Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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°