CC SR 20231219 03 - Civic Center Status Update
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/19/2023
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to receive a status update on Stage 2 of the Civic
Center Campus Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Receive and file a status update on Stage 2 of the Civic Center Campus Master
Plan and provide direction, as needed, on the following items:
a. Stage 2: Master Plan Design Development
b. Project delivery methods
c. Estimated Stage 2 timeline
d. Federal agencies update
e. Funding sources update
f. City Hall interim improvements update
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Ramzi Awaad, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A: October 17, 2023 City Council Staff Report
B. December 7, 2023 Civic Center Advisory Committee Meeting Staff Report:
Status Update
C. December 7, 2023 Civic Center Advisory Committee Meeting Staff Report:
Laguna Niguel City Hall
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 2023, the City Council reviewed and unanimously provided direction on
recommendations forwarded from the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Civic
1
Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) regarding the Preliminary Conceptual Civic Center
Campus Master Plan Project (Project) (Attachment A).
That evening, the City Council reviewed an extensive background of the project, which
included public outreach efforts to date, development of conceptual site plans, the
removal of Los Angeles County Fire Department and Sheriff’s Department stations from
the master plan, the involvement of federal agencies, outreach to the U.S. Coast Guard,
a site geotechnical report, details of the CCAC’s development of a preliminary conceptual
site plan and prioritized development approach, and an overview of FAC’s development
of a preliminary budget and potential financing options.
The recommendations from the FAC regarding potential funding and financing options
and from the CCAC regarding a preliminary conceptual project site plan and a project
prioritization approach were the result of multiple separate meetings in July, August, and
September 2023. The CCAC and FAC approved their recommendations on September 14
and 25, 2023, respectively, and approved presenting their recommendations at a joint
meeting on October 5, 2023. The meetings and analyses conducted by the FAC and CCAC
are detailed in Attachment A.
Figure 1 shows the preliminary conceptual site plan recommended by the CCAC on
October 17, 2023:
Figure 1- Preliminary Conceptual Civic Center Site Plan Recommended by Civic Center Advisory Committee
2
Below is the prioritization approach recommended by the CCAC on October 17, 2023:
• Priority 1: City Hall, public counter, and public safety components with necessary
parking (TBD): A City Hall is the most critical element required for a civic center
campus. Public safety elements are required to fulfill land-use obligations.
• Priority 2: Multi-purpose City Council Chambers: Council Chambers are important
but not as critical as providing a hub for government services.
• Priority 3: Outdoor amenities including dog park, plaza, and amphitheater: Outdoor
and other public site amenities can be added when funding opportunities becomes
available.
• Future Phases: Community Center, public site amenities (village green,
playground), demolition of one-story City Hall building
Below are FAC’s recommendations that were presented on October 17, 2023:
• Self-Financing: $45.4 million as the maximum amount the City can afford to self-
finance consisting of:
o $18.6 million down payment (cash on hand)
o $26.8 million long term loan. If the City Council opts for a loan, FAC’s
statement is that under the present market conditions, a loan of $26.8
million is the maximum borrowable whose subsequent payments can be
afforded while upholding the 50% reserve policy during the full term of the
loan (baseline of 30 years). This funding is also based on the assumption
that the City is eligible to obtain such a loan.
• Other Funding Sources: additional funding sources for the City Council’s
consideration for any gap amount above $45.4 million (in alphabetical order):
o Capital campaign – estimated at 30% of project costs and/or based on
feasibility study.
o General obligation bond – (It could be used for all or part of the needed
financing)
o Grants – potentially for public safety, parking
o On-site revenues
o Public/private partnerships - Peninsula cities, private companies
To the extent that the proceeds of other potential additional sources exceed
the target, such overage shall be used to reduce some or all of the loan or
cash portions.
These three recommendations by the CCAC and FAC effectively constituted the
conclusion of the Civic Center’s Stage 1: Conceptual Site Planning. Staff asked the City
Council to review these recommendations and provide direction on proceeding to Stage
2 of the project: Master Plan Design Development of the Civic Center Campus Master
Plan Project.
At its October 17, 2023 meeting, the City Council unanimously directed Staff to proceed
with the following actions:
3
• Refine the details of what Stage 2 of the Project would look like for the City
Council’s consideration at a future meeting.
• Continue to explore alternate financing sources through public/private partnerships
and/or other sources of grant money to bridge the fund gap recommended by the
FAC.
• Bring back a proposal for the City Council’s consideration of modest retrofit
improvements to the current Administration buildings to make them more livable in
the near-term including, including but not limited to, heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems, electrical, painting, carpeting, and other modest
improvements.
Since the October 17 City Council meeting, Staff has proceeded with developing an
approach to implementing Stage 2 of the Civic Center Master Plan process. Tonight, the
City Council will receive a status update on what has transpired over the past few months
to begin Stage 2. It should be noted that information presented this evening is based on
preliminary consultation with subject matter experts and may change in the coming weeks
once a project manager is onboarded and can provide further information on an optimal
approach to Stage 2 for the City and its intended objectives.
DISCUSSION:
Proceeding to Stage 2: Master Plan Design Development
Anticipated significant components of Stage 2 include, but are not limited to the following:
• Develop, distribute, and evaluate Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) and
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for services including, but not limited to,
professional services for project management, design, grant solicitations, etc.
• Develop, monitor, and update the project schedule.
• Proceed with design development, which may include a design competition and
associated steps such as establishing stipends, determining a jury, developing
evaluation criteria, etc.
• Develop and assist in implementation of a community engagement and public
outreach plan.
• Determine the appropriate project delivery method such as design-build, design-
bid-build, construction manager at risk, etc.
Given the complexity and challenges inherent in a project of this scope and community
importance, Staff believes the prudent next step is to retain the services of a qualified
project management firm with experience in design competitions and a variety of project
delivery methods.
Staff are in the process of preparing an RFQ for distribution to known interested parties
and via Planet Bids (an electronic public works services solicitation platform) for
professional project management services through the completion of Stage 2. The RFQ
4
is scheduled to be distributed by December 15, 2023 with submittals due by the end of
January 2024, selection to be completed in February 2024, and an award to be brought
to the City Council for consideration by March 2024. To avoid any perceived conflict of
interest, the selected project management firm would be precluded from participating on
any teams that are ultimately selected to develop the design for the proposed Project.
The selected project management firm will lead Stage 2 efforts to progress the current
Council-approved conceptual design and program to the next level. This will involve
selecting a design and/or architect, potentially through a design competition. A design
competition invites a group of architects and engineers, through the use of a stipend
payment, to think creatively and bring forth their best ideas for the project based on the
program and estimated budget. This should result in a broader set of ideas and options
than may be the case with selecting a design firm through the traditional process.
Additionally, design competitions can improve community interest and a successful
conclusion can contribute to community identity and pride. Design competitions can also
have disadvantages such as the preferred designs exceeding budgets. Although design
competitions are not very common for public works projects, the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes implemented a design competition in the early 1980s for the design of Hesse
Park.
The successful design and/or architect selected in a design competition, or by traditional
methods, would then be retained to develop a detailed design for a design-bid-build
project delivery method, or simply to bridging documents for a design-build delivery
method. Stage 2 will conclude when the Project is ready to enter Stage 3: Planning
Entitlement and Environmental Review (California Environmental Quality Act).
Project Delivery Methods
While the project delivery method does not need to be determined until the latter parts of
Stage 2, Staff has been researching delivery options for discussion with the selected
project management firm to prepare for decision-making.
There are two primary delivery methods, along with their variations, to consider for this
type of project: Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design Build (DB). Most capital projects in
the City, as well as most public agencies are delivered using the traditional DBB method,
whereby the City retains a design professional to complete plans and specifications for a
project (also known as the construction documents); then seeks the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder, though a sealed bidding process, and then awards a construction
contract to the successful bidder. The designer is selected based on qualifications as well
cost, whereas the City is legally required to select the lowest cost construction contractor
meeting the minimum qualifications.
In contrast, under the DB methodology, the City prepares general scoping documents for
a project, and then hires just one firm, known as the design-builder, to perform both the
final design and construction of the project, all under one contract. A primary advantage
of the DB process is that it accelerates project delivery because some elements of
construction can start while design is still underway. Another main advantage is that the
5
construction contractor is involved in the design process, which can assist the designer
in using designs and materials that are less costly than may have been the case without
the construction contractor’s involvement. A main disadvantage of design-build is that the
City will have to relinquish some control of the design, within set parameters, in order for
the process to be effective. The design-builder is typically selected based on a
combination of qualifications and price, making the selection process sometimes more
complicated.
Both DBB and DB have variations and each process has advantages and disadvantages.
The City anticipates selecting a project management firm with experience in a variety of
delivery methods to guide the City through the advantages and disadvantages of each so
that the optimal method is selected for this particular project.
Estimated Stage 2 Timeline
The following is a preliminary timeline for Stage 2. This timeline will need to be reviewed
and confirmed or adjusted by the project management firm selected by the City to
advance the project.
• Procure Project Management Firm: December 2023 to March 2024
• Develop Design Competition Parameters: April 2024 to June 2024
• Design Competition or Initial Design with Public Process: July 2024 to March
2025
• Design Development: April 2025 to October 2025
Completion of these activities would set the stage for proceeding with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which is estimated to have a duration of
approximately one year. The CEQA process would then be followed by development of
construction documents for a traditional design-bid-build approach or bridging documents
for a design-build approach.
Federal Agencies Update
In 2019, the City Council approved agreements with the United States government
regarding Civic Center property deed restrictions. This action followed an extensive
lobbying effort to shift oversight of that section of the property from the National Park
Service (NPS) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with oversight by the General Services Administration
(GSA). Passive recreation covenants on approximately 9.5 acres on the eastern side of
the Civic Center property were replaced with law enforcement (overseen by DOJ) and
emergency management (overseen by FEMA) covenants. This area is commonly referred
to as the “public safety zone.” For reference, the overall size of the Civic Center property
is 19.03 acres with 7.79 acres on the west side of the property designated as a “General
Government” zone,” 9.5 acres designated as a “Public Safety” zone on the east side, and
the remaining 1.7 acres designated for passive use.
6
Following the removal of the fire and sheriff stations components from the Preliminary
Conceptual Site Plan, the CCAC directed Staff on July 28, 2022, to approach both DOJ
and FEMA to clarify questions and concerns about “public safety zone” requirements on
the Civic Center site.
Representatives from both DOJ and FEMA expressed concerns about the removal of the
sheriff and fire stations. They also expressed concerns that parts of several site
components in the “general government zone” that were not public safety-related
extended into the “public safety zone” as shown shaded blue in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2- Preliminary Conceptual Civic Center Site Plan Overlay on Usage Zones
Both agencies referenced a site plan submitted in 2018 to GSA and NPS that was
subsequently reviewed and accepted by both the DOJ and FEMA-see next page.
The submitted conceptual site plan was part of the basis to initiate the discussion for
approving the transfer of authority from the NPS to the GSA. The conceptual site plan
was created by the firm of Richard Fisher Associates (RFA) and submitted to GSA and
NPS by the City as part of the application process and not intended to represent the final
master plan design.
7
2018 Submission
This conceptual site plan was not known, used, or reviewed by the CCAC, current Staff,
or Gensler in creating the current program document or the preliminary site plans that
have been reviewed by the CCAC and ultimately the City Council. During subsequent
conversations with DOJ, FEMA, and GSA, it became apparent that there was an
assumption on their part that the 2018 conceptual site plan was an approved site plan
that was under construction by the City, which is not the case.
In response, Staff submitted revised applications to FEMA and DOJ earlier this year which
included the more current conceptual site plan. Representatives from FEMA
subsequently informed Staff that the proposed revised site plan has been deemed
acceptable. DOJ, however, recently informed staff that the application was rejected
because the Sheriff drop-in office and Park Ranger facilities were not deemed to be law
enforcement components. Staff have had several meetings with the Federal Agencies to
discuss this issue and explore next steps. One possible option may be to reapply only to
FEMA with the drop-in office and Park Ranger facility being re-designated as
emergency/public safety components if acceptable, or having them moved to the general
government section of the property. Either way, it is Staff’s understanding that the Public
Safety Components are generally acceptable to FEMA and GSA and can proceed, but
not DOJ.
GSA staff noted that the City may be non-compliant if concrete steps are not made
towards completion of the Civic Center based on an approved plan with public safety
elements. While emphasizing that the GSA would work closely with the City on revisions
8
to the project plans, GSA noted that non-compliance could eventually lead to the public
safety section of the property reverting to Federal control leading to an eventual sale of
the land unless purchased by the City at current fair market value. Staff continue to work
closely with GSA to prevent this from happening as the City undergoes and completes its
master planning process and will continue to update the City Council as this situation
develops.
Funding Source Update
Prefunding Options
On October 17, 2023, the City Council affirmed the financial plan for potential project
funding options of $45.4 million as the maximum amount the city can afford to self-finance.
This includes $18.6 million for the down payment (cash on hand) and a potential $26.8
million for a long-term loan. Under the present market conditions, a loan of $26.8 million
represents the maximum borrowable amount, and subsequent payments can be afforded
while upholding the 50% reserve policy throughout the entire life of the loan, based on a
30-year baseline.
Prior to construction, the financial plan for the $18.6 million cash on hand was formulated
including pre-funding contributions from the General Fund and CIP Fund. The pre-funding
contributions would be transferred to a separate fund with projected interest earnings
before the construction phase of the project. In accordance with the pre-funding financial
plan presented to the City Council on October 17, 2023 (see table below), allocations of
$6.5 million from the General Fund and $5 million from the CIP Fund are tentatively
scheduled for appropriations from the unallocated fund balance of FY 2023-24 unless
funding priorities change over the coming months due to other factors facing the City.
When deemed appropriate, Staff will submit a formal request for City Council’s
consideration before the end of FY 2023-24.
Table 1 – Financial Plan for $18.6 Million Cash On Hand
Down Payment (Cash on Hand)
Fund Fiscal Year Potential
Amount
General Fund 2023-24 5,000,000
CIP Fund 2023-24 5,000,000
General Fund 2023-24 1,500,000
General Fund 2024-25 1,500,000
General Fund 2025-26 1,500,000
General Fund 2026-27 1,500,000
Total General Fund 11,000,000
Total CIP Fund 5,000,000
Total Estimated Interest Earnings (4.45%) 2,600,250
TOTAL 18,600,250
9
Other Potential Additional Funding Sources
On October 17, the City Council also approved for Staff to continue to research other
potential additional funding sources for any amount above $45.4 million. One of these
options was to establish a capital campaign for the project. As recommended by the
Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) and approved by the City Council on August 15,
2023, the City will hire a development consultant that specializes in capital campaign
raising. As such, the FAC formed an ad-hoc committee comprised of Vice-Chair Brown,
Member Johnson, and Member Colville. While awaiting the City’s final formation of the
RPV Community Foundation, Staff will resume working towards this goal with the ad-hoc
committee in the coming months to prepare the request for proposals.
City Hall Interim Improvements Update
The Public Works Department has been planning several modest interim improvements
to City Hall administration buildings as directed by the City Council on October 17, 2023.
Preparations are being made to begin painting common areas and offices of the City Hall
buildings. Additionally, quotes have been solicited for replacing carpeting. Some of this
work will begin in the coming weeks under the City Manager’s contract authority and Staff
expects to bring additional contracts for the City Council’s consideration in early 2024.
Painting, carpet replacement, and other minor improvements are expected to be
completed before the end of the current fiscal year on June 30, 2024.
The Public Works Department has also been reviewing parameters to retrofit City Hall
with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. There are several
considerations for retrofitting an HVAC system into the existing buildings including
electrical system impacts and duct work needs. Additionally, there are important external
considerations such as noise and visual impacts. Staff will need to retain an HVAC expert
to assist with the process. As part of this process, a variety of systems will be considered,
including heat pumps. Due to anticipated costs, the City Council will be asked to consider
entering into a contract for HVAC service in the near future.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
CCAC Review
The CCAC received a status update on the October 17 City Council meeting at its
December 7 meeting (Attachment B). That CCAC update covered the same essential
topics contained in this report. The CCAC was asked to provide direction to Staff on the
information to be presented to the City Council tonight. The CCAC approved submitting
the information as presented.
The CCAC also received a presentation on the Laguna Niguel City Hall project which was
completed in 2011. Chair O’Brien noted that the size and cost of Laguna Niguel made it
a project that merited additional research. He requested that staff contact the City of
Laguna Niguel to arrange for a tour. On November 1, 2023, Chair O’Brien, CCAC
Members Paul Klose and Mickey Rodich, and Senior Administrative Analyst Waters took
10
an informative two-hour tour of the Laguna Niguel City Hall led by Assistant City Manager
Justin Martin and Public Works Director Jacki Scott. Martin and Scott provided an in-
depth overview of the facility. At its December 7 meeting, the CCAC recommended that
Staff include the report on Laguna Niguel City Hall as part of the December 19 City
Council status report which includes photos taken during the tour (Attachment C).
CONCLUSION:
Staff is asking the City Council to receive and file a status update on the Civic Center
Campus Master Plan Project and provide direction, as needed, on Stage 2: Master Plan
Design Development, project delivery methods, estimated Stage 2 timeline, federal
agencies update, funding sources update, and City Hall interim improvements.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff’s discussed option, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Direct Staff to suspend work on Stage 2 of the Civic Center Campus Master Plan.
2. Direct Staff to explore alternative approached to Stage 2.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
11