SR 10-25-2016 4A
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : October 25, 2016
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Karen Ginsberg, Director , Community & Cultural Services
Susan Cline, Director, Public Works Department
Subject: Study Session on Civic Center Multi -Purpose Sports Field Options
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that t he City Council conduct a study session to review and provide
direction to staff on a preferred option for advancing the development of the Civic
Center multi -purpose sports field.
Executive Summary
Development of a multi -purpose sports field in the Civic Center is at a point where
direction is needed from the Council to proceed. Staff has received two proposals from
landscape architecture firms for the design of the temporary sports field in the Civic
Center. Both proposals exceed the funds approved in t he FY16 -17 Capital Improvement
Program budget. Separately, City staff has had some initial discussions with Santa
Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) staff regarding a possible opportunity
to form a partnership to address permanent options for field space and parking .
Background
On February 9, 2016 (Attachment A) staff presented the Civic Working Group Final
Report and proposed next steps to the Council. Council directed staff to explore the
possibility of placing a temporary field at the co rner of 4 th and Pico, to work with partners
such as the School District and College on funding options and to return to Council in
May with cost estimates. At the May 24, 2016 Council budget study session
(Attachment B), funding totaling $200,000 was iden tified in FY16 -17 as part of the
FY16 -18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for design of the field. Based upon a very
preliminary analysis in May, it was noted in the report that a temporary field for soccer
and lacrosse (60 X110 yards plus sideline space ), lighting, fencing and a temporary
restroom trailer would displace approximately 430 surface parking spaces and that
replacement of the parking would need to be addressed prior to seeking Coastal
Commission approval for the field project. (Attachment C) Following considerable
discussion and in response to public testimony , Council adopted a motion directing staff
to earmark funds for the construction of the Civic Center multi -purpose sports field and
2 of 6
to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status of the project to ensure that it
moves fo rward as quickly as possible. The FY16 -18 adopted CIP Biennial Budget
includes $200,000 in FY16 -17 for the design of the Civic Center sports field and the five
year CIP budget plan for FY16 -17 through FY20 -2 1 assi gns reserve funds for the
construction of the Civic Center sports field in FY18 -19.
Recently, SMMUSD staff approach ed City staff with interest in exploring the possibility
of developing a permanent multi -purpose sports field at the Civic Center with
subte rranean parking.
The discussion below provides a quarterly update on the project status including
identification of several options for consideration by the Council including providing staff
with direction on whether to proceed with feasibility and desi gn of a temporary multi -
purpose sports field or to direct staff to pursue the idea of a partnership project with
SMMUSD that would accommodate subterranean parking as well as a permanen t multi -
purpose sports field and return to Council with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
to formalize discussions with SMMUSD and outline the issues to be addressed .
Discussion
Status of Request for Proposals
On July 21, 2016 staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three prequalified firms
to provide a feasibility planning analysis and design of a single multipurpose sports field
with synthetic turf suitable for regulation California Interscholastic Federation (CIF)
soccer, lacrosse, rugby and the possibility of accommodating CIF High School softball
use. Field li ghts, fencing and temporary restrooms were identified as components to be
included. The RFP asked that the firms responding provide costs for a
feasibility/concept phase and a design development/construction document phase.
Proposals were received from Rio s Clementi Hale Studios (RCHS) and AHBE
Landscape Architects. The Office of James Burnett respectfully declined to submit a
proposal due to the firm’s workload and belief that they were not a good fit for the
limited scope of the project. Both of the prop osals exceed the $200,000 budgeted in
FY16 -17 for design by a substantial amount as follows:
3 of 6
RCHS: Phase 1: $149,075
Phase 2: $653,725
TOTAL $802,800
AHBE: Phase 1: $ 59,910
Phase 2: $364,060
$423,970
Discussions with SMMUSD
In response to Council direction, staff has been in regular contact with SMMUSD staff
regarding the development of the temporary field in the Civic Center . Recently,
SMMUSD staff expressed interest in exploring the feasibility of forming a partn ership to
address both the field and the parking loss on the site by jointly funding the
development of parking as part of a permanent multi -purpose sports field. Use of the
field and parking along with other issues such as ownership/possessory interest rights
of the improvements and land, allocation of responsibility for design and construction,
provision for interim parking for the public and City employees during construction,
financing of development, responsibility for maintenance and operations of t he parking
and sports field facilities , use of parking revenues and managing a coordinated
schedule of events would need to be fully negotiated as part of any future agreement
should this concept put forward by SMMUSD staff move forward.
Parking Conside rations
There are currently approximately 1000 parking spaces in the surface parking lot.
Based upon further analysis that was completed in preparing to issue the RFP for the
temporary field, it is estimated that a temporary field would result in the remo val of
closer to 600 parking spaces currently serving City Hall, the Santa Monica County
Courthouse, Samohi, the Civic Auditorium and other surrounding uses.
Based upon an initial analysis, i t is estimated that if two levels of subterranean parking
were to be developed on the site, each level could accommodate approximately 350
spaces for a total of approximately 700 spaces. Relocation of sewer and utility lines
would need to occur as part of a below grade structure, but the existing storm drain on
the Civic site would not be affected given its location below the Early Childhood
Education Center (ECEC) footprint. Analysis would also be needed to determine
whether the existing below grade monitoring wells located on the property adjacent to
4 of 6
Pico Boulevard would be affected by subterranean parking. As shown on Attachment C,
the location of the proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) would not
be affected if this concept were to proceed.
It is estimated that a project of this scale would range between $80 -85 million based
upon a rough order of magnitude cost analysis . A full financing plan would be needed
to address the full cost of implementing this concept.
If parking were to be provided below grade , it would enable the sports field to be
installed as a permanent facility rather than a temporary facility including associated
amenities such as a permanent restroom facility, storage and field lighting. Additionally,
p roviding parking below -grade w ould be of benefit to the long term re purposing the Civic
Auditorium. City staff continue to have concerns about the feasibility of securing
Coastal Commission approval for a temporary field at the Civic Center without
identifying replacement parking and believe that providing parking below grade would
address this concern . It is likely that a partnership project of this scope would require
four years to implement from start to finish which would extend the timeframe outlined
for the temporary field by a minimum of an additional year. While there would need to
be amendments made to the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) to implement this
concept , it would address many of the goals outlined in the CCSP which called for
parking to serve the needs of Civic Center activities, shared use of p arking, placing
parking below grade as part of the Auditorium Special Use District and development of
a sports field at the southeast corner of the Civic Auditorium parking lot.
Options for Consideration and Next Steps
The Council has several options t o consider in providing direction to staff as outlined
below.
A. Direct staff to identify additional funds for procurement of services from one of
the two firms that submitted proposals to develop the design of the temporary
multi -purpose sports field and re turn to Council with an award recommendation;
or
B. Direct staff to reissue the RFP to a wider range of potential firms for the design of
the temporary field in an effort to identify a fee proposal that is aligned with the
$200,000 budget in the FY16 -17 CIP b udget; or
5 of 6
C. Direct staff to continue discussions with SMMUSD staff to include the necessary
steps that the District would need to take with the School Board with the intent to
return to Council with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU ) to outline issues
to be addressed and formalize discussions with SMMUSD for a partnership
project in the Civic Center that would include subterranean parking and a
permanent multi -purpose sports field with associated permanent amenities.
One option that the Council could con sider would be to direct staff to proceed with
Options B and C concurrently so as not to lose time should Option C not move beyond
the discussion stage. Based upon the direction of the Council, staff will proceed
accordingly.
Environmental Statement
CE QA review is not required for a Council study session to review and provide direction
to City staff on the potential Civic Center multi -purpose sports field project. City Council
direction to procure services for the conceptual design and/or planning acti vities for the
Civic Center is not a project under CEQA because it is an activity that is excluded from
the definition of a project by Section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The
proposed actions involve an administrative activity of government, wh ich will not result
in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Furthermore, Council direction
for Staff to procure feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions at the
Civic Center are also statutorily exempt under Section 1 5262 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Prior to any future approval actions for the project, City staff will complete a
CEQA review and provide the appropriate environmental documentation for Council
consideration.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary. Staff will return to
Council with any budget enhancements including a financing strategy that considers
competing priorities and respon d s to the direction provided.
6 of 6
Prepared By: Karen Ginsberg , Director
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. February 9, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
B. May 24, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link)
C. Civic Field Site Diagram
D. Written Comments