Loading...
2002 NOV 19 CC PACKET - 1AGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City- related business that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the Meeting During the first Public Communications item listed on the Agenda, comments are limited to those items appearing on the Agenda During the second Public Communications item listed on the Agenda, comments may be made regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item The time limit for comments is five (5) minutes per person Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state Your name and residence and the organization you represent, if desired Please respect the time limits Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2 00 p m the prior Tuesday) The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five (5) minutes in length In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 — 5:00 P.M. Next Resolution # 4288 Next Ordinance # 1356 5:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION: The City Council may move Into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et sea) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator, and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation, and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel), and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators, as follows 001 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956 9(a)) 1 Southern California Edison v State of California, Department of Transportation, LASC YC043605 2 City of El Segundo v Stardust West, LASC YC031364 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956 9(b) -3- potential cases (no further public statement is required at this time), Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956 9(c) -1- matter DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957 6) — None SPECIAL MATTERS — None 2 QA- AGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City- related business that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the Meeting During the first Public Communications item listed on the Agenda, comments are limited to those items appearing on the Agenda During the second Public Communications item listed on the Agenda, comments may be made regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item The time limit for comments is five (5) minutes per person Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state Your name and residence and the organization you represent, if desired Please respect the time limits Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2 00 p m the prior Tuesday) The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days onor to the meetino and thev do not exceed five (5) minutes in length In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 — 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution # 4288 Next Ordinance # 1356 7:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION— Pastor Julie Elkins of El Segundo United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Kelly McDowell PRESENTATIONS — ROLL CALL 003 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250 While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda The Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title Recommendation — Approval B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Consideration and possible action regarding alternative designs on the proposed Recreation Park Master Plan and new Community Center. Recommendation — (1) Review and comment on the following design revisions to the Community Center conceptual design (a) The new Community Center should include multipurpose room /gymnasium, presentation hall /theater, classrooms, restrooms, kitchen, and storage room uses, (b) Limit the height of the proposed multipurpose room /gymnasium to 13 '/< -151/4 feet above Pine Avenue (recognizing that Pine Avenue slopes down towards the west), (c) Limit the size of the multipurpose room /gymnasium to 8,200 net square feet, (d) Limit the size of the presentation hall /theater to 150 fixed seats, and (e) Expand the north parking lot adjacent to Pine Avenue to include an additional 37 spaces and restripe the south parking lot (accessed from Eucalyptus) to include an additional 24 parking spaces, providing a total of 337 parking spaces, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS E. CONSENT AGENDA All Items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of business 004 2. Warrant Numbers 2529459 to 2529791 on Register No. 3 in the total amount of $875,553.42 and Wire Transfers from 10/26/2002 through 11/08/2002 in the total amount of $333,145.43. Recommendation — Approve Warrant Demand Register and authorize staff to release Ratify Payroll and Employee Benefit checks, checks released early due to contracts or agreement, emergency disbursements and /or adjustments, and wire transfers 3. City Council Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 and Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the El Segundo City Council and Recreation & Parks Commission on October 8, 2002. Recommendation — Approval 4. Consideration and possible action regarding the establishment of a professional service contract with Kimley -Horn & Associates to prepare the Circulation Element of the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The amount to be paid to the consultant under this agreement is $244,530. Recommendation — (1) Approve a professional services contract in a form approved by the City Attorney with Kimley -Horn & Associates to prepare the Circulation Element of the General Plan and EIR, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take action related to this item 5. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of extension of Agreement with the City of Manhattan Beach for Median Landscape Maintenance of Rosecrans Avenue. Recommendation — (1) Approve second Amendment to the Median Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City of Manhattan Beach, (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment on behalf of the City, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 6. Consideration and possible action on the awarding of RFP No. PA02 -18 (Fire Uniforms and Accessories) to the most responsive bidders, and authorize the City Manager to execute the three (3) year agreement with a renewal option for an additional three (3) year period, for a maximum total contract length of six (6) years. Recommendation — (1) Award the three (3) year contract to Keystone Uniforms, Carmen's Uniforms, Uniforms, Inc and Long Beach Uniform as the Fire Department's primary suppliers of uniforms and accessories, (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the three (3) year agreement and to exercise the renewal option for an additional three (3) year period, if in the City's best interest, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 5 005 7. Consideration and possible action regarding a request by the Fire Department to authorize staff to purchase a Low Power AM Radio Station from a single source vendor, Information Station Specialists, Inc. (ISS, Inc.) through grant funding provided by the Office of Traffic Safety and Caltrans. Total project cost not to exceed $28,000. Recommendation — (1) Waive the formal bidding process per the Municipal Code, (2) Authorize purchase and installation of a low power AM radio station through single source vendor, ISS Inc , (3) Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard City professional services agreement on behalf of the City, (4) Authorize staff to seek and purchase, using alternative funding resources, radio- controlled electronic warning beacons (approximately 20) to alert the community of an emergency, (5) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 8. Consideration and possible action authorizing the City Manager to execute a public service agreement with Bob Murray & Associates for an amount not to exceed $23,500 for the purpose of providing executive search services. Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a public service agreement with Bob Murray & Associates for the purpose of providing executive search services, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 9. Consideration and possible action regarding award of contract to BKM Total Office of California L.P. for City Hall Improvements, Phase 1 — Approved Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Impact $44,250). Recommendation — (1) Waive the formal bidding process per the Municipal Code, and approve the City's use of U S Communities, Fairfax County, VA , competitively solicited Master Agreement #RQ01- 411313 -16, for office furniture with Steelcase (manufacturer) and award contract to the authorized distributor and installers BKM Total Office of California L P , in the amount of $44,250, (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard City Professional Services Agreement on behalf of the City, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 10. Consideration and possible action regarding an agreement with JCM Facilities Planning and Management for professional architectural services for City Hall Improvements Phase 2 — Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project No. PW 02-19 (Estimated cost of service $17,500). Recommendation — (1) Approve the standard consultant agreement, (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 6 O06 11. Consideration and possible action authorizing staff to advertise the installation of an ADA elevator at City Hall (350 Main Street) — Approved Capital Improvement Program - Project No. PW 02 -18 (Estimated Cost $300,000). Recommendation — (1) Authorize staff to advertise the project again for receipt of construction bids, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 12. Consideration and possible action to approve Tract Map No. 53334 which encompasses 210 and 214 Whiting Street. Recommendation — (1) Approve Tract Map No 53334; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 13. Consideration and possible action for acceptance of the Acacia Park Irrigation System Replacement — Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project No. PW 02 -13 (Contract Amount $18,696). Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item 14. Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to make an advance payment of $75,000 and to execute a reimbursement agreement with Exxon Mobil (Exxon) Pipeline Company for relocation of Exxon's 8" pipeline for the Douglas Street Gap Closure Project — Approved Capital Improvement Program (Estimated Cost $375,000). Recommendation — (1) Approve an advance payment of $75,000 to Exxon, (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a reimbursement agreement with Exxon as approved by the City Attorney, (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA F. NEW BUSINESS — REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — NONE H. REPORTS —CITY ATTORNEY— NONE REPORTS — CITY CLERK - NONE J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — NONE K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 007 Council Member McDowell — Council Member Gaines — Council Member Wernick — Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs — Mayor Gordon — 15. Consideration and possible City Council who will serve recruitment incentives for a 1 action regarding the appointment of members of the on a subcommittee that will examine new business not to exceed 90 Recommendation — (1) Appoint two (2) Council members to the subcommittee for the purpose of examining new business recruitment Incentives for a period not to exceed 90 days, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250 While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda The Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed MEMORIALS CLOSED SESSION The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, at sue) for the purposes of conferring with the Gty's Real Property Negotiator, and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation, and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel), andlor conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) ADJOURNMENT POSTED / DATE TIME NAME �Vlc f f i EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING Unfinished Business Consideration and possible action regarding alternative designs on the proposed Recreation Park Master Plan and new Community Center RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION 1) Review and comment on the following design revisions to the Community Center conceptual design a The new Community Center should include multipurpose room /gymnasium, presentation hall /theater, classrooms, restrooms, kitchen, and storage room uses, b Limit the height of the proposed multipurpose room /gymnasium to 13 '/4 -15 '/4 feet above Pine Avenue (recognizing that Pine Avenue slopes down towards the west), c Limit the size of the multipurpose room /gymnasium to 8,200 net square feet, d Limit the size of the presentation hall /theater to 150 fixed seats, and e Expand the north parking lot adjacent to Pine Avenue to include an additional 37 spaces and restripe the south parking lot (accessed from Eucalyptus) to include an additional 24 parking spaces, providing a total of 337 parking spaces 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this Item BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION- On September 17, 2002, City Council directed the City Manager to have LPA (the City's {Background and discussion continued on the next page....) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT A — Summary of October 8th public workshop comments EXHIBIT B — Letters and comments received from residents EXHIBIT C — Cost estimate of rehabilitating existing clubhouse EXHIBIT D — Assessment of the existing clubhouse structural elements EXHIBIT E — Cost summary of different Community Center alternatives EXHIBIT F — Asbestos survey of existing clubhouse EXHIBIT G — Traffic study of proposed Community Center EXHIBIT H — Recreation Park programming attendance for 2001 -2002 EXHIBIT I — Recreation Park Master Plan FISCAL IMPACT. Operating Budget. $7,138,400 (includes funding in FY 2002 -2003 $500,000) Amount Requested N/A Account Number 301 - 400 - 8202 -8490 Project Phase N/A Appropriation Required. —Yes X No ORIGIPJAQTED BY �cr. - DATE. a Ja es Hlansen. Director of Communitv Economic. and Develooment Services Deoartment oZ Q BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued) consultant) revise the Recreation Park Master Plan, redesign the Community Center conceptual design, and solicit public comments for 30 days including a public workshop As a result, staff and LPA completed the following. 1) revised the design of the Community Center and conducted a workshop to obtain additional public comments, II) examined relocating the multipurpose room /gymnasium to another location on the park and the middle school, 111) computed the cost of rehabilitating the existing clubhouse, IV) studied parking and traffic demands, V) examined the cost of relocating the multipurpose room /gymnasium, and VI) examined the current recreation park programming. Item VII discusses staffs recommendations and Item VIII discusses the future schedule of the protect 1. Public Workshop City Council, Recreation and Parks Commission, city staff, and LPA conducted a public workshop on October 8, 2002 at the George E Gordon Clubhouse All members of the community were invited to attend LPA's presentation began with an overview of the master planning process for the Recreation Park followed by the evolution of the Community Center conceptual design, and then concluded with the latest design revisions to the Community Center protect (Exhibit A offers a summary of the comments from the public and Exhibit B includes letters and comments received from residents.) Mayor Design Revisions At the public workshop LPA proposed the following design revisions to the Community Center 1 A reduction of 3'/2 feet in height of the proposed multipurpose room /gymnasium to 13 '/4- 15' /<feet above Pine Avenue (recognizing that Pine Avenue slopes down towards the west) 2 A reduction in size of the multipurpose room /gymnasium from 9,600 to 8,200 net square feet (programmable space), 3 A reduction in seating capacity in the multipurpose room /gymnasium from 100 to 50 seats, 4 An expansion of the tot lot from the proposed 1,550 square feet to its existing size of 6,000 square feet, 5 An expansion in parking from the original proposed 313 spaces to 337 parking spaces, and, 6 A reduction in size to the presentation hall /theater from 250 to 150 seat capacity At the end of the workshop, the City Council directed staff to extend the public comment period an additional 30 days, and return to Council with a report City Council recommended staff consider four options 1. Approve the conceptual plan that was presented at the workshop, 2. Remove the multipurpose room /gymnasium entirely from the protect, 3 Relocate the multipurpose room /gymnasium to another location on the park, and, 4 Defer the design of the multipurpose room /gymnasium to a later date 10 II. Site Relocation Alternatives Relocation of Multipurpose Room /Gymnasium within the Park LPA studied the possibility of relocating the multipurpose room /gymnasium to another location at the park At the workshop LPA presented six locations where the park could possibly accommodate a new multipurpose room /gymnasium Those locations are 1 Adjacent to the existing checkout building, 2 Demolish the checkout budding and build a new facility that would accommodate the services of the checkout building and multipurpose room /gymnasium, 3 West of the Inline Rink, eliminating outdoor basketball courts and one tennis court, Relocating Inline 4 On the existing Inline Rink and adjacent to the open land to the east, 5 Scout building site, and, 6 East of the Joslyn Center - eliminating two existing tennis and volleyball courts - impacting programmable space and lawn bowling area After LPA's presentation the workshop was opened to the public for questions and comments (see Exhibit A for summary of comments) In summary, the pros and cons in relocating multipurpose room /gymnasium to alternative locations include Pros 1) Balancing of programs on the park 2) Reduce visual Impacts from Pine Avenue 3) Reduce parking demand off Pine Avenue (Continued on following page) Cons 1) Additional cost due to project splitting 2) Additional staffing required and costs 3) No reduction in parking demand 4) Loss of outdoor programming space 11 Relocation of Multipurpose Room /Gymnasium to Center Street Middle School Staff studied whether it would be feasible and practical to relocate the multipurpose room /gymnasium to the Center Street Middle School Although it is similar in scope to relocating the multipurpose room /gymnasium on the park, additional concerns were brought up by staff With the public comments during the workshop, staff measured the pros and cons of relocating multipurpose room /gymnasium to the middle school They are Pros 1) Additional use by children attending middle school 2) Reduce visual impacts from Pine Avenue Cons 1) Additional cost due to project splitting 2) Concerns regarding security 3) Additional staffing required. 4) No control of the facility 5) No reduction in parking demand 6) Poor traffic circulation in the area. 7) Sport competition will generate additional parking demands in the area ➢ Staff recommends to not relocate the multipurpose room /gymnasium to another location. 12 III. Rehabilitating Existing Clubhouse Staff inspected the existing Clubhouse and assessed the conditions that are regulated by current code requirements Staff also retained the services of an outside structural consultant to provide an opinion of the structural integrity of the budding The assessment resulted in the following findings 1 The existing budding and the surrounding area do not meet any of the current ADA requirements, 2 The electrical system switch gear does not have proper ground fault and grounding The insulation on the wiring system throughout the building may be in poor shape (further investigation required). The panels and transformer cabinets are rusted, 3. The mechanical system does not meet current energy efficiency ratings, 4 The budding does not meet any of the current state energy efficiency requirements 5. The budding does contains asbestos material and may contain lead (see Exhibit F) The asbestos is a serious problem when it is disturbed during remodel or any alteration, and, 6 The lateral bracing system does not meet current structural seismic requirements (see attached letter, Exhibit D, from MRH Structural Engineers.) Staff produced a cost estimate (Exhibit C) based on addressing the findings above In summary, it would cost $3 5 million ($350 per square foot) to rehabilitate the existing budding to be in compliance with current code requirements This cost estimate does not include any expansion to the budding and is subject to the standard bid process The comparison of rehabilitating the existing budding to the cost of a new Community Center is $350 and $264 respectively (Exhibits D, E, and F provide additional detail on the analysis of the above alternatives ) ➢ Staff recommends that a new facility be constructed versus rehabilitating the existing clubhouse. J IV. Parking and Traffic Study Staff retained the services of a traffic engineer, Steven - Garland Associates, to study the parking and traffic impacts due to the construction of a new Community Center ( see report in Exhibit G) The study assumed a 27,500 square foot facility, comprised of multipurpose /gymnasium, multipurpose classrooms, presentation hall /theater, and office and storage space Parking The new center would generate a peak parking demand of 20 vehicles on a typical weekday, 35 vehicles on a typical weekend, 80 vehicles during a medium -size event, and 135 vehicles during a large event A large event would typically occur in the evening at the presentation hall /theater maximizing the 250 available seats, performers, and support staff during the event LPA was directed to address the parking concern raised by the community LPA originally planned on increasing the amount of parking by an additional 37 spaces to 313 spaces by reconfiguring the north parking lot off Pine Avenue LPA did further studies to find ways of increasing the amount of parking beyond the proposed 313 spaces LPA proposed the following 1 Restripe the parking area located at the south of the park accessed from Eucalyptus This will allow an additional 24 spaces to be added increasing the parking from 313 to 337 spaces, and, 2 Expand the parking lot that is accessed from Pine Avenue to add an additional 110 spaces This will increase the total parking available at the park to 386 spaces Item 2 above would significantly increase the amount of parking at the park but at significant costs due to additional retaining walls, and the elimination the picnic area Traffic The new center would generate an average hourly traffic volume increase of 23 vehicles per hour on a weekday and 31 vehicles per hour on the weekend During the busiest time (other than a special event) the facility would generate approximately 60 vehicles per hour, In summary, while the proposed facility would result in an increase in traffic volumes on the streets that provide access to the project site, the increase would be relatively minor and would not result in a substantial change in traffic conditions or a significant traffic impact ➢ Staff recommends: I. Restriping the south parking area (accessed from Eucalyptus) to increase the total parking provided to 337 spaces. 2. Placing conditions to prevent multiple large events from occurring in the presentation hall /theater and the multipurpose room /gymnasium at the same time. 1411 V. Cost Summary of Alternative Projects Staff completed cost estimates (see Exhibit E) for different Community Center alternatives with the following results: 1 Stand alone multipurpose room /gymnasium- 2 Community Center without multipurpose room /gymnasium 3 Community Center replace gym with 1,500 sq ft activity room 4 Community Center presented at October 8`" public workshop 5 Community Center presented at September 17th, City Council $2 57 Million $5 43 Million $5 83 Million $6 73 Million $7 16 Million In summary, it would cost $8 million (design and construction) to build a Community Center and separate multipurpose room /gymnasium facility This includes an additional $1 million to relocate the multipurpose room /gymnasium to another location versus constructing one facility ➢ Staff recommends to not split the project due to cost. VI. Current Recreation Parks Programming — George E. Gordon Clubhouse Recreation Division staff produced a summary (see Exhibit H) from the program registration software to identify the classes offered at the Clubhouse in 2001 -2002 and the number of registrants per class session with totals Youth classes accounted for 90% of the total class registrants, with adult classes registering 10% of the participants at the Clubhouse The variety and frequency of the program offerings maximizes the use of the current facility during weekly prime time program periods Additional activity room space at Recreation Park would contribute to a more efficient program offering to the community Currently, new program proposals have been put on hold due to space limitations at the Clubhouse. Certain popular classes that often have waiting lists (e g children's cooking classes, arts and crafts, ceramics, and teddy bear classes) would have more sessions offered to accommodate the demand In the past, dance classes were offered two days per week, but have been limited to once a week due to space limitations Staff has also turned down requests for meeting room space by community groups With the addition of a Community Center with multiple activity rooms and additional square footage, the Recreation Division would have an opportunity to accommodate the additional community demand for special interest classes, activities, and meeting space 15 VII. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends the following design revisions to the Community Center conceptual design 1 A new Community Center should be constructed versus remodeling or adding to the existing clubhouse due to its current condition; 2 A new Community Center should not be split into two projects with a separate multipurpose room /gymnasium placed in another location because of cost and site impacts, 3 A new Community Center should include multipurpose room /gymnasium, presentation hall/theater, classrooms, restrooms, kitchen, and storage room uses, 4 A new multipurpose room /gymnasium should be limited in height to 13 Y. -15 '/< feet above Pine Avenue (recognizing that Pine Avenue slopes down towards the west), 5. Limit the size of the multipurpose room /gymnasium to 8,200 net square feet, 6 Limit the size of the presentation hall /theater to only allow 150 fixed seats, and; 7 Expand the Recreation Park parking lot at Pine to include an additional 37 spaces and restnpe the south recreation park parking lot to include an additional 24 parking space, providing 337 parking spaces VIII. Next Step Based on City Council comments staff will direct LPA to develop new conceptual designs and color renderings for the new Community Center Staff will review the project for environmental impacts and submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval the environmental assessment and conditional use permit tentatively on January 9, 2002 Staff will then present the design for City Council approval tentatively on February 4, 2002. 1 EXHIBIT October 10, 2002 EL SEGUNDO COMMUNITY CENTER COMMUNITY FORUM OCTOBER 8, 2002 700 -900PM LPA Proiect No 2108510 Comments From Meeting • Drama Activities • Revisit moving gym to Jr High • Leave Gordon Clubhouse - Bring up to date • Need for Gym's • Gym at middle school (2nd Gym building) • Quantity of classrooms • Separate Gym — Future phases • Open play areas • "Arts" spaces — Need more • Wood floor at Multi- Purpose Budding - Limit uses? • Does Gym mean only Basketball? • Separate Gym - What happens to rest of budding • Cushioned floor for dance • Skateboarders on stair • H R balls into tot lot? - Concern - • Dividers and Acoustics • Celebrate Arts and Sports r El Segundo Community Center Community Forum Meeting LPA Project No 2108510 • Locate Gym over existing Basketball • Community needs own real theatrical space • Expanded Tots with Gym takes away open play • Quantity of classrooms • Adult programs • No Gym • Parking — Patterns of Use • Find way to include Gym • Why keep drawing Gym? • Video Room • Park impacted — Gym elsewhere? • Parking • Gym — Classrooms • Gym at Checkout Building • Keep Clubhouse • Why Gym? • Outgrown Gordon • Gym with new soccer fields • High quality theater • Size of Gym — Current too limited — Move? • Project too large for site - Smaller Gym at west - 2nd Floor on Joselyn Center C (Documents and SethngslSJugisl oval SettingslTemporary Internal Res10LKC1Communrty Forum Meeting Comments doc October 10, 2002 Page 2 A r'1 EXHIBIT B JU1*0, selme le From: Devaral, Bellur Sent. Friday, August 23, 2002 9 06 AM To: Santamana, Andres, Strenn, Mary Cc, Johnson, Greg, Ketz, Chris, Hansen, James, Jurps, Seimone Subject. Community Center FYI A resident of 905 , East Pine Ave called me yesterday and complained about too much traffic, speeding etc on Pine Avenue east of Rec Park His goal appeared to be the closing of Pine avenue to thru traffic and stated that the neighborhood wants this closure and he has been chosen as their spokesperson A petion may be forthcoming During my discussion ( re speed bumps stop signs road closures etc) he asked if a traffic study has been done for the new community center project expressing the concern that once the center is completed it may worsen the current traffic conditions on Pine (told him that I was not aware of a "traffic study" for the project The resident did not pursue this issue any further I don't know where this is going but thought you might want to be informed about these issues 19 - i " c L To: E1 Segundo City Council Members From Jane Gordon Tounno Subject: George E_ Gordon Jr. Clubhouse Date August 1, 2002 RECEIVEn AUG 5 2002 l� >L3 Lt u w/ 1� I�I AUG — ! L" CITY MANAGEWS UH-4LE � PUBLIC WORKS J 2 _ S ):NGu4MRLNG There are several issues about the above mentioned clubhouse that have been expressed by myself and other concerned citizens. To date the E.S. City Council has not responded to my letter dated April 12, 2002. A copy has been attached for reference. I believe this clubhouse is the newest public building in El Segundo, with one exception, the Joslyn Center. It is also the only building designated for cultural arts. Our city has not had money in the past to maintain this building. Suddenly we have 6 million to demolish it and rebuild a new structure which includes a full sized basketball court using 1/3 to 1/2 of the inclosed space. There are lots of cities with twice our population that don't have 23 basketball courts. Are we the taxpayers being forced to pay for a new basketball court because our mayor wants the new building named for himself? At the April 1, 2002 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the basketball court was discussed extensively. The Architectural Firm (LPA) was asked by the Parks and Recreation Commission to reduce the size of the basketball court by one half. They agreed that all needs of the community could adequately be met in the future with a court half the proposed size. The number of showers was also to be reduced. This decision allowed more space to be used for cultural arts activities without creating a budget problem. Following this meeting, Mayor Gordon said he wanted a full sized basketball court and that is how it now stands. Keep in mind recreation facilities are open for all citizens in neighboring cities who choose to use them, especially a desirable basketball court with showers. The original budget of 5 million only includes the structure. Tree removal and new landscaping plus a new children's playground are significant additional costs. Also add in new equipment, refurbishment of existing tables and fiuniture, wall decorations, stage enhancements, etc. The total project will be closer to 7 million dollars. The existing recreation budget will also need to be expanded. New classes, teachers, and additional custodial staff will be needed to facilitate the utilization of expanded space. Are we the taxpayers allowed to know where the fiends to pay for all the proposed civic improvements are coming from? These past years we have witnessed the lack of money for maintenance of existing soccer and baseball fields, the Urho Saari Plunge, George E. Gordon Jr. Clubhouse, tree replacement, school playgrounds, sewers, sidewalks etc. Planned projects in the near future include: skateboard park, renovation of downtown, parking structure at Richmond Street and Grand Avenue, outdoor or indoor swimming pool with bleachers, sewer replacement along El Segundo Blvd. and Virginia SUeet, soccer land purchase with lighted field, new fire station, and renovation of cultural arts building. The elusive cost is far greater than any utility tax I Why hasn't our El Segundo City Council authorized a professional firm to evaluate the existing brick clubhouse for the purpose of renovation and meeting the theater and classroom needs of the f� N future. We the taxpayers believe in responsible spending To date from the city council, I hear arbitrary statements that it would cost more to renovate than to rebuild. Our city council members are not professional contractors and may have misled or incorrectly influenced many people. So what is the source of this information I request the city council to obtain the services of a reputable firm and share with the public the pertinent data regatd4- &no%atfbh d_f $l'i'e George E. Gordon Jr. Clubhouse with and without the basketball court. If my father, George Edward Gordon Jr., were alive today he would be speaking before this city council with words similar to my own. He and my grandfather served this city faithfully for a total of 12 decades. He would recommend that a decision to renovate or rebuild a project of this magnitude should only be acted upon after a cost analysis of all obtainable facts and figures. His business acumen knew the worth of a dollar or even 6 million of them. It was around 1952 when he developed a financial plan to build our El Segundo Recreation Park without a tax increase to the property owners. Can you say the same? in rely, ane Gordon Tourino cc: Mayor Mike Gordon, John Gaines, Kelly McDowell, Nancy Wernick, Mayor Pro Temp - Sandy Jacobs, Andres Santa Maria, Greg Johnson, Bill McCaverty, Judy Andoe 2i Jane Gordon Tourino April 12, 2002 7 Malaga Place West 4anhattan Bch., CA 90266 52 Mrs. Mary Strenn, City Manager 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 This letter concerns the George E. Gordon Clubhouse. I believe the clubhouse has been neglected by city government these past decades and now needs to be bulldozed or renovated to meet the needs of all cultural arts and related youth activities. To bulldoze this building and build another structure including a basketball court is making sports a priority over cultural arts. Most of El Segundo's recreation space is already a sports facility of some type, why do we need the 23rd basketball court in the same building as our one cultural arts facility? These are the thoughts of almost everyone I've talked to in El Segundo. Their consensus is that the clubhouse should be renovated not demolished. We need to make an analyisis based on all obtainable facts. The current foot print can be extended west of the building. An enlarged clubhouse that is also renovated can provide room for a permanent stage and 300 retractable seats in addition to larger instructional areas. This allows the small children's playground area to remain intact. I attended the April 1st Monday night Park and Recreation Commission Meeting. The presentation of a new structure was explained by LPA ( architechural firm hired by E.S. C.C.) Two changes were requested by the commission. They asked that the basketball area be cut in half and the number of showers reduced. Also, the six or seven million dollar budget was often stated by LPA as a constant concern and constraint. Kelly McDowell at the March 27th Candidates Forum stated in his most authoritative voice that it would cost much more to renovate the clubhouse than to build a new one. The public would like to review the facts and figures that he based this statement upon. My personal efforts to find the bids revealed nothing was available at Recreation and Parks, Building and Safety, and Public Works. The decision to renovate or build a new building requires several steps. First the Parks and Recreation Commission needs to identify what is needed in terms of space and activities. Next competitive bids for renovation and the cost of building a new structure need to be obtained and evaluated. At present the cost of renovating appears to have been skipped. When spending seven million or more tax dollars it is pragmatic to know exactly what the total costs are to renovate in contrast to all costs required to build a new structure. Never in the past has El Segundo chosen to demolish a brick building that is only 44 years old. We renovated the high school, library, fire department, city hall, and police department. Why not renovate the George E. Gordon Clubhouse? All these brick buildings were created with tons of civic pride and determination. They deserve our continual refurbishing and maintenance so they serve the present needs of our community. To date we have chosen to protect and enhance our Mayberry buildings. Before we bulldoze the George E Gordon Clubhouse, can the city obtain competitive bids for renovation. Once an Analysis is completed based upon cost and utility, we all can accept the resulting decision. Sincerely, Jane Gordon Tourino cc: Mike Gordon, John Gaines, Kelly McDowell, Nancy Wernick, Sandy Jacobs, Andres Santa Maria Greg Johnson, Bill McCaverty, Judy Andoe f, n TO EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS SUBJECT: GEORGE E. GORDON JR. CLUBHOUSE DATE FOR PUBLIC INPUT: Planning Commission Hearing 9,12,02 City Council Hearing 9,17,02 Both at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall The George E. Gordon Jr.Clubhouse is the newest public building in El Segundo with one exception, the Joslyn Center It's the only building designated for cultural arts. Also, a building our city has not had money to maintain. Suddenly we have $7 million to demolish it and rebuild a new structure which includes a full sized basketball court. This gymnasium or basketball court consumes 1/2 of the internal space. There are lots of cities with twice our population that don't have 23 basketball courts . A short walk through Recreation Park and all the school playgrounds will show you that existing courts are frequently unused. A gymnasium at Center Street Elementary would better serve the needs of El Sepndo's residents. Space for Cultural = is ingsn ush .d a� side for a g=n ca ium. At the April 1, 2002 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the basketball court was discussed extensively. The Architectural Firm (LPA) was asked by the Parks and Recreation Commission to reduce the size of the basketball court by one half. This commission agreed that all needs of the community could adequately be met in the future with a court half the proposed size. The number of showers adjacent to the locker /changmg area was also to be reduced Following this meeting, Mayor Gordon said he wanted a full sized basketball court and that is how it now stands. The original budget of 6 million only includes the structure. Tree removal, new landscaping, plus a new children's playground are significant additional costs. Also add in new equipment, refurbishment of existing tables and furniture, wall decorations, stage enhancements, etc. The total project will] be closer to 7 million. Worst of all the increased conjestion, parking, noise, and cruising to surrounding homeowners is an unfair burden. This new structure will look like a whale out of water with the trees gone. In the past community leaders protected the park area so it would never become overbuilt. Are we the taxpayers allowed to know where the funds to build and maintain the proposed civic improvements are coming from? These past years we have witnessed the lack of money for maintenance of existing soccer and baseball fields, the Urho Saari Plunge, George E. Gordon Jr Clubhouse, tree replacement, school playgrounds, sewers, sidewalks etc. Scene of the planned projects in the near future are itemized on the back of this flyer. The approximate cost of $45 million dollars is far greater than any one time utility tax rebate! The economy has turned soft. We have been losing businesses and employees prior to September 11th.. The new city budget reflects lower revenues for 2002 -2003. Why hasn't our El Segundo City Council authorized a professional firm to evaluate the existing brick clubhouse for the purpose of renovation and expansion to meet the theater and classroom needs of the future? Some city council members have made arbitrary state- ments that it would cost more to renovate than to rebuild. Our city council members aren't professional contractors and may have misled or incorrectly influenced the public. Your repeated public requests, asking the city council to authorize the services of a reputable firm to provide an estimate without the basketball court are needed. Also request balloons be placed at the proposed new height. The new footprint for the 27,500 structure and future location of tiny -tot playground should be flagged so residents can picture what city hall has proposed. Neighbors J and surrounding residents want the cultural arts building to remain about the same size with the mature trees helping it blend harmoniously into the park. If my father, George Edward Gordon Jr., were alive today, he would be speaking before this city council with words similar to my own. He and my grandfather served this city faithfully for a total of 12 decades. He would recommend a complete cost analysis be made. A project of this magnitude requires a renovation evaluation, a step that has presently been skipped. His business acumen knew the worth of a dollar or even 7 million of them. It was around 1952 when he developed a financial plan to build our El Segundo Recreation Park without a tax increase to the property owners. Can the present El Segundo City Council say the same? 1. Soccer land purchase ... . ............. ..... $ 5,500,000.00 2. Soccer field: drainage /water system, bathrooms, fence, lights, bathrooms, snack area, grass ................ 4,500,000.00 3. Renovation of downtown ......................... 3.700,000.00 4. Downtown parking structure plus ($194,000.00 x 30 yrs.) . 6,920,000.00 5. Skateboard park ....... ....... ... ....... 500,000.00 6. Swum stadium ....... ................... ..... 2,500,000.00 7. Sewer replacement and repair ............ ......... 250,000.00 8. Joslyn Center elevator ............... .......... 50,000.00 9. Fire station ..... .................... ........ 5,000,000.00 10. George E. Gordon Clubhouse with basketball court ..... 7,000,000.00 11. Library ... .. .......................... . .. 2,000,000.00 12. Buy -back of golf course debt .............. ..... 4,000,000.00 13. Trash recycling bins ........... .... ........ ... 500,000.00 14. Fight against L.A. expansion per year .............. . 1,000,000.00 15. Circulation Element study of entire city ....... ....... 250,000.00 16. Landscape medians along Sepulveda Blvd ............... 250,000.00 Our city has many civic improvements planned and all are important. Right now the George E. Gordon Jr. Clubhouse renovation or destruction is an acute issue. The current proposed plan has compromised space for cultural arts activities. The classrooms, a room for cable and video activities, and a stage large enough to accommodate costume changes and storage are issues that need to be changed. Your city council thinks you prefer a gymnasium that smothers our only cultural arts center. 99% of the input from residents at the August 15th E.S. Planning Commission Hearing was to request a renovation without the gymnasium. If such a structure is ever built, Center Street Elementary is a possible consideration. The school district and city can share usuage. The district donates the land and the city builds and maintains the gymnasium. The future of the George E. Gordon Clubhouse depends on your attendance and letters before and on the above noted hearings. Jane Gordon Tourino and Friends Page 1 of 1 From: Dashndreaml @aol corn Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 8:41 PM To: glohnson @elsegundo org Subject: Commumty Center proposed plans Hi Greg, My name is Tanya Latta and I got your message on Friday saying to come by the Joslyn Center and view the plans anytime I made an attempt to come by and view the plans but was told that the plans were locked up and that I needed to make an appointment with you I am very interested in viewing plans for the new Community Center 1, however, have two young children and it is very difficult for me to make an appointment to view them Could a copy of the plans be posted for public viewing anytime in the Clubhouse, Joslyn Center and/or on the City of El Segundo Home Page on the Internet9 This would then make it very convenient for anyone who wants to see them to do so anytime Sincerely, Tanya Latta 609 Penn Street (310) 322 -7390 file: //C \ Documents °l%20and %20Settmgs \SJuijis \Local %20Settmgs \Temporary%20Intem 10/30/2002 Your article regarding the new Community Center leaves many unanswered questions. Why was an indoor basketball court /gymnasium even listed on the questionnaire that was mailed to E.S. residents? Why is the George E. Gordon Clubhouse now referred to as the Gordon Clubhouse? Who were these handpicked residents who were part of the original workshops? Who selected them? Why weren't current Park staff or teachers asked for input? Who is behind the push for more basketball courts? We have 23 in El Segundo. Why didn't your reporters attend the Rec. Park Commission meetings when these plans were originally discussed? NO RESIDENT got up and spoke in favor of the indoor gymnasium, MANY PEOPLE spoke in favor of more classrooms and a presentation center for the fine arts When is the public going to have ample time to speak to their wishes? The July 16 City Council meeting has been cancelled. Why would anyone waste their time sitting through a Council meeting when no one listens to them ? ?? F.1 Segundo has dedicated football and soccer fields, baseball diamonds, basketball, volleyball, and tennis courts, a roller hockey arena, and a planned skateboard park E.S. needs a dedicated center for the fine arts. This should definitely include aerobics, 7azzercise, jump roping, etc. These activities do not require a two -story ceiling, as does the gymnasium. This new building must meet our needs for the next 50 years. Let's insist that it has double the classroom space that we currently have. Why settle for less? Page 1 of 2 From: DL West [tctassy @email msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12.04 PM To: glohnson @elsegundo.org Cc: nwemick @elsegundo org, slacobs @elsegundo org; (games @elsegundo org, mgordon @elsegundo.org, kmcdowell @elsegundo org Subject: New Community Center Plans Greg., I sent the following letter to the ES Herald today with my feelings and comments on the new Community Center. Since you are collecting comments on this subject, please include those expressed in my letter. Also, will you be sharing the comments you have received on this subject with the community? I know that I would like to read them and am sure that other residents would like to also. Thank you. D. L. West 718 Bayonne Street ES The City is in the process of designing a new and improved "community center" to replace the existing George E. Gordon Clubhouse on Pine Ave. at Rec Park. I am sure that a lot of citizens didn't, and still don't, know that this design is being discussed and finalized. This structure should provide for our needs for a long time to come. I don't feel the current design will do that. I think that a dedicated meeting should be held on this subject so citizens (the ultimate users of the facility) can voice their opinions. It would also be nice if these opinions were valued and respected instead of just brushed aside as another nuisance. I have attended several City meetings to listen to other people's comments and to make some of my own. It is clear that those who are speaking out do not want the design that includes a two -story high, open gym facility. We think thi_< space would be better used for upstairs /downstairs class /meeting /art rooms that are divisible and multipurpose. We don't need another basketball court (no matter what they call it) with viewer seating. This portion of the design sticks up above everything else and it should at least serve some useful purpose. If you have any feelings on this new, expensive facility (that won't serve the Z,., file //C \ Documents% 20and% 20Setttngs \SJugis\L.ocal %20Settmgs \Temporary%20Intern .. 10/30/2002 Page 2 of 2 community as well as it could), I urge you to join me in asking for a public meeting and contacting Greg Johnson with your concerns /comments. Donna West r 2 file //C \ Documents% 20and% 20Settmgs \SJur)ts\Local %2oSettmgs \Temporary%20Intem 10/30/2002 Page 1 of 1 From: Carol Well [cwell @socal.rr corn] Sent: Fnday, August 02, 2002 9.55 AM To: glohnson @elsegundo.org Cc: nwemick @elsegundo org; sjacobs @elsegundo org, mgordon @elsegundo org, lgames @elsegundo org, kmcdowell @elsegundo org Subject: New Commuruty Center Greg I have attached a copy of the letter I sent to the El Segundo Herald speaking against the current plans for the new Community Center Please do not proceed with the plans for the new Center without holding a public Community Meeting to allow residents an opportunity to understand what is being built and make their opinions heard This meeting needs to be specifically about the new Center and notices need to be posted at the Clubhouse, Check - Out Center, Joslyn Center, Library, and City Hall. That way everyone who is interested will have a chance to hear about the meeting This will also give you an opportunity to explain to all of us why we are paying $6M to add indoor basketball courts to what we already have Call it anything you want - gymnasium, grand room, etc - it's basketball courts As a life -long resident I resent paying this kind of money for more basketball courts Sincerely, Carol L Well 214 W Maple Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 25' file //C \ Documents %20and %20Settmgs \SJMis\ Local %20Settmgs \Temporary%20Intem. 10/30/2002 New construction at Gordon center From: ruth parks [ggparks @mailstation.com] sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:45 AM To: gjohnson @elsegundo.org subject* New construction at Gordon center I feel we are missing the boat by not increasing the size of the community Theatre, even if it necessitates reducing the size of the sports facility. There are so very many uses for a community Theatre over and above the obvious - for productions by the theater group active in our city. This could be a facility utilized for seminars and meeting by various groups in our city. Let us not be short - sighted while we have the opportunity to make an impact on the needs that have been present for so long 2 trust you will do what you can to bring my concerns to the attention of the powers that be. Thank you. Sincerely, Ruth B. Parks, 1405 E walnut AV (310) 640 -9077 Page 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Howies Doggie Daycare [Howies @local rr corn] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8 44 AM To: Johnson, Greg Subject: Re Community Center Good Morning . Sadly, I have an employee out so I will not be able to make it before the deadline The issues that I am concerned about are. 1 Classroom space In looking at the current design there is not enough classrooms to accommodate all classes now There will still be classes off site Is future growth for needed classrooms being considered in this new community center) 2 When designing the inside of the building, will it be kid friendly Lower sinks, safely outlets in tot music classes, safer kitchen for cooking classes, walls, floors, and anything a kid can touch be easy to clean, etc The classrooms and kid friendly are very important issues to address because the new community center is used mostly by little kids Currently we have to accommodate for the sinks and accidents your five years old is proud to show you his pizza he just made and has is fall facedown on the rug and before you're able to clean it up, it gets stepped on Or they are in ceramic class and /or painting class and for some reason they have the need to touch everything along the way to the sink to washy Multiple this by the number of kids that use the facility in a month It would be sad if this new community center looked all used up after a year because it was not designed with little kids in mind Thank you, Catherine 31 file //C \ Documents %20and %20Settings \SJui7is \Local %20Settings \Temporary%20Intem 10/30/2002 September 6, 2002 SEp 0 5 2W 5 PLANNING DIVISION To: City Planning Commissioners Mahler, Busch, Frick and Funk From Concerned El Segundo Citizens Re. September 12, 2002 City Planning Commission Meeting/Public Hearing on Environmental Assessment No. 590 and Conditional Use Permit No 02 -02 Please be advised that signed petitions will be delivered to the Planning Commission at the September 12'b hearing The exact wording on the petition is attached for your reference. 4' Petition wording: o�CC; E�d 'ED SEP 0 6 nu pLANt41NG DIVIS10% We, the undersigned, object to the plans for the new, proposed $6 million, 21/2- story, 28,000 square foot Community Center that will replace the existing George E. Gordon, Jr. Clubhouse at 300 East Pine Avenue in Recreation Park. This project will almost triple the size and density of the existing Clubhouse in a residential neighborhood that is already congested. We demand: • Reiection of the city's application for a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) to waive height restrictions and avoid necessary environmental impact studies • Full and thorough environmental impact, traffic demand, and parking studies related to this project before it is allowed to progress further • Total public disclosure about the project, including public displays of the plans with dimensions and occupancy capacities clearly marked • Physical on -site markings showing footprint size and elevation flagging to clarify the size and scale of this project and its impact on the existing trees and features in the surrounding area • An extension of the public review and comment period to allow citizens to fully understand the issues surrounding this project before any actions are taken to allow it to continue 3 It DATE- August 14, 2002 �nEUvED 4UG 1 a 2002 ���� TO. The Planning Commission and City Council INNING DIVISION VFrom: Kerry K. King, 507 Eucalyptus Drive RE: Environmental Assessment No 590 and Conditional Use Permit No 02 -2 1 am one of the residents living within 300 feet of Recreation Park who received your Notice of Special Public Hearing with a published date of August 1, 2002, signed by James M Hansen. 1 obtained a copy of the Environmental Checklist Form for Project No: EA No. 590 and CUP No. 02 -02 dated Aug. 5, 2002 which I will call the Checklist. I have the following concerns, questions and issues for your consideration andresponse 1. In August of 2000 the City Council voted $300,000 to have a new Cultural Center designed to replace the current George E. Gordon Clubhouse for Cultural Arts. Prior to the design of the Cultural Center was a study made of how much additional space was needed for classrooms, theatre area, and storage to provide for the current and future needs of the community? 2. The current clubhouse was built in 1956 when the population of El Segundo was 12,000 people anticipating growth to 15,000. With today's population at 16,000 with little growth expected how does a 33°x6 increase in population 2002 over 1956 justify a 300% increase in classroom square footage, 1,804 to 5,300 from Clubhouse to Cultural Center? 3. At the July 7th City Council meeting Mayor Gordon directed LPA to make some additional revisions. The public has yet to see this latest revision and has not had 30 days to review it. When will these plans be available? 4 On the Checklist the answers to questions 11(a), (b), (d) all contain the same wording, 'The proposed project is a replacement of the existing facility with no proposed change of use'. This statement is not accurate. Creation of a gym with basketball and volleyball use is most definitely a change of use from the current Clubhouse which has no gym 5 It appears the "no change of use' wording assumes the new Cultural Center will have the same hours of operation 9AM to 9PM Monday through Friday and no weekend use other than the current few hours of use on Saturday and Sunday by small groups Expanded hours will affect the neighborhood environment and are not reflected in this Checklist 31 6 Will there be any use of the gym for basketball or volleyball leagues be they school, corporate, or service organizations? 7 Will the gym and other facilities of the Cultural Center be available for rent to residents and non - residents as are other park areas? Birthday parties in the current Clubhouse come to mind 8 Checklist item 15(a) Traffic/Transportation answers the question about increased traffic in part with the sentence "The proximity of the proposed facility to residential neighborhoods and public transit routes will have a positive effect by reducing traffic congestion and parking demands " This sentence is patently false If parking demands are going to be reduced why would 37 additional spaces need to be created? Why are there mitigation measures listed if traffic congestion will be reduced? S. Replacing the 10,000 square foot Clubhouse with a 27,500 square foot Cultural Center with a tripling of class room space, a tripling of the auditorium/theatre space, plus a 10,000 square foot gymnasium space logically implies a tripling of related traffic and vehicles parking close to the facility The 37 spaces noted in the staff analysis are too far away from the Cultural Center in relation to nearby neighborhood parking to be viable The nearby streets will fill up before the 37 spaces become attractive a block to the east of the Center. This may result in lower property values for houses located within a block of the Center 3 DATE September 5, 2002 TO El Segundo City Council and Planning Commisssion E (� E 0 W E D 11*om: Kerry K King, 507 Eucalyptus Drive R Sip U 5 2002 RE- Proposed Cummunity Center PLANNING DIVISION Please consider the following points before making a final decision on the proposed Community Center This letter will serve as a record of issues. 1 This proposed Community Center was conceived of as an opportunity created by windfall gas tax funds to upgrade and expand an existing city facility, the George E. Gordon Clubhouse for Cultural Arts Prior fiscal year monies of six million plus dollars were set aside to build a predetermined building 2.7 times larger in area including a gymnasium. To facilitate completion of this project the "help" of the community was sought. People were invited to help design and create a plan for a community center This participation was a sham. When they did not include a gymnasium it did not matter because they had no power to change a predetermined design. Next came review by the Parks and Rec Commission. Once again it did not make any difference that they made changes in the gymnasium at their April first meeting. As Seimone Jurjis, Building and Safety Manager, explained Parks and Rec has no pourer to make changes. 2. Quite obviously the Planning Commission cannot make any changes to the project. The Planning Commission can study the impact on the neighborhood of increased traffic and parking needs that will arise from a Community Center 2.7 times as large as the current building with expanded use from the current 9am -9pm Monday through Thursday 9am -6-pm Friday with a few hours of ceramics only weekend use, to open 9am to 10pm seven days a week. The mitigation measures in Environmental Assessment No. 590 are inadequate. Increasing the hours and days of operation while also more than doubting space available to attract patrons plus adding a gymnasium is going to create a traffic and parking congestion beyond your mitigation efforts. 3 What study has been made of increased noise especially on weekends and extended evening hours of operation? 4. After a $6 million plan was conceived a survey was concocted for input from the public, The El Segundo Community Center Needs Assessment Of course it is slanted: Build something new or remodels Let me see ?, New car or fix the old one? There is no question about a new facility with a gym There is an importance ranking question including basketball and volleyball Both activities were ranked lowest of all activities, both between unimportant and neutral. Your own flawed survey tells you there is no clamoring for a gym. No "Gee what this town needs is a gym in Rec Park" 36 5. The youth playground east of the Clubhouse shrinks by 50% after it is moved to its new location south of the gym. The Tiny Tots playground with six swings is reduced by 75% and ends up partially under the outdoor second level patio area This is a safety concern as kids like to throw objects off second stories down upon what or whoever is below. How can you triple classroom space, triple theatre space and add a 8,500 square foot gym while cutting child and youth play areas by 75% and 50% respectively? Sic thousand square feet of child/youth playground space is being sacrificed to build a gym. Curiously, cutting of playground space was not part of the Needs Survey. 6. Who are you kidding when you state this massive facility can be run without an increase in operating expense. More staff will be needed for expanded hours of operation, and increased maintenance costs associated with a building 2.7 times as large. Who is going to supervise gym activities? Athletic injuries? 7. Property values within a block or two of this new Community Center will be adversely affected by increased noise, increased traffic, and added parking congestion. The Mayor's argument that one knew there was a park there when one bought one's home as he knew there was a school near his home is specious. Let the school near him be replaced with a college (same use: education) with three three times the number of students, traffic, and parking congestion and he would be sanguine? I think not 37 Mayor Mike Gordon City of El Segundo - 9 Sept 18, 2002 r �- r- u Mayor Gordon, Thank you for your comment to "restore 1 informing the public of these hearings and round �r D) J V L i 4 2002 L -- 'EDS tot lots' "the meeting on Sept 17. Please do a better job of de discussions as I was not aware of them in the past Articles in the newspaper, information sent in school newsletters or posters at the library, Main St, playgrounds and other high traffic areas would help We only have 30 days The wording in last night's agenda (29) said in part, "restore the size of the tot lots to its existing size or larger" Does this mean both the preschool AND the elementary school age playgrounds9 If so, this implies that at some point both playgrounds will be renovated It is important the playgrounds stay near the community center building First, for the obvious need of bathrooms and drinking fountains but also when, as in my case, when an older child is taking a class in the clubhouse, mother and the younger sibling are playing nearby until the end of class I hope the elementary school playground is in the master plan because my children still use it and if there is no place for older children they tend to go to the preschool area to play even if it is not designed for them. This endangers the toddlers and leaves the equipment to possible abuse and damage With design in mind my children have two parks in nearby cities that, when we have time and the gas, are requested over and over. Both of these parks were updated in the past few years The first playground is the "Tot Lot" in Live Oak Park of Manhattan Beach. It is truly a preschool playground It is- Fenced and gated - Many pieces of (train theme) play equipment for different ages and stages - Picnic tables (some even covered) - Some grass, trees and they do have a couple of swings The second playground is designed for a wider age range of children. It is in Lindberg Park of Culver City The ages and stages range from about 1 year old all the way up to 10 - 12 year olds. My children love this park even when they just dig in the sand at the "sand bucket tower" This park includes: - Toddler to 12 year old age appropriate equipment - Picnic tables (including small size ones for kids) - Slides, safe "modem teeter- totters" and yes, 2 small sets of swings; one for toddlers and one for bigger kids - Complete visibility of the playground from almost any side - A new bathroom next to the picnic benches that has visibility yet allows for privacy of use (you have to visit the site to understand how this is done) Obviously the planners at Culver City worked hard to give a well balanced, fun producing park for everyone There is not a complete fence around the playground and some of the young trees don't provide much shade yet In fact, I met two Culver City mothers at El Segundo Rec Park in the preschool area because they wanted the security of the fence and the shade of our large trees! I am not a child development expert nor have I visited every park in a ten miles radius of town but I am a mother My children love these two places in particular Maybe you can take a young child from your family and do some on site testing yourself I wam you that it is very hard to leave such fun parks. I know El Segundo will never have the space nor the funds that Manhattan Beach or Culver City have. We can, however, take ideas and concepts from these parks and apply them to our own "diamond in the rough" playgrounds at Recreation Park and turn them into true little gems of delight for all Looking forward to the answer to my question and continued dialogue to do what is best for all the families in 1- egundo Sincerely, Mrs Susan Ri/ardso`n� .3 ii s u III ,__ SEP 2 4 [uu CEDE � - -�� Cnv M ""A LK �rric.e On July 17, 2001 the City Council voted to award a contract to LPA Cons provide architectural services for the design of the Community Center /Gymnasium project and for the development of a Recreation Park Master Plan as well as to appropriate $300,000 to execute this contract. Since that time, at least four versions of conceptual drawings have been presented in attempts to address concerns expressed by citizens about this project. ra to When the Burst version was presented at a joint meeting between the Recreation and Park and Planning Commissions in January of this year, participants from last fall's Community Workshop stated that the design didn't match the input from focus groups. co When the results of last year's community survey were revealed, it was apparent that the plans didn't match the needs assessment results either. More citizens voiced concerns about the building's size, space utilization, features, and impact on traffic and parking at a subsequent Recreation and Parks Commission meetings in April and May as well as at Planning Commission and City Council public hearings in August and September. The most recent citizen response took the form of a petition signed by almost 1,000 El Segundo residents asking for more thorough studies and full public disclosure before the project was allowed to continue. As a result, members of the City Council and city staff have met recently with concerned citizens either individually or in small groups. At each of the public and private meetings, most residents have offered many creative ideas in attempts to be part of the solution and address some of the inherent problems created by this project as proposed. Each attempt to "think outside the box," to suggest alternative sites for some of the building's features, or to solve issues and meet the needs of specific interest groups in alternative ways has been met with little flexibility of thought on the part of city officials. The document that is called the Master Plan for Recreation Park consists of merely five pages of pictures and drawings dedicated to the third version for the planned Community Center. If there had been a comprehensive Master Plan for Recreation Park, including customary and thorough environmental impact, parking demand, and traffic studies, the problems inherent in placing such a massive building on one impacted site would have been revealed early on. If a complete Master Plan for Recreation Park had been executed, the needs of entire park, including structures like the Joslyn Center and Checkout building would have been apparent and might have been addressed. Because there was no thorough Master Plan for Recreation Park, time and money have been spent on version after version of drawings for the Community Center without looking at the big picture and planning responsibly for any park expansion. To direct LPA to draw a scaled down version of the proposed Community Center without a prior, thorough Master Plan is fraught with dust as much folly as to plan to build a Community Center that does not match the clearly stated input of the community of El Segundo. I urge you to ensure that a comprehensive Master Plan is completed before any more changes are planned for or made to our Recreation Park. /� Ms rjeda K Pollard („/� 507 Arena St 50Segundo.CA 10245-3017 ZI 3c) Robin Funk El Segundo Planning Commission Sept 14, 2002 SEp i h 2002 ``�� Dear Robin Funk, t,Y g�i Thank you for your comments at the end of the planning commissi '�0ting eep T "1 will be coming to city hall soon to see the Rec. Park master plan You implied that at some point the playgrounds will be renovated. With this in mind my children have two parks in nearby cities that, when we have time and the gas, are requested over and over Both of these parks were updated in the past few years The first playground is the "Tot Lot" in Live Oak Park of Manhattan Beach It is truly a preschool playground It is - Fenced and gated - Many pieces of (train theme) play equipment for different ages and stages - Picnic tables (some even covered) - Some grass, trees and they do have a couple of swings The second playground is designed for a wider age range of children It is in Lindberg Park of Culver City The ages and stages range from about 1 year old all the way up to 10 - 12 year olds My children love this park even when they lust dig in the sand at the "sand bucket tower ". This park includes: - Toddler to 12 year old equipment - Picmc tables (including small size ones for kids) - Slides, safe "modern teeter - totters" and yes, 2 small sets of swings; one for toddlers and one for bigger kids - Complete visibility of the playground from almost any side - A new bathroom next to the picnic benches that has visibility yet allows for privacy of use (you have to visit the site to understand how this is done) Obviously the planners at Culver City worked hard to give a well balanced, fun producing park for everyone There is not a complete fence around the playground and some of the young trees don't provide ouch shade yet. In fact, I met two Culver City mothers at El Segundo Rec Park in the preschool area because they wanted the security of the fence and the shade of our large trees I am not a child development expert nor have I visited every park in a ten miles radius of town but I am a mother My children love these two places in particular. Maybe you can take your 5 year old son and do some on site testing yourself I wam you that it is very hard to leave such fun parks. I know El Segundo will never have the space nor the funds that Manhattan Beach or Culver City have We can, however, take ideas and concepts from these parks and apply them to our own "diamond in the rough" playgrounds at Recreation Park and turn them into true little gems of delight for all. Since y, Sds9n Richardson 416 W Oak Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 PS Is there anyone else I should send this to so the right people or departments get this information? Thanks t 40 Although the proposed Community Center was not on tonight's City Council agenda, I feel I must comment on the Special Joint Meeting of the E1 Segundo City Council and Recreation and Parks Commission held on October 8in Originally publicized as a Community Center Public Workshop, the event was devoted to yet another presentation by LPA arclutects of even more versions of virtually the same oversized building that has been proposed over and over again since it was first presented at anoint Recreation and Parks and Planning Commissions meeting in January The document distributed at this most recent meeting was called yet again a "Recreation and Parks Master Plan " This time it contained 11 pages of pictures and drawings and a one- page chart documenting the nine versions of proposed plans since last November. This document did not attempt to include any of the customary and thorough environmental impact, parking demand, and traffic studies, let alone to address any of the other needy structures such as the Joslyn Center in Recreation Park. Attempts to look at locating the unpopular gymnasium portion of the proposed building on another site within the park were found to be untenable This presentation was followed by restricted public input that yet again included the community's concerns about the building's size, space utilization, features, and impact on traffic and parking that have been documented in public meetings over this last year In fact, public input clearly repeated the continued message that this building does not reflect the community's needs or desires To say that I was disappointed and angry at this charade of a viable public workshop would be too mild. There was no plan that wouldn't have adverse impact on the surrounding area, nor was there a plan that responded in any way to clear and continued public input In fact, it was a presentation of yet another plan for a building that a majority of the community doesn't want More disturbing was the proposal to further excavate the site to bury an oversized building, attempting to get around the need for a height vanance The " parkmg study" proposed to count all of the parking spaces within the park to support this one building, assuming that the rest of the park couldn't be used for any other activity if this oversized Community Center were to be utilized fully Clearly, there was an attempt to circumvent the need for a Conditional Use Permit and a thorough Environmental Impact Report in building this massive Community Center Recreation Park is one of El Segundo's forest assets. To continue to overdevelop this resource in a piecemeal fashion without concern for the total impact on the park as a whole is irresponsible To build a Community Center that does not reflect the needs and desires of the community is reprehensible Linda Pollard 507 Arena Street El Segundo, CA 90245 41 08 -22 -02 Seimone Jugis, P E Building and Safety Manager City of El Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, Ca 90245 ROECEDWED AUG 2 2 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mr Jurps, I have a few comments regarding the proposed El Segundo Community Center and Conditional Use Permit Being a homeowner on Eucalyptus Drive for almost 30 years I have seen many changes, some good some bad I am opposed to the 2 and 1/2 story proposed structure on this site for the following reasons. 1. The original use for the property, unless I am misinformed, was for Cultural Arts activities and not for a Gymnasium This has been my understanding since 1 purchased my home, and I do not feel this is the place for a gym 2 The new "Presentation Hall ", with seating for 252, and a gym with additional seating for 188 if far to big for the property. The proposed budding and deck will eliminate almost 50% of the present open space on the west lawn This space adds to the ambiance of the "home town" feel That would be eliminated No more relaxing in the big open area on a blanket, no more throwing a baseball or football with your child, no more watching fire works on 4th. of July from that expansive area, no more community interaction milling on the "grass area" watching baseball games. Instead less open grass area replaced with a constructed deck and budding and the addition of "spectator" seating (cold, impersonal, aluminum and concrete bleachers). 3 No new parking is created Seating for 440 people and no new parking places Presently during baseball season one is hard pressed to find a place to park on Eucalyptus. Add to that one presentation at the "Presentation Hall" or a "pick up" basket ball game in the gym and no one will be able to park The residents on the surrounding streets already have to deal with the burden of limited parking in front of their own homes. This problem will just expand out to the existing community There dust is enough parking to support the expansion Several years ago a Conditional Use Permit was issued for the property on the south west corner of Eucalyptus and Pine to allow for two residents to be built on a single family dwelling lot. More recently, in the same block 3 lots with single family dwellings have been sold, razed and replaced with 2 single family dwellings EACH The density has been doubled from 4 to 8 homes, yet there are no more off street parking spots The congestion has increased tremendously Has this been considered in relationship to the CUP for the proposed "Community Center" 42 I EXHIBIT C City of El Segundo MEMO TO: Mary Strenn, City Manager FROM: Andy Santamaria, Public Works Director DATE: October 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Club House Rehabilitation Per City Council direction this memo is in regards to the estimating the cost of rehabilitation the existing George E Gordon Clubhouse located at 300 E Pine Ave Staff from Public Works Department, Building Safety Division, and MRH Structural Engineers was used to assess the current condition of the building and the resulting cost of upgrading the building to meet current code The staff survey produced the following finds t) The existing building and the surrounding area do not meet any of the current ADA requirements 2) The electrical system switch gear does not have proper ground fault and grounding The insulation on the wiring system throughout the building may be in poor shape (further investigation required). The cabinets on the panels and transformers are rusted due to the salty air, 3) The mechanical system does not meet current energy efficiency ratings, insulation on duct work may contain asbestos. 4) The budding does not meet any of the current state energy efficiency requirements. 5) The budding does contains asbestos material and may very well contain lead (see attached asbestos survey report) 6) The lateral bracing system does not meet current structural seismic requirements (see attached letter from MRH Structural Engineers) Staff produced a cost estimate (see attached) based on addressing the findings above In summary it would cost $3 5 million ($350 per square foot) to rehabilitate the existing building to be in compliance with current code requirements. 1 This amount includes design fee and construction contingency fee El Segundo George E. Gordon Clubhouse Rehabilitation Estimated Project Costs Date 9 30 02 City of El Segundo LPA 4 it Uost Per Square ISpace Current Area Foot LEstimated Cost A Clubhouse Al lAsbestos and 10,000 15 $ 150,000 _Lea _atement A2 (Demolition 10,000 _ $ _ 25 $ 2501.000 _ _ _ A3_ }Seismic Upgrade _ _ 10,000 55-1 � _ _ _ A4 _rTenant 1lmprovement 10,000 $ 35 - _550,000 350,000 _ _ _ AS _ ADA Upgrades__ _ _ _ 46 (Electrical 10,000 _ _ 35 $_ 350,000 10,000 $ 25 2%000 _ _ _ _ _ A7 - �Mechamcal 10,000, -$ _ 20 200,000 V8 -Flumbin9 - - $ - $— 15QU-0-0 77777 225 2,250,000 Tot Lots B 1 of L0t 3,000( 20 60,000 63 _`Tiny Tot_ - - � - _ _ _ _3,000 60,000 _ u o a 120,000 Total r , Site work $ 200,000 Subtotal $ 2,570,000 Contingency (10 0/.) $ 257,000 Subtotal $ 2,827,000 Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (6/03) 3 8% /year $ 107,426 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,934,426 Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment $ 100,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 3,034,426 Design Fees (including expenses) $ 303,443 Construction Management/ Testing & Inspection $ 150,000 Design Contingency (3 %) $ 13,603 Total Protect Estimated Cost s 3,5U1,41? City of El Segundo LPA 4 it EXHIBIT D M Structural Engineering - Plan Review Services - Forensic Investigations October 29, 2002 Mr Selmone Jurps, P E, C B O Building Safety Manager City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Re 300 E Pine, City of El Segundo Geoige E Goidon Club House at comer of Eucalyptus Street & Pine Street Dear Mr Jurjis. As per your request, we performed a limited visual walk through on October 3, 2002, of the city's clubhouse building Additionally, we reviewed a set of as -built drawings made available to us by your office on October 2, 2002 According to the as -built drawings, the building is a one -story over basement, reinforced brick structure built in 1957 The vertical loads are earned by a reinforced brick hearing wall system The lateral load resisting elements are reinforced brick walls Roofs and floors are wood frame construction with wood diagonal sheathing over wood foists Basement walls are reinforced concrete The building was designed per the 1949 Uniform Building Code, per item I under General Notes on sheet S1 of drawings It is very important to understand that the building code has been progressively improved and reissued every three years since this building's construction. Significantly, there were mayor changes to structural design criteria after the 1971 "San Fernando" and the 1994 "Northridge" earthquakes Under the 1949 Uniform Building Code, the prescribed seismic force is 2.8 % of the weight of the building, which is approximately 6 times less than the current requirements of the 1998 California Building Code In our opinion, based on our visual observation and cursory review of the as -built drawings, the existing structure has design weaknesses and deficiencies in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code and standards of engineering practice including but not limited to the following items 1) Weak diaphragm and nailing to tiansfer roof and floor lateral forces 2) Improper top connections to diaphragm to masonry walls (wall ties) 3) Insufficient amount of steel (rebars) for masonry walls 4) Lack of drag struts with proper connections IofI 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 to[ (909) 860 -1706 fax (909) 396 -8655 45 MRHStructural Engineers Structural Engineering - Plan Review Services - Forensic Investigations 5) Lack of jamb reinforcement for shear wall 6) Lack of properties between portions of building 7) Cantilevered column system without proper connections (open south side) 8) Reentrant corners If the City chooses to remodel or expand the existing, building it would have to be fully retrofitted structurally because of its age and the obsolete construction Unfortunately, some of the items listed above cannot easily be retrofitted or mitigated by retrofit strengthening of the structural elements to the current building code requirements The shape and configuration of the existing building creates special conditions and a high degree of difficulty for some of those iasks In our opinion even if this building were structurally brought up to the code, at substantial cost, its performance in future earthquakes would be questionable A properly designed and constructed new structure would be more resistive and predictable in the future earthquakes Retrofit costs could easily approach the cost of a new building It is our recommendation that this building be demolished and a new building be constructed rather than retrofitting the existing structure The opinions and recommendations present in this letter are based on a cursory and visual appraisal of the surface conditions and above ground structural elements at the subject site. No soils or geothechnical investigation, testing, or measurements other than discussed herein have been conducted nor were they requested Conditions may exist which have not been identified or evaluated due to the limited scope of this type of investigation Should a more in -depth evaluation be desired, it will be provided upon request Should you require any further assistance, information or clarification, please contact our office We appreciate the opportunity to serve you Respectfully submitted, MRH Structural Engineers Mohammad R Hann, S E Principal QROFESS /0 �O P�,MAO R ci,L y Oi �p w f No 3545 ? in Exp 3 -31 -03 a CAII�� 2of2 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 tel (909) 860 -1706 fax (909) 396 -8655 4v EXHIBIT E I El Segundo Community Center Program Space Summary - Gymnasium Only Estimated Project Costs Date 10 2102 - — — — — — T Cost Per — -- (Space _ _ _ _ Current Area Square Foot Estimated Cost A Support Space Al Lobby/Reception 100 $ 160 1 $ 16,000 100 $ 160M 8 Recreation Spaces 31 MAC 1+ 50le. run 2 -74 M2 no..mun.l _ 9,600 $ 1501$ _ 1,440,000 32 _ _ Storage _ _ _ _ _ _ 4-1 00 $ 125 $ 50,000 33 IRestrooms 5001 $ 200 +$ 100,000 10500 $ 11590,000 Total Net Assignable Square Footage 10 600 Circulation/Mechanical/Walls (75 %) 795 $ 150 $ 119,250 Total Gross Square Footage 11,395 $ 151 40 $ 1,725,250 Demolition $ 20,000 Site work $ 200,000 Subtotal $ 1,945,250 Contingency (10%) $ 194,525 Subtotal $ 2,139,775 Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (9103) 3 8% /Year $ 81,311 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,221,086 Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment $ 56,975 Total Estimated Construction Cost S 2,278,061 Design Fees (including expenses) $ 204,062 Construction Management I Testing & Inspection $ 75,000 Desi n Conlin n 3% $ 8,372 Total P ect Estimated Cost 2.565.496 City of El Segundo 4,t 1LPA El Segundo Community Center Program Space Summary - Reduced Community Center Estimated Project Costs Date 10 21 02 J B Im Coat Per Current Area Square Fool Estimated Cost 9 Lobby _1,000 _ _160 $ _ 180 160,000 22_ IReception _ _ _ (Recreation _ _ _288 _ $ 46,080_ ,3 Supenntendent _ 170 $ _ 150 $ _ 25,500 A Rupervisors (2 (d 120 SF) _ _ 240 $ 150 I $ 36,000 ,5 �Workroom/CC. _ _ _ _ 200 $ 150 1�$ 30,000 ,8 File Store 148 $ 125 _ _ 18.500 ,7 _ _ 'astrooms _ _ _ _ _ �AV _ 1,04 $ _ 200 _ _ _ 208,800_ A EquI ment Storage 100 $ 125 $ 12,500 3,190 $ 537,380 81 V V �Commum VHall /Pedommg Ads _ 3,2001 $ 180 $ _ 576000 B2 _ Table/Chair Storeage_ 5501$ _ 125 $ _68,750 B3 +Cha�Irr� Rooms _ _ 4001 $ _150T $ _ _ 60,000 84 _ Caterer Kitchen _ _ _ _ _ _700 $_ _ 2_ 50 1x$ 175,000 85 _ _ Restrooms _ _ _ _ _ �S>�eStoral10$ _ 50 $ 200 $ _ 10,000 36_ Classroom _ 12�$ 12,500 _ C6 _ _ 250 $ -IF _ ¢ _ »a , ¢ as nnn 5,440 $ 957,250 C1 (Classroom /Tots $ 180 $ 171,720 CIA _ _ _ _ _95_4 1001 $ 2001 $_ 20,000 C2 _Toilet_ (Storage _ _ 190�F $ 125 $ 23,750 C3 _ _ rClassroom /Art Studio_ 5.428.502 180 �$ 203,400 C4 _ _ �Storage _ _ _ _ _ _1,130+($ _ _ 2901 $ _ 1254$ _ _ _ 36,250 C5 Classroom 929 $_ 180 I $ _ C6 _ _ ITodat - - - - 250 $ -IF _ 208 $ _167,220 50,0 00 r•Y Ico.,, at-, rr�c�m.,...r��- - _ ¢ pane in nnn Furniture, Furnishings 8 Equipment 5,343 $ 942,340 Total Net Assignable Square Footage 13,973 Design Fees (including expenses) $ Circulation/Mechanical/Walls (25 %) 3,493 $ 150 $ 523,988 Total Gross Square Footage 17 466 $ 16952 $ 2,960,958 Demolition 5.428.502 $ 200,000 Sdework $ 750,000 Subtotal $ 3910,958 Furniture, Furnishings 8 Equipment $ 274,663 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,740,194 Design Fees (including expenses) $ 546 260 Construction Management/ Testing 8 Inspection $ 120,000 Desl n Conlin en 3 °k $ 20,048 Total Pra eh Estimated Cost 5.428.502 City of El Segundo LPA 4 El Segundo Community Center Program Space Summary - October 8, 2002 Public Workshop Estimated Project Costs Date. Updated 10 2102 (7 09,02) -- - T Cast PerT Space _ _ _ Current Area Square Foot Estimated Cost ) A )Upwrtokl.o a �Commumty Hall / Pertomi�Arts _ 2,700 $ _ 180 $ _ U Lobby_ _ 1,000 $ _ 160 $_ 160,000 V _ ReUOn _ _ __ _ _ 288 $ 160 $ 46,080 Q Recreation Superintendent _ _ _ 170 $ __150 $ _ 25,500 W _,Su (2 120 SF) _ _ 240 $ _ 150 $ _ 36,000 t5 Wodvoom /Coyy �Fde 200 $ 150 _30,000 _ i6 Stora a - _ - 148 $ __ _ 125 $ _ 18,500_ \7 AV Equl ment Sto g 100 $ 125 $ 12,500 2,146 $ 328,580 Recreation S aces 8 B7 'MA_C_(2 74 x5n cross tours) _ 8,200 $ 14D $__ _1,148,000 B2 1k'IAC Storage _ _ 500 $ _125 $ _ 82,500 83 Restroome 1,044 $ 200 $ 208,800 C G7 9,744 $ 1,419,300 Ci a �Commumty Hall / Pertomi�Arts _ 2,700 $ _ 180 $ _ 488,000 C2 _ Table(Chan Storage _ _ _ _550 $ _125 �$ _ -t�$ _ 88,750 C3 IrChanging Rooms 400 $ 150 60,000 _ _ 180 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 125 C4 (Caterer Kitchen $ 2501 $ 175,000 C5 _ _ Restrooms _ _ _ __700 _ _ _50 $ _ _ _ 200 iii $ _ _10,000 CB _ }S V Storage _ _ _ 100 $ 125 $ _ _ 12,500 C7 IRleachwr Rtnranw d4nIA 19515 55 nnn 4,940 $ 867,250 Di o_V Classroom / Tots 954 $ 180 $ 171,720 D1A _ _ Toilet - _ _ - 100 $ _ �19 200 $ _ 2_0,000 D2 (Storage _ _ _ 125 $ _ 23,750 D3 _ Classroom / Art Studio _ _ _ _ 1,130 $ _ _ 180 I $ _ 203,400 D4 _ JStomge _ _ _ _ _ 290 $ _ 125 $_ _ 36,250 D5 Classroom _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _110 $ _ 180 $ _ 167,220 D1A _Toilet _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 250 $ _ 200 C$ _ _ 50,000 D6 Second Floor Classroom(s 1,500 $ 1801$ 270,000 Total Net Assignable Square Footage ClroulationlMechanicaVWalis (15 %) 5,343 $ 942340 22,173 3,326 $ 150 $ 496,893 Total Cross Square Footage 25,499 $ 159 0B $ 4,056,363 Demolition $ 200,000 Site work $ 750,000 Subtotal $ 5,008,383 Contingency (10 %) $ 500,636 C„I.Inlol Q 4 SIIR 000 Furniture, Fumishings & Equipment $ 291 242 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 6,007,507 Design Fees (including expenses) $ 548,260 Construction Management / Testing & Inspection $ 150,000 Desi n Conlin an 3-A $ 20,940 Total Pro ect Estimated Cost 8 728 715 City of EI Segundo LPA 4 �� El Segundo Community Center Program Space Summary -1,500 sq ft Activity Room Estimated Protect Costs Date Updated 10 21 02 (7.09 02) Cost Per Current Square Space L Area _ Foot 1 Estimated Cost A Support Space 3,200 $ _ 550 $ 180 125 B B1 _ _ MAC (2- 74'x50 _am coons) B2 Storage Al �LLobby 1,000 $ 160 $ 1,044E$ A2 A3 _ _ _ _ (Reception __288 Recreabon Supenntendenl $_160 170t$ _ _ $ 15-0 i $ _160,000 46,080 25,500 A4 AS _ _ �Su ewtsors (2-@ 120 SF Workroom /C� leStorage _ __240 f--- 200 $ _ 150 $ _ 150 $ 36,000 30,000 A6_ _ _ $ 125 $ �$ 18,500 A7 _ AV Equipment Storage _148 100 $ _ 125 12,500 C7 _ _ I Bleacher Storage 2.146 $ 328.580 Recreation Spaces (Community Hall / Perform _ Table /Chair Stora 3,200 $ _ 550 $ 180 125 B B1 _ _ MAC (2- 74'x50 _am coons) B2 Storage 1,500 $_ 500 $ 140 $ 12 $ _210,000 62,500 _ _MAC _ _ B3 Restrooms 1,044E$ _ 200 $ 208,800 _ 3,044 $ 481,300 C 0 Meetmo and Actnrdv Rooms Cl C2 (Community Hall / Perform _ Table /Chair Stora 3,200 $ _ 550 $ 180 125 I $ 576,000 68,750 C3 e �Changm Rooms _ 400 $ 150 �$ $ 60,000 _ _+ -_ Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (9/03) 3 8% /year _ 290 $ 125T$ C4 IC- aterer Kitchen _700 $_ 250 $_ 250 C6 -- -- _ Restrooms Stage Storage_ __ 50 $_ 200 125 $ _ T$_ _175,000 10,000 12,500 C7 _ _ I Bleacher Storage _i�$ 446t$ 125 $ 55,000 Total Pro ect Estimated Cost 5,440 $ 957,250 i use uassrooms $ 200,000 Classroom /Tots 954 $ 180 $ _ Toilet 1000 200 $ Stowe $ _ _ 125 1_$ I ,Classroom I An Studw 1,130 $ 180 $ Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (9/03) 3 8% /year _ 290 $ 125T$ _ _(Storage _ _ _'1 Classroom ii _ 929 $ _ 180 _ $ Toilet _ r 250 200Z_ $ Total Net Assignable Square Footage 15,973 Circulation /Mechanical/Walls (25 %) 3,993 $ 150 $ 598,988 Total Gross Square Footage 19,966 $ 165 70 $ 3,308,458 Demolition $ 200,000 Site work $ 750,000 Subtotal $ 4,258,458 Contingency (10 %) $ 425,846 Subtotal $ 4,684,303 Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (9/03) 3 8% /year $ 178,004 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,862,307 Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment $ 249,747 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 5,112,054 Design Fees (including expenses) $ 548,260 Construction Management / Testing & Inspection $ 150,000 Desr n Contingency (3 % $ 20,948 Total Pro ect Estimated Cost 5 831 267 J t) El Segundo Community Center Program Space Summary - Council Directed Estimated Project Costs Date Updated 10 21 02 (7 09 02) ,- Cost Per `Space Current Area Square Foot Estimated Cost A B C u Support S ace 3,2001$ _180 -i25 $ _ At Lobby _ 1,0001$ _ 160 $ 160,000 A2 I _ _2881 $$_ _ 160 $__ 46,080 A3 }_Reception (Recreation Superintendent _ 1701 $ 150 $_ 25,500 A4 Supervisws (2 Q_ 120 SF) 240ti1 $ 150 $ 36,000 AS _ _ workroom/Copes_ _ _ 200 $ 150 _ $_ 30,000 A6 File Storage _ _ 148 $ _ 125 $ _ _ 18,500 A7 _ AVEquipment Storage 100 $ 125 $ 12,500 2 146 $ 328,580 lecreaoon S Ces N _ MAC (2 - 74'x5a cross coons) 9,838 $ 140 $ 1,377 040 12_ 'MAC Stoi _ __ 500F$ 125 $ 62,500 13 �Restrooms 1,044F$ 200 $ 208,800 11,380 $ 1,648,340 C1 _i Community Hall/ Perfommg Arts _ 3,2001$ _180 -i25 $ _ 5_76,000 C2 _ _ _ TablefChair Storage _ _ 550 _180 _$ _ is _ 68,750 C3 -_ 1Chan9mg Rooms___ _ 400 $ _ 150 $ _ 80,000 C4 Catenerlitchen__ _ _ 700 $ 250 $ 175,000 C5 _ �Restrooms _ _ _ 50 $ _ _20_0� -$- _ 10000 C6 _ Staaa"Orage _ _ 100 $ 1251 $ ti 12,500 C7 Bleacher Store a 440 $ 125 55,000 5,440 $ 957,250 D1 Classroom l Tots 954 $ 942,340 Total Net Assignable Square Footage _ _ _180 _$ _171,720 D1A Total Gross Square Footage (Toilet _- -__ 10� - 4,423,463 _ 200 $ 20000 D2 Site work Stora e 190 $__ Subtotal $_ _ 23,750 5,373463 Contingency (10%) _ $ 537346 _125 $ D3 _ {(Classroom_ /Art Studio__ _ 1.130 $_ 180 $__ 203,400 D4_ 6135,419 IStorage _ _ _290 $_ 125 $_ _ 36,250 05 D1A Classroom _ _ _ toilet _ 929 $ 250 $ _180 $ 200' $ 167,220 50000 DB ' Second Floor Classroom s) 1,500 $ 180 $ _ 270,000 v vCl <u bVUSavuGilV➢. i O'.0,V66 Design Fees (Including expenses) $ 548,260 Construction Management / Testing & Inspection $ 150,000 Design Contingency I3 J $ 20,948 Total Project Estimated Cost 7164 292 City of El Segundo LPA J� 5,343 $ 942,340 Total Net Assignable Square Footage 24,309 Ciroulation /Mechanical/Nalls (15 %) 3,646 $ 150 $ 546,953 Total Gross Square Footage 27,955 $ 15823 $ 4,423,463 Demolition $ 200,000 Site work $ 750,000 Subtotal $ 5,373463 Contingency (10%) $ 537346 Subtotal $ 5,910,809 Escalation to Mid -point of Construction (9/03) 3 8% /year $ 224,611 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 6135,419 F,nmlurc Fum,e6inne R Cn,nmm�nl Q Ono ¢eC v vCl <u bVUSavuGilV➢. i O'.0,V66 Design Fees (Including expenses) $ 548,260 Construction Management / Testing & Inspection $ 150,000 Design Contingency I3 J $ 20,948 Total Project Estimated Cost 7164 292 City of El Segundo LPA J� =EXHIBIT MANAGEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW GENERAL: The subject property consists of a two story building located at 300 E. Pine Avenue in the City of El Segundo, California. One of the components of the Management Plan/Operations and Maintenance Plan is to deal with asbestos and any future potential problems that it poses until it can be removed. The following is a brief outline of the Management Plan. INSPECTION: The purpose of this inspection was to identify all friable asbestos containing building materials present in this building. Some suspected ACBM (Asbestos Containing Building Materials) can be assumed to contain asbestos. Note: See Analytical Consultants, Inc inspection report #901205 -1 for details on the inspection findings and asbestos - containmg materials' condition. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend the following responses for the materials based on accessibility and condition at the time of the inspection: Friable asbestos containing material: 1) Thermal System Insulation: * The ground floor mechanical room, where pipe insulation is encased in the ceiling above the water heater, should be inspected every three years by an accredited inspector and every six months by in -house personnel. If the condition of the encasement materials shows signs of deterioration they should be repaired If removal of the pipe insulation is scheduled, it should be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Non - friable asbestos containing materials: Non - friable materials normally require only periodic monitoring until removal is planned However, care should be taken when performing normal maintenance and cleaning of these materials. When cleaning, buffing or stripping of floor tile is required, a non - abrasive method should be used. Abrasive cleaning may cause the release of asbestos fibers. 1) Roofing Masnc * If removal of ttus material is scheduled, it should be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. 2) Floor Tile & Masnc• * If removal of tlus material is scheduled, it should be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. iANAGEMENT PLAN. City of El Segundo Clubhouse © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 5� RESPONSE ACTIONS: The response action selected by the building Owner is dependent on the condition of the material, the feasibility of a given action, and the action that is least burdensome to the City of El Segundo. The response action selected shall be sufficient to protect human health and the environment. Removal is an appropriate response if the asbestos containing material in question is in a damaged condition or if renovation or other activities are scheduled which could disturb the material. The underlying purpose is to eventually remove all asbestos containing materials from buildings. The main drawback to removal is the untial cost involved. There are other alternatives than removal. The material can be repaired, encapsulated, of enclosed. These measures do not remove the material, but they do lessen the potential for fiber release It may still be necessary, in the future, to remove the asbestos. These other methods may, however, increase the cos - of eventual removal of the material. PREVENTATIVE MEASURES; As stated above, the best procedure at this time would be to monitor the condition of the material and eventually removal the material when it shows sign of damage or when funds become available. REINSPECTION: The purpose of this reinspection is to determine the following: 1) Assess the condition and friability of all known friable and non - friable ACBM. 2) Assess the condition of any assumed ACBM. 3) Sample any areas on newly friable material 4) Submit a report on all of the above. TRAINING: The Designated Person, the individual responsible for the Management Plan, staff, maintenance and custodial personnel should all receive training with regards to asbestos. This training varies with the position held by the individual and can range from a 2 hour awareness class to a 14 hour class on handling and working around the material. The training classes are detailed in the O & M Plan. NOTIFICATIONS: Annual notifications should include a description of the steps taken to inform workers and building occupants or their legal guardians, about inspections, reinspections, response actions, post- response action, including periodic reinspection and surveillance activities that are planned or in progress. This is required for all commercial and industrial buildings in the State of California. California Health and Safety Code § 25915 et. seq. The letter must also state that the notification will be sent annually. All outside maintenance personnel that are required to work where ACM is present must also be notified that asbestos is present. This should be done in a written form and signed by the individuals required to enter the areas. .,ANAGEMENT PLAN. City of El Segundo Clubhouse © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 5 RESO R .E This would include. a) Financial resources required for Major and Minor Episodes. b) Equipment appropriate to Asbestos clean-up for minor release episodes. c) Trained personnel able to cope with cleanup. d) Air Monitoring professionals for sampling of both Air and Bulk Samples. e) Hazard waste manifests, Hazardous Waste dump sites available and licensed Hazardous Waste Vehicle. We appreciate the opportunity to provide analytical work for you. If you have any questions please call us at (310) 802 -3135. Respectfully submitted, WORLDWIDE DESIGN Ken Rhodes Management Planner Accreditation #RMP 00347 .NAGEIvENT PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse ® 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 9 SPECIAL WORK PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Normal maintenance activities can disturb ACM and raise levels of airborne asbestos. Maintenance workers should be cautioned against conducting any maintenance work in a manner that may disturb ACM. A management system for maintenance work should be instituted to ensure that proper procedures are employed whenever there is a possibility of disturbing ACM and the potential for releasing asbestos fibers, The O & M program should include provisions for each type of ACM that is present in the building. The nature and extent of special work practices should be tailored to reflect the likelihood that the ACM will be disturbed and that fibers will be released Four categories of potential disturbance are defined: 1) Contact with the ACM is very unlikely; 2) Accidental disturbance is possible; 3) A small amount of ACM (less than three square feet or three linear feet) will be disturbed, and 4) A large amount of ACM (three or more square feet or linear feet) will be disturbed. The following sections on surfacing material, thermal system insulation, and other types of ACM describe the work practices in detail. THERMAL. SYSTEM INSULATION The pipe run insulation in the ceiling space above the water heater in the ground floor mechanical room has been determined to contain 15% Chrysotile and 40% Amosite asbestos The full extent of this insulation could not be determined at the time of the inspection due to lack of complete access into the ceiling and wall spaces of the building. The hot water pipes which originate in the ground floor mechanical room, and are encased in the walls and ceilings, should be assumed to be insulated with asbestos - containing material until the presence or composition of the insulation can be verified. Maintenance activities affecting asbestos - containing thermal system insulation generally involve plumbing - type repairs, or repairs to the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Frequently, the ACM must be removed to provide access to the valve, flange, duct, or related system part needing maintenance. Contact with ACM Unlikely Maintenance activities or repairs which can be performed without contacting or disturbing the ACM require little more than normal care and good workmanship. (Respirators and a HEPA vacuum cleaner should be available if needed) For example, valves which are either uncovered or covered with non - asbestos insulation can be repacked or repaired without disturbing asbestos lagging on nearby pipes. As with surfacing ACM, the only precautions necessary are to make sure that a BEPA vacuum cleaner and air - purifying respirators are available if needed. Accidental Disturbance of ACM Possible Even maintenance tasks that involve no direct contact with ACM may cause accidental disturbance. For example, vibrations created by maintenance activities in one part of piping network will be transmitted to other parts Vibrations could then cause fibers to be released from insulation which is exposed (not covered with a protective jacket) or not in good condition. If in doubt about the possibility of fiber release, thoroughly inspect the thermal system insulation before undertaking maintenance or repair work. Then, either correct the problem before starting, or assume that the maintenance work may cause accidental disturbance and fiber release. In this case, the following procedures should be used: * Work approval and site preparation procedures as described under Surfacing Material should be followed. * Plastic sheets (6-mil polyethylene) should be cut and taped around any insulation which might be accidentally disturbed The plastic should be misted with amended water before taping it shut. If the locations where insulation could be disturbed are too numerous for isolation with plastic, workers should perform the maintenance work wearing air - punfying respirators, at a tmmmum, and protective clothing, including disposable suits and hoods. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse 11 © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN J �s * Cleanup procedures, as described under Surfacing Material, should be followed. Special care should be taken when removing the plastic from the insulation to minimize disturbance of any ACM dust or debris that may have fallen from the insulauon. Disturbance of ACM Intended or Like Where asbestos - containing insulation must be removed to maintain or repair the thermal system the ACM will obviously be disturbed. As with surfacing ACM, the amount to be removed or manipulated will determine the procedures to be used • Work approval and site preparation procedures as described for surfacing ACM, should be followed. • Maintenance workers should wear at least air - purifying respirators with HEPA filters and protective clothing (suit, hood, and boots) in case of a fiber release accident. • The asbestos - containing insulation should be removed as necessary for the repairs, and the repairs made using standard glove bag techniques, where possible, (see the EPA publication• "Asbestos - in- Building Technical Bulletin. Abatement of Asbestos - Containing Prpe Insulation," 1986 -2 and the OSHA construction industry rule). Glove bags are fastened around the part to be repaired, the insulation is removed with knives and saws to make the part accessible, and the repairs are made using tools contained in the glove bag tool pouch The open faces of the remaining asbestos - containing insulation are then sealed with an encapsulant or latex paint, all surfaces are wet -wiped or HEPA- vacuumed, and all debris are sealed in the glove bag and removed, together with the bag. • If a bag is ruptured during the course of the repairs, work should stop, the area should be sealed off, and all procedures recommended for large -scale asbestos removal should be followed. Thorough clean-up of the work site, followed by air testing is, especially important to assure that fibers which may have escaped are removed. Sealing tape applied quickly to a small puncture could prevent significant release of fibers to the room, provided the ACM inside the bag was thoroughly wetted as it was removed. • At the conclusion o the work, maintenance workers should clean their clothing as above (if fibers escaped from the glove bag), shower with their respirators on, and clean their respirators while in the shower. • All glove bags and any other used materials (including disposable clothing) should be discarded as asbestos waste. * Non - asbestos insulating material can be installed, as necessary, to replace insulation which was removed. Large Disturbances Any maintenance work which involves removal of 3 or more square feet of surfacing material (or 3 linear feet of thermal system insulation) should be considered a large -scale disturbance of ACM. Moreover, if the maintenance work is part of general building renovation, NESHAPS require notifications prior to removal of ACM if more than about 160 square feet of friable surfacing ACM or about 260 linear feet of thermal system insulation (40 CFR 61, Subpart M). Typically, an outside abatement contractor would be hired for the removal project before the maintenance work would begin. We do not recommend that any large scale abatement ( disturbances) be performed by maintenance personnel. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse 12 © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 5 s; MISCELLANEOUS ACM_ e 1 enti`ti miscellaneous ACM include floor tile and associated mastic and roofing mastic. Disturbance of these materials should be avoided. Where this is not possible, procedures should be used as described above for large -scale removal of ACM. Cutting, drilling, grinding, or sanding of ACM must be performed with tools equipped with HEPA- filtered vacuum system (OSHA requirement). Recent studies have shown that the sanding pads used to remove old wax on floor tile can release measurable asbestos fibers. Roofing Matenals The gray roofing mastic present at roof penetrations and along the edges of the roof has been determined to contain 15% Chrysotile asbestos. There are approximately one hundred (100) square feet of this roofing mastic. Floor Tile & Mastic All floor tile and associated black mastic adhesive within the building has been determined to be asbestos - contaming. The following flooring materials are included: Material Asbestos % Approx. Sq. Ft. Sample Location 12" tan floor tile and black mastic 10% 7000 Auditorium 12" brown floor tile and black mastic 5% 200 Grnd. Fl. Str. Rm. 9" brown floor tile and black mastic 20% 280 Prop Room 12" dark tan floor tile 2% 200 Old Nursery Mastic associated with the 12" dark tan floor the 10% 200 Old Nursery Under normal conditions these non - friable asbestos - containing materials do not release asbestos fibers. However, if these material are broken or otherwise disturbed fibers can be released. The EPA and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( Board Rule 1403) considers that once a non - friable asbestos - containing material is broken during removal that it is to be considered a friable material and the engineering controls for removal of a friable material apply. OTHER MEASURES Whenever friable ACM is present in a building, special procedures should be followed when changing filters in the HVAC system The filters should be misted with water or amended water as they are removed, placed in plastic bags, sealed, and discarded as asbestos waste. Workers should wear at least an air- purifying respirator. WORK PRACTICES FOR RENOVATION AND REMODELING RENOVATION Building renovation or building system replacement can cause major disturbance of ACM Moving walls, adding wings, and replacing hearing or air conditioning systems involve breaking, cutting, or otherwise disturbing ACM that may be present. Prior removal of ACM is highly recommended in these situations, and is required by NESHAPS if the amount of ACM is likely to be disturbed is greater than the threshold amounts (160 square feet of surfacing material or 260 linear feet of thermal system insulation). If prior removal is not undertaken, the renovation project should be considered equivalent to an asbestos removal project. All the procedures and precautions for asbestos removal recommended by EPA and required by OSHA as previously discussed should be employed. A key step in considering a renovation project is checking on the location and type of ACM that may be affected. Clearance should be obtained from the asbestos program manager before serious project planning is begun. REMODELING Remodeling or redecorating implies less dramatic structural alteration However, disturbance of ACM or material contaminated with asbestos fibers is still possible. Where the remodeling involves direct contact with ACM (e.g., painting or wall papering over ACM), all of the procedures and precautions recommended by EPA and required by OSHA for asbestos removal should be followed OPERATIONS & MADrMNANCE PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse 13 © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 57 If 'other' types of ACM have to be removed as part of the renovation project, the removal should be done with care to avoid breaking the material For example, small sections of asbestos - containing floor tiles can be removed by applying dry ice or heat from a portable heater to the tops of the tiles and then prying them up. Glued carpet may require a mechanical chipper to separate the carpet from the floor. Before a chipper is employed, test the carpet adhesive for asbestos. If it contains asbestos, all workers should wear either SCBA or "type C' respirators and the project should be treated as an asbestos removal project. When considering remodeling, renovations, or demolition of structures that contain asbestos- containuig material, we recommend that abatement of all asbestos - containing materials be performed by a licensed abatement contractor EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES As long as ACM remains in the building, a fiber release episode could occur. Custodial and maintenance workers should report to the asbestos program manager the presence of debris on the floor, water or physical damage to the ACM, or any other evidence of possible fiber release. Fiber release episodes can also occur during maintenance or renovation projects. The asbestos program manager should call an abatement contractor or assign a suitably trained in -house team to clean up debris and make repairs as soon as possible. If an outside contractor is to be used, a company should be selected and retained by contract for quick response action as needed. MINOR EPISODES Minor episodes, such as a small section of insulation (less than 3 linear feet) falling from a pipe or a careless worker bumping into a beam and dislodging a small amount of fireproofing ACM (less that 3 square feet), can be treated with standard wet cleaning and HEPA- vacuum techniques: • Workers should wear air- purifying respirators with HEPA filters, at a minimum. • Workers should thoroughly saturate the debris with water or amended water using a truster with a very fine spray The debris should then be placed in a labeled, 6 -mil plastic bag for disposal and the floor should be cleaned with damp cloths or a mop. Alternatively, the debris can be collected with a HEPA vacuum cleaner. • All debris and materials used in the cleanup should be discarded as asbestos waste. • Workers should vacuum their disposable suits before leaving the work site (or remove them, discard them as asbestos waste, and put on clean, disposable suits,), proceed to a shower room, shower with their respirators on, and clean their respirators while in the shower • The damaged ACM should be repaired with asbestos -free spackling, plaster, cement, or insulation, or sealed with latex paint or on encapsulant. MAJOR EPISODES Major fiber release episodes are serious events. Large amounts of ACM falling from heights of several feet may contaminate an entire building with asbestos fibers If 3 square feet or mare of surfacing ACM or 3 linear feet or more of thermal system insulation delamrnates or is dislodged from its substrate, the episode should be considered mayor. A large breach in a containment barrier for a maintenance or abatement project should also be considered a major episode. The following response procedures should be used. The area should be isolated as soon as possible after the ACM debris are discovered. Where the area can be sealed by doors, they should be locked from the inside (escape corridors must remain in operation) and signs posted to prevent unauthorized personnel from entering the work area ( "DANGER - ASBESTOS; CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD; AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY; RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA." OPERATIONS & MAINPENANCE PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse © 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN 14 58 • The air - handling system should be shut off or temporarily modified to prevent the distribution of fibers from the work site to other areas of the building. If possible, doors, windows, and air registers should be sealed with 6 -mil plastic sheets and tape. • All the procedures recommended by EPA and required by OSHA for large -scale removal of ACM should then be used These include containment bamer, negative pressure ventilation, personal respiratory protection and protective clothing, decontamination facilities, and air testing. • Workers should wear either a SCBA or "type C" respirator and protective clothing, including a body suit, hood, boots, and gloves. Personal air monitoring may be conducted on representative workers, but is not required by OSHA when SCBA or "type C respirators are used. • Fallen debris should be sprayed with amended water and placed in plastic bags for disposal. Shovels are useful for collecting the debris. The floor should be thoroughly cleaned with a HEPA vacuum cleaner. • Walls, ceilings, pipes, boilers, or other surfaces where ACM was damaged or delaminated should be repaired temporarily. This might involve replastering with asbestos -free material, spraying with an encapsulant, or taping with duct tape. In some cases, ACM beyond the immediate area of damage may need to be removed to prevent additional episodes. • The air should be tested for asbestos fibers before the plastic barriers are removed and the area reoccupied That is, air should be sampled at the specified number of locations and analyzed by either phase contrast microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. However, sampling should NOT be done aggressively since the use of blowers and fans may dislodge fibers from the remaining ACM. • After the barriers have been taken down, a decontamination of the entire building or a portion of it should be considered. The need for this will depend on how rapidly the response team reacted to the episode and, in particular, how quickly the HVAC system was turned off. A thorough decontamination includes (HEPAvacuuming or wet wiping) ducts, ventilators, registers, and other system parts. System filters should also be removed and replaced • All equipment used in the cleanup operation should be washed or wiped with damp cloths. All disposable materials (e.g., cloths, mop heads, filters, coveralls) should be discarded as asbestos wastes. We recommend that unless there is a highly trained asbestos team on site that is equipped to handle a major episode, that the area be isolated as described in the first two steps in this section. Decontamination of a major episode should be performed by an abatement contractor. Each fiber release episode should be documented. A report format is suggested in Figure 2 on the following page. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLAN City of El Segundo Clubhouse 15 O 1992 WORLDWIDE DESIGN J �l T Qi Ch c� O J W J D- E 4 O d d N m N t a rn m T U z f 4 J N z 0 U J Q U H } J Q Q L rn .n 0 U 8 0 0 rn t m .0 E 7 z �t O ANALYTICAL CONSULTANTS, SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 60 U ro � O _ V O OL V ro v [ V a E° EpE C± E E E OEE gd QL S OO c 8800000 b�ogE O O L o Q° O 0 'rz F G a o S ro L c c a v � o v � U 0 U x M N T o g°. s O I.. Itg •� o s o N 0 0 6 n •p O O O O O O y m O N p�,I, d ul W W u cx q ..] H W F K'. O ,7�. W W o A d z N U 0 O V O z p w O w 00 V 00 s� QO ' N o O wuga uuvAa� 1:4 t4 v a rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a z N N H N L N N d d N m N t a rn m T U z f 4 J N z 0 U J Q U H } J Q Q L rn .n 0 U 8 0 0 rn t m .0 E 7 z �t O ANALYTICAL CONSULTANTS, SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 60 =EXHIBIT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED EL SEGUNDO COMMUNITY CENTER AT RECREATION PARK — 300 EAST PINE AVENUE Prepared for CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Prepared by STEVENS - GARLAND ASSOCIATES 16787 Beach Boulevard, Suite 234 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714- 840 -9742 SEPTEMBER 2002 61 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report summarizes the results of a traffic analysis that was conducted for the new community center proposed at Recreation Park at 300 East Pine Avenue in El Segundo The project site is located south of Pine Avenue and east of Eucalyptus Drive The proposed multi- purpose recreational building has a gross floor area of 27,500 square feet and it would replace an existing 10,000 square -foot clubhouse building The breakdown of components in the new building is as follows Multi- purpose Gymnasium Multi- purpose Classrooms Multi- purpose Theater Office & Storage Space Corridors & Mechanical Rooms Total 11,400 square feet 5,300 square feet 5,400 square feet 3,000 square feet 2.400 square feet 27,500 square feet It is estimated that the proposed facility, on a typical weekday, will attract a patronage of approximately 250 people throughout the entire day of operation, which extends from 9 00 a.m till 1000 p in On Saturdays and Sundays, it is estimated that the facility will attract a patronage of approximately 350 people throughout the 13 -hour day During the busiest times of the day, it is estimated that the facility will attract about 50 people per hour The existing facility attracts approximately 100 people per day on a weekday and 150 people per day on Saturday and Sunday, with a peak hour patronage of about 20 people. The net increase in patronage associated with the proposed building, therefore, is 150 people per day on a weekday, 200 people per day on the weekend, and 30 people during the peak hour The above patronage numbers represent a typical day of operation when no special events were scheduled Special events would occasionally be held in the gymnasium or the theater that would attract larger crowds The gymnasium/activity room, for example, would have a seating capacity of 188 people and the theater /presentation hall would have a fixed seating capacity of 162 people plus an extra 90 people if moveable seats are used It has been recommended by staff that events would not be held simultaneously at these two venues, so the maximum special event patronage would be 252 people (162 plus 90). 1 '7 ti II. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Project Generated Traffic The volumes of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed community center were estimated based on the patronage estimates outlined in the previous section Table 1 shows the estimated volumes of project- generated traffic for an average weekday, an average weekend day, a typical peak hour of operation, and during a special event. It is expected that a large special event would occur about once a month and that a medium -size event would occur twice a month. TABLE 1 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC Table I indicates that the commumty center would generate a net increase of approximately 300 vehicle trips per day on a typical weekday, 400 trips per day on the weekend, and 60 trips per hour during the busiest times of operation, which would generally occur in the late aRemoonlearly evening on weekdays and at various times of the day on weekends. The traffic estimates are based on an average trip generation rate of two vehicle trips per person (one inbound and one outbound nip) The trip rate is a composite average based on the assumption that one - quarter of the patrons are small children who generate four vehicle trips each (vehicle in/vehicle out for the drop -off and vehicle in/vehicle out for the pick -up), that one - quarter of the patrons are older children who generally walk 6 , Projected Patronage Projected Traffic Volume Time Period - Existing Patronage - Existing Traffic Volume = Net Increase = Net Increase Typical Weekday 250 500 (2 vehicle -trips per person) 100 200 150 300 Typical Saturday /Sunday 350 700 (2 vehicle -trips per person) 150 300 200 400 Typical Peak Hour 50 100 (2 vehicle -tnps per person) 20 40 30 60 Special Event — Medium 150 75 (0 5 vehicle -trips per person) 0 0 150 75 Special Event — Large 250 125 (0 5 vehicle -trips per person) 0 0 250 125 Table I indicates that the commumty center would generate a net increase of approximately 300 vehicle trips per day on a typical weekday, 400 trips per day on the weekend, and 60 trips per hour during the busiest times of operation, which would generally occur in the late aRemoonlearly evening on weekdays and at various times of the day on weekends. The traffic estimates are based on an average trip generation rate of two vehicle trips per person (one inbound and one outbound nip) The trip rate is a composite average based on the assumption that one - quarter of the patrons are small children who generate four vehicle trips each (vehicle in/vehicle out for the drop -off and vehicle in/vehicle out for the pick -up), that one - quarter of the patrons are older children who generally walk 6 , or ride a bike to the site, and that one -half of the patrons are adults who generate two vehicle trips each (one inbound and one outbound) While there are numerous other combinations of travel such as adults who walk or ride a bike, adults who are dropped off, older children who are dropped off, and small children who walk, the above assumptions represent a reasonable average for estimating the trip generation characteristics For special events it has been assumed that there would be one vehicle trip for every two patrons, which would generate 75 vehicle trips for a medium -size event and 125 vehicle trips for a large event Traffic Impacts Table 1 indicates that the community center would add up to 300 vehicle trips per day on a weekday and 400 trips per day on the weekend to the streets that provide access to the project site These traffic volumes, however, would be spread out over a 13 -hour day of operation, which results in an average hourly traffic volume increase of only 23 vehicles per hour on a weekday and 31 vehicles per hour on the weekend During the busiest times of patronage (other than a special event), the facility would generate about 60 vehicles per hour The streets that would be primarily affected by this increase in traffic are Pine Avenue, Mariposa Avenue, Holly Avenue, Grand Avenue, and Eucalyptus Street In addition, Main Street, Standard Street, Arena Street, Sheldon Street, and Penn Street would be moderately affected by the traffic increases While the additional traffic volumes maybe noticeable to the residents of these streets, the increases would not constitute a substantial change in traffic conditions or result in a significant traffic impact Since the streets that serve the project site are setup in a gnd pattern and since the users of the facility would be traveling from all directions, it is unlikely that more than 25 percent of the site - generated traffic would use any particular street This equates to an increase of 75 vehicles per day on a weekday, 100 vehicles per day on the weekend, and only 15 vehicles during the peak hour of activity on any particular street These projected traffic increases are deemed to be less than significant During a special event, the facility would generate approximately 75 vehicle trips for a medium - size event and 125 vehicles for a large event Similarly, if it were to be assumed that 25 percent of this traffic would travel on any particular street, the increase would be about 20 vehicles and 30 vehicles, respectively, for the two scenarios While this traffic would be noticeable to the residents and may be perceived as a nuisance, the impacts would be short-lived and would only occur about once a week at the beginning and end of each event In summary, while the proposed facility would result in an increase in traffic volumes on the streets that provide access to the project site, the increases would be relatively minor and would not result in a substantial change in traffic conditions or a significant traffic impact. 64 III. PARKING ANALYSIS The parking demands that would be generated by the proposed community center are shown in Table 2 for the various time penods /analysis scenarios The parking demands shown in the table represent the maximum number of vehicles that are expected to be parked at or near the facility at a given time of the day The table indicates that the facility would generate a peak parking demand of 20 vehicles on a typical weekday, 35 vehicles on the weekend, 80 vehicles during a medium -size special event, and 135 vehicles during a large event. As the on -site parking lot would be expanded by approximately 37 spaces in conjunction with the development of the project, the additional parking demands generated by the facility could be accommodated on site for the typical weekday and weekend scenarios The parking demands generated by a special event could not be accommodated on site. A recent parking inventory, however, indicates that there are over 270 parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building, including the on -site lot, the nearby public lots, and the on- street parking along the perimeter of the park As these parking spaces would be available for use by the patrons of the Community Center during special events, the project's parking demands could adequately be accommodated. While the presence of the additional parked vehicles in the area may result in an mconvemence for the nearby residents, the impacts are not deemed to be significant because there are enough spaces to accommodate the projected demand and because the special events would occur only occasionally (i e , about two times per month for the medium -size events and once a month for the large events). TABLE 2 PEAK PARKING DEMANDS 51 65 Maximum Patronage Projected Time Period on site at any given time Parkin Demand Typical Weekday 30 20 0 5 vehicles per person + 5 employees) Typical Saturday /Sunday 50 35 0 5 vehicles per person + 10 employees) Special Event — Medium 150 80 0 5 vehicles per person + 5 employees) Special Event — Large 250 135 0 5 vehicles per person + 10 employees) 51 65 EXHIBIT H CLUBHOUSE PROGRAMMING & ANNUAL REGISTRANTS' YOUTHPROGRAMS Ceramics - Parent & Me Ceramics Arts & Crafts Oil Pastel Painting Comic Illustration Ceramic Wheel Throwing Scrapboolong Woven Jewelry Arts & Crafts Totals Baton Karate Pee Wee Sports Jr Soccer Gymnastics Sports & Movement Totals Dance Violin Lessons Cotillion Music Appreciation Dance & Music Totals Drama Stage Crew Drama & Theater Arts Totals Small Fry Jr Chef Cooking Totals Kids Club Parent & Me Crafts Parent & Me Playtime Musical Fun for Tots Teddy Bears Tot Classes Totals Sign Language Santa's Craft Night Parent's Night Out Spring Craft Night Holiday Programs Puppet Shows Reptile Shows Co-Op Nursery School Sports League Meeting Girl Scouts Boy Scouts Miscellaneous I Specials Totals Youth Programming Totals Fall 2001 Winter 2002 Spring 2002 Summer 2002 Total Arts & Crafts 14 14 7 10 45 44 18 32 63 157 5 3 0 41 49 7 0 0 20 27 8 5 7 27 47 9 13 18 21 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 87 53 73 182 395 Sports & Movement 20 21 17 17 75 37 25 37 63 162 8 0 11 29 48 15 12 14 24 65 51 29 55 135 80 109 108 188 485 Dance & Music 79 90 89 0 0 13 0 4 0 107 89 Drama & Theater Arts 94 78 6 7 100 85 Cooking 30 42 55 21 27 63 82 Tot Classes 62 76 18 5 25 19 137 169 30 23 272 292 Miscellaneous I Specials 0 0 49 70 79 328 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 4 70 79 345 43 67 282 0 17 30 43 84 312 36 57 190 15 69 132 51 126 322 98 51 287 14 11 48 48 27 119 168 152 626 32 58 143 360 299 1223 0 49 0 709 759 705 0 9 9 49 58 967 3140 V er EXHIBIT I I mmiN 0 DRAFT 4'5 Xa �F j" MASTER PLAN Report to the City of El Segundo November 12, 2002 6i L P11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Council Members MiKe Gordon, Maya Sandra Jacobs, Mayor Pro Tem John Gaines, Council Member Nancy Wernick, Council Member Kelly McDowell, Council Member Planning Commission Phil Mahler Eric Busch Robin Funk Cheryl Frick Janet Miller Sheehan Parks & Recreation Commission William McCaverty, Chair Debbie Bundy, Chair Pro Tem Margie Randall, Commissioner Colleen Glynn -Rich, Commissioner Dick Fearn, Commissioner Steering Committee Mary Strenn, City Manager Andy Santamaria, Public Works Director Bellur Devaraj, City Engineer Greg Johnson, Director Parks & Recreation Seimone Jur is, Building Department Manager Judy Andoe, Recreation Superintendent Lynn Haskell Gala Burkholder Design Team LPA, Inc C N O a a 3 0 c Y u a lif e C C N R a O a c ° � N a pi a y N N N M R — W u Y p R r a = o e � z o w s R « u z o a rf � COVER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Section 1 Site Evaluation Section 2 Community Needs and the Section 3 Workshop Process Recreation Park Master Plan Section 4 Summary Section 5 w e 0 a m r Ll /-� L O N A a o c o G � N d d N N w 2w r E s a E C O Z e d r r V d r' mo a d C 71 72 Recreation Park - El Segundo, California INTRODUCTION Recreation Park is a ± 20 acre community park located near the heart of the city's downtown district n -u -i 7 iii ilia -, l,,� - i --,,1 , .0 ,, recreation activities to the residents of EI Segundo The George Brett Field, the 4 of July event, and tint tots progiam all contribute to a rich history associated with the park In October of 2001, the City of El Segundo retained the design firm of LPA to assist the city in the development of a master plan foi Recreation Park and design plans for a new Community Recreation Center to be located within Recreation Park The purpose of the master plan is to provide the city with a vision for the disposition of all city owned buildings and facilities within the park, as well as, integrate the new Community Recreation Center The city envisions the new Community Recreation Center will replace the existing clubhouse located along Pine Avenue As a focal point for leisure activities in El Segundo the city's vision of the Community Recreation Center was to include a gym and accommodate current programs offered at the clubhouse as well as possible new programs According to the March 7, 2002 Request For Proposals, "These activities will include, but not limited to, music, drama, dance classes, arts and crafts, indoor sports activates, non - credit adult enrichment classes, infant /toddler programs, youth activities and, competitive programs The facility may include multi- purpose rooms, kitchen, activity room, offices, a gymnasium, locker rooms, restrooms, storage rooms, daycare room, and a weight training/ workout area " In an effort to align needs with available funds, the city's process for creating a master plan for the park and addressing program needs for the new center was two -fold 1) a mail out survey was conducted in the fall of 2001, In which the city solicited input from the community relative to community participation and need for a variety of programs and activities that could be accommodated at the new center and 2) a community workshop was held on October 27, 2001 The entire community was invited to participate in a hands -on evaluation and design for the park master plan and new Community Recreation Center Results from these two efforts are discussed in Section 4 of this report The results of this park master plan effort and design for the new Community Recreation Center are intended to provide the city with a comprehensive road map for the future development activities at Recreation Park The goal is to address the current and future (changing) needs for the community to insure that Recreation Park remains the cornerstone of recreation and leisure activity for the residents of E I Segundo _ 'y r O 9 o LF)"k = o N q 4 O d c o � N o, a y, H r1 q � w W v s o r q T d =�z o w �t q r � O �r � o e. z .3) 74 SITE EVALUATION The location of Recreation Park is within walking distance of many residents, much of EI Segundo's downtown district and city offices With residential nano u�� pieu un i roam iy w Lic west, norcu cuw northeast, the scale of buildings within the park respects this interface with a low profile scale Uses within the park include an active clubhouse located adjacent Pine Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive The clubhouse offers a variety of children and adult recreation programs including, meeting rooms, arts and crafts, dance, cooking, exercise, self- defense, ceramics, specialty workshops, drama, music, multi- purpose space, tiny tots program, and classrooms The building is approximately 40 years old, in much need of repair and replacement, and too small to accommodate the city's growing recreational needs The Joslyn Center located near the southwest corner of the park is available for use by seniors and adults Programs offered include Saturday night dances, painting, a senior citizens club, quilting, arts and crafts, dancing, as well as many others The Joslyn Center also hosts many events and provides a monthly newsletter The Center is also home to the city's park and recreation offices The building is in relatively good condition with normal expectations for maintenance and repair outdoor programmed space adjacent the Joslyn Centet accommodates shuffleboard, horseshoes, lawn bowling and outdoor garden spaces As part of this master plan, the viability and condition of these outdoor spaces is evaluated with recommendations made in Section 5 as a result of this evaluation �r - 0 N — N C > o W N N The youth center (Scout House) is currently owned, t� programmed and used by The Boy Scouts The city owns the land and has a lease agreement with the Boy Scouts use i5 antiupateo I,[ nit suture vsioe trom regutai there has been _� c maintenance, repair and restoration, of this building for N u discussion of possible future expansion much needed classroom space , a restroom building is located „ An equipment checkout and the center of the park adjacent the ienms courts This z near building is the central hub of the park operations The ° z checkout building provides the community with a y location for equipment checkout, reservation, convenient permits, restrooms showers, and information Regular for this building a maintenance and repair is envisioned Hardcourts within the park are generally located near the and south central area of the park and consist of center racquetball, handball, volleyball, paddle tennis, tennis, basketball and roller hockey From most accounts, the facilities are heavily used and well loved by the Their condition is fair with nominal repair, community and replacement expected The roller hockey maintenance facility is a fairly new addition to the park Parking is located immediately north and south of these facilities Sports fields have a rich history and are a major feature draw to this park Baseball, softball and soccer are and accommodated here The baseball field adjacent Eucalyptus Drive, Stevenson Field, also acts as a building within detention basin As part of locating a new be observed this park, the detention function must Normal maintenance and repair are expected here While casual picnic can happen throughout the park, a formal picnic area is located in the north central portion of the park The area is heavily treed and as with most of this park heavily used Parking is nearby The age of these facilities is apparent relative to the maturity of the trees and provides a wonderful contrast in recreation experience to the active nature of much of the park Slope re - vegetation should occur here to maintain the integrity of adjacent slopes r r fJ There are two play areas adjacent to the existing clubhouse One is for tiny tots and is used in conjunction with the childcare program offered at the clubhouse This facility is fenced in One observed concern is the proximity to the home -run fence at Stevenson Field Future disposition of this play area must take into concern safety relative to this home - run activity The other play area is for older youth and is located to the east of the clubhouse Both play areas need to be repaired and brought current with respect to federal and state law Consumer Product Safety standards and accessibility requirements have changed drastically since these play areas were last addressed It is recommended that phase one improvements rehabilitate these two play areas Open space within the park is probably one of its most important attributes There is grade change around all edges of the park, which adds to its character, yet poses accessibility challenges The master plan should seek to 1) maintain as much existing open space in tact as possible, 2) address accessibility issues with all walkways and stairs, 3j protect and maintain as many healthy trees as possible, 4) preserve and protect viewsheds, 5) preserve and protect important open space programs such as casual open play and the 4" of July event at the northwest corner Parking is distributed throughout the park including street parking along Eucalyptus Drive and Pine Avenue In addition, there is parking available nearby at the city offices and throughout adjacent neighborhoods Because of its focat)on, (adjacent residential and city land uses) this is a feature this park enjoys as opposed to a more remote destination oriented location Walking and bicycling are viable options for transportation to this park In evaluating various open space lots around the premier of the park, the city should entertain potential acquisition when feasible to secure additional parking opportunities As part of this evaluation, it is observed that a more efficient layout of existing parking lots on site, using a standard stall size, will yield additional parking spaces This study is presented in Section 5 Any increase in programmable space as proposed in this master plan should also provide for additional parking opportunity As part of this study, a traffic analysis and parking demand report was prepared to address the new Community Recreation Center Findings of this report are discussed in Section 5 The maintenance facility is located in the south central portion of the site The facility has vehicular access off the knuckle at the end of the parking facility adjacent the Joslyn Center The current condition of this facility is poor This facility should be considered for renovation and possible expansion In summary, many existing facilities are in good to fair condition, well used and liked by the community The clubhouse, adjacent play areas and parking should be a focus for future change Additional areas within the park to be considered for change will be a result of the public workshop process and staff recommendations presented in the next section L O F N � C � o W � a In VI PA C O N n c O a ° ° � S a N N r � W a a i o � 1 - o e V Z o a a e so a 76 v v L a-` 7 r COMMUNITY NEEDS & THE WORKSHOP PROCESS As with the design of any park master plan and new recreation facility, the incorporation of a comprehensive and effective community participation WW KJ410P i, crlticai to the succe55TUI Inent[TlCalloii 0, needs and delivery of appropriate solutions It is very simple, to best accommodate community recreation needs and solutions, one must engage the end -user in the planning and design process The city of El Segundo accomplished this in two ways A community wide needs assessment survey was conducted in the fall of 2001 Surveys were advertised in the local newspaper as being available in the Parks and Recreation office 191 completed surveys were received back from the community Surveying questions revolved around facility use, interest and participation in a variety of recreational endeavors The purpose of the survey was to gather a sampling of the importance and frequency of participation from the community in a number of recreation and leisure activities offered by the city A copy of the questions and results of this survey can be obtained through the Parks and Recreation office The community at large was invited to participate in a daylong community workshop held at the existing clubhouse on October 27, 2001 The purpose of this workshop was to engage the community in the creative process of establishing a vision for the new Community Recreation Center and the park as a whole The goal of this process was to establish (agree on) the needs of the community, prioritize those needs, and develop a solution that accommodates those prioritized needs The format of the workshop followed a method called TAKING PART developed by Lawrence Halprin, Which is based on the theory that we are all inherently creative and that the real task for group leaders /teachers is to help us release our creativity The following is adapted from Lawrence Halprin's R S V P cycles In TAI<ING PART many devices are used to release creativity — among these are actual experiences of issues, becoming aware together so as to develop a common language, sharing experiences in order to increase communication The process depends a lot on different ways for expressing feelings other than talking — such as drawing, writing and other expressive modes In all these modes each person's feelings and attitudes have equal value There are no experts who have "the answer" As workshops progress, more and more energy is released, and more and more interaction of creative ideas occur until eventually some forms of creative consensus about the project emerge The workshop involves, an "awareness walk" which will allow the participant to experience the project site in the same way A design workshop follows during which the group will iogetner, explore, program and develop actual ideas for the EI Segundo Community Centei and Recreation Park Master Plan Below is a summary of each of the two consensus building methods utilized in developing a master plan and Community Recreation Center for Recreation Park Needs Assessment Survey The purpose of the questionnaire was to assess the leve and kinds of recreational needs as well as the need for a new community center according to the residents of El Segundo This widely distributed questionnaire was utilized to provide an effective means for acquiring accurate data relative to the community interest In various configurations, programs and uses at the center Opinion from the survey strongly favored building a new facility in place of remodeling the old clubhouse by a margin of 3 to 2 Approximately 69% of the respondents agreed that the community could use additional meeting, activity, recreational rooms and spaces, Fitness, arts and crafts, drama and indoor sports programs were all highly favored in the responses received The Community Workshop The group gathered at 9 00 AM Saturday morning or October 27, 2001 After introductions, an information review was conducted In that review, needs assessment survey results were shared, site analysis of the park and its surroundings, park operation, and information gathering was discussed relative to Recreation Park In preparation for the "site awareness tour" the tour map was shared and expectations discussed such as conversation during this part of the process to be kept to a minimum and "individual" responses were encouraged The group of approximately thirty (30) people then reassembled at Station 1 of the awareness tour The following is a summary of responses from the site awareness tour (Note a compressive summary of questions asked and responses given can be obtained from the city's Park and Recreation office ) Tour Locations �,- - -- _`fir- - - - --1 � I _ I ­,a V �^ o v C 2 n 0 r t M C E L E 3 doa YI U r C1C111A L O N R C � N r D• �N M A- �W y E o E r v a = U � L Z o y A s `a z 78 Station 1 (At the cornet of Pine Avenue and Eucalyptus Street) • Maintain view sheds to the park prraaahility • Gateway to the park Station 2 (Frontage along Pine Avenue) • New center character to be harmonious and in scale with the surrounding neighborhood • Plan for safety • Protect trees where possible Station 3 (At the Skate Plaza area) • New building may extend into the "Skate Plaza" Station 4 (At the tiny -tots play area) • Include a play area in the new master plan • Insure protection • Protect from field play • Insure good visibility Station 5 (Adjacent the Joslyn Center) • Lawn bowling to remain • Relocate horse shoes near picnic • Remove shuffleboard • Consult seniors on use of new outdoor space Station 6 (Northeast of the clubhouse near the picnic area) • Retain as much open space a possible • Retain tree views Station 7 (At the parking lot east of the picnic area) • Increase parking opportunities At the conclusion of the site awareness tour, the group reconvened in the clubhouse for two exercises designed to obtain consensus on likes and dislikes about the park and consensus on the groups most important spaces to be provided in the Community Center program In an effort to move toward consensus, the group was first asked to respond individually to each question, and then (once organized into three (3) separate groups), each group was asked to discuss individual responses and arrive at a group consensus on each subject Below is a summary, by group of their response to What are your three (3) top likes and dislikes about the park? Group 1 - Top 3 Likes 1 Topogiaphy 2 Variety of park uses 3 Green space and trees Group 1 - Top 3 Disltkes 1 Parking 2 More efficient indoor space 3 Access issues —park & building Group 2 - Top 3 Likes 1 Open space, safe, calm feeling 2 Low profile elevation with trees surrounding 3 Serves all ages Group 2 - Top 3 Dislikes 1 Inefficient use of land and clubhouse space (chopped up rooms, few windows, poor design, too many grades) 2 Limited parking 3 Dated building — not state -of- the -art, no wooden floors Group 3 - Top 3 Ltkes 1 Open space and trees (mature vegetation) 2 Variety of activities (multi-age, multi-activities, multifunction) Group 3 - Top 3 Dislikes, 1 Not ADA compliant 2 Facility maintenance (old) 3 Master plan for park Each individual was then asked to identify their five (5) top desired elements (activities /spaces) for the Community Recreation Center Again, they then discussed as a group with the following consensus Group 1 - Top 5 Desired Elements of the Community Center 1 Multi -use meeting rooms 2 Gym 3 Arts and crafts (multi-use) 4 Preschool —tot activities 5 Kitchen a v a = 6 O _T L M C Y � E O « E a o a N V €J[�A, ^ O N a == 'r- N a y N N VI °y R � y g W v 5 Y o E R T � C = o c V 2 o u R « V � o n z 79 Group 2 - Top 5 Desired Elements of the Community Center Second Floor Layout a = b n ic c r r C � b u E u b a Group 1 Major Concerns 1 Arts and crafts classrooms to be built to north IA 1 Multiuse room (performance space, drama Height of new community center should be side of building to take advantage of north light 1 rehearsal, dance practice) 2 Additional meetmq rooms to be built on south 2 Meeting rooms View of park from corner should be side to take advantage of views of the park These b a 3 Arts and crafts maintained meeting rooms could be divided by movable a $ 4 Preschool and youth activity Residents' views of 4'" of July firework show partitions so that it could be opened into one d N 5 Kitchen need to be considered larger room to give community center more 4 New community center should take flexibility a Group 3 - Top 5 Desired Elements of the 3 Deck for meeting rooms could be built on south Community Center 1 side as an amenity for meeting room /s a" b Layout 4 Viewing of gym floor bellow could be allowed Y z 1 Meeting rooms /multi- purpose from second level (maybe from exercise room) a 2 Arts and crafts 2 Grass area retained at corner (Fourth of July 3 Performance (drama, dance, etc 7 Site firework viewing extremely important) a 4 Kitchen 3 Remove `Skate Plaza' and provide an outdoor, n` 5 Tot and youth (12 years) activities Group one addressed the possibility of providing new equipment well on top for gymnasium outdoor passive space adjacent the Joslyn Center and surfacing used instead of concrete to discourage Listed results from each group were shared with all relocating the horseshoes elsewhere in the park skaters workshop participants Performing arts and kitchen built to the 4 Retain existing mature tree between the The final exercise of the day was to, as a group,_ north of the building (no need for views in • "—= a community center and tot fot develop a plan and) or model of your vision of the these spaces) Park Master Plan and the Community Recreation Meeting rooms built to south portion with �. __ .•. Center Below are the results of this exercise views of the park Group 1 Major Concerns ME 1 Height of new community center should be minimized 2 View of park from corner should be maintained Group 2 3 Residents' views of 4'" of July firework show need to be considered 4 New community center should take Site adjacent to the Community Center advantage of views of the park 1 Underground parking provided below grass area First Floor Layout at corner (goal to increase parking without reducing open space) 1 Gymnasium located at eastern portion of site 2 Grass area retained at corner (Fourth of July (sunken to minimize height) firework viewing extremely important) 2 Preschool and play area located to the far 3 Remove `Skate Plaza' and provide an outdoor, right One story preschool could be built with powered stage/ performance space — gravel equipment well on top for gymnasium surfacing used instead of concrete to discourage (further minimizing height of gym) skaters 3 Performing arts and kitchen built to the 4 Retain existing mature tree between the north of the building (no need for views in community center and tot fot these spaces) 4 Meeting rooms built to south portion with views of the park 5 Meeting rooms to have access to outdoor terrace /pre - function space ME Community Center 1 Minimize building footprint -2 or 2 112 (split) levels 2 Entry at street level 3 Entry to oe a glassed atrium 4 Meeting and arts /crafts spaces on upper level 5 Natural lighting provided in the arts /crafts spaces 6 Storage and multi- use /performance space on lower level 7 Upper level to overhang an outdoor arts /crafts space foi preschool kids (facing tot lot) Group 3 1 Major importance on saving mature trees 2 Provide parking and storage under building 3 Take advantage of the location and provide roof deck for firework and park viewing 4 Be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood with building massing and location of mechanical equipment 5 Explore the opportunity to purchase adjacent property for park expansion WORKSHOP SUMMARY All groups focused on placing a new Community Recreation Centei within the park in the general location of the existmq clubhouse area As can be gathered from the results above, very little attention was given to the park as a whole and /or desire to change existing facilities within the park Solutions were very similar relative to 1) Affect as little of the park and park open space as possible, 2) Retain as many healthy trees as possible, 3) The only areas of the park to be subject to redevelopment should be the clubhouse and immediate surroundings, organize existing parking lots for better efficiency and more spaces and new outdoor uses in and around the Joslyn Center A summary of the consensus items of the three group solutions relative to the new Community Recreation Center is as follows • Low profile at Pine Ave • Orient meeting rooms and multi- purpose rooms to views of the park • 2 Story to reduce the footprint • Restrict the footprint to the area between the Skate Park and the youth play area • Retain trees when possible • Make space flexible • Consider view decks • Provide accessible entry from Pine Ave from parking and from the park • Maximize natural light Relative to the master plan, there was consensus to • Leave the sports fields intact • Leave the 4th of July viewing area intact • Leave the picnic area in tact • Maximize existing parking • Relocate horseshoes to the organized picnic area where it might bet used more • Plan new /more useable outdoor space around the Joslyn Center • Eliminate the shuffleboard courts • Leave all sports courts in tact • Consider the checkout building as an opportunity for re- redevelopment • Leave as much open space and mature trees intact as possible • Generally change as little of the parks possible The majority opinion was that most like the park just the was it is �e w a.m.. = R C _ C° o E _ U v o u7U i it )k c o N A 9 O 'J N m N w N ti � W d E s e E A a = e c-+z o y d« �e a 8� This consensus provided the design tea m with direction to produce three master plan options for Recreation Park The following graphic depictions illustrate three options presented to the Recreation Park advisory group Pros and cons of each option dre do Iuliow5 OPTION 1 Vim 'fm LPIN P ros • Closest option to workshop plan • Minor impact to park • No parking impact on street • Add + 49 spaces • Retain open space /picnic • Good views from corner and community center spaces • Gym is buffered by grade and open space • Good access form street and sports fields Cons • May exceed budget a bit due to additional parking • Less availability with outdoor program space OPTION 2 V _ Ra LP -1 Pros • Minor impact to park • No more parking impact • Add + 37 spaces of parking • Good views at corner and community centers spaces • Good relationship between community centei and open space • Good access from street and from sports fields • Stays with in budget Cons • Gym edge at major corner OPTION 3 WM u LP1 RECR�ATION PA R, Pros • Picnic /open space as foreground to building • Reprogram open space orient to field play • Major opening at corner • Major parking near building • Add + 111 cars Cons • More expensive • Impact existent open space • More parking along street • Parking lot size (impact) m a a 2 0 T L M c � o E 3 a o r IJEb/-X C O N A 4 O � C O � N .m a d N W u a x o E � U 2 e a n u � o 8� The workshop consensus also yielded two (2) options foi the community recreation center organization of spaces The following is a summary of those options OPTION 1 o�l 4� s � P- e e T Yf I YY1 6rIM — T-1 CK �PAMS?�N�Jo1D _ OPTION 2 s -T P E T 6tf r-t 3 Z The process of reviewing these options provided direction to the design team to produce a final Recreation Park Master Plan and Community Recreation Center design The following chapter offers a summary of those results 8,D aa 0 9 a a a i = 0 �+ L M = = 3 O d o t i1S-� = O N A a o y = o � N � a W y N NN .y A � � W y C = o c � _ e d r+ L A �+ U N +� C o` n C { D CK The process of reviewing these options provided direction to the design team to produce a final Recreation Park Master Plan and Community Recreation Center design The following chapter offers a summary of those results 8,D aa 0 9 a a a i = 0 �+ L M = = 3 O d o t i1S-� = O N A a o y = o � N � a W y N NN .y A � � W y C = o c � _ e d r+ L A �+ U N +� C o` n C 0 84 RECREATION PARK MASTER PLAN The Recreation Park Master Plan recommendations are a result of the design team's analysis and evaluation of the park, direction provided by the community at large during the community design workshop and city staff The specific strategy of the Master Plan can be summarized by the following goals 1 Preserve and protect in place as much existing open space and mature trees as possible Specific open space areas of concern include the grand lawn at the corner of Eucalyptus Drive and Pine Avenue and the open space between the existing clubhouse and the existing organized picnic area 6 Reconfigure the outdoor space adjacent the Joslyn Center to provide more useable space Refine the concepts with a seniors advisory group 7 Update the children play areas to meet state and federal codes and mandates 8 Maximize parking without major impact to the park or the surrounding neighborhood 9 Provide a variety of spaces in the new Community Recreation Center with multi- purpose emphasis to meet the growing demand for active and passive recreation not offered in other Recreation Park facilities 2 Confine the new Community Recreation Center to the area between the west edge of the skate park, 10 Provide barrier -free access with new improvements to the east edge of the youth play area, the southern meet local, state and federal codes and requirements edge of the tiny tots play area and Pine Avenue to the north Use a two -story configuration for the building to help reduce the building footprint 3 Provide a low profile along the Pine Avenue elevation of the center and be sensitive to the surrounding residential scale 4 Retain the sports fields, hardcourts and general character of the park in tact For the most part, the community likes the park as it is Specifically, rehabilitate all sports fields, continued maintenance, repair and replacement on hardcourt facilities, and pursue planning of a rock climbing wall and bouldering activity at the racquetball courts as well as a skate facility near the off -site Teen Center Continued general maintenance, repair and replacement of park buildings and specifically provide for the installation of automatic doors at the Joslyn Center, potential expansion for classrooms at the Youth Center (Scout House), and plan for the renovation and addition of a break room and storage at the maintenance building Y R a c c m e o � C q _o `y � � N u u b L A M o N N 9 O c o L � N �a d N N H rl R L f W e E Y o E c � z e d r. t A � d.. rc o a a �031 The following outlines specific master plan recommendations for the Recreation Park Master Plan, as illustrated on the previous page These recommendations respond to the previously stated goals and provide the city with the necessary vision for the Tuture of Recreation ParK 1 Open Space — A major goal of the community that was conveyed over and over Is that the open space within i Thenparkrprovid provides community ty outdoor retreat from the urban regions of city development The master plan protects in place the open space at the corner of Eucalyptus Street and Pine Avenue as an Important window Into the park and outdoor activity area for events such as the annual 4"' of July fireworks show The master plan also protects In place most natural aedges and the oegently sloping mature park, most hlloo[ IVllinIH Mn ril , 1 11 9090 6 L Q o d C R N 1' f P/N L o N m L O L O r Oi d ai N N N N W w E s e E c � z od N �r d .- c o m The following outlines specific master plan recommendations for the Recreation Park Master Plan, as illustrated on the previous page These recommendations respond to the previously stated goals and provide the city with the necessary vision for the future of Recreation ParK 1 Open Space — A major goal of the community that was conveyed over and over is that the open space within Recreation Park is very important to the community The park provides an outdoor retreat from the urban regions of city development The master plan protects in place the open space at the corner of Eucalyptus Street and Pine Avenue as an important window into the park and outdoor activity area for events such as the annual 4 of July fireworks show The master plan also protects in place most natural edges to the park, most mature trees within the park and the gently sloping open space just west of the picnic area One park edge, north and east of the picnic area is scheduled for re- vegetation to help maintain the integrity of the slope The reason the design team chose to graphically depict the proposed master plan on an aerial photograph of the park was to emphasize lust how much of the park is left "undisturbed" Also retained is the lawn bowling lust north of the Joslyn Center and all sports fields The existing outdoor activity areas greatly contribute to the sense of open space at Recreation Park 2 Outdoor spaces adjacent the new Community Recreation Center -The master plan calls for a series of arrival and outdoor use patios adjacent the center Seating, lighting and gathering will be accommodated at these patio areas The patio to the west of the performance hall can be utilized as a breakout, pre - function and intermission space in conjunction with the performance hall activities, as well as, be used as an outdoor stage with casual lawn seating to the west for outdoor events Retained and newly planted specimen trees will announce the arrival to the center from both the street to the north and the park to the south Barrier free access will be provided from ail directions (north, south, east and west) to the center, including from the main parking facility to the east Y R � C C t0 a O 6 C A � O y V V p 1/1 C LPA C O N — C O rn _ a v N N N � ro— W a s o E a r d c � z od s= ro.. d.. � o a z 3 Play Areas — Adjacent to the new center will be two new play areas that address two age groups, 1) 2 years to 5 years associated with the child care program offered at the center and, 2) 5 years to 12 years for older youth play Both play aiea� will provide sate play area surfacing, access and play environments that meet current state and federal requirements as well as current play philosophies While the focused areas of play will respond to budget requirements, subsequent community discussions have suggested that open space adjacent to play should match the size of areas found in the existing play environments The tiny tots play area will be fenced and sited for maximum visibility, supervision and safety This master plan recommends that during the design development of these play areas that a focused task force be established within the community to steer the design refinement of both play areas 4 Sports Fields — There are three primary sports fields at Recreation Park Stevenson field is the Babe Ruth field just to the south of the existing tiny tots area at the clubhouse The El Segundo Babe Ruth baseball team is the 2002 World Champions Clearly, baseball is popular and special to El Segundo The city has recently provided funding for new equipment and field renovation for Stevenson field Depending upon the ultimate location and design of the tiny tots play area adjacent the new recreation center, another suggestion of this master plan is to consider extending the home -run fence at Stevenson Field to insure safety at the play area Consistent with the Parks and Recreation Department, a suggestion of this master plan is to also renovate the other two fields as part of an overall capital expenditures program for Recreation Park 5 Hardcourts — Consisting of seven tennis courts, and one outdoor handball court, one paddle tennis court, one basketball court, two volleyball courts, two indoor racquetball courts, one roller hockey court, and one outdoor handball court No major adjustment in these uses is recommended by this master plan On -going maintenance and repair is recommended The parks and recreation department has been considering the incorporation of a climbing wall and bouldering facility connected with the racquetball facility This would add to the popular diversity of recreation opportunities at Recreation Park As part of future plans, the recreation departments should continue to monitor the requirement for racquetball and handball Historically, these facilities have experienced low demand and could be subject to replacement with a higher demand activity in the future 6 Existing Checkout Building — As the central hub of the park operations, the checkout building provides the community with a convenient location for equipment checkout, reservation, permits, restrooms, showers and information Regular maintenance and repair is envisioned for this building The master plan process included some discussion of accommodating these operational functions as part of a gym in this location Until further development of this idea, the recommendation of this master plan is to retain this building and its focus of central operations a e n p O � O A NC :- L O R N � C d ^ C O ti v a ti N N � � W � � a x o E d = L L�+z o v sz me m 89 7 Youth Center (Scout House) — This facility is currently programmed and used by the boy scouts This use is anticipated in the future Aside from regular maintenance, repair and restoration, there has been discussion of possible suture expansion oT tms ouuomg Tor mucn neeaeo classroom space Should expansion occur, this could affect the availability of parking as discussed in the expansion /re- striping of parking discussed below In addition, there has been discussion of some dedication of land between the Scout House and the off -site Teen Center for a skate park Planning and design efforts for this skate park will take place a part from this master plan effort 8 Maintenance facility — Pursuant to discussion with park and recreation staff, the vision for this building is to remain in place with the addition of a break room, additional storage space, and full renovation, all as part of a capital expenditures program for Recreation Park 9 Traffic and Parking — As part of this master plan process, a traffic study and parking demand analysis was completed relative to the increased size associated with the new community recreation center Below is the summary offered in that report There is no net increase in traffic impact or parking demand beyond that created by the increased size and program of the new Community Recreation Center The redesign and expansion of the parking lot to the east of the picnic area yields a net increase of ± 37 cars The redesign of the parking lot below the Joslyn Center yields ± 39 spaces -if Youth Center remains as is This master plan recommends that the city consider any on or offsite land opportunities that could provide additional parking one such location for consideration is to the east of the Teen Center The following is a quote from the traffic study /parking analysis "The proposed community center would generate an estimated 300 additional vehicle trips per day on a typical weekend, 400 trips per day on the weekend, and 60 trips per hour during the peak hours of activity The facility would generate 75 vehicle trips during a medium -size special event and 125 trips during a large event These traffic volumes would not result in a substantial change in traffic conditions or a significant traffic impact because the daily traffic would be spread out over a 13- hour day of operation and because there are numerous travel routes available for accessing the site Assuming way rw moir uhai. L� peicenL U. ❑i� yut- geneiatea uarTic would use any particular street as an access route, the project would result in traffic increases of 15 vehicles per hour during the peak hours of operation, 20 vehicles during a medium -size event, and 30 vehicles during a large event These increases would be less than significant The proposed community center would generate a peak parking demand of 20 vehicles on a typical weekday, 35 vehicles on a typical weekend, 80 vehicles during a medium -size event, and 135 vehicles during a large event The typical weekday and weekend parking demands could be accommodated by the proposed 37 -space expansion of the onsite parking lot The parking demands during special events, however, could not be accommodated on site and the patrons would instead be required to use the parking facilities in the surrounding area, including the nearby public parking lots and the on- street parking spaces along the perimeter of the park Approximately 270 parking spaces are available for use in the immediate proximity of the park While the presence of the additional parked vehicles in the area may result in an inconvenience for the nearby residents, the impacts are not deemed to be significant because there are enough spaces to accommodate the projected demand and because the special events would occur only occasionally 0 e, about two times per month for the medium -size events and once a month for the large events)" to The Joslyn Center — As discussed in the evaluation section of this report, this facility primarily operates as Park and Recreation offices and provides for adult and senior programs Aside from normal maintenance and repair, recent CDBG funds have been designated for mstaHation of automatic doors pursuant to accessibility requirements s ro d , L to v o a L b , O a a u � µ a N C � IPA C O N m a ° a = ° 3 N . m a N hN .y m W s e E A � � a = o eCa z 0 N o O O a o a m 90 11 The Joslyn Center Outdoor Environment — As illustrated in the conceptual diagram below and on the master plan diagram, this master plan recommends that an active outdoor programmable space and passive garden space be part of the future improvements around the Center In order to accomplish this, the horseshoes facility is recommended to move to the organized picnic area, and the shuffleboard courts are recommended for removal due to their low use This redevelopment of outdoor space will provide for outdoor events, gathering space, game tables, seating, shade, strolling and garden pace In addition, reorganization of this space lends itself to refinement of the arrival zone from the south parking lot and the accessibility ramp to the west I - trrof�i.i^•rtr v<rz ( i' �Y ��� --ham Pb'ive5 �ek,4(wst � K l+L�fii.l FFUGNb 'Z I�'tY°T i treev �a,� bin Afii Mlt 1 - Y yp� i _i�f a.iY 1 • F.gar� 1 y I �• u 12 Circulation — Proposed circulation in the master plan consists of a barrier -free solution that connects parking to the ease Parking to the south, of the Joslyn Center, Eucalyptus Street to the west and Pine Avenue to the north to the new Community Recreation Center As can be seen in the diagram below, pathways are direct yet gently sweeping to conform to the character of the park and efficiently connect arrival points with destination points s A a � c o C c m n 1 111N. L o N L O L � N a a N A n � W a E s o E 6 ^ P � V Z o_ a F r V a � o 91 c..,e 3meeau F iJ Ha e[oeti Gime d,ea � • • •'��.- mable iy,,. SOa[¢ Cn ea,ior s A a � c o C c m n 1 111N. L o N L O L � N a a N A n � W a E s o E 6 ^ P � V Z o_ a F r V a � o 91 13, One of the main components of the proposed Master Plan for Recreation Park is the construction of a new Community Center This will greatly enhance the Department of Parks and Recreation's ability to provide a wide variety of programs to the residents of El Segundo The proposed Community Center Building Program consists of a two -story 27,455 g s f structure housing • 9,836 square -foot (sf ) Multi Use Activity Center (Basketball, and Volleyball Courts, alternate uses for dance and exercise classes, and built in seating along perimeter of cross courts to accommodate 50 people) • 3,200 s.f. Presentation Hall (multi- purpose room to accommodate dance and exercise classes as well as general classroom space with a raked pull out theater -style bleacher seats for 150 Ability to accommodate theater lighting and acoustics There is also a Green Room across the hall from presentation hall to accommodate dressing room needs, etc during performances • Four Classrooms Totaling 5,343 s.f, to accommodate Tiny Tot, Art Studio (kiln area) and General use classroom activities • 2,146 5 of Support Space (lobby, reception, offices, storage) • 3,646 s f of Circulation /Mechanical Walls The proposed location for the Community Center will be that of the existing Clubhouse As previously discussed replacing the existing structure, which is outdated and undersized, serves a number of functions First it allows all other park amenities to remain in tact Secondly this location allows the park to maintain large portions of the two flat green spaces to the east and west of the existing Clubhouse Finally the sloped topography of this portion of the park will help minimize the height impact of a new two -story building on the residents who live directly across Pine Avenue opposite the project site The design of the Community Center will further reinforce the main ideas of the Master Plan. Roof forms over the Presentation Hall and Classrooms will help reduce the mass of the building and help it transition to the smaller "residential" scale of its surroundings Materials, like concrete masonry units (CMU), were selected for their durability and easy maintenance Natural wood siding was chosen to give the center warmth Both have natural colors that are consistent in tone to the nearby El Segundo Civic Center, which is predominately constructed of concrete and brick The construction of this facility in conjunction with the other improvements proposed under this master plan will make Recreation Park an even more valued resource for the City of El Segundo 4 � _ G � _ V V Y Y N C L II. G a N m a o S a N n W N ; N a � W v r Y D R T a : , e � a � Y tr A� Y w n m 92 N N 0 E m c 0 0 0 I H N 3 m E 0 0 93 w d d w N m z Y v R a m t f- GI .n �i 94 d d m t- a g LL 0 0 J LL L O U Y L CL d t F- IN C� i rt ROW fix. �s titr �l® _ 1 v 96 SUMMARY Recreation Park is a treasured, heavily used community park that satisfies many of the recreational needs of the community Just as El Segundo is a blend of big business and small town atmosphere, Recreation Park is a blend of old and new, and active and passive recreation As stated earlier in this master plan, the goal is to accommodate and integrate new needs, facilities and recreation demands with the context, fabric and character of the existing park, in essence knit in new facilities with minimal park disruption This master plan accomplishes that goal by 1) Conforming the footprint of a new Community Recreation Center within a prescribed and acceptable building envelope, 2) Accommodating additional parking needs within existing parking lot parameters, 3) Accommodating new, accessible circulation while maintaining the usable open space intact and conforming to the existing flow of the park, and 4) Replacing old, outdated uses, both indoor and outdoor with new much needed programmable spaces The plan maintains a low profile with all buildings, renovates highly used sports fields, and accommodates changing recreational demands The plan also recommends a skate park and climbing wall, and retains useful facilities intact that are important to the park's operation, while still maintaining the integrity of the park Just as with this master plan process, the city should continue to engage the community, where appropriate, in the future development of facilities such as the play areas, the skate park, the possible climbing wall bouldering facility and the development of the outdoor spaces at the Joslyn Center Recognizing the vision of this master pan will help to ensure that Recreation Park continues to create recreation memories, and promote recreation dreams for the citizens of El Segundo 97 O A e E u E v e H H L A- z e N a o y e o � N u m u N N H A a E A f, ' n O C L.1 = O y r d� �e m°