Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011998 - D3 D, �✓ To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,•` ;. OCltl" FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � � Costa County DATE: November 24, 1998 ��`'a•..Ua SUBJECT: PHASE 11 REPORT ON COUNTY FACILITIES IN MARTINEZ SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACKNOWLEDGE the Building Evaluation Reportfrom O'Brien/Kreitzberg and The Ratcliff Architects, their architectural consultants, whichidentified that a significant level of repair work in the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street is needed. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE the Report from EQE, International (Structural Engineers) which validates the conclusions reached by Forell/Elsesser Engineers, who did the seismic work for O'Brien/Kreitzberg/The Ratcliff Architects, that there are no significant life safety issues in the building except for the need to reinforce the bridges between the North Wing and the South Tower. 3. AGREE that life safety concern for the employees working in the building and the public who have business in the building must be the primary consideration in deciding what action to take in regard to the building. IMMEDIATE WORK NEEDED: 4. CONCLUDE that the bridges which connect the North Wing and South Tower (the 12 story main portion of 651 Pine Street) need to be expeditiously reinforced or supported. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(ft. ACTION OF BOARD ON December 1, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_ OTHER ?C SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE __2L UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, ATTESTED December 1, 1998 ContaoOUnt Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: y SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR City of Martinez (Via CAO) Selected Department Heads (Via CAO) BY44A DEPUTY 5. RATIFY the actions taken by the County Administrator to date to have the Director of Building Inspection work with the General Services Department to close off the affected areas. 6. AGREE to proceed with actual design work to reinforceor support the affected areas. 7. CONCLUDE that there are several alternative ways to mitigate the concerns regarding the bridges and lobby roof and that further analysis of the various alternatives is necessary before a specific course of 'action can be recommended. 8. DIRECT the County Administrator to report to the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1998 with a proposed scope of work for the temporary work needed in the affected areas. CONDITION OF THE BUILDING CURRENTLY: 9. CONCLUDE from a review of the reports from Forell/Elsesser Engineers and EQE, International that, as it now stands, in the event of a major earthquake, the building will be damaged to the extent that it will not be repairable and will have to be abandoned, but that the building does not present',a significant life safety danger to employees and the public since it is unlikely that the building will fail. The only significant seismic hazard present in the building is the interconnection of the bridges and the lobby below, as discussed above. 10. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Building Evaluation Report found numerous deficiencies and costly repairs that would be required to renovate the building, including: A. Roofing: • the roof on the South Tower needs to be removed and replaced and other steps taken to prevent further leaking elsewhere in the building. B. Mechanical: the heating, ventilating and air-conditioning system (HVAC) are inadequate to circulate the volume of air that is currently required to meet health standards and needs to be replaced in both the North Wing and the South Tower. • the existing HVAC smoke evacuation system is told and does not meet current code requirements. • the boilers for the hot water heating system are old, show signs of rusting, and need to be replaced. • the entire chilled water system in the North Wing needs to be replaced and be tied in with the system in the South Tower. One of the chillers in the South Tower needs to be replaced, rust -2- needs to be removed and the entire piping system needs to be replaced. The system does not meet current code requirements and needs to be upgraded to current code. C. Plumbing: • the pneumatic temperature control system is old, even though it is still operational, and should be replaced with a combination of direct digital control and pneumatic control systems. + the galvanized steel piping in both the cold water and hot water systems should be removed and replaced with copper tubing and fitting. • replacing the plumbing system requires gaining access to the floors and ceilings throughout the building, which contain asbestos which would have to be removed. • the stall type urinals and some other restroom fixtures do not meet code and need to be replaced. • the underground storage tank for storing fuel oil needs to be replaced with an above ground tank that meetsall current code requirements. D. Electrical/Power/Lighting/C� ommunications: • the electrical system, while operational, is old equipment, for some of which parts can no longer be obtained and should be totally replaced. + the interior lighting system is old and needs to be replaced with energy saving lamps and automatic sensors to conserve energy usage. • the electrical floor system is at capacity and cannot accommodate new wiring. E. Fire and Life Safety Systems: • the North Wing contains no fire alarm system, the South Tower contains an inadequate fire alarm system and that installing such systems or replacing the system that is present'requires access to the ceiling,thereby triggering the removal of asbestos from the building. • the fire alarm system needs to be upgraded to meet current fire code and ADA standards. there is no automatic fire sprinkler system in the North Wing and one only in the basement in the South Tower. Automatic fire -3- ...................................................................................-............................................................................................ . ............. .... ................. .......... ... sprinkler systems are now standard on all floors with over 1,500 square feet. F. Asbestos and Hazardous Materials: the building contains known and suspected asbestos containing materials at numerous locations. Any asbestos containing material that may be disturbed by remodeling must be removed ahead of time by a licensed and registered asbestos abatement contractor. undertaking the removal of asbestos from the building will require that the entire building be evacuated for the duration of that work. G. Interior Systems: • the interior office layouts are antiquated and do not support a productive work environment. • the elevators should have smoke-tight doors in front of the elevator doors. • all openings into rated exit corridors should be upgraded to meet current building codes. 0 the seventh floor should have windows added because the height of the building and the lack of windows restricts access for fire fighting. This is especially a concern due to the limitations of the fire fighting equipment available locally for fighting a fire in a high-rise building. the stairways in the South Tower are not pressurized and need to either be pressurized or have vestibules added. H. ADA Cgmpliance: • there are inaccessible restroom facilities on each floor of both the North Wing and South Tower. All restrooms must be made accessible and there must be both a men's and women's restroom on each floor. • the drinking fountains everywhere except on the first floor of the South Tower are not in compliance. • public telephones need to be moved to accessible height. • there is no code conforming signage for accessibility, including building access and maps, permanent room identification, and toilet rooms. most doors within the building have hardware (knobs) that does not meet access requirements. The exterior entry doors have -4- push/pull hardware and many of the first floor offices have pull bars. All of these need to be replaced. the elevator in the North Wing is not accessible and should be upgraded. i the elevator in the North Wing does not go to the fifth floor, rendering that whole floor inaccessible to the disabled. CONCLUSION: 11. CONCLUDE from a review of the Building Evaluation Report that the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street (both the North Wing and South Tower) has outlived its useful life and that all of the building's systems (mechanical, plumbing and electrical) are inadequate and deteriorating. 12. RECOGNIZE that major remodeling will trigger the requirement that the building meet current building code and fire code standards'. 13. RECOGNIZE that major remodeling will also trigger the requirements that the building meet the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 14. CONCLUDE that if the life safety improvements are going to be made, the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and mechanical systems need to be addressed at the same time. 15. AGREE that, If a decision were made to do the work outlined above, once this much work is being done, in order to protect the County's investment in the building,seismic structural work on the building should be done to improve the likelihood that it would be repairable following a major earthquake or even that it be upgraded to the level of an "Essential Services Building," meaning it could continue to function as an office building after an earthquake with little or no damage. COST OF STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT OF THE BUILDING: 16. ACKNOWLEDGE that the cost to do the work necessary to bring the building up to "Essential Services Building" standards, remove the asbestos, comply with existing building codes, comply with ADA, replace the mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems and bring the building to the point that it can continue to serve as an office building for the next 30-50 years is approximately $26.46 million, exclusive of temporary rent costs and moving expenses. 17. ACKNOWLEDGE that bringing the building up to the point that,while it would be damaged in a major earthquake, the building would be repairable in the event of a major earthquake, is not a sound business decision because all of the ADA, mechanical,plumbing,electrical, HVAC, building code and fire code upgrading and asbestos removal will still be required and that they constitute the vast majority of the cost for full renovation of the building. The reduced cost would only be$2.88 million of the$26.46 million total, or'a total of$23.58 million. -5- .. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... ......_..... .........__.._......._. .......... ............ ........................... ......._........-___... ..._.._.. .._........._......_... 18. ACKNOWLEDGE that addressing only the life safety issues (those that could cause death or the collapse of the building), knowing that the building will likely be a total loss in case of a major earthquake, is also not a sound business decision because all of the ADA, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, building code and fire code upgrading and asbestos removal will still be required and that they constitute the vast majority of the cost for full renovation of the building. The reduced cost would only be $3.93 million of the $26.46 million total, or a total of$22.53 million. FEASIBILITY OF RENOVATING 651 PINE STREET: 19. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Building Evaluation Report concluded that a major limitation of the current complex is its small floorplates, that these small floor areas have made it difficult to efficiently house the County's administrative and public functions and that this problem will continue should the existing buildings be renovated. 20. NOTE that the Building Evaluation Report finds that the problem with the small floor areas will be exacerbated by the need to add new ADA compliant toilet facilities and new fan rooms for a new HVAC system, which will result in the loss of useable space. 21. CONCLUDE that for approximately the same amount of money that would be required to remodel the building (estimated to be $23.42 million), the building could be replaced with a more efficient, low-rise building in the immediate vicinity on existing County property, with the existing building being demolished once a new building is completed. Again, these estimates do not include the fairly considerable cost of renting additional facilities and the cost of temporarily relocating employees to another location while the renovation work is completed and then returning the employees to the building. 22. AGREE that with minimal expenditure of money to enhance the life safety of the current building (including repairing the bridges between;the North Wing and South Tower, adding more smoke detectors, doing more fire drills, enhancing the training of the existing floor wardens to assist in evacuating the building, taking other fire prevention and fire detection steps and the development of an emergency response plan in the event of a major seismic event, since the building will be unusable) the current building can be used safely for the 3-4 years it will take to complete a new building. 23. CONCLUDE that it is not a sound business decision to invest $26 million in renovating the building and that it should be replaced and eventually be demolished. FUTURE USE OF THE SUMMIT CENTRE: 24. ACKNOWLEDGE that the space needs of departments currently housed in Martinez cannot be met simply with the purchase of the Summit Centre, particularly with the loss of 651 Pine Street, and that additional office space will need to be constructed or leased, probably in the downtown area. -6- 25. ACKNOWLEDGE that the decision about which departments and functions are moved to the Summit Centre depends largely on whether the Board's Chambers are going to be at the Summit Centre or in downtown Martinez. 26. DETERMINE, based on the assumption that the Board's Chambers can be housed either at the Summit Centre or in downtown Martinez, whether the Board wants its Chambers at the Summit Centre or in downtown Martinez. 27. Direct the County Administrator, depending on what decision the Board makes about the location of its Chambers, to return to the Board with detailed options for moving staff to the available space in the Summit Centre, taking into account all of the departmental space needs which were detailed in the report to the Board on May 12, 1998. 28. PROPOSE to the City of Martinez, providing that the Board wishes to keep its Chambers in downtown Martinez, that the City and the County enter into a joint planning process which would examine the feasibility of constructing a joint City-County Civic Center Complex which could house the principal functions of County government as well as the offices of the City of Martinez. FAMILY LAW CENTER: 29. AGREE with plans to construct a Family Law Center in the parking lot across the street from 1111 Ward Street and adjacent to the Bray Courthouse Annex, designed to provide more secure and coordinated space for five courtrooms and related facilities, using the second floor of 1111 Ward Street,which would be connected to the Family Law Center. 30. ACKNOWLEDGE that the City of Martinez has agreed to provide parking to mitigate the parking which will be lost with the construction of the Family Law Center. 31. DIRECT the County Administrator to proceed with financing and construction of the Family Law Center. ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN; 32. DIRECT the County Administrator to proceed with the interim changes to the bridges and lobby mentioned above. 33. DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board with options for constructing a new office building to replace 651 Pine Streetand a timetable for doing so. 34. DIRECT staff to identify funding streams which could retire the debt required to construct a new building. 35. EXPRESS the Board's intent to exercise the option to purchase the Summit Centre for $12.2 million, recognizing that the total cost, with tenant improvements, will be in the neighborhood of$18.5 million, and direct staff to take the necessary steps to complete the purchase, including CEQA requirements. -7- ............................... ............_._._.... ........ ......... .....-_._. ...................._. .._...._.. ...._._...... ......... ......_......_..._... BACKGROUND: Introduction: On May 5, 1998, the Board of Supervisors agreed to lease the Summit Centre, with an option to purchase. On May 12, 1998,the Board of Supervisors received a report on facility needs in Martinez, approved a number of recommendations relating to doing a more extensive analysis of the structural integrity of the Administration Building, and refine the cost to do the necessary remodeling. The Board also agreed to establish a Committee consisting of Martinez City Councilmen Rob Schroder and Mark Ross, Supervisors Uilkema and DeSaulnier and the County Administrator to work on issues regarding the presence of the County in the downtown area of Martinez. That Committee has met on several occasions. The County retained O'Brien-Kreitzberg to prepare a Building Evaluation Report on both the North Wing and the South Tower at 651 Pine Street. The Building Evaluation Report was completed by O'Brien-Kreitzberg's Architectural consultant, The Ratcliff Architects, in conjunction with Forell/Elsesser Structural Engineers and Gayner Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineers. Because of the importance of the decisions which would be made based on the report from the structural engineer in particular, the decision was made to retain a second independentfirm of structural engineers to review and comment on the work done by Forell/Elsesser Structural Engineers. Finally, the Countycontracted with The Ratcliff Architects to evaluate the space needs of various departments and prepare"stacking plans"for several alternative uses of the Summit Centre, showing which departments could most appropriately be housed at the Summit Centre under different scenarios. REPORT OF O'BRIEN-KREITZBERG/RATCLIFF ARCHITECTS: The architects hired by the County to evaluate 651 Pine Street have concluded as follows: • The complex has outlived its useful life and needs to have major upgrades or be replaced. • There are structural and life safety deficiencies in the current building that need to be addressed. • The structural system in the North Wing poses the potential of a life safety hazard in a major earthquake. • The structural system in the South Tower will generally meet life safety standards but will sustain major, irreparable damage in a major earthquake. • The bridges between the two buildings represent the single seismic danger that needs to be repaired immediately. • The lack of a proper fire alarm and fire suppression system'violates current code requirements and needs to be remedied if the building is going to be used for an extended period of time. -8- ­­­­........I........................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................. The existing ventilation system does not provide adequate fresh air to meet current health standards. • The lack of windows on the seventh floor and the height of the building restrict access for fire fighting, especially due to the limitations of the fire fighting equipment available locally for fighting a fire in a high-rise building. They have provided a series of five alternatives: 1. Renovate the building to the State's "Essential Services Act""level so that the building would be operational after a major earthquake of a magnitude greater than that of the Loma Prieta earthquake. It will cost$26.46 million to do major renovation 651 Pine (including the North Wing) to accomplish this. 2. Only renovate the building to the point that, while it would likely be damaged in an earthquake, it could be repaired. This level of renovation would cost $23.58 million, a cost reduction of$2.88 million. 3. Renovate the building only to respond to the FEMA 178 red flagged items. After an earthquake, the building would be so damaged that it could not be repaired, but there would not likely be any loss of life. The cost for this level of renovation would be $22.53 million, a cost reduction of $3.93 million. 4. At the very minimum, the bridges connecting the north and south wings need to be removed or their connections to the buildings need to be upgraded. This would allow the building to only meet "collapse prevention" standards. 5. As a final alternative, the consultant concluded that it would cost $23.42 million to rebuild a four-story office building behind the current buildings. This new building would have a life expectancy of 30 to 50 years. With some minimum level of renovation, at least the South Tower could continue to be used for the 3-4 years that would be required to construct the new building, at the conclusion of which the entire building complex would be destroyed, leaving room for parking and future expansion. Or, no renovations could be undertaken at this time and all staff could be moved to other locations until the completion of construction on a new complex. REPORT OF EQE INTERNATIONAL: Because of the vital importance of insuring that the lives of the public and employees are protected, we contracted with a second firm, "EQE, International"to review the structural studies by Forell/Elsesser and render their own conclusions about the conditions of both the North Wing and South Tower. This second opinion essentially validated the report from Forell/Elsesser and concluded: "...it is our opinion that the only significant seismic hazard present in the building is the interconnection of the bridge and the lobby structures discussed above. If this problem were corrected, we believe that there would be no other significant structural hazards in the building and that earthquake induced collapse of the structures would be unlikely to occur . . . We also believe it is important to note, that while we do not believe that collapse of the buildings is likely,we do believe that they would be subject to extensive damage in the event of strong ground motion at the site, and it is unlikely that the building would be available for re-occupancy until extensive repairs were conducted. Such damage following a major earthquake may be so significant, that the building would be deemed impractical to repair." EQE, International also noted that: "We note, however, that taken in total with other building upgrades that would likely be performed concurrently with the seismic work, the cost of such a program could easily exceed the cost of developing a new replacement building." REASONS FOR NOT REPAIRING THE EXISTING BUILDING: It is apparent from the reports of the consultants that the work on the interconnecting bridges and lobby area must be undertaken as quickly as possible. In addition, it is clear that additional seismic work should be done on the building; if the County is going to continue to occupy it for the indefinite future. Once any significant remodeling is done on the building it will be necessary to comply in full with the existing building and fire codes as well as with ADA requirements. When all of that work is done, the County will still have a building that has small floor areas that are difficult to work with, and, in fact, the useable floor area will actually be smaller than it is today. It does not appear to be cost effective to remodel the building, given that the cost to replace the building is equal to or less than the cost to completely remodel the building. FAMILY LAW CENTER: As the Board is aware, plans are moving ahead to construct a Family Law Center across the street from 1'111 Ward Street and adjacent to the Bray Courthouse Annex. The Family Law Center will be financed by pledging revenue from the courthouse construction fund. This will provide a more secure and coordinated location for all of the County's family law functions and will get several courts our of inadequate leased space. REPORT OF THE RATCLIFF ARCHITECTS ON STACKING DIAGRAMS FOR THE SUMMIT CENTRE: One of the problems at the Summit Centre is that there are some existing tenants who have leases which expire several years into the future and who are not interested in leaving the building early. In order to force them out, it would be necessary for the County to buy out the leases of some or all of the existing tenants. Therefore,one set of stacking diagrams assumes that the County only fills the space at the Summit Centre as leases expire. Five of the stacking diagrams make this assumption. The other set of stacking diagrams assumes that the County buys out the leases. Three stacking diagrams make this assumption. Assumes space is filled as it becomes available: 1. Assumes that all of the employees and functions now in the North Wing go to the Summit Centre immediately, along with Supervisor Uilkema and -10- miscellaneous support functions like the copy center. In 2001, the County Administrator's Office,County Counsel,Human Resources and LAFCO would move to the Summit Center. The Board Chambers would remain at 651 Pine Street. The Social Service Department's Area Agency on Aging,which is now at the Summit Centre, would have to be relocated to other quarters. 2. Assumes that all of the employees and functions now in the forth Wing go to the Summit Centre immediately, along with Supervisor Uilkema and miscellaneous support functions like the copy center. In 2001, the County Administrator's Office,County Counsel, Human Resources and LAFCO would move to the Summit Center. The Board Chambers would remain at 651 Pine Street. The only difference is on which floor at SummitCentre various functions are located. The Social Service Department's Area Agency on Aging, which is now at the Summit Centre, would have to be relocated to other quarters. 6. All of the employees from the South Tower go to the Summit Centre. The Board Chambers is also moved to the Summit Centre. Other arrangements would have to be made for the functions now in the North Wing. The Social Service Department's Area Agency on Aging, which is now at the Summit Centre, would have to be relocated to other quarters. 7. Functions which are now at the Summit Centre remain there'. The balance of the building is filled with various functions from the Health Services Department. Other arrangements would have to be made for all of the employees and functions now at 651 Pine Street. 8. The Assessor and Clerk-Recorder are moved from their various locations to the Summit Centre. The Social Service Department's Area Agency on Aging, which is now at the Summit Centre, would have to be relocated to other quarters, as would the Training Institute, which is also at the Summit Centre currently. Other arrangements would have to be made for all of the employees and functions now at 651 Pine Street. Assumes leases of current tenants are bou hq t out: 3. All staff from the North Wing and South Tower are moved'out of 651 Pine Street and into the Summit Centre. The Board Chambers would remain at 651 Pine Street. 4. All staff from the North Wing and South Tower are moved' out of 651 Pine Street and into the Summit Centre. The Board Chambers'would remain at 651 Pine Street. The only difference is on which floor at Summit Centre various functions are located. 5. All staff from the North Wing and South Tower are moved' out of 651 Pine Street and into the Summit Centre. The Board Chambers would remain at 651 Pine Street. The only difference is on which floor at Summit Centre various functions are located. -11- RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION: As is outlined above, we are recommending that immediate steps be taken to repair the interconnecting bridges between the North Wing and the South Tower at 651 Pine Street. We are also recommending that we not undertake the cost of renovating 651 Pine Street, but instead plan on building a new office building in the immediate vicinity of 651 Pine Street. How the Summit Centre is used depends to a large extent on what decision the Board makes about where its Chambers should be located. We can either remodel the Summit Centre to accommodate the Chambers or we can anticipate that a new office complex in downtown Martinez should provide for the Board's Chambers. We are also recommending that discussions be undertaken with the City of Martinez regarding the feasibility of creating a joint City/County Civic Center on existing County land in the immediate vicinity of the existing County Administration Building. Once the decision is made regarding the location of the Board Chambers, it will be possible to go through the already prepared "stacking diagrams" or commission additional stacking diagrams to make the most logical and cost effective use of the available space at the Summit Centre and then to determine what will be needed in downtown Martinez in the way of office space. -12- ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 3 DECEMBER 1, 1996 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered a report from Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, forwarding reports from consultants on the condition of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, and the Summit Centre and recommending that certain steps be taken in view of the consultants ' reports . Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, presented the report to the Board, commenting on the purchase of the Summit Centre, and the review of 651 Pine Street . Jerry McClelland, O'Brien and Kreitzberg, introduced Don Crosby, Ratcliff Architects; Jim Guthrie, Forell/Elsesser Engineers; and Ron Hamburger, EQE International, who commented on their roles in the evaluation of the 651 Pine Streetbuilding. Carlos Baltadano, Director of the Building Inspection Department, concurred with the consultants ' recommendations, and commented on the temporary solutions being taken. Jerry McClelland further commented on the cost to bring 651 Pine Street up to code and the alternative to build a replacement building. . Laura Lockwood, County Administrator' s Office, commented on the space needed by various departments in the 651 Pine Street building. Mr. Batchelor summarized the recommendations in the report . The following persons presented testimony: Mark Ross, 711 Grandview Avenue, Martinez, representing the City of Martinez; Rob Schroder, 100 Green Street, Martinez, representing the City of Martinez . The Board discussed the matter. On recommendation of Supervisor Canciamilla, seconded by Supervisor Gerber, the Board took the following actions : 1 . APPROVED the recommendations in the report from the County Administrator on Phase II Report on County Facilities in Martinez; 2 . AMENDED Recommendation No. 26 to declare the Board' s intent that the Board chambers remain in downtown Martinez for the present time; 3 . AMENDED Recommendation No. 28 to include a 'direction for the Joint Planning Process Committee to report to the Board, of Supervisors by December 31, 1999, on the feasibility of constructing a joint County/City facility and long term solutions to the parking and flooding problems; 4 . AMENDED Recommendation No. 33 to read direct the County Administrator to return to the Board with options for replacing 651 Pine Street and a timetable for doing so including construction of a new office building or locating other sites for potential purchase; 5 . AMENDED Recommendation No. 35 to express the Board' s intent to exercise the option with that to return to the Board; 6 . DELETED the word downtown in references in the report to replacement building in downtown Martinez. DOWNTOWN AND CONTRA COSTACOUNTY FACILITY PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Ftp R TH E RECEVL) Ur CMRK JBaaRD 5�suPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. CITY OF MARTINEZ MARTINEZ , C A NoYEMBER 199$ *FWInternational Parking Design, Inc. .Arohitieturs•lnyinosring•Conswtinq SUMMARY: In order to maintain adequate parking supply during construction of the County Courts Facility and to develop long term parking solution for the downtown, the City of Martinez retained International Parking Design (IPI ) as well as Mark Quintana to develop a strategy. The primary focus for the attached report is to identify A. Possible short torn solutions to increase the parking supply in the downtown to meet present and anticipated demand B. Develop options to provide long-term parking solutions and C. funding sources for the development costs. The near-term parking solutions include reconfiguring parking spaces and streets in the downtown, development of new lots in downtown as well as utilizing remote lots for employee parking with a shuttle system. A long-term goal is to increase the parking supply in the downtown by constructing a parking structure. In order to provide adequate funds to help pay for the construction of this parking facility and other interim improvements, parking meter rate increases and expanded parking meter area is necessary. The other funding sources include TEA 21, TFCA in conjunction with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and BART for a remote intermodal transit oriented facility. NEAR-TERM PARKING SOLUTIONS In order to meet the parking demand and loss of parking due to development of the new County Courts Building, the following options are available. Increase on street parking capacity by converting some streets into "one-way" and diagonally striped parking stalls. Improve existing City owned vacant lots to add parking capacity. On - Street Parking In order to increase the number of on-street parking spaces in the Downtown Area, some of the streets could be converted to one-way allowing for diagonal parking on one side. This one-way configuration would result in an increase of six (6) additional spaces per block. The streets that would be converted to one-way are listed below. I. Escobar one-way east between Court and Pine (6 spaces) 2. Pine one-way north between Main and Marina Vista (12 spaces) 3. Main one-way west (downhill) between Grandview and Court (18 spaces) 4. Ward one-way east (uphill) between Court and Grandview (18 spaces) 5. Willow one-way south between `hard and Mellus (18 spaces) 6. Castro one way south between Marina Vista and Ward (18 spaces) Converting the above streets to one-way would result in approximately 90 additional spaces. The cost to re-stripe these streets is estimated to cost in the range of$15,000 to $30,000. Off-Street Parking (Cid owned property) Parking spaces generated from the conversion of City owned properties that are not currently available for downtown parking use are estimated to total 280. In order for these parking spaces to be viable, they should be supplemented with a shuttle service and if possible a pedestrian bridge crossing at Pine and the UPRR. 'These City owned properties are presented below: 1. intermodal Facility (100 spaces) 2. Area north of the UPRR tracks (180 spaces) It is estimated that it will cost in the range of$15,000 to $20,000 to prepare the existing City owned properties for downtown parking use. Off Street Parking (Next to Horse Arena) Approximately 200 parking spaces are estimated to be provided at the area north of the UPRR tracks and next to the Horse Arena. Significant surface improvements are needed to make this a viable parking area. At the very least, the area would have to be graveled and marked. Ballpark estimates for these surface improvements are in the range of$50,000 to $100,000. The cost of a pedestrian bridge crossing at Pine and the UPRR tracks may be estimated after further coordination with UPRR. Off-Street Parking (Vacant Lots) Approximately 120 spaces could be generated from the use of vacantlots in the western end of the Downtown Area. Further research and discussions with the property owners of these lots are necessary to develop estimated costs for their conversion to parking lots. Off-Street Parking e(Building Removal) It is estimated that 110 spaces could result from the removal of certain buildings within the Downtown Area. These buildings include the two buildings on Castro both north and south of Ward. The building on the north side of Escobar just east of Pine as well as the buildings located at the southwest corner of Court and Mellus could also be considered candidates for removal and conversion. The cost of building removal and parking lot conversion is unknown at this time. Downtown Shuttle Service The City has initiated preliminary discussions with OCTA regarding a shuttle service in downtown Martinez between the intermodal, near term parking areas and County facilities and an express bus service from N. Concord/Martinez BART to downtown Martinez. The estimated cost of the shuttle service is in the range of$95,000 to $125,000 per year, Erased on two vehicles with 15 minute headways during the peak hour period. The estimated cost of the express bras service is in the range of$204,40 to $230,400 per year, based on three vehicles with 30 minute headwaysduring the peak hour period. Resulting Additional Parking Spaces Opportunities to enhance the number of parking spaces in the Downtown Area by converting some streets to one-way and using City-owned and vacant lots should result in an additional 800 spaces. These opportunities are summarized below. » On-Street Parking 90 spaces » Off-Street Parking (City--owned Property) 280 spaces » Off-Street Parking (Next to Horse Arena) 240' spaces » Off-Street Parking (Vacant Lots) 120' spaces • Off-Street Parkin Building Removal) 110' spaces TOTAL 800' spaces CITY OF MART E14EZ REVIEW OF DOWNTOWN PARKING CONTROLS SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS The present On- Street and Off- Street Downtown parking is primarily controlled by parking meters. The time limit varies from 1 hour to 10 hours and the meter rates vary from$0.051hr to$ 0.25/hr. In order to provide convenient short-term parking in downtown and increase parking revenue the following improvements are recommended. 1. Change all parking meter time limits to 2 hours. 2. Standardize meter rates for all meters to$0.50lhr 3. Expand parking meter area to include Ferry Street to"Willow Street, between Green and Henrietta Streets. 4. Install coin boxes in un-controlled City parking lot Nos. 1, 2, 5, &5. The detailed description of the interim parking control improvements and associated costs is as shown below: CITY OF MARTINEZ DOWNTOWN PARKING CONTROLS INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS I. On-Street Parking Pre= 1 Hour meter 150 150 2 hour meters 2 Hour meters 344 Same 10 Hour meters ' 22 2 hour meters Subtotal 719 372 Replace existing with 2 hour meters II. Off-Street Parking City Lots Pzesent Proposed ', #'1 62 spaces (no meters) 62 space coin box #2 28 spaces(no meters) 28 space coin box #3 26 spaces(10 hr. meters) 26 2 hour meters #4 64 spaces (2 hr meters Same #5 38 spaces (no meters) 38 space coin box #6 31 spaces(16-10 hr meters 31 space coin box 15-permit parking) #7 95 spaces (10 hr meter) 95 2 hour meters M. Expand On- Street Metered Parking Approximately 100-2 hour meters with posts. BUDGET CONSTRUCTION COSTS I. On- Street Parking: 372 new 2 hour meters on existing post 372 x$180 $66,960 H. Off- Street Parking A. Lot#3 &7, replace existing meters with new 2 hour meters 26+95 $21,780 = 121 meters x$180/meter Install neve collection boxes in existing lots and install stall numbers, signs, etc. Lot No. 1, 2, 5 &6 with(62+28+38+31) = 159 spaces Marking stall numbers 159 x$5/each $ 795 4 new collection boxes w/posts z 4 x$2,500 10,000 2 signs each x 4 lots 0$300 2.400 Subtotal $34,975 in. Expand Can - Street Metered Parking 100 meters with post $580/each $58,000 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS Item I $66,960 Item II(24,200+13,195+9,915) 34,97.5 Item III 58.000 Subtotal $159,935 Contingency (10%) 15,994 TOTAL $175,929 7 " I A 4d �i p �(' � ►, ilpllll � a ISO R � Y. :: . Pl`gyp Log ✓. y.t3�� �#;J � yw� 7 p `ci e � .y z �►. Nil „ r w 4 filmQ � F,w 0 1 A as as s 9 v E 3 2 h� OL MOU El t r i k `y � r � s � SM r w z t; Sow vwa*wvv �CE IFMA �. FM v V 7i� ti r� �e REGIONAL e' 3011 35 SHORELINE UARM42 � rid SCALE 1"=3oo- CORPMTION Ymo MARTINEZ ,Nt19iM001L � p BUC 1411MST WATERFRONT PARK FAUM 403 #to 4431 su b 414 ASTATION Clttyg2 010 all .. m 3502 413 } Sosa NA _'� 31$ t NA "i .� MARINA V132 S P' ESCOBAR ST �i 3' + jo PARIONO -4 $tt} $04 $#5 4 ESCO R ST 300 . w yp�r $f3 Q111 3r MAIN QST j 4 4's 1 $tt $t com" 813 27 $1$ ""Ip o`wm Fir$ o 721+ PLAZA . �� „� MAIN ST � $25 431 EUCTIONSMA7% 735 OFMU law WARD ST � v 73$ 739 ab K 3#SPfJtItNt Lawre now cnf WARa sao ST azo eu $35 NSA NA a s PAftft $28 to � kt � a15 � N4 fiat COUitiY825 COURTS1oe1 � GREEN ST a3s X14 S 04POSTOMM C GREEN ST+ $13 �q A q aLy $71 92s 020 " y0$ srn$ tw a r a. 413 930 HA a 1020 ado w S34 911-941 _ w + 917 $12 MASONIC ST v 1021 I123 $2t 930 034 CD 1002100$ 1 g t S27 04002-10tH $ 1101 1033 920 1011-1615/0fi4 i0.i { } COUNTY 1133 1012 1013 tCd0>_ 000 � to lot � �« t= 1027 102$ [�Von �!re 1020 4A& v iO3i a 1035 14321004 too$ 4 900 D ME{.I,US QST 1035 10t$ #024 IIu 1021 ff23 1110 f- stt3 #1f# �+ ' 1025 1135 0 1124 � MELLUS ST 1112 CD � 0 94 j— 1124 tt � ��" t"' v 1100 6 1135 111 t#i6 1125 1113 HENRIETf'A ST 0 1203 it 1125 1120 4 - � MIS IGNACIO 1205 31202 1133 LEGEND 1310 PLAZA 1215 102 f134 PARK iz14 NENRIETTA ST st37 12021134 > RECONFIGURED 1=3 1224 �� DRi Ak t307 1212 ONE-"WAY 123$ $ar sk clal.ss 1231 M f217 IT tz14 STREETS SUSANA ST i z SUSANA ST ° � t i NEW I FAMILY f304 , LAW CENTER SUSAtvA ST srroarocowts MEMORANDUM. CITE'" COUNCIL AGENDA December 2, 1998 DATE: November 25, 1998 To: MAYOR.AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: MAR.CIA.RAINES, CITY MANA.GERII/qaA-rz`�` SUBJECT: MULTI-USE GOVERNMENT CENTER.COMPLEX ACTION: Adopt resolution requesting a Joint Facility Master Plan between Contra Costa County and.the City of Martinez for the development of a City/County Multi-Use Government Center in Downtown Martinez. BACKGROUND: The County is currently examining facilities in the downtown area to determine suitability for various departments` needs over the next decade. As a part of this, the City has been working with the County to determine levels of support services needed. Currently, the City is in the process of constructing an $8.4 million flood control and creek enhancement improvement project throughout the downtown area. Efforts are also being devoted to improve parking availability and to provide improved public transportation to the downtown area. Several years ago the City and County discussed the concept of a joint City/County Civic Center in the downtown area. It seems that current activities warrant re- examination of that concept. Staff recommends the City adapt a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors begin a master plan process to determine feasibility of a Multi- Use Goven-anent Center (see Exhibit A). If we begin working together immediately, such a center will still be years in the future. But unless the two agencies begin working together at this point and time, decisions revolving around existing County facilities may take another turn over the next several months. MR-elm Attachments RESOLUTION NO. Requesting a Joint Facility Master flan Between Contra Costa County and City of Martinez for the Development of a City/County Multi-Use Government Center in Downtown Martinez WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is currently evaluating existing facilities in the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the City and County are working together to ensure the future of downtown Martinez as the County seat; and WHEREAS, the County evaluation of facilities has determined extensive repairs are necessary to their existing facilities; and WHEREAS, one component of planning for County facilities needs should be development of the long discussed Multi-Use Government Center. WHEREAS, a facility master plan for the City of Martinez and the County should be part of the examination of options regarding existing facilities; and WHEREAS, the need exists to make a request to the Board of Supervisors that the two agencies begin working together immediately to develop such a plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Martinez requests the County Board of Supervisors work with the City to develop the concept of a Multi-Use Government Center for downtown Martinez as a part of the current evaluation of existing facilities. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Martinez at an Adjourned Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Richard G. Hernandez City Cleric By: Mercy G. Cabral Deputy City Cleric Pro Tem City of Martinez MultiUse.Res is E.B.R.P.D. 41 REGIONAL SHORELINE +u�znrez PARK Z coRtlRArrox tt SCALE.?M00' YARD 917Q1� C)� Ap , BUCKLEY ST MARTINEZ WATERFRONT PAR 403 410 424 C!1 27 43+ N4 rte° r- v 414 FORUM `JOE AU RAA STAMM f�AGCfO Ors t�ti dR in sol �; Sd9 Sts x MA ru soa r soo kA t1fARINA VfS S p t,. 3> a„ P NC m ars +�+ Cnc UNtyrrr , ESCORAR ST -u o t! COUUUNnY C RARrarvt r atr004 af5 _ ESCOSAR .300 ars rn -0 N it _a 02M4A dor �gE4 -----w MAIN ST w�;N ara 0 a»`a?krzta aIr ara COUNTY w 13 er rn 9U9 DSNG ACttrNLSTR41k�Ft y 1"N ST, r,iwx'w 2n ao 11lAf 4940 \■ 721 �ECTXk1g PLAZA Zx MAIN ] �` $25 air NA 708 7,$8 LEISUREe: I%" ++�fsiat 0 +a SERWCS> P~ -a CtktlVfy aTat 723 -g 721-737 710 739 CZOac as Q z WARD ST "� 730 cc=no 2 7SUPERIOR m tt/ 0EN3E L —t wo WAR[) STr10LSE 820-822 ce aS KA t� ru ars ar°a` ir Pr W 428- A ARD ST at6 iUNtCPtNA SUPERIOR ACSR T1 ca COURTS COURTS GREEN ST 4 835 4 POST 27 d14 OFF'10E � � t 9X5 906 w''� +` o GREEN 815 9LY. $71 925 OZ2 920 y 900 905 R a , Roost 91 818 930 E—Z- 5 C o 1020 1599 i 934 411-941 °� at? 404 905 VMASONIC ST . tax$ 912 1021 923 921 'm 1002100o °i,� $ a 939 934 925 Mr 01002—rood 927 tOit—f0131Of4 r $ � t 929 r tat 1012 rets 1000 1101 HOMPSON ST couxrY 935 000 y t 1022 1027 1028 1033 { 1020 "L 7+'x'4 w u 1033 1033 iOOS 1004 MELLLUS ST - t0 3 1024 � tot crs t r t o 11 C,55 1104 r itt4 += +� LLUS 1133 H ITY iiz<"o LLUS ST 1029 12 11,134 a ALL NA 1123 w G NA NA 1100 O 1135 1125 its ir1S iiia HENRSETTA ST 0 1203 112 1125 1120 IGNACIO 1205 t 1128 202 w 1210 PLAZA 12ts �"' 11x7 1134 1234 PARK 1214 , HENRIA ST 1137 1202 1225 17,24 20 90Y at GIRLS 1231 123a TiNQ kt 1 1 7 1216 SUSANA ST UN1FlEO uArrttN SUSANA ST ° � 1224 12340 1304 1.343 -----_.` susANA ST •.`•�.•" CITY OF MARTINEZ MULTI-USE GOVERNMENT C ._., EIV7'ER COMPLEX EXHIBIT "Am o Speak Forte Request � (THREE } tINUTE Petr this fonnand Okm et In the box nw the before addressing the Sol. -70 6r-nlld-U4leQ I on gwak m OMM EMO I wM to We on Agm& W= Daft 3. (F My w be. pnwal OK a,"W,MMOWNW twilhID "Aanthefthwof ti . , n nr�ainrrrrrw rrrr`wr.r�r�+��n�.+�r�� t 'I clo vwt whh toq" but kne d c for Ow ft" 14/Ill�irl i■h ir�rrrrirr�urinr/�1� lir�l AI m I�ri+�+ - _._ ....... ......... ......._. ......... ......... ......... -_ _ .. . ......... .._..._... ......... ......... ........... ....... ........ . ........ ......... ................_. _ _ . ._. .__ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. .._ ......... ............... ... ......... Request to Speak For (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMID Camoete this form &M p1we It in dw box nm t e p► Ce ' amore dle Bim. /?0& sc#kol 2- � '- rr, .rrrur,mirrirnw�nrrr,rirr,�rrr �, /00 6 E :57/ r p,ir,r,w,l,n. ,'nrr•r, irrrr�r> r I � lng for ._, ,or �T *writof x� r} OfC ON I YAA to ipe�it an �# 1Z `l 8 � te totbe ' I wish to WO&an he of --- I do>'Imt wish to :e& bA leave's �- the B r��wnrin, �nrrrirrr�r�r+�ro..,���inui,r�nrn■,1.