Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS1- Economic Development E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T A G E N C Y OF THE CITY OF SAN BERN ARDIND REQUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION From: - TIMOTHY C. STEINHAUS Subject: DIRECTIONAL SIGRAGE AND Administrator LOCATIONS - Downtown Project Area Date: April 16, 1993 ----------------------------------- Svnopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s) On April 15, 1993, the Redevelopment Committee recommended this item to the Community Development Commission as a receive and file item. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Motion(s): (Community Development Commission) MOTION: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the attached memorandum and proposed scope of work from J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineers. TI C. S us Administrator ------------------------------- ------------------- Contact Person(s): Timothv C Steinhaus Phone: 5081 Project Area(s): Downtown ward(s) : Supporting Data Attached: Memorandum* Letter FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ N/A Source: N/A Budget Authority: N/A ommission/Council Notes, ------------------------------------------------------ --- - - - ---- - - - TCS:lag:1171E COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meeting Date: 04/19/1993 Agenda Item Number: Main Street-- San Bernardino Downtown Main Street, Inc. 290 North "D" Street, Suite 602 San Bernardino, CA 92401 (909) 381-5037 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 1993 TO: Tim Steinhaus, Administrator FROM: Ann Harris, Executive Director RE: Directional sign locations As per your request, regarding design for directional signage in the downtown project area, as well as a traffic flow study with regard to location of the signs I contacted three traffic engineering and planning companies. J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. are the only company that have responded to date. After several meetings with David H. Grosse, we have revised their original bid from $15,000 to $8000 dollars, which will cover the following scope of work: 1. Design visual format $4000 2. Determination of sign location. $3000 3. Bid specifications $1000 PROJECT TOTAL: $ 8000 Main Street has submitted a proposed design concept which J.F.D. & Associates will work from and refine. This design concept was submitted some eight months ago and then shelved for various reasons. I am anxious to proceed with this project as soon as approval is obtained, as I feel that proper directional signage is essential for the economic progress of downtown. �S- I J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ✓��ul�i on a,6-a.-let w&Joe,rcel1eizce•reizce OM April 12, 1993 Ms. Ann Harris MAIN STREET, INC. 290 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 RE: DOWNTOWN SAN BERNARDINO SIGNING PROGRAM-REVISED PROPOSAL Dear Ms. Harris We wish to take this opportunity to provide you with some basic information regarding our qualifications to assist you in the creative project which you discussed with our President and CEO, Mr. David Grosse. I believe that we have just the qualifications and experience which you are looking for to accomplish this exciting project. The project area as we understand it extends from Mill Street north to 8th Street, and from 1-215 east to Arrowhead Avenue. The type of signs will be median mounted signs utilizing aluminum panels per your concept drawings, as opposed to custom panels such as carved wood, etc. We also understand that the project does not include monuments or other similar structural type signs or markers. We not only provide the experience and qualifications of a professional traffic engineering firm but also have provided the establishment of signing standards and special signing design as a part of our experience. A particular project which we completed was initiated as a result of the incorporation of the City of Twentynine Palms. With that incorporation came a need to provide a standard signing plan with specifications and special sign formats reflecting the City's identity. As a native of the City of San Bernardino, I would particularly enjoy being involved in the ongoing process of the revitalization of the character and direction of the City of which Main Street has become such an important element. The following revised scope of work identifies the work items considered necessary to accomplish the goal of the project: I. Sign DesicnNisual Format This task will involve the definition of sign design criteria, responses to those criteria, presentation of conceptual drawings to staff and approval of the format(s) for the signing program. Corporate Headquarters•3880 Lemon Street,Suite 300•P.O.Bo:493•Riverside,CA 92502.909/686-0844•FAX 909/686-5954 n CJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Ms. Ann Harris April 12, 1993 Page 2 Included in this task will be such considerations as color combinations, symbols and/or logos, letter style and relative sizing, and other appearance and impact related concerns. We anticipate that three meetings with involved staff will be required. We also expect that it will be desirable for us to participate with Main Street in a presentation to the City Planning Commission or City Council. The end product of this task will be the finalization and acceptance of the design and format to be used in the program. The design of the sign panels will include a review of the design concepts to assure that they are in conformance with design criteria for the installation of directional signs on public roadways. To that end, we will also review the design approach with City Traffic Engineering staff at the point considered appropriate by Main Street staff. II. Determination of Sign Locations Based on a review of the City entry points, traffic volumes and relationship to the destinations which you have identified,we will recommend the sign installation locations and the specific sign for each location. One meeting with your staff will be required to present the location plan and the criteria utilized in the choices. The meeting will also serve as an opportunity to respond to staff input regarding the locations and to reach a determination as to the final layout plan. A revised location layout will then be finalized and submitted through your staff for approval. Ill. Bid Specifications Upon approval of the sign format and the location layout, a set of specifications will be prepared in order to advertise for bids for the manufacture and delivery of the required sign panels. The specification will include both written specifications and graphic layouts for the specific signs required. Additionally, the specifications for the installation of the signs will be provided. The specifications will include mounting height, clearance from face of curb and any special requirements which may be relevant to a particular location. It is anticipated that the installation contract will be by private contractor. However, if it is desired to arrange to have the work accomplished by City forces, the same specifications would be applicable to assure installation to the desired standards. Ms. Ann Harris April 12, 1993 1r►1 Page 3 Fee Schedule The following fee schedule reflects the anticipated costs on a per task basis. I. Sign DesignNisual Format $4,000 II. Determination of Sign Locations $3,000 III. Bid Specifications $1,000 Project Total 000 1 have attached the concept drawing which you had provided for ease of reference. We look forward to meeting with you to initiate the project. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please call me at (909)686-0844, extension 292, or Mr. David Grosse at the same number, extension 176. Sincerely, J.F. DAVI ON SSG IATES Vaughn R. Lewis David H. Grosse, P.E. Acting Director, Traffic Engineering President and CEO VRL.-vd Authorization to Proceed Signature of Authorized Officer Date pmpm1.bl4 P�oPo.�o Jvw' =10,.� 1 y/i�CZ'lpyr'��- SGn16 � o o � FrW� c, C CENTEROAIQ s 4t:d-r CErJTEiC M F- cool. cew'rC F PARK )NG � I �)FFEReNf' i G i PAoNG�o)c.c' Pep- i HEr�T�itS Bc.T)c� I � l �Oe1�Mt'Nr c.A uJS cAarJG -a �S-1 AO 0 LAW OIIIC E9 Oi Reid & Hellyer WILLIAM 5 HELLYER AiROIEEEIONALCOPPORATION G ENOS C. REIO 11 MELLYER (1886-1969) DONALD F POW LL POST OFFICE BOX 6066 91E-19901 DAVID G. MOOR JOHN K MIRAUE SAN BHBNA WO. CALIFORNIA 92Al2 JAN ES MA.JANE WJCARNEYNG •JR. TELEPHONE 19091 694-4704 ' 829-5325 TELECOPIER 19091381-4295 599 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE AICHASE D"ROTN SAN BERNARDINO• CA 02401 CATHERINE E. 3. 1" IN DAN G. NNEY OF COUNSEL MARK CMEDWARDS ROBERT J 0IERSCHBACM ALEXANDRA S. WARD No RMAN W. ACHEN WiLLIA J. WARD O GE . GEERLINGS 3880 LEMON STREET, FIFTH FLOOR CHARLES T. SCHULTZ RIVERSIDE. CA 82501 MICHAEL J. GILLIGAN 19091 682-1771 DEBRA TLE GEPVAI3 , NOWAKOSKI DAVID R J M. OVER W. CAN JAMES ROBERT NON COFFIN " April 19, 1993 27710 JEFFERSON AVENUE STANLEY A ER TEMECVLA, CA 82590 L RES STEVEN GGL 19091 e76-1424 MICHAE MICHAEL PEEL HARLAN S. KISTLER L SA SCOTT MARIE VISINGAR DI SCOTT A. ANGER OUR FILE NUMBER E LILIAN IANDA M. SENDHL ER BRIAN CnSEARCY" 99900-MCE HER G. ZIMMERMAN RANDALL S. STAN EN Mayor W. R. "Bob" Holcomb Councilwoman Esther Estrada Councilwoman Norine Miller Councilwoman Valerie Pope-Ludlum Councilman Tom Minor Councilman Michael Maudsley Councilman Jack Riley Councilman Ralph Hernandez City Hall 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA. 92401 Re: City of San Bernardino Effort to Retain the United States Bankruptcy Court: Dear Mayor Holcomb and Honorable Members of the Common Council: I am writing to you regarding the recent efforts of the City of San Bernardino to retain the United States Bankruptcy Court. First, I would like to comment on the recent efforts of the City' s representatives, and those of Rod McDonald, to retain the Bankruptcy Court. Several weeks ago, I was asked to serve on a task force being organized by the Mayor to retain the Bankruptcy Court in San Bernardino. When that task force met, it became clear that we were at a critical stage. In fact, I had concluded that the Bankruptcy Court was probably lost to the City of San Bernardino. At that time, it was clear that the judges and clerks of the Bankruptcy Court had a strong preference for leaving San Bernardino for Riverside, and that Riverside was making a very strong lobbying effort. In fact, we learned that on March 15, 1993 the United States Judicial Council in Washington D.C. gave final approval to a relocation of the Bankruptcy Court to the City `/S� /5 I O O Mayor "Bob" Holcomb Counsel Women Esther Estrada April 19, 1993 Page 2 of Riverside. At a meeting with representatives of the Bankruptcy Court, held there on Tuesday March 30, 1993, the task force and the Mayor' s office was informed that there was only an approximate 7 day window in which a proposal from the City of San Bernardino could be presented, and which would leave sufficient time for a proposal to remain in San Bernardino to proceed through the approval process and reach the United States Judicial Counsel. At that meeting, an additional meeting was arranged in Los Angeles where representatives of the City would present the City' s proposal . I spoke to several members of the task force, including Mr. McDonald, throughout that following week and following presentation of the City' s proposal to the Bankruptcy Court. I know that Herculean efforts were put foreword to prepare the San Bernardino proposal. I do not believe that a proposal of the quality of that presented to the Bankruptcy Court could have been prepared without the efforts of Mr. McDonald. It is my understanding that San Bernardino' s proposal was extremely well received by the Bankruptcy Court. I have heard that not only from the San Bernardino representatives, but from representatives of the group attempting to attract the Bankruptcy Court to Riverside. In fact, I was told by Riverside representatives that they had heard that San Bernardino had presented a "exceptional proposal" and that Riverside was concerned that San Bernardino may have regained the lead in the efforts to attract the Bankruptcy Court. Concerning the continuation of these efforts, I understand that at today' s council meeting you will be considering two proposals: One to place a stop light at 7th and Arrowhead, and the second proposal to purchase a vacant parcel of real property immediately adjacent to the Bankruptcy Court and to improve it for court parking. I strongly encourage the council to approve such proposals . In my discussions with representatives with the Bankruptcy Court I know that the parking and safety of pedestrians using the court facilities are of critical concern. Moreover, these efforts will demonstrate to the Bankruptcy judges and clerks the fact that San Bernardino is dedicated to taking the steps necessary to retain this important facility. Very truly yours, REID & HELLYER A Professional Corporation By e4 � Mark C. Edwards - - - V OHA ATTORNEYS AT LAW RRAOT ICE LIM1790 TO MANRRVRTCY AMC RLLATCD MATTERS 000 nC RTM ARROY.'M LAp AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 04601 NORMAN L. MANOVCR TELEPHONE 1900) E81-EIN MARK C. 6CHNITEER FAX 1900) !a9-IELO GEORGE nANOVER MwILIN6 ADD"Sao SANDRA 6 RCNDON R9OE RT L. OOOeRICH AP EON 11 MICMELLE C. ARANETA SAN BBRNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 99103 M OE6ERT pslG[ h-)10 FRED wARiry O, SVIT[I00 O of LRT CALIICRnI,.DLL60 FA T[LEFXOnc 1!101))E-6600 rut 1691'L1e•Ml6 April 19, 1993 City of San Bernardino Office of the Mayor W. R. "Bob" Holcomb 300 North I'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Proposed Bankruptcy court Re-location Dear Mayor Holcomb: The purpose of this letter is to commend the City of San Bernardino for acting promptly once the proposed move to Riverside by the Bankruptcy Court became public. As a practicing bankruptcy attorney with offices next to the Court, I am vitally interested in keeping the Court in San Bernardino. At an Inland Empire Bankruptcy Forum meeting on January 26, 1993, Frank Goodroe, Chief Clerk for the Central District Bankruptcy Court, announced that the Court would be moving to Riverside. shortly thereafter, articles began to appear in the newspaper. It appeared that the decision was final. You promptly convened a task force to look into alternatives for keeping the Court in San Bernardino. 2 am pleased to be a member of that group. On March 30, 1993, at a meeting with members of the task force, Mr. Goodroe and other Bankruptcy Court perspnnel, we were informed that proposals from San Bernardino would be looked at, but Mr. Goodroe was not optimistic about the Court staying here. He indicated that the move to Riverside had already been approved by all necessary levels of authority in the Federal Judiciary and the court had targeted its move when the present lease expires in May, 1994. He further suggested that if San Bernardino wanted to present alternatives to a move, prompt action was necessary to give HANOVER A SCHNITZER O ATTORNEYS AT LAW W. R. "Bob" Holcomb April 19, 1993 time for consideration of the alternatives and for reevaluation by the respective levels of authority. His estimate of prompt action was within 7-10 days. I am informed that proposals for keeping the Court in San Bernardino were promptly submitted to Mr. Goodroe and received favorably by him and other Court personnel. I cannot over emphasize how important it was for there to be expedient action by the City. Because of this expediency, it appears that the Court will reconsider its move. Very truly yours, HANOVEERR & SCHNITZER B•Y: ` �-r MARK SCHNITZER MCS:dt