nature
plants and walking trails.
+Maintain as much of the
views of the ocean as
possible while making
improvements.
+Provide picnic facilities with
shade structures.
+Blend with the natural
surroundings and energy
efficient.
+Maximize opportunities for
the public to enjoy the site as
a coastal outdoor space with
expansive views.
+Consideration for nearby
neighborhoods for parking,
noise, trash and crime.
+Outdoor public art exhibit
space.
+Access for emotional support
groups.
+Drinking water station for
people and dogs.
+Free for residents? Free for
others?
+Space for community
presentations.
+Rural feel, with safer
walkways or paths – seniors
hard to walk on uneven grass
/ dirt.
+Point Vicente is the last place
in southern California left to
feel like a small town instead
of a mall. Let’s keep it that
way!
NOTE:
Comments were taken directly
from Open House documentation
and transcribed for this summary.
LEGACY
+Make a connection and
celebrate the historical
aspects of the site.
+Open up the missile silos for
public education.
+Modify silos (there are plenty
of retired engineers in PV
that may have suggestions.
DRAFT
B-8
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 9
01/16/18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Proposed Boundaries
0.045
Miles
¯Existing Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC Δ = 11.24 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC
Exisiting Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Existing Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC
= 11.24 AC
01/16/18
N
Civic Center Site | Boundaries
DRAFT
B-9
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 10
Civic Center Site
+Any structures whether new or redeveloped should be low
profile, blend with the natural surroundings and energy
efficient.
+The maintenance yard should be moved off site if possible. If
it must stay it needs to be designed efficiently and screened.
+Trim/remove foliage, get rid of maintenance yard and replace
with benches, shade structures and tables.
+Preserve the coastline view to the east for the public.
+Views over the site must be preserved and vistas enhanced.
Issues + Constraints
Existing Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC
1
6
71 5
12
34
1
4
3
2
51
2
3
4
5
Civic Center Site | Issues, Constraints + Opportunities
+Trailhead.
+Park area with some shade, grass or ground cover. Benches
and picnic tables (not parked vehicles).
+Picnic Area.
+Native Center.
+A city this beautiful should have a more welcoming City Hall
(Welcome Center, AC, Heat!).
+The community needs a civic focal point – a public gathering
space to engage the residents and welcome visitors.
+Cut down foliage to look towards Santa Monica with benches.
Opportunities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRAFT
B-10
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 11
36
22
11
38
31 29 29
57
31 27 26 26 26 23 22 19 16 15 11 10 7 6 554 3
INDIVIDUAL VOTES BY CATEGORY
Insights:
+Trailheads were by far the most popular with 57 individual votes and a total vote of 283 (the next closest had 46
total votes). Participants felt very strongly about trailheads and voted multiple times on this element.
+Active recreation sites such as the pool, multi-sports gym, skate park, multi-purpose playing field, tennis courts, volleyball
court, basketball and baseball/softball scored very low.
+In general, Public Safety scored consistently high.
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Results
CITY FACILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY SPACES
Note: Chart represents 1 vote per individual.
DRAFT
B-11
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 12
Avoid the “mall” public
plaza.
Keep the current City
Hall, build an addition
if needed.
City Hall is a symbol of the
civic frugality and responsi-
ble management which has
served RPV so well.
A City Hall that we can be
proud of and give us effective,
efficient space for our govern-
ment and use for our citizens.
Keep it simple.
City Hall is not a
playground.CITY FACILITIES
CITY HALL
Includes offices for all city departments, public counter(s), public and private
meeting rooms, records storage and IT equipment.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 36
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 3/26
CITY FACILITIES RANK: 1/3
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-12
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 13
Excellent Idea.
CITY FACILITIES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Permanent space City Council and commission/committee meetings at City
Hall, audiovisual facilities, flexible use (multi-purpose, training, etc.)
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 22
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T13/26
CITY FACILITIES RANK: 2/3
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-13
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 14
Does the City have
other property for this?
Strange use of
coastal land.
Yes, if no other
practical and suitable
location can be found.
Fuel?
The maintenance yard should
be moved off site. If it must
stay it needs to be designed
efficiently and screened.
CITY FACILITIES
PUBLIC WORKS / MAIN YARD
Vehicle, equipment and material storage, staging and storage for the City’s
maintenance contractors.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 11
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 19/26
CITY FACILITIES RANK: 3/3
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: *No clear favorite*
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Palos Verdes Drive South 169 & Country Club 171
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-14
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 15
Safety facilities should be
considered as critical public
infrastructure. They are a need
not a want.
What are the real costs for
FD (Fire Department) and PD
(Police Department). Is this
justified?
PUBLIC SAFETY
SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION
Small, new substation with no jail, enhance response times and coverage on
the south and west sides of the Peninsula.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 38
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 2/26
PUBLIC SAFETY RANK: 1/4
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro, La Cresta & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177 & Country Club 171
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-15
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 16
Safety facilities should be
considered as critical public
infrastructure. They are a need
not a want.
Combine with Police
and Fire Facilities if
possible.
PUBLIC SAFETY
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC)
Permanent space for emergency operations at City Hall, current facility not
seismically adequate, flexible use (multi-purpose, training, HAM radio, etc.).
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 31
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T4/26
PUBLIC SAFETY RANK: 2/4
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-16
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 17
Safety facilities should be
considered as critical public
infrastructure. They are a need
not a want.
2 helipads; fueling for
helicopters.
Helicopter noise is
already overwhelming
our community!
Don’t need two helipads.
Costs for public safety
not justified.
PUBLIC SAFETY
HELIPAD
Emergency use by Sheriff’s and Fire personnel, add water tank/connection,
upgrade to current standards.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 29
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T6/26
PUBLIC SAFETY RANK: T3/4
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-17
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 18
Safety facilities should be
considered as critical public
infrastructure. They are a need
not a want.
There is a fire station
on PV Dr S. why do we
need one here?
What are the real costs for
FD (Fire Department) and PD
(Police Department). Is this
justified?
Check with LA County Fire
and Sheriff to determine the
calls for service and response
needs.
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
PUBLIC SAFETY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
New fire station to replace antiquated Station 53, allow for additional
firefighters in event of emergency.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 29
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T6/26
PUBLIC SAFETY RANK: T3/4
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
DRAFT
B-18
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 19
Views over the site
must be preserved and
vistas enhanced.
66%
of participants
voted for trailheads
multiple times.
COMMUNITY SPACES
TRAILHEADS
Improved entrance points to the trail network for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve, directional/interpretive signage.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 57
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 1/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 1/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-19
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 20
Keep the view corridor
open toward the
coastline especially!
Landscaping should feature
drought resistant native plants
to provide compatibility with
the surrounding nature.
COMMUNITY SPACES
VILLAGE GREEN
Large, grassy space to be used for community gatherings and events,
programmed and un-programmed activities.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 31
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T4/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 2/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: La Cresta & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Country Club 171 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-20
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 21
Take advantage of the
spectacular views.
With shade cover.COMMUNITY SPACES
PARK AMENITIES
Picnic tables, benches and trash receptacles.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 27
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 8/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 3/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: La Cresta & HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Country Club 171 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-21
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 22
I would love it.
COMMUNITY SPACES
COMMUNITY CENTER
Multi-purpose room(s) for meetings and other events, related kitchen and
restroom facilities.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 26
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T9/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: T4/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Realtor Boundary Not Specified, Silver Spur 176 & Palos Verdes Drive South 169
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-22
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 23
I like it.
Small amphitheater OK
for afternoon concerts.
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
COMMUNITY SPACES
AMPHITHEATER
Terraced outdoor performance/event space with minimal hardscape and
structures, for small-scale community events.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 26
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T9/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: T4/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
DRAFT
B-23
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 24
+ solar.
COMMUNITY SPACES
PUBLIC PLAZA
Urban-style, pedestrian-oriented common space adjacent to/surrounded by
City buildings, programmed and un-programmed activities.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 26
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T9/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: T4/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: HOA Not Specified
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Palos Verdes Drive South 169 & Realtor Boundary Not Specified
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-24
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 25
+ solar.Trees are better than
shade structures.
Shade structures and
tables.
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
COMMUNITY SPACES
SHADE STRUCTURES
Small, freestanding structures distributed around site to provide shade in the
absence of larger trees/shrubs.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 23
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 12/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 7/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: La Cresta
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: Palos Verdes Drive South 169 & Country Club 171
DRAFT
B-25
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 26
No.
COMMUNITY SPACES
DOG PARK
Permanent dog park to replace existing temporary dog park, possibly at
different location.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 22
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: T13/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 8/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-26
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 27
No to all active
recreation facilities on
the property.
Not a huge pool, but
for lap swimming and
exercise.
How about a pool for
RPV? LA has many.
10 years ago...a pool
was the #2 request.
Council never followed
through.
A pool if you have a
cooperative relationship
with an entity to fund it
and help operate it.
COMMUNITY SPACES
POOL
Public community pool (indoor or outdoor) for multiple uses including lap
swimming, free play, exercise classes, water polo, etc.
VOTING INSIGHTS:
INDIVIDUAL VOTES: 15
INDIVIDUAL VOTES RANK: 17/26
COMMUNITY SPACES RANK: 11/19
MOST REPRESENTED RPV HOA: Del Cerro
MOST REPRESENTED REALTOR BOUNDARY: La Cresta 177
Civic Center Site | Program Elements Summary
DRAFT
B-27
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 28
Insights:
+A Civic Center Survey was mailed out to RPV residents in December 2016 and due February 10, 2017 with almost
2,300 surveys sent in, a 17% response rate.
+The survey focused largely on public and recreational uses.
+The results are summarized in part on the graphs below. (Full results available at www.rpvca.gov/1014/Current-Master-Plan-Survey)
Civic Center Site | 2016-2017 Survey Results
Civic Center Master Plan Survey
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Resident:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this important community survey. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes completed an update of its Parks Master Plan in 2015. Among the recommendations approved by
the City Council was to develop a site-specific Master Plan for Point Vicente Park/Civic Center at 30940
Hawthorne Blvd., where Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall is located. In addition, a 2013 engineering report
concluded that current City Hall structures are in generally poor condition and would require a significant
overhaul to bring them up to code.
The City is seeking community input regarding the types of elements residents would like to see considered
in a redeveloped Civic Center site.Some elements in the survey below may already exist at the Civic
Center site, and are included to gauge whether these elements or uses are still desired. The focus will
always be on developing elements for RPV residents’ use. This survey is an early step in a process, which
will likely include multiple public workshops, City Council meetings, and significant public outreach and
discussion. We appreciate your contribution and input at this early stage regarding what you feel would
best serve the community.
For more information about the Civic Center Master Plan project, please visit
http://www.rpvca.gov/218/Civic-Center-Master-Plan or call 310-377-0360. This web page will continue to be
updated throughout the process. A self-addressed, stamped envelope has been included for your
convenience.
Please return your completed survey to the City, postmarked no later than January 17, 2017.
1.Developing a civic, recreational and cultural center at Point Vicente Park/Civic Center
has been a lingering community issue for many years. In general, would you say that
you favor or oppose redeveloping the civic center site, located at 30940 Hawthorne
Blvd.?Please circle your answer.
Strongly oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Somewhat favor 3
Strongly favor 4
Decline to State/No Opinion 0
2.A number of ideas have been brought up over the years regarding possible uses at
Point Vicente Park/Civic Center.Please circle your level of support for each possible use
on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being lowest level of support and 5 being highest level of support.
You can also circle 0 for “no opinion.”
a.Including an on-site first responder/public safety presence, including fire, police,
ambulance, and an emergency operations center.
Lowest Support Highest Support No Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 0
A- 1
2016-2017 Survey 2016-2017 Survey Results
DRAFT
B-28
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 29
Civic Center Site | 2016-2017 Survey Element Results
*Responses range from 1(Lowest Support) to 5
(Highest Support) with a 0 option for No Opinions.
DRAFT
B-29
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 30
36
22
11
38
31 29 29
57
31 27 26 26 26 23 22 19 16 15 11 10 7 6 554 3
INDIVIDUAL VOTES BY CATEGORY
CITY FACILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY SPACES
SURVEY TOTAL SCORE
FOR ELEMENTS
(2017)
Note: Chart represents total scores
for each element.
OPEN HOUSE TOTAL
VOTES FOR ELEMENTS
(2018)
Note: Chart represents 1 vote per
individual for each element.
Civic Center Site | Survey & Open House Correlation
Insights:
+In both the Survey and the Open House results, active recreation sites scored relatively low.
+In both the Survey and the Open House results, Public Safety scored consistently high. The Survey put public safety as
one element including fire, police, ambulance, and emergency operations center (EOC).
+City Facilities and Restaurant/Cafe were not included in the 2016-2017 Survey.
7.9k
7.1k7.1k
6.7k6.7k
5.3k
6.7k 6.5k 6.6k
6.2k6.3k
5.8k 5.7k
5.2k
4.7k 4.8k4.6k 4.5k 4.5k
4.1k
3.7k
4.0k
DRAFT
B-30
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 31
RPV Civic CenterPreliminary Programming
AUGUST 2018
DRAFT
B-31
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 32
Civic Center Program Summary Draft 18 0823 RPV Draft Program R2.1
RPV: Civic Center Program Summary
City Hall Count GSF Total Notes
RPV.1 City Administration 21 5,497 GSF
RPV.2 Finance 13 3,108 GSF
RPV.3 Public Works 29 5,276 GSF
RPV.4 Community Development 27 5,877 GSF
RPV.5 Recreation and Parks 15 5,479 GSF
6.1 Shared Building Support 14,806 GSF
6.2 EOC & Tower 3,647 GSF
6.3 Council Chambers 7,918 GSF
Total 105 51,607 GSF 1.19 AC
Site Areas GSF Total Notes
7.0 Site Requirements 92,500 GSF
7.1 Site Amenities 158,270 GSF
7.2 Other Potential Uses 89,389 GSF
Total 340,159 GSF 7.81 AC
Other Buildings GSF Total Notes
8.0 Sheriff Sub Station 12,883 GSF Based on La Mirada Station Plan
9.0 Medium Fire Station 9,729 GSF Based on LACO Protoype A Plan
10.0 Community Center Building 12,500 GSF Multipurpose rooms, catering area
Total 35,112 GSF .81 AC
Civic Center Gross Total 426,878 GSF 9.81 AC
General Notes
35% circulation factor utilized to derive departmental usable square footage (USF) from stated net values (NSF)
15% grossing factor utilized to derive Gross Square Footage (GSF) from stated Usable Square Footage (USF) values. This includes necessary stairs, corridors,
restrooms, elevators, mechanical/electrical rooms, shafts, electrical, jan. closets & wallsDRAFT
DRAFT
B-32
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 33
Civic Center Program Summary Draft
18 0823 RPV Draft Program R2
Summary of Space Standard Assumptions
Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
Extra Large Private Office 1 PO1 14x20 280 SF 280 NSF
Large Private Office 10 PO2 14x10 140 SF 1,400 NSF
Private Office 24 PO3 10x10 100 SF 2,400 NSF
Work Station 17 WS1 8x8 64 SF 1,088 NSF
Small Work Station 53 WS2 6x8 48 SF 2,544 NSF
Total 105 7,712 NSF
Meeting Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
Extra Large Conference Room 2 20-25ppl 735 SF 1,470 NSF
Large Conference Room 2 16-18ppl 600 SF 1,200 NSF
Medium Conference Room 4 10-12ppl 400 SF 1,600 NSF
Small Conference Room 4 6-8ppl 200 SF 800 NSF
Shared Huddle Room 5 2-4ppl 100 SF 500 NSF
Privacy Nook 5 1-2ppl 75 SF 375 NSF
Total 5,945 NSFDRAFT
DRAFT
B-33
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 34
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
Civic Center Site
01/16/18
City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Proposed Boundaries
0.045
Miles
¯Existing Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC Δ = 11.24 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC
Exisiting Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Existing Civic Center Boundary = 7.79 AC
Proposed Civic Center Boundary = 19.03 AC
= 11.24 AC
N
DRAFT
B-34
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 35
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
Civic Center Site
Proposed Civic Center Site Boundary
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
DRAFT
B-35
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 36
4,913 GSF 2,871 GSF
1,430 GSF
1,150GSF
1,365GSF
1,670 GSF
822 GSF
880 GSF
2 LEVELS16,888 GSF
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
Civic Center Site | Existing Buildings
Proposed Civic Center Site Boundary
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
16,888 GSF (2 Levels)
4,913 GSF
2,871 GSF
1,150 GSF
1,430 GSF
880 GSF
822 GSF
1,670 GSF
1,365 GSF
SILO 2
SILO 1
DRAFT
B-36
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 37
Civic Center Site | "Buildable" Existing Areas
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
154,946.6664 Sq ft
171,714.4917 Sq ft
251,696.5644 Sq ft
ROUGH "BUILDABLE" EXISTING AREAS
580,000 GSF
Proposed Civic Center Site Boundary
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
DRAFT
B-37
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 38
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
Civic Center Site | Area
Proposed Civic Center Site Boundary
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
DRAFT
B-38
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 39
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
HATCH AREA = “ROUGH
BUILDABLE
13.31 AC = 580,000 SF
Civic Center Site | Area with Draft Program
CITY HALL
51,520 GSF
SHERIFF SUB
STATION
12,100 GSF
MEDIUM FIRE
STATION
10,000 GSF
COMMUNITY CENTER
12,500 GSF
VILLAGE GREEN
131,000 GSF
PUBLIC
PLAZA
2500 GSF
COVERED
PICNIC
AREA
2000 GSF
SHADE
1000
GSF
DOG PARK
10,000 GSF
AMPHITHEATER
10,000 GSF
TRAIL
HEAD
1200 GSF
RESTAURANT
5,000 GSF
POOL
6,000 GSF
PW MAINTENANCE
YARD
43,000 GSF
PARKING - 150 CARS
52,500 GSF
OVERFLOW PARKING -
100 CARS
35,000 GSF
HELIPAD
2500 GSF GYM
10,000 GSF
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SFProposed Civic Center Site Boundary
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
Rough "Buildable" Area
13.31 AC = 580,000 SF
Existing Buildings
SILO 2
SILO 1
VILLAGE GREEN
131,000 GSF
CITY HALL
51,520 GSF
COMM.
CENTER
12,500 GSF
SHERIFF
12,100 GSF
FIRE
STATION
10,000 GSF
RESTAURANT
5,000 GSF
GYM
10,000 GSF
POOL
6,000 GSF
TRAIL
HEAD
1,200 GSF
DOG PARK
10,000 GSF
AMPHITHEATER
10,000 GSF
PUBLIC PLAZA
10,000 GSF
COVERED PICNIC AREA
2,000 GSF
HELIPAD
2,500 GSF
SHADE
1,000 GSF
PARKING-
150 CARS
52,500 GSF
OVERFLOW
PARKING-
100 CARS
35,000 GSF
PW MAINTENANCE
YARD
43,000 GSF
RED BOUNDARY OF SITE
19.03 AC = 828,947 SF
HATCH AREA = “ROUGH
BUILDABLE
13.31 AC = 580,000 SF
DRAFT
B-39
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 40
Site Inspiration | History, Landscape, Views
DRAFT
B-40
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 41
Q + A
Let's Chat!
DRAFT
B-41
RANCHO PALOS VERDES | CCAC MEETING | AUGUST 23, 2018 | 42
Next Steps
+ Scenario Planning
+ Quantitative / Qualit ative Programming
+ Concept Design
DRAFT
B-42
19 0620 RPV Draft Program
RPV: Civic Center Program Summary
City Hall Count GSF Total Notes
RPV.1 City Administration 17 5,062 GSF
RPV.2 Finance 13 2,977 GSF
RPV.3 Public Works 23 5,247 GSF
RPV.4 Community Development 25 5,783 GSF
RPV.5 Recreation and Parks 11 4,357 GSF
6.0 Shared Building Support 9,465 GSF
89 32,891 GSF .76 AC
Proposed New Program Elements Count GSF Total Notes
6.1 Public Counter, PVPLC Offices & Computer Training Room 6,353 GSF
6.2 Council Chambers 9,680 GSF
Total 16,033 GSF .37 AC
Site Areas GSF Total Notes
7.0 Site Requirements 229,199 GSF
7.1 Site Amenities 343,300 GSF
Total 572,499 GSF 13.14 AC
Other Facilities GSF Total Notes
8.0 Sheriff Sub Station 12,323 GSF Based on La Mirada Station Plan
9.0 Medium Fire Station 12,885 GSF
10.0 Emergency Ops. Center (EOC)4,106 GSF
11.0 Community Center Facilities 5,176 GSF
12.0 Trailhead Facilities 1,200 GSF
13.0 Café 5,000 GSF
Total 40,690 GSF .93 AC
Civic Center Gross Total 662,113 GSF 15.2 AC
General Notes
1. 35% circulation factor utilized to derive departmental usable square footage (USF) from stated net values (NSF)
2.
3. All restrooms to include baby changing stations.
4. Existing Civic Center buildings / structures on site account for an approximate total of 38,700 GSF. Refer to Program Appendix for details.
5. Refer to Program Appendix for other considered uses.
6. Fire Station size is based on LACO Prototype A Plan. A traffic study will be provided by the City of RPV.
7. 68,389 GSF Public Works Maintenance Yard included in "Site Requirements"
15% grossing factor utilized to derive Gross Square Footage (GSF) from stated Usable Square Footage (USF) values. This includes necessary stairs, corridors,
mulit-accomodation restrooms, gender neutral restrooms, elevators, mechanical/electrical rooms, shafts, electrical, jan. closets & walls
Page 1 of 13 Gensler C-1
19 0620 RPV Draft Program
Summary of Space Standard Assumptions
Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
Extra Large Private Office 1 PO1 14x20 280 SF 280 NSF
Large Private Office 11 PO2 14x10 140 SF 1,540 NSF
Private Office 6 PO3 10x10 100 SF 600 NSF
Work Station 34 WS1 8x8 64 SF 2,176 NSF
Small Work Station 37 WS2 6x8 48 SF 1,776 NSF
Total 89 6,372 NSF
Meeting Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
Extra Large Conference Room 2 20-25ppl 735 SF 1,470 NSF
Large Conference Room 2 16-18ppl 600 SF 1,200 NSF
Medium Conference Room 5 10-12ppl 400 SF 2,000 NSF
Small Conference Room 3 6-8ppl 200 SF 600 NSF
Shared Huddle Room 5 2-4ppl 100 SF 500 NSF
Privacy Nook 5 1-2ppl 75 SF 375 NSF
Total 6,145 NSF
Page 2 of 13 Gensler C-2
RPV.1: City Administration 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
1.1 Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 City Manager 1 PO1 14x20 280 SF 280 NSF
.002 Deputy City Manager 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.003 City Clerk 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF adj. to public waiting area
.004 Human Resources Manager 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF adj. to Finance
.005 Human Resources Analyst 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF adj. to Finance
.006 Information Technology Manager 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF
.007 Senior Administrative Analyst 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.008 Deputy City Clerk 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.009 Senior Administrative Analyst (Emergency Prep)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.010 GIS Coordinator 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF adj. to IT, CDD?
.011 Administrative Analyst II 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.012 Administrative Analyst II 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF lockable suite
.013 Administrative Assistant 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.014 GIS Intern 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF move to CDD?; adj. to IT
.015 Intern 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.016 Contract IT Staff 2 WS2 6x8 48 SF 96 NSF lockable suite; adj. to IT
Total 17 1,492 NSF
1.2 Dedicated Meeting Spaces Count Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Medium Conference Room 1 10-12ppl 400 SF 400 NSF
.002 Small Conference Room 1 6-8ppl 200 SF 200 NSF
.003 Shared Huddle Room 1 2-4ppl 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Privacy Nook 1 1-2ppl 75 SF 75 NSF
Total 4 775 NSF
1.3 Dedicated Support / Specialty Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Waiting Area 1 100 SF 100 NSF for City Manager
.002 HR Interview Room 1 200 SF 200 NSF In HR
.003 CM Dept. Files / Storage 4 10 SF 40 NSF
.004 City Clerk Files - Current (4) drawer fireproof laterals 8 10 SF 80 NSF
.005 Code Manuals - Library 6 10 SF 60 NSF
.006 Shared Open Layout space with Printer Area 1 50 SF 50 NSF
Total 21 530 NSF
Combined subtotal NSF 2,797 NSF
Circulation Factor 35%1,506 SF
Grossing Factor 15%759 SF
Gross Square Foot (GSF) Subtotal 5,062 GSF
Adjacency Requirements:
1. Administration to Finance and to Council Chambers Essential
2. Administration - HR to Finance Convenient
3. Administration - IT to GIS/Intern and to Contract IT Staff Essential
Page 3 of 13 Gensler C-3
RPV.2: Finance 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
2.1 Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Finance Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.002 Deputy Finance Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.003 Accounting Supervisor 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Accountant 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.005 Senior Accounting Technician (payroll)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF Locate adj. to huddle rm
.006 Senior Administrative Analyst 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF Lockable Suite
.007 Accounting Technician 1 WS2 6x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.008 Acount Clerk 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.009 Staff Assistant Business Licenses 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.010 Staff Assistant II (2PT)1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF In CDD
.011 Auditors Touch-down workstation 2 WS2 6x8 48 SF 96 NSF
Total 13 940 NSF
2.2 Dedicated Meeting Spaces Count Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Medium Conference Room 1 10-12ppl 400 SF 400 NSF
.002 Shared Huddle Room 1 2-4ppl 100 SF 100 NSF
.003 Privacy Nook 1 1-2ppl 75 SF 75 NSF
Total 575 NSF
2.3 Dedicated Support / Specialty Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Finance Files - Current (4) dwr Laterals 7 10 SF 70 NSF
.002 Finance Bookcase Records Binders (Open)1 10 SF 10 NSF
.003 Shared Open Layout space with Printer Area 1 50 SF 50 NSF
Total 9 130 NSF
Combined subtotal NSF 1,645 NSF
Circulation Factor 35%886 SF
Grossing Factor 15%447 SF
Gross Square Foot Subtotal 2,977 GSF
General Notes
Adjacency Requirements:
1. Finance to City Manager and Staff Essential
2. Finance to City Clerk Important
3.Finance to HR Essential
4.Finance to IT Important
Page 4 of 13 Gensler C-4
RPV.3 Public Works 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
3.1 Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Public Works Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.002 Deputy Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.003 Principal Engineer 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Maintenance Superintendent 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF
.005 Sr. Engineers 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.006 Associate Engineers 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.007 Sr. Administrative Analyst 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.008 Assistant Engineers 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.009 Permit Technicians 2 WS2 6x8 48 SF 96 NSF
.010 Admin Staff Assistant 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.011 Lead worker 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF In lockable bullpen area
.012 Maintenance Workers- (includes current + projected growth)4 WS2 6x8 48 SF 192 NSF In lockable bullpen area
.013 Maintenance Admin Staff + Touchdown stations 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF In lockable bullpen area
.014 Shared Workstations for Consultants, Inspectors, Interns 3 WS2 6x8 48 SF 144 NSF
Total 23 1,504 NSF
3.2 Dedicated Meeting Spaces Count Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Medium Conference Room 1 10-12ppl 400 SF 400 NSF
.002 Small Conference Room 1 6-8ppl 200 SF 200 NSF
.003 Shared Huddle Room 1 2-4ppl 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Privacy Nook 1 1-2ppl 75 SF 75 NSF
Total 4 775 NSF
3.3 Dedicated Support / Specialty Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Waiting Area 1 100 SF 100 NSF
.002 Files in open 3 high with common top 12 10 SF 120 NSF
.003 Shared Open Layout space / Reference Library / Printer Area 1 200 SF 200 NSF
.004 Map Room (To access GIS)1 200 SF 200 NSF w/Large layout table
.005 Maintenance Equip and Storage Outdoor
.006 Corporate Yard Refer to Appendix "Other potential uses"
Total 620 NSF
Combined subtotal NSF 2,899 NSF
Circulation Factor 35%1,561 SF
Grossing Factor 15%787 SF
Gross Square Foot Subtotal 5,247 GSF
General Notes
1. Department could benefit from Cashier, Exercise area
Adjacency Requirements:
2. Public Works Maintenance Staff to Corporate Yard Convenient
3. Permit Staff to Cashier Essential
Page 5 of 13 Gensler C-5
RPV.4 Community Development 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
4.1 Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Community Development Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.002 Deputy Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.003 Senior Planner 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.004 Contract Mediator & City Attorney 1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF flex time, shared
.005 Building Official 1 PO3 10x10 100 SF 100 NSF
.006 Senior Planner (View)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.007 Associate Planner (View)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.008 Associate Planner ( 1 current)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.009 Assistant Planner (3 current)3 WS1 8x8 64 SF 192 NSF
.010 Plan Checker (0 current, 1 growth)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.011 Planning Tech (0 current, 1 growth)1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF
.012 Administrative Analyst (1 current)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.013 Building Inspectors (field)3 WS2 6x8 48 SF 144 NSF In field most of day
.014 Permit Technicians 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.015 Staff Assistant 0 WS2 6x8 48 SF 0 NSF
.016 Code Enforcement Officers (2 current)2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF lockable suite, half day in field
.017 Contract Planner / Plan Checker (shared)1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF (flex time / 2x per week)
.018 Contract Geologist / Staff Assistant (Shared)1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF (1x per week each)
.019 Interns (Shared between 2 interns)1 WS2 6x8 48 SF 48 NSF (1x per week)
Total 25 1,660 NSF
4.2 Dedicated Meeting Spaces Count Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Medium Conference Room 1 10-12ppl 400 SF 400 NSF Planning Project review mtgs
.002 Small Conference Room 1 6-8ppl 200 SF 200 NSF Applicant / interdept. mtgs
.003 Shared Huddle Room 1 2-4ppl 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Privacy Nook 1 1-2ppl 75 SF 75 NSF Applicant / interdept. mtgs
Total 775 NSF
4.3 Dedicated Support / Specialty Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Plan Review workstations 5 WS2 6x8 48 SF 240 NSF includes microfiche station
.002 Files in open 3 high with common top 12 10 SF 120 NSF
.003 Geologist Files 8 10 SF 80 NSF
.004 Address Files - double stacked sliding 24 5 SF 120 NSF
.005 Reference Library/Shared Printer Area 1 100 SF 100 NSF
.006 Tract Files 1 100 SF 100 NSF
.007 Plan Room - blueprints storage - req'd by law for commercial projects Refer to 6.0.18 Shared with PW
.008 5' x 5' x 5' Plan File Refer to 6.0.17 In Records
.009 Misc. Storage - various supplies, files, etc. Refer to 6.0.14 In Central Supply Storage
.011 One Stop Counter Refer to 6.1.01
Total 760 NSF
Combined subtotal NSF 3,195 NSF
Circulation Factor 35%1,720 SF
Grossing Factor 15%867 SF
Page 6 of 13 Gensler C-6
RPV.4 Community Development 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
Gross Square Foot Subtotal 5,783 GSF
General Notes
Adjacency Requirements:
1. Community Development to Planning Divison Essential
2. Community Development to Building & Safety Essential
3. Community Development to Code Enforcement Division Essential
4. Community Development to View Restoration Divison Essential
5. Community Development to GIS Essential
6. Community Development to Planning Commission Convenient
7. Community Development to Cashier / Public Counter Essential
8. Community Development to Public Works Convenient
9. Community Development to Recreation & Parks/Preserve Staff Important
10. Community Development to Fire Department Convenient
Page 7 of 13 Gensler C-7
RPV.5 Recreation and Parks 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
5.1 Workspaces Count Type Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.002 Deputy Director 1 PO2 14x10 140 SF 140 NSF
.003 Senior Administrative Analyst 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.004 Administrative Analyst II 1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.005 Recreation Program Supervisor II 2 WS1 8x8 64 SF 128 NSF
.006 Supervisors (0 current + 1 growth)1 WS1 8x8 64 SF 64 NSF
.007 Admin. Staff (1 current + 1 growth)2 WS2 6x8 48 SF 96 NSF In lockable suite
.008 Part Time Staff (0 current + 2 growth)2 WS2 6x8 48 SF 96 NSF
Total 11 792 NSF
5.2 Dedicated Meeting Spaces Count Size SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Medium Conference Room 1 10-12ppl 400 SF 400 NSF doubles as training room
.002 Small Conference Room 0 6-8ppl 200 SF 0 NSF
.003 Shared Huddle Room 1 2-4ppl 100 SF 100 NSF
.004 Privacy Nook 1 1-2ppl 75 SF 75 NSF
Total 575 NSF
5.3 Dedicated Support / Specialty Spaces Count SF NSF Total Notes
.001 Open Space Management (OSM) Division - Locker Room 1 200 SF 200 NSF
.002 OSM Office/ briefing room 1 200 SF 200 NSF
.003 Workroom 1 240 SF 240 NSF
.004 Storage Room w/safe 1 300 SF 300 NSF R&P - for cash, checks and keys
.005 Dedicated Copy Room 1 100 SF 100 NSF
Total 1,040 NSF
Combined subtotal NSF 2,407 NSF
Circulation Factor 35%1,296 SF
Grossing Factor 15%653 SF
Gross Square Foot Subtotal 4,357 GSF
General Notes
Adjacency Requirements:
1. Rec and Parks to Human Resources Essential
2. Rec and Parks to Public Works Essential
3. Rec and Parks to Community Development Essential
Page 8 of 13 Gensler C-8
RPV.6 Common Areas 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
6.0 Shared Building Support Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Lobby 1 600 SF 600 USF
.002 Extra Large Conference Room 2 20-25ppl 735 SF 1,470 USF Monthly Community Meetings
.003 Large Conference Room 2 16-18ppl 600 SF 1,200 USF R&P Open Space mtgs
.004 Coffee Nooks 2 50 SF 100 USF
.005 Kitchen Area & Staff Lounge / Breakroom 1 500 SF 500 USF adjacent to outdoor patio
.006 Shower/Locker Rooms-Men/Women 2 400 SF 800 USF
.007 Wellness Room 1 150 SF 150 USF w/lounge chair, sink & refrig.
.008 Shared Production Rm - plotter/copiers/scanning 2 300 SF 600 USF
.009 MDF/IDF 2 150 SF 300 USF
.010 IT Server Room 1 225 SF 225 USF Near IT
.011 IT Locked Storage Room 1 150 SF 150 USF Near Server Room
.014 Central Supply Storage 1 200 SF 200 USF
.015 City Clerk Vault / Records / High Density Filing 1 300 SF 300 USF Admin - Rated Room
.016 Locked Storage and Record Room with Safe 1 150 SF 150 USF Finance
.017 Records - flat files, plan holds, rolled drawings etc 1 300 SF 300 USF Shared by PW & CDD
.018 Public Works - Plan Storage 1 1,000 SF 1,000 USF Can this be electronic or off-site?
Total 9,465 GSF Total USF X 15% Grossing Factor
6.1 Proposed New Program Elements Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Reception/Public Counter/ Cashier 1 1,000 SF 1,000 USF
.002 HR Testing Room / Computer Lab 1 1,000 SF 1,000 USF Adjancent to HR
.003 PVPLC Leasable office space 20 170 SF 3,400 USF Adjancent to City Hall office functions
Total 6,353 GSF Total USF X 15% Grossing Factor
6.2 Council Chambers Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Council Chambers 1 5,000 SF 5,000 USF 150 seats
.002 Pre-Function Space 1 1,000 SF 1,000 USF 20% of Council Chamber
.003 City Council / Closed Session Conf 1 10 ppl 400 SF 400 USF Medium Conference Rm
.004 Staff Restroom 1 75 SF 75 USF
.005 Public Restrooms 2 300 SF 600 USF provide gender inclusive restroom w/ baby changing
.006 Control Room for Studio 1 121 SF 121 USF Adj to Studio Rm w/ window btwn
.007 Studio Room 1 250 SF 250 USF
.008 Part-Time Television Producer 2 WS2 6x8 48 NSF 148 USF NSF X 35% Grossing Factor
.009 Broadcast Room 1 144 SF 144 USF
.010 Headend Room 1 90 SF 90 USF Adjacent to Broadcast Room
.011 Edit Bay 1 80 SF 80 USF
.012 Chair and Table Storage 1 120 SF 120 USF
.013 Catering Kitchen 1 200 SF 200 USF
Total 9,680 GSF Total USF X 15% Grossing Factor
Shared Support - Gross Square Foot Subtotal 25,497 GSF
Page 9 of 13 Gensler C-9
RPV.7 Site Areas 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
7.0 Site Requirements Count Type Size SF GSF Total Notes
.001 Parking 150 350 SF 52,500 GSF based on 50,000gsf at 3 stalls/1000
.002 Overflow parking 300 300 SF 90,000 GSF Assumes some tandem parking
.003 Additional Trailhead parking 25 350 SF 8,750 GSF to be confirmed with PVPLC
.004 Service / Loading 1 20x25 500 SF 500 GSF screened area adjacent to trash
.005 Trash / Recycling enclosure 1 20x25 500 SF 500 GSF screened area for upto 4 dumpsters
.006 Emergency Generator enclosure 1 25x60 1,500 SF 1,500 GSF w/soundproof enclosure
.007 Helipad 1 80x80 6,400 SF 6,400 GSF w/water (no fueling) per FAA guidelines
.008 American Tower 80' high monopole 1 10x10 100 SF 100 GSF Leased area on site. Antenna panels and equip
for carriers (VZW, AT&T and SCE ) on pole
managed by American Tower Corporation.
.009 AT&T Equipment enclosure 1 280 SF 280 GSF Exterior ground lease for monopole adj. to bldg
.010 Emergency Communications Antenna &
yard
1 280 SF 280 GSF Retractable lattice tower for City emergency
communications (HAM radio) adjacent to TV
Studio in 280sf equipment enclosure. Tower
nests at 69.8' height, extends to 112.67' when in
use.
.011 Proposed LA-RICS monopole 1 TBD 70' tall monopole with back-up generator in
lease area with back-of-house access. Includes
microwave dishes an other antennae at various
heights for LA-RICS. Existing City Emergency
communications antennae to be relocated from
existing retractable tower and placed here.
.012 Public Works Maintenance Yard 1.57 acre 43,560 SF 68,389 GSF per Corporate Yard Utilization Study
Total 229,199 GSF 5.26 AC
7.1 Site Amenities Count Type Size SF GSF Total Notes
.001 Village Green open space 3 acres 43,560 SF 130,680 GSF Meet current LEED Criteria for Open Space.
.002 Public Plaza 1 50x50 2,500 SF 2,500 GSF
.003 Park Amenities / Picnic Pavilion 2 20x50 1,000 SF 2,000 GSF covered picnic area
.004 Shade Structures 3 20x15 300 SF 900 GSF distributed appropriately throughout site
.005 Children's Play Amenities 4 20x15 300 SF 1,200 GSF Creative, non-traditional. Distribute appropriately
.006 Dog Park 0.5 acre 21,780 SF 21,780 GSF approx. twice size of existing
.007 Amphitheater 1 100x100 10,000 SF 10,000 GSF Paritally shaded, 30% hardscape / seating,
remainder sloping or tiered landscape for
approximate total capacity of 500.
.008 Open Space for future amenities 4 acres 43,560 SF 174,240 GSF Meet current LEED Criteria for Open Space.
Total 343,300 GSF 7.88 AC
Page 10 of 13 Gensler C-10
Other Facilities 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
8.0 Sheriff Sub Station Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Lobby 1 600 SF 600 USF w/space for two law enforcement technicians
.002 Dispatch office 1 100 SF 100 USF Desk with computer and small base radio
.003 Briefing Room 1 1,250 SF 1,250 USF
.004 Interview Rooms 2 150 SF 300 USF
.005 Watch 1 250 SF 250 USF
.006 Armory 1 140 SF 140 USF
.007 Specialty Offices 2 140 SF 280 USF Service area lieutenant and sergeant
.008 Other Offices 8 80 SF 640 USF Open workstations (includes 2 for growth)
.009 Staff Training Room 1 1,000 SF 1,000 USF
.010 Male / Female Bunks 2 150 SF 300 USF
.011 Male / Female Lockers and Showers 2 1,200 SF 2,400 USF
.012 Exercise Room 1 750 SF 750 USF Share with other programs if possible
USF Subtotal 8,010 USF
12,323 GSF (includes 35% grossing factor)
9.0 Medium Fire Station Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Lobby 1 100 SF 100 USF
.002 Front Office 1 500 SF 500 USF
.003 Kitchen / Dining Area 1 500 SF 500 USF
.004 Day room 2 500 SF 1,000 USF
.005 Dorms 7 125 SF 875 USF
.006 Exercise Room 1 400 SF 400 USF
.007 Apparatus Bay and Support 1 5,000 SF 5,000 USF includes ambulance bay & paramedics space
USF Subtotal 8,375 USF
Total 12,885 GSF (includes 35% grossing factor)
10.0 Emergency Ops. Center (EOC)
Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Emergency Communications Room 1 300 SF 300 USF
.002 Cell Tower Battery Room 2 500 SF 1,000 USF Refer to 7.0.08-11 for tower specifications
.003 Verizon Wireless Equipment for Monopole 1 280 SF 280 USF Leased to Verizon
.004 SCE Equipment for Monopole 1 110 SF 110 USF Leased to SCE
.005 Multi-Purpose Room/ E.O.C.1 50 ppl 1,500 SF 1,500 USF Double as large community meeting room
.006 Emergency Operations Center Storage 1 300 SF 300 USF
USF Subtotal 3,490 USF
Total 4,106 GSF (includes 15% grossing factor)
Page 11 of 13 Gensler C-11
Other Facilities 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
11.0 Community Center Facilities Count Type Size SF USF Total Notes
.001 Lobby 1 300 SF 300 USF
.002 Community Meeting Rooms 3 1,000 SF 3,000 USF
.003 Public Gallery 1 300 SF 300 USF
.004 Public Restrooms 2 300 SF 600 USF
.005 Catering Area 1 200 SF 200 USF
USF Subtotal 4,400 USF
Total 5,176 GSF (includes 15% grossing factor)
12.0 Trailhead Facilities
2 20x30 600 SF 1,200 GSF Restroom building(s) with water bottle fillers. Co-
locate with appropriate site amenities.
13.0 Café
1 50x100 5,000 SF 5,000 GSF Development opportunity with rentable rooms
Other Facilities - Gross Square Foot Subtotal 40,690 GSF
Page 12 of 13 Gensler C-12
Program Appendix 19 0620 RPV Draft Program
Existing Buildings / Structures on Site Approx GSF Notes
City Manager's Building 16,900 GSF Permanent Building
Community Development Building 4,900 GSF Permanent Building
Public Works Building 2,800 GSF Temporary Building
TV Station Buildings 2 1,400 SF 2,800 GSF 1 Temporary and 1 permanent building
Storage Containers 13 20x10 200 SF 2,600 GSF Temporary Twenty Unit Equivalents
Subterranean Missile Silo Structures 2 3,600 SF 7,200 GSF Permanent subterranean structures
Coast Guard Structure 1 1,500 SF 1,500 GSF Permanent buried structure
Total 38,700 GSF .89 AC
Other Considered Uses Count Type Size SF GSF Total Notes
Pool with Restrooms / Lockers 1 60x100 6,000 SF 6,000 GSF costly building for level of public support
Multi Sports Gym 1 100x100 10,000 SF 10,000 GSF costly building for level of public support
Baseball / Softball fields 1 300x300 90,000 SF 90,000 GSF minimum public support (little league, 60' bases)
Skate Park 1 80x100 8,000 SF 8,000 GSF minimum public support
Multi-Purpose playing fields 1 340x280 95,200 SF 95,200 GSF minimum public support (1 AYSO U14 field)
Outdoor Basketball Courts 1 60x100 6,000 SF 6,000 GSF minimum public support
Volleyball Courts 1 50x80 4,000 SF 4,000 GSF minimum public support
Tennis Courts 2 60x120 14,400 SF 28,800 GSF minimum public support
Total 248,000 GSF 5.69 AC
Page 13 of 13 Gensler C-13
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/03/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Receive and file a land use update regarding the Civic Center property
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a land use update regarding the Civic Center property
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A) Map of area under the Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Since the Civic Center property was acquired from the federal government as part of the
National Park Service's (NPS) Federal Lands to Parks Program, it has been under
oversight of the NPS and significant conservation easements have been in place on
part of the property, thus limiting the uses of the property. At the Council’s direction,
Staff has been addressing these limitations with the federal government.
Attachment A shows the Civic Center property. The area in yellow is restricted to
“general government use.” The area in red has been restricted to “passive recreational
use.”
Over the past 25 years, the City reached out to the NPS numerous instances attempting
to lift the existing deed restrictions on the red outlined area, but to no avail. Due to the
public safety priorities of the City Council, the City requested the NPS allow the
placement of public safety facilities, such as a fire station, Sheriff’s Department
substation, updated helipad, and emergency operations center, on the Civic Center
property. Though the City fully believes these were allowable as supporting amenities to
the open space area in the event of a fire or major disaster, and because the area is a
D-1
gravel parking lot and existing helipad — meaning no recreational value would be lost —
NPS refused to qualify these as such. Staff was directed by the City Council to
concurrently pursue legislative and administrative options.
Councilwoman Brooks and Mayor Pro Tem John Cruikshank served on the Civic Center
subcommittee, and Mayor Duhovic, Councilwoman Brooks and City Manager Willmore
attended a number of meetings with Congressional representatives, and members of
different agencies in Washington, D.C. to discuss the deed restrictions on the property
and potential uses in depth. City Manager Willmore made eight separate trips to
Washington, D.C. over the past two years to continue work on this issue. Based on the
recommended direction of Ralph Conner of the General Services Administration (GSA),
and Dan Smith, Acting Director of the NPS, staff filed paperwork with the GSA to
convey the oversight of the property to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for public safety uses.
Rancho Palos Verdes has now received formal approval from all agencies involved —
GSA, DOJ, FEMA and NPS — to transfer oversight of the subject property from NPS to
DOJ and FEMA (with GSA acting as their agent). Thus, the allowed use of the property
has changed from passive recreation to public safety uses. Again, attachment A shows
the area with general government use restrictions in yellow, and the area that is
reverting to DOJ, FEMA, and GSA oversight for public safety use outlined in red. This
additional 9.48 acres would allow for much needed public safety improvements and
facilities.
GSA has informed the City that it expects the new deeds to be recorded within the next
several weeks.
It is important to acknowledge the entire City Council, and especially Councilwoman
Brooks, for its commitment and tireless work on this initiative. Also, Tim Stewart of
American Capitol Group, Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn and her Chief of
Staff Nick Ippolito, Senator Dianne Feinstein and her staff, Rep. Ted Lieu and his staff,
Rep. Rob Bishop, the House Committee on Natural Resources staff, Ralph Conner of
the GSA, NPS Acting Director Dan Smith, Elena Gerli of Aleshire & Wynder, and all City
staff who worked tirelessly on this project, but especially Gabriella Yap and Kit Fox.
D-2
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Civic Center Project 1245.89 days Tue 10/15/19 Wed 2/26/25
2 Planning & Environmental Review Stage 429.22 days Tue 10/15/19 Thu 8/19/21
3 Approval of Program Document and authorization
to prepare a RFP for EIR Consultant Services
0.89 days Tue 10/15/19 Wed 10/16/19
4 Prepare RFP for EIR Consultant Services 15 days Wed 10/16/19 Fri 11/8/19
5 Approval of RFP for EIR Consultant Services 0 days Wed 11/20/19 Wed 11/20/19
6 Adverisement of RFP for EIR Consultant Services 25 days Fri 11/8/19 Wed 12/18/19
7 EIR Consultant Proposals due 0 days Tue 1/7/20 Tue 1/7/20
8 Selection of EIR Consultant and award of contract 0 days Tue 1/7/20 Tue 1/7/20
9 Execution of EIR Consultant contract 5 days Wed 1/8/20 Wed 1/15/20
10 Preparation of "Initial Study"60 days Wed 1/15/20 Mon 4/20/20
11 Receive Initial Study 0 days Mon 4/20/20 Mon 4/20/20
12 Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report 240 days Mon 4/20/20 Mon 5/3/21
13 Traffic Study 160 days Mon 4/20/20 Mon 12/28/20
14 Receive Draft EIR 0 days Mon 5/3/21 Mon 5/3/21
15 Comment Period 35 days Mon 5/3/21 Fri 6/25/21
16 Response Period 35 days Fri 6/25/21 Thu 8/19/21
17 Receive Final EIR 0 days Thu 8/19/21 Thu 8/19/21
18 Coordination with L.A. Co. regarding public safety
components and infastructure
250 days Tue 10/15/19 Wed 11/11/20
19 Architectural & Design 251.67 days Thu 8/19/21 Wed 9/21/22
20 Authorization of drafting of RFP for Architectural &
Design Services
0 days Thu 8/19/21 Thu 8/19/21
21 Draft RFP for Architectural & Design Services 20 days Thu 8/19/21 Tue 9/21/21
22 Approval of RFP and authorization to advertise 0 days Tue 9/21/21 Tue 9/21/21
23 Advertising of RFP 30 days Tue 9/21/21 Mon 11/8/21
24 Proposals from Architectural & Design firms due 0 days Mon 11/8/21 Mon 11/8/21
25 Award contract to Architectural/Design firm 0 days Wed 12/1/21 Wed 12/1/21
26 Execution of contract 5 days Wed 12/1/21 Wed 12/8/21
27 Development of Phase 1 of Master Plan (Schematic
Design)
95 days Wed 12/8/21 Fri 5/6/22
28 Approval of Phase 1 of Master Plan (Schematic
Design)
0 days Wed 6/1/22 Wed 6/1/22
29 Development of Phase 2 of Master Plan
(Construction Plans & Specifications and Cost
estimates)
60 days Wed 6/1/22 Fri 9/2/22
30 Approval of Phase 2 of Master Plan (Construction
Plans & Specifications and cost estimates)
0 days Wed 9/21/22 Wed 9/21/22
31 Financing Stage 92.22 days Thu 4/28/22 Wed 9/21/22
32 Evaluating Financing Options 30 days Thu 4/28/22 Tue 6/14/22
33 City Council Approval of Financing Plan 0 days Wed 9/21/22 Wed 9/21/22
34 Construction Stage 565 days Wed 9/21/22 Wed 2/26/25
35 Authorization of drafting of Notice Inviting Sealed
Bids for Construction
0 days Wed 9/21/22 Wed 9/21/22
City Council 10/16
City Council 11/20
1/7
City Council 1/7
EIR Consultant
City Council 4/20
EIR Consultant
Traffic Study Consultant
City Council 5/3
EIR Consultant
City Council 8/19
City Council 8/19
City Council 9/21
11/8
City Council 12/1
Architect / Design firm
City Council 6/1
Architect / Design firm
City Council 9/21
City Council 9/21
City Council 9/21
LEGEND TO GANTT CHART
City Council Decision
City Council Update
EIR
Architectural and Design
Finance
Construction
3Q18 1Q19 3Q19 1Q20 3Q20 1Q21 3Q21 1Q22 3Q22 1Q23 3Q23 1Q24 3Q24 1Q25 3Q25 1Q26
1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half
Page 1 E-1
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
36 Publication of Notice Inviting Sealed Bids 45 days Wed 9/21/22 Wed 11/30/22
37 Sealed Bids are due 0 days Wed 11/30/22 Wed 11/30/22
38 Review of Bids 15 days Wed 11/30/22 Fri 12/23/22
39 City Council award of construction contract 0 days Fri 12/23/22 Fri 12/23/22
40 Execution of contract 5 days Fri 12/23/22 Mon 1/2/23
41 Construction 500 days Mon 1/2/23 Wed 2/26/25
42 Receive update on Construction 0 days Mon 7/17/23 Mon 7/17/23
43 Receive update on Construction 0 days Tue 1/30/24 Tue 1/30/24
44 Receive update on Construction 0 days Tue 8/13/24 Tue 8/13/24
45 Ribbon Cutting 0 days Wed 2/26/25 Wed 2/26/25
11/30
City Council 12/23
City Council 7/17
City Council 1/30
City Council 8/13
City Council 2/26
3Q18 1Q19 3Q19 1Q20 3Q20 1Q21 3Q21 1Q22 3Q22 1Q23 3Q23 1Q24 3Q24 1Q25 3Q25 1Q26
1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half 1st Half
Page 2 E-2