DOCSLIB.ORG

The Redevelopment of Orange County's Civic Center Provides A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Redevelopment of Orange County's Civic Center Provides A The redevelopment of Orange County’s Civic Center provides a road map on how to make a public-private partnership (P3) work. or 30 years, a three-story, 1950s-era building sat vacant in the heart of the County of Orange’s Civic Center in downtown Santa Ana, California. Known F simply as Building 16, the deteriorating concrete structure was a symbol of the County’s aging and in-efficient office infrastructure, as the County slowly recovered from a much-publicized bankruptcy in the 1990s. Today, construction is scheduled for a late 2019 opening of a new, $180 million, 250,000-square-foot, six-story office complex with below-grade parking on the site, the first phase of a 20-year master plan to reposition every aspect of the County of Orange’s downtown real estate and approach to customer service. The new building “ushers in the beginning of a new era at the County of Orange,” First District Supervisor Andrew Do said at the topping off ceremony. “We are creating a more efficient and ecological work space while rethinking what accessing County services should look like.” At the heart of the project is a public-private partnership (P3), which is one of the largest P3s under development on the West Coast. With Griffin Structures as lead developer — and LPA as the THIS PAGE: The P3 will transform the County of design partner and Swinerton Builders as the general contractor Orange Civic Center, covering — the partnership with the County covers 10 County-owned 10 County-owned buildings and more than 1.6 million square feet of space. 23 / CATALYST / ISSUE 2 2019 ANATOMY OF A SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP / FEATURE / 24 buildings, 4,600 employees and more than 1.6 million square feet In California, public-private partnerships are growing in “neighborhoods” will be created, grouping related County understanding of their role in a P3 process. Weekly meetings of space, including a wide array of public areas. popularity, after the state dissolved redevelopment agencies in functions within the reimagined and rebuilt Civic Center. The between the groups focused on issues and challenges as they Building 16 — now known as County Administration South (CAS) 2011, pushing risk adverse communities to explore better ways County will also vacate leased space, freeing revenue for the P3 arose, with the developer, designer and the builder discussing — will include the County Service Center, a one-stop counter to deliver projects. For the County, the Civic Center project is financing, while also cutting energy consumption and operating everything with the County, from structural systems to seal for County residents to engage with all 13 county departments, financed using the County’s credit rating and long-term lease costs across their expansive real estate portfolio. packages. Given the flexibility inherent in the P3 process, the immediately reshaping how the County serves its citizens. It also revenue to back tax-exempt bonds. After paying off the 30-year team was able to engage early in the process with key trade re-organizes the offices for many departments, in a LEED Silver bonds, the County will own the facilities. A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE contractors, who provided input at every step of the BIM process. building designed to reduce fossil fuel use by 70 percent. The The County’s planning and design process started with a As a project delivery system, the P3 worked fundamentally Communication “squeezes out conflicts; it eliminates surprises,” next phases will create new public plazas, modernize the office comprehensive Facilities Strategic Plan, conducted and authored different than a design-build, providing distinct advantages to says LPA Principal James Wirick. In the P3, the realities of environments and cut the County’s operating costs for decades. by Griffin and LPA, to evaluate every aspect of the County’s the County. The development agreement includes a guaranteed concepts can be tested early, “instead of having it blown up at “These buildings will take this County out another 80 to 100 downtown operations, including the condition of the buildings, total project maximum price for the County, shifting risk to the bid time when they find that it is too expensive and can’t be years,” says Griffin Structures CEO Roger Torriero. “The County department operations, space utilization and energy efficiency. developer to make budget and to deliver on time. No rent is due built,” Wirick says. realized that this is an excellent opportunity to reconsider how The analysis covered more than 22 separate facilities occupied by until the buildings are occupied. The project is competitively bid they do their business today and how they want to do their the County around the Civic Center — as well as the ramifications at prevailing wage, an “open book” subject to County audit — business in the future.” of doing nothing. with all savings going back to the County. “We are creating a more efficient “We did a deep dive with the County on their own Civic Center The guaranteed maximum price also changes the tenor of A ‘DEEP DIVE’ properties,” says LPA Principal Karen Thomas. the design process. From the start, the developer, architect, and ecological work space while The story of the County of Orange’s redevelopment provides The study found the average age of many of the County’s owned builder and County worked closely on every concept and detail, a road map on how to implement a successful public-private buildings was close to 66 years. Assets were also being used before setting the final guaranteed maximum price. “We have rethinking what accessing County partnership, taking a holistic, big-picture approach to a public in-efficiently; the County was paying about $26 million a year to do a very clear set of design development drawings and the project. The P3 changed the game for the civic center, creating a in occupancy costs. The office space allocation was about 375 contractor has to do a much better job of estimating, because services should look like. process where the County, developer, designer and builder were square feet per person, exceeding the County’s goal by 100 at that point we are making decisions that are long lasting,” working through issues as a collective team from the beginning square feet. Heinfeld says. of the process. The approved plan split the 20-year project into four phases, Integration and communication between the groups were essential for the Orange County plan, all parties agree. LEFT: The next phase will include a new, state-of-the-art public “You are making much more intelligent decisions based on much allowing the County flexibility during the implementation meeting room for the Board of Supervisors. better criteria, very early in the game and that’s when real money process. Ultimately, four new administrative and operational Griffin, Swinerton and LPA had already worked together on a number of complicated projects giving each team member an RIGHT: The design creates new areas for County residents to is saved,” says LPA President Dan Heinfeld. engage with services, as well as new public spaces. 25 / CATALYST / ISSUE 2 2019 ANATOMY OF A SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP / FEATURE / 26 TOP: Quis duntio. Itatusam rehenimet magnitaes aut vellorum quo doluptia con parchil idebis etur, quam simod ut endello BOTTOM LEFT: Quis duntio. Itatusam rehenimet magnitaes aut vellorum quo doluptia con parchil idebis etur, quam simod ut endello BOTTOM RIGHT: Quis duntio. Itatusam rehenimet magnitaes aut vellorum quo doluptia con parchil idebis etur, quam simod ut endello The County created an ad hoc committee to meet directly LEFT: The County, developer, designer and builder worked together and regularly with the development team, streamlining from the start to design spaces that fit the County’s long-term operational goals. discussions and making to easier to provide quick feedback and direction. “They were able to see the project early on,” BELOW: The first phases are focused on two “sister” buildings, County Administration North and South, which will form a new Wirick says. “It’s a very linear way of getting decisions made in a public plaza. bureaucratic environment.” Another key advantage to the P3 is that it gave the County the ability to effectively manage the entire process with a single staff The County estimates “the cost savings in CAN alone, through member. In turn, the developer provided the County with a single the efficiency of the design and the work stations, the lighting point of contact, with responsibility and accountability, which and the [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning],” will facilitated and streamlined the day-to-day project management total more than $160 million in 30 years, stated Supervisor for all involved. Lisa Bartlett. Throughout the discussions, LPA was able to call on its The demolition will also clear land and create future expansion integrated team for rapid answers. Engineers were on hand to options or opportunities for revenue-generating private sector discuss seismic issues. Furniture designers negotiated front-end development for the County, as it enters the next phases of the costs. When a stormwater management issue arose, LPA’s civil redevelopment. Fifty percent of the Civic Center block will revert engineers “left the conference room and came back 30 minutes to open space, when the five aging buildings are consolidated later with a drawing that reflected the revisions needed to stay into two. The connection between the two new sister buildings within budget,” Heinfeld recalls. “There was real time input, real will create a significant public plaza, a “pocket park” and a new time development.” secured gateway to the County’s administrative offices. A RADICALLY PROGRESSIVE APPROACH Throughout the process, the focus was on meeting the long- term goals of the County of Orange and keeping a tight rein From the start, the P3 created a holistic framework for the on taxpayer dollars, Torriero says.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bronx Civic Center
    Prepared for New York State BRONX CIVIC CENTER Downtown Revitalization Initiative Downtown Revitalization Initiative New York City Strategic Investment Plan March 2018 BRONX CIVIC CENTER LOCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE Co-Chairs Hon. Ruben Diaz Jr., Bronx Borough President Marlene Cintron, Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation Daniel Barber, NYCHA Citywide Council of Presidents Michael Brady, Third Avenue BID Steven Brown, SoBRO Jessica Clemente, Nos Quedamos Michelle Daniels, The Bronx Rox Dr. David Goméz, Hostos Community College Shantel Jackson, Concourse Village Resident Leader Cedric Loftin, Bronx Community Board 1 Nick Lugo, NYC Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Milton Nuñez, NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln Paul Philps, Bronx Community Board 4 Klaudio Rodriguez, Bronx Museum of the Arts Rosalba Rolón, Pregones Theater/Puerto Rican Traveling Theater Pierina Ana Sanchez, Regional Plan Association Dr. Vinton Thompson, Metropolitan College of New York Eileen Torres, BronxWorks Bronx Borough President’s Office Team James Rausse, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Jessica Cruz, Lead Planner Raymond Sanchez, Counsel & Senior Policy Manager (former) Dirk McCall, Director of External Affairs This document was developed by the Bronx Civic Center Local Planning Committee as part of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative and was supported by the NYS Department of State, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and Empire State Development. The document was prepared by a Consulting Team led by HR&A Advisors and supported by Beyer Blinder Belle,
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form JUL I U
    i-orm 10-SOU (Oct. 1SSO) 'V '.••. !?r RECEIVED 2280 ' United States Department of the Interior National Park Service JUL i u P*d National Register of Historic Places f CES Registration Form NAT REGISTER Of HiSlUKIl Pl> NATIONAL PARKSERVICE.•^i i 1 1"^ This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box cr by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property___________________________________________________________ historic name Berkeley Historic Civic Center District other names/site number N/A 2. Location street & number not for publication citv or town __ Berkeley N/A Q state California code CA county A lame da code _201 Zip code 3, State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this 23 nomination Q request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property CS3 meets G does not meettlie National-Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Francisco Civic Center
    - THE SAN FRANCISCO CIVIC CENTER: A STUDY IN URBAN FORM OCTOBER 1987 URBAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAN FRANCISCO'S CIVIC CENTER UNDERTAKEN BY THE URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING & THE CIVIC DESIGN COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SPONSORED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PREFACE/ACKNOWLEGEMENTS. The report presented herein is the culmination of a design charrette undertaken to reawaken public interest/civic spirit in the Civic Center Area. The goal of this study is to facilitate the completion of a world-class civic center begun in the early 20th century. The vision of this special urban place and the current physical form is the combined efforts and talents of many individuals. With sensitive reinforcement we believe the vision of civic leaders, nearly 80 years ago, can be fully realized. It is our hope that this study can act as a catalyst in evolving this vision and that the continued completion of this great civic composition is accomplished. The charrette study took place on the 13, 14 , 22 and 23 of July 1987. We wish to accnowledge the valued participation of the following individuals: Clark Manus, Chairperson Alex Bonutti, Steering Committee F. Lee Moulton, Steering Commitee Bruce Race, Group Leader Philip Enquist, Group Leader Michael Stanton, Group Leader Erin Bell, Camilo Carrillo, Marien Coss, Norman Davis, Mary Dooley, Lester Gerstman, Rob Gibson, Maria Gray, Ricka Hale,
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Civic Center Complex
    ATTACHMENT E lWagellall DMJM H&N AECOM CO~'Ul"~C Facilities Condition Assessment San Diego Civic Center Complex Facilities Condition Assessment Staubach, Inc. San Diego, California April 2008 Facilities Condition Assessment San Diego Civic Center Complex 21 • DMJM H&N • MAGELLAN CONSULTING • Facilities Condition Assessment San Diego Civic Center Complex San Diego Qvic Center Complex Fad/ities Condition Assessment ITable of Contents The San Diego Civic Center Complex Condition Assessment JJ'as conductedfrom l.Vfarch 24, 2008 through iVfarch 28, 2008. The assessment IJJas conducted JJ}ith architectural, mechanical. electrical and stmct1lral engineering disciplines represented. This dOCllment contains the restllts ifthe assessment and includes thejolloJJJing: Introduction and Methodology 5 An explanation of the approach for the assessment Summary of Findings 6 Cross Tab of Deficiencies by System by Priority 6 Cross Tab of Deficiencies by Category by Priority 6 life Cycle Capital Renewal Forecast 7 Overview of Assessed Buildings 8 Overview 8 City Administrative BUilding 8 City Operations Building 9 Civic Center Exhibition BUilding 10 Parkade II Civic Center Plaza II Possible Demolition Phasing Plan and Cost 12 Assessment Findings 13 Assessment Building Facility Condition Index 13 Facility Condition Assessment Detail Reports 14 City Administrative BUilding I of25 City Operations Building I of21 Civic Center Exhibition BUilding I of20 Parkade I of 18 Civic Center Plaza I of21 Appendix A Replacement Cost Model Assumptions A Deficiency Soft Cost
    [Show full text]
  • La Mesa Civic Center Feasibility Study
    LA MESA CIVIC CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY March 2016 LA MESA CIVIC CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY A SUMMARY REPORT MARCH 29, 2016 LA MESA CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PROGRAMMATIC SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL 32 I. IV. SITE PLANS A. Objective B. Understanding of the Project 33 C. Consultant Team Methodology V. MARKET POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT D. Report Organization A. Demographic and Economic Trends B. Office Market Overview 2 SITE AND PLANNING CONTEXT C. Retail Market Overview II. A. Overview of Site and Planning Context D. Multi-Family Residential Market Overview B. Site Preparation and Utilities POTENTIAL FINANCING APPROACHES FOR 36 VI. CIVIC CENTER III. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 6 A. Conceptual Site Plan Discussion B. Civic Center VII. LIMITING CONDITIONS 37 • PHASE I : City Hall • PHASE I : Green Space • PHASE I : Surface Parking • PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE I CIVIC COMPONENTS • PHASE II : Scenario A APPENDICES • PHASE III : Scenario A • PHASE II : Scenario B APPENDIX A – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND 38 • PHASE III : Scenario B PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE • PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR PHASE II 43 AND III CIVIC COMPONENTS APPENDIX B – OFFICE BUILDING PRO FORMA • FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF APPENDIX C – MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 46 THIRD PARTY OFFICE BUILDING PRO FORMA C. Old Police Station Site 49 APPENDIX D – ADDITIONAL PHASE III CONCEPTUAL • MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLANS AND RENDERINGS • FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SCENARIOS A AND B INTRODUCTIONI A. Objective C. Consultant Team Methodology The City of La Mesa (City) engaged real estate economic consultant Keyser Marston In completing this Study, KMA and Gruen undertook the following principal work tasks: Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet-CBD-S
    CRA/LA THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The 1,549-acre Central Business District dimension in the redevelopment of Skid Redevelopment Project, adopted on Row strongly suggests that the first step July 18, 1975, was amended by City should be that of providing decent Council and the Agency Board of housing." Commissioners on May 15, 2002. The Redevelopment Project had several Financial Core geographic sub Areas (Central City Despite the growing success of the East, Financial Core, Historic Core and neighboring Bunker Hill Redevelopment South Park) with specific revitalization Project, the area south of Fifth Street issues and development objectives. Of showed little economic development. these sub-areas, only the Financial Businesses were leaving the area, key Core, Civic Center and portions of South buildings of architectural merit were Park remain in the CBD. The remaining being abandoned and demolished. sub-areas have been incorporated into the recently adopted City Center Historic Core Redevelopment Project Area. The Broadway retail district was experiencing the loss of national Conditions at Time of Adoption retailers, while the adjacent Spring Street area was experiencing the The Central Business District had departure of office tenants. Building shown signs of deterioration and blight obsolescence, lack of parking and since the 1950's and was first studied deteriorated public facilities contributed for possible redevelopment during the to the area's blighted condition. 1960's. Central City East South Park The Central City East area was At the time of Plan adoption, only three characterized by a significant number of major structures were less than fifty substandard Single Room Occupancy years old: Occidental (now (SRO) hotels intermixed with a variety of Transamerica) Tower, the Convention industrial and warehouse structures in Center and the Holiday Inn.
    [Show full text]
  • Rockville Cemetery Brochure
    Civic Center Park City of Rockville •••••••••••••••• d a o R y r The Upper Cemetery e v A The “upper cemetery” sections at Rockville Cemetery are located on a hill. 18 34 M 37 40 12 18 43 23 44 1 12 33 36 6 13 39 42 I 49 24 6 11 17 d 23 21 22 31 22 32 Circa 1740 a 26 5 21 35 38 41 48 o 11 16 30 35 10 R 4 25 16 21 30 y 20 15 9 29 28 27 47 r 6 10 34 38 3 e 4 29 5 20 31 46 v 9 24 20 16 19 40 8 15 26 14 2 47 A / 9 46 2 45 33 37 24 45 44 6 3 28 25 5 19 43 14 42 10 23 7 41 15 1 40 19 18 40 39 39 38 13 39 38 Information for Visitors, Lot Owners, 37 8 36 37 35 36 36 2 32 34 35 4 27 7 35 33 34 34 11 2 22 ue 32 33 18 14 ven 33 31 A 32 17 rn 32 e 30 h K 23 31 12 ort 24 31 N 29 7 30 and Prospective Purchasers 30 28 1 3 28 29 8 27 29 27 28 28 12 1 13 27 27 17 ue 24 26 102 n 26 e 23 26 Av 22 25 rn 21 101 25 e 22 25 Civic Center Park orth 21 24 City of Rockville 26 100 24 24 N 25 23 99 23 City of Rockville of City 23 22 20 98 Civic Center Park Center Civic 22 22 L 19 21 21 22 97 19 21 21 20 21 20 20 96 18 20 20 15 20 19 17 19 27 95 24 23 16 19 19 94 17 18 18 18 18 93 17 17 92 17 20 17 18 19 d 18 17 16 a 91 o 16 16 R 18 14 y 15 19 18 r 21 90 17 e 26 15 22 v 15 15 N 33 A 13 14 89 16 14 14 88 13 20 13 13 87 19 12 16 15 17 E 18 18 34 M 37 12 40 86 12 43 18 12 23 12 44 20 1 33 25 36 11 6 32 13 39 42 49 16 d I 6 11 17 85 a 24 Rockville Cemetery 23 15 11 22 21 31 22 32 W o 26 5 35 41 15 11 38 48 21 11 R 16 10 16 35 11 30 10 4 17 84 y 25 21 30 r 16 47 12 20 16 29 28 27 9 e 15 19 10 14 6 10 34 38 3 A v 29 10 4 e 9 5 24 15 20 31 26 46 A 83 20 16 19 8 40
    [Show full text]
  • Market Analysis - Draft
    LAKE STEVENS CIVIC CENTER MARKET ANALYSIS - DRAFT PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY JANUARY 2021 Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Site Location ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Demographics ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Population and Households ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Household Composition ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Income ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ECS Listings.Pdf
    SEPTEMBER 2021 Affordable and Low-Income Housing Opportunities for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities SAN FRANCISCO Please be advised that this list is only updated once a month. For the most up to date listings in San Francisco, be sure to sign up for DAHLIA e-mail alerts at housing.sfgov.org. You can also find a list of websites for Bay Area housing providers on the last page of this resource – many offer notifications for housing opportunities beyond San Francisco. PROPERTY TYPE OF UNITS / RENT ELIGIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY / AMENITIES HOW TO APPLY? 280 Fell St 1-BR: $2,267/mo Minimum income: Access: Elevator on all floor UNITS AVAILABLE 280 Fell Street (& Gough St.) 2-BR: $2,667/mo 1-BR: $4,534/mo San Francisco, CA 94102 2-BR: $5,334/mo Amenities: On-site laundry, bike Apply online via DAHLIA. room, courtyard outside *Inclusionary BMR Gough/Fell Associates program (No age Maximum income: Parking: Underground parking Application Deadline: Leasing Agent: (916) 686-4126 requirement) 1 person: $7,770/mo available at $175/mo September 3, 2021 [email protected] 2 persons: $8,879/mo at 5:00 PM *Housing Choice 3 persons: $9,991/mo Pets: Service animals only Vouchers considered 4 persons: $11,100/mo Utilities: Contact site As of 8/31/2021 Page 1 SEPTEMBER 2021 Affordable and Low-Income Housing Opportunities for Seniors and Adults with Disabilities SAN FRANCISCO The Civic 2-BR: $1,649/mo Minimum income: Access: 1 elevator located in UNIT AVAILABLE 101 Polk Street (& Hayes St.) 2-BR: $3,298/mo common area of apartment building San Francisco, CA 94102 *Inclusionary BMR Apply online via DAHLIA.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY COUNCIL REGULAR City Hall - 270 S
    CITY COUNCIL REGULAR City Hall - 270 S. River Avenue November 20, 2019 AGENDA 5:30 PM Pre-Council Meeting (Council review of agenda items. No Action Taken) 7:00 PM Council Meeting (Action to be taken by Council on the following agenda items) 1. Roll Call 2. Opening Prayer - Mayor Bocks 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Consent Agenda - Roll Call Items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and have previously been reviewed by Council, and will be enacted with one motion, unless stated otherwise by the public or a Council Member, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence. Items presented in bold are non-consent. A. Absences Excused B. Approval of Minutes 1. *November 6 regular meeting and November 13, 2019 study session. C. Oaths of Office D. Requests to Remove Items from Consent 5. Special Presentations and Recognitions from Mayor or Council 6. Special Order of the Day Organizational Meeting of the Holland City Council A. Selection of Mayor Pro Tem (Roll Call) • Mayor asks for Nominations from the floor • Roll Call on Nominees by Name • Motion to declare (Council Member) Elected Mayor Pro Tem B. Resolution on Meetings of the Council (Roll Call) C. Rules of Council (Roll Call) D. Resolution on Investments and Depositories (Roll Call) E. Continue Organization of Planning Commission (Roll Call) F. *Adoption of List of Administrative Officials to Planning Commission G.* Administrative Official to Planning Commission 7. Unfinished Business 8. Written Petitions 9. Public Comment (This is an opportunity for the public to address the Council and to make any appropriate comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Grove Civic Center Design Guidelines
    Civic Center Design Guidelines October 2011 Design Guidelines Table of Contents Introduction/Background ...................................................................................................... 1 Vision Statement and Goals for the Civic Center .................................................................... 2 City Council Goals for Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 ......................................................................... 2 Civic Center Program Elements ................................................................................................................ 2 How to Use These Design Guidelines ..................................................................................... 3 Variance .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Civic Center Design Guidelines ............................................................................................... 4 Section 1. General Design Principles ......................................................................................................... 4 Section 2. Site Design ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Overall Use of the Site .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Street Presence ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 2
    ATTACHMENT 2 RICHMOND CIVIC CENTER HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1-3 SIGNIFICANCE Brief History ...................................................................................................................................4-7 Important Persons ..........................................................................................................................7-9 Summary of Significance..............................................................................................................9-11 Integrity ......................................................................................................................................11-12 Chronology .......................................................................................................................................12 EVALUATION Historic Preservation Evaluation ...............................................................................................13-16 Site Evaluations..........................................................................................................................17-22 Building Exterior Evaluations ...................................................................................................23-28 Building Interiors .......................................................................................................................29-30 Zoned Site
    [Show full text]