Loading...
SR 02-28-2017 4A Ci ty Council Report City Council Meeting : February 28, 2017 Agenda Item: 4.A 1 of 10 To: Mayor and City Council From: Karen Ginsberg, Director , Community & Cultural Services Susan Cline, Director, Public Works Department, David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development Subject: Study Session and Quarterly Update Regarding Civ ic Center Multipurpose Sports Field Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a study session to review and provide direction to staff in response to advancing the development of the Civic Center multi - purpose sports field. Execut ive Summary City staff has continued discussions with SMMUSD staff to explore a potential partnership that would develop a permanent multipurpose sports field on the Civic Center parking lot with two levels of subterranean parking and have broadly discusse d terms that should be considered as part of such partnership if it were to move forward. Staff also met with Coastal Commission staff to obtain their input regarding the development of a temporary sports field on the site. Additionally, staff reissued a R equest for Proposals (RFP) for design services for the temporary civic field and plans to award the feasibility and concept design portion of the contract at this time to RJM Design Group Inc. This would allow for some design work to proceed while ensuring flexibility as the project moves forward. Background On February 9, 2016 (Attachment A) staff presented the Civic Working Group Final Report and proposed next steps to Council. Council directed staff to explore the possibility of placing a temporary fie ld at the corner of 4 th St. and Pico Blvd., to work with partners such as SMMUSD and Santa Monica College on funding options and to return to Council the following May with cost estimates. At the May 24, 2016 Council budget study session (Attachment B), fu nding totaling $200,000 was identified in FY 2016 -17 as part of the FY 2016 -18 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for design of the field. 2 of 10 Following considerable discussion and in response to public testimony, Council adopted a motion directing staff to e armark funds for the construction of the Civic Center multi - purpose sports field and to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status of the project to ensure that it moves forward as quickly as possible. The adopted FY 2016 -18 CIP Biennial Budget inc ludes $200,000 in FY 2016 -17 for the design of the Civic Center sports field and the five -year CIP budget plan for FY 2016 -17 through FY 2020 -21 includes the use of reserve funds for the construction of the Civic Center sports field in FY 2018 -19. On Oct ober 25, 2016 (Attachment C) staff presented a quarterly update on the project at a Council study session. Following the presentation, staff was directed to:  Initiate a discussion with Coastal Commission staff regarding the temporary sports field project on the Civic Center parking lot and its resulting removal of approximately 600 spaces of surface parking;  Continue discussions with SMMUSD staff regarding a potential partnership project in the Civic Center to include subterranean parking and a permanent multi -purpose sports field with associated permanent amenities; and  Reissue the Request for Proposals (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 FY 2016 -17 CIP budget. Staff proceeded per Council’s direction and issued an Information Item on January 17, 2017 to provide Council with an interim progress update (Attachment D). Discussion California Coastal Commission In response to Co uncil direction, City staff met with key Coastal Commission staff on January 17, 2017 to discuss the concept for a temporary multipurpose sports field in the Civic Center. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce Coastal Commission staff to the concept of a temporary sports field in the Civic Center without construction of the underground parking associated with it in the Civic Center Specific Plan, and to 3 of 10 ascertain the information that would be needed for them to evaluate this as a proposed temporary us e which would cover more than 600 spaces in the existing surface parking lot. For purposes of the discussion, we assumed an 8 -10 year lifespan for the temporary sports field. Coastal Commission staff indicated pursuant to the California Coastal Act, in ev a luating projects they are responsible for considering whether the project creates an adverse impact to public access to the beach for recreational purposes. Additionally, they expressed concerns regarding mitigating the loss of parking and made it clear th at any required mitigation would need to be implemented to coincide with the construction of the temporary field and that it would not be acceptable to delay mitigation of the loss of parking to a future permanent solution. They also expressed that they ge nerally do not consider an 8 -10 year timeframe as a temporary use. With this in mind, Coastal Commission staff indicated the following information would be required to consider such a request: 1) Explanation of project phasing 2) Description of the playing fie ld ’s purpose, potential users, and schedule of use 3) Explanation of a long -term plan for permanent subterranean parking and the percentage that would be associated with Civic Auditorium use 4) A c omprehensive p arking a nalysis would be needed to evaluate whether or not the temporary field, including the removal of existing surface parking, would impact coastal access. The analysis would need to evaluate parking utilization in the Civic Center surface parking lot, Civic Center parking structure, nearby beach parki ng lots, and nearby on -street parking by time of day and day of week over the proposed use period , and would need to analyze to what extent the removal of 600+ spaces would impact public access to the beach. The analysis would consider relevant aspects of Downtown parking utilization th at could reasonably affect the Civic C enter, but not necessarily all Downtown parking resources. Coastal Commission staff indicated the study would need to consider uses in the area as well as the impacts on the timing of dec isions made regarding the future repurposing of the Civic Auditorium , and would expect the study to factor in all 4 of 10 alternative modes of transportation including T ransportation D emand M anagement (TDM) plans for all uses. While Coastal Commission staff indi cated their willingness to keep an open mind, they cautioned that a loss of parking that impacts beach access – even if labeled as temporary – could impact the timing for other improvements in the area and especially the repurposing of the Civic Auditorium . Lack of adequate parking availability could potentially pr eclude new activity, leaving the Civic dormant for many years i n the future. The y expressed reservations regarding allowing a use with this level of parking impact to commence without imposing req uirement s to off set or mitigate impacts to beach access, acknowledging that in their experience temporary uses can often become long - term given constituent support for them once in place. Further, Coastal Commission staff indicated they would also want to consider how to guarantee construction of permanent subterranean parking if a temporary field is constructed. They expressed concern that parking for Civic Center uses may be pushed into coastal lots and reduce beach users’ parking opportunities. Coastal Commission staff indicated they will continue to consider and process applications for the Santa Monica Early Childhood Lab School (ECLS; formerly the ECEC) and the City Services Building (at such time as the application is filed) based on existing condit ions as they accumulate; the field is not a submitted project at this time . Potential Partnership with SMMUSD At the November 28, 2016 Board of Education meeting (Attachment E), SMMUSD staff presented options and tradeoffs regarding using School Bond Mea sure ES funding to implement development of Phases 1 and 2 of the Samohi Campus Plan (SCP) Blue Plan or alternatively implement Phase 1 of the SCP and partner with the City to develop a permanent sports field and subterranean parking structure on the Civic Center site (Attachment F). The Board directed its staff to work with City staff to explore whether there are feasible financing options to implement all three of the projects concurrently (Phases 1 and 2 of the SCP and the field with parking) and directe d its staff to return with an update on January 19, 2017. While several Board members present weighed in 5 of 10 on their preferences should they need to choose between options, they expressed interest in receiving input from the PTA Council and possibly others be fore making a decision. It was also noted that it would be important for all Board members to participate in making t his decision should i t be necessary (Attachment G). Subsequently, staff from the City and SMMUSD have performed due diligence for this po tential partnership project including discussions with each institution’s financial advisors and bond counsel. As outlined in Attachment F, it is estimated that this project would range in a rough order of magnitude cost of $80 -85 million. While SMMUSD cou ld contribute a portion of the necessary funds from the District’s ES bond measure that was approved by voters in November 2012, there is insufficient City funding available to fully fund the project. City staff recommend consideration of a g eneral o bliga tion (GO) bond requiring approval by two -thirds of local voters in November 2018 to provide the necessary City support for the project, along with other anticipated park projects such as the construction of the expansion of Airport Park and Memorial Park a nd potentially other anticipated park and recreation projects . City and District staff continue to me e t regularly to establish a recommended term s sheet for a partnership including matters such as financial contributions, management of design and constru ction, usage needs, and maintenance and operations responsibilities . The City, in collaboration with the School District, will conduct an economic analysis of the project, considering such items as land value, construction, shared use, and maintenance , i n order to establish a quantitative baseline for the permanent field cost sharing arrangement. There are risks involved with each option . If the City were to move ahead with a temporary field, the City would lose approximately 600 spaces of parking and t he associated revenue in the Civic Center. While some of this parking loss might be able to be absorbed within the D owntown area, there would be an impact on parkers who use this lot including employees, jurors and other visitors to the County Courthouse, 6 of 10 Samohi ’s staff, parents and students , City employees and visitors and downtown parkers . In fact we have received correspondence from the Superior Court of LA County expressing concerns about the possible loss of parking and the impacts that it would have o n courthouse business (Attachment H). Additionally, as noted by Coastal Commission staff , a lack of parking would likely adversely affect any future negotiations with third parties for the repurposing and operation of the Civic Auditorium. If the City w ere to move ahead with the School District partnership, it would likely complete the design of the permanent field before knowing the results of a GO bond vote in November 2018 in order to have a shovel -ready project . I f the bond measure were to fall short , the funds necessary to design the field will have been risked . Both options would increase field maintenance and operational costs for the City at a time when the City’s five year financial forecast is showing a growing structural deficit. While both o ptions present risks, the permanent field with parking below would be optimal for meeting the needs of the current uses in the area as well as the future use of the Civic Auditorium while providing a permanent solution for the multi -purpose field for use b y SAMOHI teams and the general public as contemplated by the Civic Center Specific Plan. Staff recommends that Council provide direction to continue discussions with SMMUSD staff on terms of a potential partnership. Staff would return to Council with fi nal terms of a proposed Memorandum of Understanding at such time as parameters are further defined . Staff also recommends exploration of the scope and size of a potential Park General Obligation measure for the November 2018 ballot, including discussions w ith community stakeholders to assess support. Design Consultant Selection Per the direction received from Council at the October 25, 2016 meeting, staff reissued RFP SP2461 for design services for the temporary Civic field . Bids were accepted from October 31, 2016 to November 30, 2016. The RFP requested proposals for two scopes of work: a feasibility and concept design 7 of 10 phase which would include preliminary outreach, programming of the site , initial concept design , and construction cost estimate ; and a de sign services phase which would follow completion of the feasibility phase and Council’s approval. Nine proposals were received and publicly opened on November 30, 2016. The proposals submitted range d in total cost from $165,900 to $531,400. Staff from Pub lic Works and Community & Cultural Services reviewed and rated the proposals based on selection criteria including fees, direct experience on similar projects, record performing public sector work, hourly rates for services, understanding of the project’s scope, approach to the work, qualifications of staff and proposed project schedule. Based on the selection criteria, t hree design firms were short listed on December 21, 2016 - BFS Landscape Architects, BrightView Design Group and RJM Design Group Inc. (R JM). Following interviews on January 9, 2017, it was determined that RJM is the most qualified firm and best bidder based on the firm’s clear understanding of the project, track record of projects of similar scope, design team composition, previous experie nce with government agencies, fee structure and references. The multidisciplinary team assembled by RJM is comprised of professionals in the fields of landscape architecture, urban planning, park and sports field design, and civil, electrical and geotechn ical engineering. Additionally, a member of the RJM team has recent extensive experience obtaining permits from regulatory agencies, including the Coastal Commission and the City of Santa Monica. RJM has completed the award - winning Bonita Creek Park renova tion project in Newport Beach that included the addition of approximately four acres of synthetic turf, enhancing access and playability for softball and soccer fields; Chino Hills C ommunity Park, utilizing synthetic turf surfacing and lighting for six mul ti -use sports fields accommodating baseball, softball and soccer; and sports field projects for several other California cities including Lake Forest, Ontario, El Segundo and Temecula. Given the City’s continuing discussions and potential partnership with SMMUSD, staff intends to proce ed with entering into a contract with RJM only for the initial feasibility and concept phase at this time in the amount of $47,025 which is within the City 8 of 10 Manager’s contract authority. This would allow the design for the tem porary field to move forward while providing flexibility should the scope of the project broaden to a permanent multipurpose sports field with subterranean parking . T he feasibility study would determine the viability of designing a softball field to overla y a synthetic turf multipurpose sports field which would be useful regardless of whether the project is ultimately built as a temporary or permanent field. Staff will return to Council in June 2017 to present results of the feasibility study and at that time could request authorization for contract modification to include the full design phase portion of the contract in the amount of $203,973 (including a 10% contingency), depending on Council’s future determination of the project’s direction. Following modification, the proposed contract for the combined feasibility and design phases in addition to a 10% contingency would total $250,998. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to add an action item to a future meeting agenda to authorize award of a con tract with RJM for both feasibility and design phases in the proposed total amount of $250,998 (including a 10% contingency). Lastly, s taff plans to return to Council to provide a quarterly status update in June 2017 to report on progress with the potent ial partnership with SMMUSD with the potential for seeking authorization to enter into an MOU , further discussions with Coastal Commission staff, and the status of t he project’s feasibility study. Civic Center Plan Amendment The Civic Center Specific Pla n (CCSP) currently contemplates that subterranean parking will be constructed as part of the reconstruction of the east wing of the Civic Auditorium expansion. An amendment to the CCSP will be required if the City and SMMUSD elect to proceed with the perm anent multipurpose sports field with subterranean parking under the sports field instead of as part of the Civic Auditorium expansion. 9 of 10 Environmental Analysis Under CEQA guideline 15262, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possib le future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require preparation of an EIR or negative declaration. Future actions to implement either the temporary or permanent sports field will require environmental analysis before app roval, adoption or funding. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary. Staff will return to Council with any future budget enhancements as necessary. Consideration must be given to the various options for capital and operating expenses of the project, whether temporary or permanent. Prepared By: Melissa Spagnuolo, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council 10 of 10 Attachments: A. February 9, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link) B. May 24, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link) C. October 25, 2016 Staff Report (Web Link) D. January 17, 2017 Information Ite m E. November 28, 2016 Board of Education Agenda (Web Link) F. November 28, 2016 District Presentation (Web Link) G. November 28, 2016 Board of Education Meeting Minutes (Web Link) H. 2016 -08 -11 Letter fro m S. Carter, LA County Superior Court Executive Officer I. Written Comments Information Item 1 Date : January 17 , 2017 To: Mayor and City Council From: Karen Ginsberg, Community and Cultural Services Director Susan Cline, Public Works Director Subject: Civic Center Field Status Report Introduction This report is to update the Council on the status of the Civic Center Field project following the Council study session held on October 25, 2016 (Attachment A). Background On February 9, 2016 (Attachment B ) staff presented the Civic Working Group Final Report and proposed next steps to Council. Council directed staff to explore the possibility of placing a temporary field at the corner of 4 th St. and Pico Blvd., to work with partners such as the School District and College on funding options and to return to Council in May with cost est imates. At the May 24, 2016 Council budget study session (Attachment C ), funding totaling $200,000 was identified in FY 20 16 -17 as part of the FY 20 16 -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 X 110 yards plus sideline space), lighting, fencing and a temporary restroom trailer would displace approximately 430 surface parking spaces and replacement of the parking would need to be addressed prior to seeking Coastal Commission approval for the field project. Following considerable discussion and in response to public testimony, Council adopted a motion directing staff to earmark funds for the construction of the Civi c Center multi -purpose sports field and to provide quarterly updates to Council on the status of the project to ensure that it moves forward as quickly as possible. The adopted FY 20 16 -18 CIP Biennial Budget includes $200,000 in FY 20 16 -17 for the design of the Civic Center sports field and the five year CIP budget plan for FY 20 16 -17 through FY 20 20 -21 includes the use of reserve funds for the construction of the Civic Center sports field in FY 20 18 -19. 2 On October 25, 2016 (Attachment A) staff presented a quarterly update on the project at a Council study session. Following the presentation, staff was directed to : • R eissue the R equest for P roposal s (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 FY 20 16 -17 CIP budget; • I nitiate a discussion with Coastal Commission staff regarding the temp orary sports field project on the Civic Center parking lot and its resulting removal of surface parking ; and • C ontinue discussions with SMMUSD staff regarding a potential partnership project in the Civic Center to include subterranean parking and a permanen t multi -purpose sports field with associated permanent amenities. Discussion The following provides a summary of the status of each of the three items staff was directed to pursue. Status of RFP The RFP was reissued on October 31, 2016 and closed on November 30, 2016 . Nine teams submitted proposals ranging in price from $165,900 to $531,400. Staff from Public Works and Community and Cultural Services reviewed the proposals and short -listed three teams. Interviews were held on January 9, 2017 and s taff will return to Council in February for award of the design contract. Coastal Commission Staff has scheduled a meeting with key Coastal Commission staff for January 17, 2017. Due to Coastal Commission staff schedules this was the earliest meeting date available. In preparation for this meeting, staff has pulled together background materials for this discussion. Status of po tential partnership project with SMMUSD At the November 28, 2016 Board of Education meeting, District staff presented options and tradeoffs regarding using School Bond Measure E S funding to implement development of Phases 1 and 2 of the Samohi Campus Plan (SCP) Blue Plan or alternatively implement Phase 1 of the SCP and partner with the City to develop a permanent sports field and subterranean parking 3 structure on the Civic Center site . T he Board directed its staff to work with City staff to explore whether there are feasible financing options to implement all of the projects (Phases 1 and 2 of SCP and field/parking) concu rrently and directed its staff to return with an update on January 19, 2017. While several board members present weighed in on their preferences should they need to choose between options , they expressed interest in receiving input from the PTA Council a nd possibly others before making a decision . It was also noted that it would be important for all Board members to weigh in on this decision should it be necessary (Attachment s D and E). S taff from the City and District have each been doing due diligence for this potential partnership project to include discussions with each institution’s financial advisors and bond counsel. As outlined in Attachment E , it is estimated that this project would range in a rough order of magnitude cost of between $80 -85 mill ion . W hile SMMUSD could contribute a portion of the necessary funds from the District’s ES bond measure that was approved by the voters in November 2012 , C ity staff have determined that a General Obligation bond requiring approval by two -thirds of local voters would be needed to fully fund the project. With this in mind, staff from the District and City have also been meeting regularly to develop a recommended term sheet for a partnership project and plan to return to Council and the Board of Education i n February for direction. At that time, C ity staff will also bring forward a recommendation on consultant selection for the temporary field and information from the meeting with Coastal Commission staff. Prepared By: Karen Ginsberg, Community and C ultural S ervices Director Attachments : Attachment A: October 25, 2016 Staff Report Attachment B: February 9, 2016 Staff Report Attachment C: May 24, 2016 Staff Report Attachment D: November 28, 2016 Board of Education Agenda Attachment E : November 28, 2016 District Presentation 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 the 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 the 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 corner 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 identified 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 forward 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 FY20-21 assigns 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 subterranean 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 design 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 permanent 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 lights, 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 Rios 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 proposals 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 partnership 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 Considerations 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 removal 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, it 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, providing parking below-grade would 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 parking, 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 to 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 return 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 budget; 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 consider 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 activities 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, which 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 15262 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 responds 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 Ci ty Council Report City Council Regular Meet ing: February 9, 2016 Agenda Item: 8.A 1 of 13 To: Mayor and City Council From: Karen Ginsberg, Director , Cultural Affairs (CCS) Martin Pastucha, Director, Andy Agle, Director Subject: Civic Working Group Final Report and Next Steps for the Civic Auditorium Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the Civic Working Group’s report. 2. Consider the proposed ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council Consideration’. 3. Consider the proposed alternatives and direct staff to issue an RFQ for the renovation and operation of the Civic Auditorium as a first step in implementing the Civic Working Group’s recommendations. Executive Summary Council appointed the nine member Civic Working Group (CWG) to one two -year term in the fall of 2013, and tasked them with facilitating c ommunity dialogue and developing recommendations regarding the future of the Civic as the hub of a new mixed -use cultural district. The CWG completed its task in September 2015, and approved a report on the process and outcomes (Attachment A). The CWG’s recommendations are summarized in two sections of the report, the ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council Consideration’. Staff has developed several proposed alternatives to move forward with the CWG’s recommendations and is asking for Council d irection on the report, the proposed ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Priorities for Council Consideration’, as well as next steps for the Civic and the surrounding site. Staff is recommending that the City issue an RFQ for the Civic Auditorium only as a first s tep in implementing the CWG’s recommendations. Background The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium (Civic) was designed by Welton Becket and completed in 1958. The 73,000 square f oo t building is a local landmark and is located on approximately four acres. The o verall Civic site (Site) comprises approximately 10.3 acres. The Early Childhood Education Center (ECEC) will utilize approximately 1.4 acres, leaving approximately 4.9 acres of surface parking. The closure of the Civic in 2 of 13 June of 2013 provides a signifi cant opportunity for the City to determine how best to preserve and repurpose the building and the adjacent Site for future generations. Over the course of the last few years Council has worked extensively with the community and with staff to consider opt ions and possibilities. On August 14, 2012 , (Attachment B ) Council authorized the suspension of the Civic renovation project due to the loss of redevelopment funds and directed staff to develop alternatives for the rehabilitation of the facility. Council considered these alternatives at an October 23, 2012 , (Attachment C ) study session. At that meeting Council affirmed the intent to close the facility as planned and directed staff to return once additional research, including outreach to stakeholders and experts, was completed. As part of this process the City worked with the Urban Land Institute to hold a Technical Assistance Panel which brought in experts to look at the future of the Civic and issue a report. On June 11, 2013 , (Attachment D ) Council re viewed and commented on recommendations regarding an interim use of the Civic, long -term management options, and strategies to generate revenue for the renovation, and the concept of the development of a cultural campus with the Civic Auditorium as the hub . At that time, Council also directed s taff to return with a recommended structure and criteria for a temporary Civic Working Group (CWG) that could provide input on the development of recommendations for the renovation, programming and long -term operatio n of the Civic. On October 22, 2013 (Attachment E ) Council appointed nine members to the Civic Working Group (CWG) to one two -year term and tasked them with facilitating community dialogue and developing recommendations regarding the future of the Civic as the hub of a new mixed -use cultural district , which was the vision articulated in the Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel’s final re port (Attachment F ). The CWG hel d regular public meetings in the East Wing of the Civic between December 201 3 and September 2015 . The CWG structured its work and the community visioning process around three well -attended public workshops. The first took place on September 27, 2014 and focused on the facility, the site and development of a set of working assump tions for the CWG’s deliberative process. The second workshop 3 of 13 unfolded in two parts , over two days, in early in 2015, on January 31st and February 1 st , and was structured around an on -line interactive ‘trade -off’ tool that was specifically developed for t his planning process. Workshop #2 participants, and community members who accessed the tool via the City’s website, were able to explore alternative uses for the Civic and the surrounding site, and make choices regarding use preferences and potential fundi ng sources for capital and annual operating costs. The process allowed nearly 1,700 participants to formulate priorities and corresponding tradeoffs regarding the future use of the Civic Auditorium, potential adjacent cultural uses as well as potential pr ivate land uses , and open space , which helped inform the Civic Working Group’s recommendations and are detailed in the report . The third community workshop took place on June 13, 2015 , and provided an opportunity for the public to discuss the Civic Workin g Group’s findings and draft recommendations. From the beginning, the members of the CWG placed a very high priority on community engagement and transparency. All of the materials developed for the CWG, or that the members of the CWG referenced during th eir work, including notes and video from each workshop, are available on the Civic Auditorium’s website (santamonicacivic.org), as part of an extensive document library (Attachment G ). All of the CWG documents and written community feedback were also comp iled in Volume II of the CWG report, which is also available on -line. The CWG was supported in its process by an interdepartmental team of staff from Community and Cultural Services, Housing and Economic Development, Planning and Community Development, an d Public Works, as well as a diverse team of consultants led by HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A). Discussion Civic Working Group report 4 of 13 The attached report, prepared by HR&A, presents the Civic Working Group’s process, findings and recommendations in detail (A ttachment A). It lays out the information and the rationale that the CWG used to arrive at its collective recommendations and also documents other community points of view expressed throughout the planning process. The CWG approved the report at its fina l meeting on September 28, 2015, after making minor revisions. The CWG structured its recommendations to Council in two parts, consisting of a series of ‘Guiding Principles’ which specify parameters for the future of the Civic and the surrounding site, an d a set of ‘Priorities for Council Consideration,’ which begin to address implementation and next steps. Guiding Principles The CWG developed six broad Guiding Principles that form its central recommendations to Council. The Guiding Principles incorpor ate the CWG’s far - reaching public outreach into both goals , and limits , for the future Civic and the S ite, and are intended to serve as a clear, but flexible , framework for implementing a new mixed - use arts and cultural district anchored by a re -purposed C ivic Auditorium, and to reconnect the site with its surroundings for the first time since its development . The CWG Guiding Principles are as follows : 1 . Preserve and rehabilitate the landmarked Civic Auditorium.  Rehabilitate the landmark Santa Monica Civ ic Auditorium.  Satisfy the community’s desire for an iconic, multi -generational, innovative, state - of -the -art, professional performing arts venue that is the anchor of a cultural campus.  Consider taking advantage of the Civic Auditorium’s flexibility to enable it to serve both performing arts and special events, including community events. 2 . Create a vibrant cultural and community hub around the Civic Auditorium.  Strive to create a signature Civic Auditorium arts and cultural campus that will serve as th e city’s cultural center with a preference for the performing arts.  Include synergistic arts and cultural features , and uses that add to an exciting experience for patrons, such as a flexible performance event space. 5 of 13  Integrate complementary uses that cre ate activity during both daytime and evening such as cafes, restaurants and open space. 3 . Consider private land uses that support and enhance the cultural campus.  Ensure that any private land uses are synergistic with the spirit and activities planned fo r the site, and add to its vibrancy.  Ensure that any private land uses create a smooth, interactive connection to the surrounding neighborhood and the landmarked Civic Auditorium through compatibility of use and scale.  Collaborate with the City to commemor ate the lost Belmar Triangle neighborhood that predated the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium on the site. 4 . Create a flow between the Civic Auditorium site and the surrounding community.  Visually and physically connect the Civic Auditorium, the site, adjace nt amenities, streets, neighbors and institutions.  Prioritize uses that enhance linkages and connectivity between the Civic campus, Santa Monica High School, Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Tongva Park, the Pier and the beach.  Consider establishing a cultural network with the Santa Monica High School performing arts venues including Barnum Hall and the Memorial Greek Amphitheater, and other shared use possibilities with the high school .  Integrate the site with the City’s mobility plans for pedestrians, vehicle s, bikes, and transit. 5 . Include open space on the site.  Include open space that encourages cultural, recreational, and athletic uses consistent with a vibrant cultural campus.  Investigate plans that would allow for a full size multi -use playing field on the site. 6 . Generate innovative and financially sustainable proposals for the Civic and its site.  Consider creating a consortium of public and private management entities.