Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11- Economic Development D E V E L 0 P ME NT D E P A R T M E NT OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION From: KENNETH J. HENDERSON Subject: NEW POLICE FACILITY Executive Director Date: April 15, 1993 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s); On December 7, 1992, the Community Development Commission approved the site plan for Scenario "C", and authorized staff and consultants to proceed with the development of plans and determinations of costs and methods of financing a new Police Headquarters facility. (Synopsis Continued to Next Page...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion(s): (Community Development Commission) MOTION: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the attached staff report regarding development of the new Police Facility. Adman trator KENNETH J. HENDERSON Executive Director ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact Person(s): Ken Henderson/John Hoeaer Phone: 5081 Project Area(s): _ Central City North Ward(s): One (1) Supporting Data Attached: Staff Report FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ N/A Source: N/A Budget Authority: N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission/Council Notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: i © O REQUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION New Police Facility April 15, 1993 Page Number -2- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council Action(s) Continued: On March 22, 1993, two matters wre referred to the Redevelopment Committee for consideration. One was the potential for moving the approved site to the downtown Cornerstone Block. The second was a recommendation by staff that the Council set a public hearing regarding the proposed vacation of Seventh Street. On March 28, 1993 and on April 1, 1993, the Redevelopment Committee discussed options and alternations. The Redevelopment Committee voted to recommend that the Council hold a public hearing on the Seventh Street closure matter. On April 5, 1993, the Community Development Commission continued the matter of the New Police Facility until April 19, 1993. KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: W D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO STAFF REPORT Nev Police Facilitv On March 25, 1993 and again on April 1, 1993 the Redevelopment Committee met to consider several issues of concern with respect to the proposed new facilities for the Police Department. These included discussions about specific cost information involving the Cornerstone block site proposal, information on an "E" Street site option, and discussion of the proposal to vacate Seventh Street between "D" and "E" Street. These matters had been referred to the Committee by actions taken at the March 21, 1993 meeting of the City Council and the Community Development Commission. After considering the information and discussing alternatives and options, the Committee voted to recommend that the Council adopt a Resolution of Intent regarding the proposed street vacation so that a Public Hearing could be held to receive public comment on the proposal. COST INFORMATIOft As discussed in the attached letter from Mr. MacDonald to Councilman Maudsley, estimates of cost differentials were made to show the - differences between the Seventh Street site as compared to a Cornerstone Block site. Note that in the information there is no attempt to arrive at total costs for each site -- rather, the analysis focuses upon costs that are different between the two sites. Thus, the shell costs shown are not total costs for the buildings, but they do contain most of the costs that vary with the different construction costs for the two different types of buildings that result from increased building height (electric elevators, metal vs. concrete, decreased plate size, etc.). It is, therefore, the difference between the totals and not the individual totals themselves that is meaningful. The Committee asked that this information be forwarded to all Council members so that they would be fully informed. Mr. MacDonald's letter has a summary which also indicates some design issues that are involved. These include noise and security issues involved in placing the Police parking area together with general public parking inside a single parking structure. Also attached is a letter that was previously prepared by Project for Public Spaces. It addresses urban design issues with respect to a Cornerstone block site. The Cornerstone block is an undesirable site both from a cost and a design point of view as compared to the site at Seventh and "D" Streets. KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: 11 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT New Police Facility April 19, 1993 Page Number —2- "E" STREET SITE OPTION Discussion took place regarding an option for locating the facility on "E" Street between buildings A and B. Staff developed a conceptual design which allowed the Committee to review parking and layout factors with respect to this proposal. The attached concept showed this site in combination with the parking that results if Seventh Street remains open. Placing the Police building on "E" Street produces long distances between the buildings and their parking spaces. Staff developed several layouts and all of them led to a situation where parking is too far from the buildings they serve (based on standards used in modern office parks such as Tri—City Corporate Centre) from the buildings they serve. The radius of desirable parking is only about 250 to 350 feet from the main entrance to a building. An "E" Street site would limit any flexibility for the use of Building B as it becomes almost impossible to divide off the 48 to required parking spaces in any efficient way to satisfy the building's parking needs as a separate building. Therefore, the building becomes tied to the Police facility and must use parking shared with the primary building. With Seventh Street open and with Building A occupying the southern portion of the block, the Police facility is limited to access directly off "D" and "E" Streets. "E" Street is designated as a major arterial in the City's General Plan and "D" Street is designated as a secondary arterial. The traffic engineer was present discuss the undesirability of taking primary access off a major arterial as congestion is more likely to occur on major arterials than on streets of lesser status. Thus Police Officers would be more likely to encounter interference when exiting on "E" Street as opposed to "D" Street. While the parking lot could maintain two exits on "D" Street, the narrow lots that occur from the E Street building location would force those exits to be in near proximity to each other. This would produce conflicts whenever several units are entering or exiting at the same time. There are significant fire protection problems raised by the restricted access produced with buildings of this size placed so close together. In addition, and depending upon design, the building footprint would most likely have to be moved eastward (eliminating additional parking spaces) because of Uniform Building Code side yard requirements. ---------------------- KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT New Police Facility April 19, 1993 Page Number —3— The "E" Street alternative becomes undesirable because it produces a very unbalanced site with impaired parking; if coupled with an open Seventh Street, it reduces either the off—street parking needed for Building A or the secured parking available for the Police facility; and, there is a concentration of exits from the Police parking area producing more conflicts and increased likelihood of accidents, particularly during times of emergency response. Fewer options would be available for Building B and there would be design problems created by the close proximity of the three buildings. THE CLOSURE OF SEVENTH STREET Discussions have previously been held with the owners of the three parcel south of Seventh Street between "D" and "E" Streets. These owners are GTE, the County Superintendent of Schools, and Mr. Bill Parsons. Only two parcels take access from Seventh Street -- GTE and Parsons. The plan provides that GTE's access will remain as it is today and easements can be granted to preserve that access. Access for Mr. Parsons is expected to be adequate from "D" Street and from the south side of his property. GTE personnel have stressed that they are most willing to cooperate with the City. We have discussed their needs for access and are designing their needs into the plans. Staff is also aware of their need to continue to do maintenance in "E" Street near the west end of Seventh Street. Because this parking entrance serves (Building A) and not the Police facility, there do not seem to be any impacts on essential services that would be caused by these maintenance activities. Mr. Parsons has also been contacted and it appears that any problems can be resolved by negotiation. Also, the County Schools has indicated it did not see any problems with the proposed street vacation. School officials and employees do not take access from Seventh Street as their property is fully fenced on that side. Attached to the staff report is a memorandum from the Director of Public Works to the Mayor regarding the impact on traffic that would be caused by the closure of Seventh Street. The memorandum also provides historical data on prior vacations of Third and Fourth Streets and Mountain View Avenue. -------------------- KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: / / DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT New Police Facility April 19, 1993 Page Number —4— Committee members voiced concerns regarding public users of Seventh Street, both in vehicles and as pedestrians. In order to determine the closure of Seventh Street, it is appropriate to hold a public hearing so that any affected persons will have an opportunity to be heard. If there are significant objections, it will still be possible to proceed with the facility using Seventh Street as public parking for a building sited on the corner of Seventh and "D" Streets. If, instead, any problems surfaced by the hearing can be resolved, then the value of Building A will be enhanced with needed additional parking and a safer, more controlled parking facility can be designed for the Police Facility. RECOMMENDATIOA An agenda item relating to this matter is already on the agenda of the City Council for today's meeting. This staff report is a report of information forwarded from the Redevelopment Committee and staff for use by Council members and requires no action other than to receive and file. Staff �rjecommends adoption of the form motion. KENNETH J. HENDERSON, Executive Director Development Department _______________________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ KJH:JBH:lag:2536B COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 4/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: V � C DO o D P R O P E R T I E S March 31, 1993 Councilman Mike Maudsley THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 RE: PARKING GARAGES Dear Councilman Maudsley: In response to your questions about former as well as current projections for parking garages, I went back and reanalyzed the information you had brought forward and also had a discussion with a major Southern California contractor, Koll Construction regarding current garage construction costs. They indicated that the current market for high rise garages that were going to be served by elevators of over several hundred cars would fall into a wide range of costs any where from $18.00 to $28.00 per square foot of garage floor area depending upon the degree of architectural expression that is required at the ground floor and at the exterior of the garage. They would use a figure of 325 square foot of floor area required for each car which gives you a total cost per car ranging from $6,000 to a little over $9,000 per car. The projections for Cornerstone Tower were put together utilizing the most cost effective approach for garage construction at about $18.00 per square foot not including any of the retail component at the ground floor. When you add the ground floor component the Cornerstone garage was probably in the $22.00 to $25.00 a square foot range. This would mean that the Superblock analysis for the alternate police facility site comparisons should be revised to reflect current market conditions from the projected $35.00 per square foot of garage area to probably $25.00 a square foot. This would result in a garage cost of approximately $3,500,000 as opposed to the $5,267,000 which was originally in the Superblock comparison and I am by copy asking the EDA to change the numbers on the ultimate comparison. After these same discussions with the contractor, Koll Construction, the on-site parking cost for surface parking should also be revised on the Police Facility Site Comparisons from $10.00 per square foot to $4.00 per square for the 7th & "D" site. These changes are reflected on the modified comparison sheet. 20301 S.W.Diah,Santa Ana Height;CA 92707, (714)4742030 rAX(714)2616064 r ` Page 2 Councilman Maudsley I think it would be wise to be very sure that we are talking apples and apples when ever we are comparing costs because of the many variables regarding the mixed-use project that has retail and garage. I hope this is of some assistance and I look forward to continuing working with you. 7F4Y Roderick Q. MacDonald Partner cc: Tim Steinhaus John Hoeger l ALTE. -,TE POLICE FACILITY SITE COMPAR1o0NS ITEM 7TH 6 ^D^ SUPERBLOCK 2-Story, 70,000 s.f. 3/4 Story, 70,000 s.f. VARIABLE COSTS Shell $40SF = $2,800,000 $55/SF = $3,850,000 Parking (430) Cars $4/SF = $ 559,000 $25/SF = $3,493,750 Redesign $ 0 $ 100,000 Demolition $ 0 S 450.000 VARIABLE COSTS $3,359,000 $7,893,750 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Valley Auto/R.O.W. 0 12 Weeks Council Action/Demo Platt 0 8 Weeks Asbestos Abatement 0 4 Weeks Demolition 0 8 Weeks Ready Site 0 2 Weeks Construction Documents 10 Weeks 16 Weeks Construction 35 Weeks 45 Weeks POLICE OCCUPANCY 45 Weeks 95 Weeks QUALITATIVE COMPARISONS Essential Facility Design Efficient More Costly Traffic Contribution Acceptable Undesirable Parking Security Fenced Difficult Floor Efficiency High (Large Floors Low (Small Floors) Emrg Generator Noise (weekly) In Parking Lot Bad Location Parking Low Cost Surface ( ) Expensive (Garage) Auto Access/Exiting Easy Difficult Foundations Low Cost Expensive Emergency Operation In Parking Lot No Place to Locate Sally Port Behind Security Fence Difficult Bloody Clothes Storage Outside No Place to Locate Visitor Parking Adjacent Distant ITS TEL No .2126203821 Mar 24.93 16:07 No .003 P .02 March 19, 1993 PPS PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SPACES, INC. Mr. '1 im Steinhaus 133 W AV, x' r 1-1,A C r' Agency Administrator Nba"'M NE%'W)AK 1=4 X 11 I MKINI'_ 1712, ('24 A Economic Development Agency City of San Bernardino 201 North E Street, Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Tim: We understand that there was a meeting today to discuss the possibility of locating a new Police station on the Superblock site. Because there was a great deal of praise for the Downtown plan we prepared for you at the meeting,we felt it was important to clarify our views with regards to the desirability of locating the police station on the block. While we can appreciate at a conceptual level that a police station in a justice center complex might be logical,a police station does not make sense when one considers the way such buildings actually function. Our goal for the Superblock was to create a pedestrian- friendly environment that provided local vehicle access at low speeds and that included retail and other similar uses at street level. Unfortunately, a police station (as can be seen from the way the existing building functions) is not compatible with these goals. Police stations have very heavy vehicular requirements, and, because of the need for convenient access to these vehicles, parking garages tend not to be as desirable as on-street spaces or spaces in a lot. These spaces frequently fill to overcapacity -- to the detriment of pedestrians. Moreover, the speed requirements for exiting police vehicles in an emergency situation exceeds what we recommended for downtown. And Finally, police stations do not have many uses which benefit from windows at street level. As a result, they become bunker-like facilities. This, too, adds little to a downtown environment. As a result, we cannot recommend a police on this site and suggest that an alternative location be selected outside of the immediate downtown core area as defined in the master plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, (j k4.(_. Stephen Davies Vice President L / C I T Y 0 H S A N a H R N A R D I N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM aI TO' MAYOR W. R. "BOB" HOLCOMB ; FROMs ROGP,R G. HARDGRAVE, Director of Publifi works/ City Engineer C:SIIHJECTt Traffic Impact - Vacation of 7th Street, from "D• street to "H^ Street f'': P11Tyt March 19, 1993 File No. 15.30-321; Reading File !:J:::C----- ---- - 59venth Street presently has a traffic volume of 1;290 vehicles per day. The adjoining streets have sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate these vehicles, that would be diverted by the closure of Seventh Street. Therefore, the vacation of . ,V-6eventh Street would not create any traffic 1io40blemjik... Vacation of a street in the downtown area is not without Precedent. Third Street carried a traffic volume o! • .d little over 10,.000 vehicles per day, when it was vaaats in 1968 and 1970 to allow construction of the Carousel Mall and City Nall. Fourth Street and Mt. view Avenue were vacated in 1982 to" accommodate construction of the County Superblock. At the time Of vacation, Fourth street and Mt. View Avenue had traffic counts of 6,000 and 3,650 respectively. The traffic that was diverted by theme vacations has been ab- sorbed by the adjoining streets without any real problems. Please advise if you would like any further information on the impact on traffic flow that would be created by the proposed vacation of Seventh Street. i f ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer RGHtrs