Loading...
CC - Item 2A - Discussion of City hall Remodeling - Box 070TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSE 'ME CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL CRECITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 RE: DISCUSSION OF CITY HALL REMODELING In October 2000, the City entered into an architectural services agreement with Onyx Architects for the expansion and remodel of City Hall. Subsequently there was an issue with the boundaries of the City Hall property. We understood that the property line went through the middle of the parking lot between City Hall and the County Library. A survey determined that this was incorrect and that in order to expand City Hall to the west, it would be necessary to acquire additional property from the County of Los Angeles. After negotiating with the County over an extended period of time we were able to convince them to convey the necessary property to the City for the continued joint use and maintenance of the civic center facilities. In turn the City agreed to assign unexpended HOME funds to the County's Community Development Commission. These funds had been scheduled to be returned to HUD. The Council took action to approve this proposal in August of 2002. Concurrently, staff reviewed the project's budget and the original scope of work. It was determined that we needed to revise the project scope in order to bring it into compliance with ADA standards. Additionally, it was determined that there would be sufficient disruption of work activity that temporary relocation of certain city hall functions would be advised. These considerations increased the scope and cost of the project. At that point, we asked the architect to evaluate a mix of other design options that we could present to the Council for discussion and review. COUNCIL AGENDA JUN 10 2003 ITEM No. =---A- oar 00 Memorandum To: Bill Crowe, City Manager From: OnvX* Architects Re: Addition to City Hall Date: June 1, 2003 Attached are plans showing four different schemes for remodeling City Hall. The overarching objective we are striving to meet is to provide offices for council members to facilitate improved constituency relations. Other objectives that came into play as the discussion progressed include: 1. Bring the building up to ADA standards; 2. Provide additional space for Building + Safety and Planning Departments; 3. Enhance overall functionality of city operation through strategic location of departments; 4. Improve the ".`civic presence" of the building - creating a more welcoming front door, enhancing the relationship of the city hall to the Vietnam Memorial through improved pedestrian access and visual connections and updating the building to more clearly reflect the city's image Some of the schemes address all of the objectives, while others only deal with the first two immediate priorities. A brief description of each approach follows. The pros and cons of each approach are noted on the drawings. Scheme A This scheme involves a new addition and significant remodeling of the existing city hall. The addition would provide a main lobby with council offices nearby. The entrance is designed to create a welcoming front door to the public; connecting pedestrian paths to the memorial would be part of the entrance. Thus, the cm. hall complex would be a more complete civic center with better visibility from Valley Boulevard. The new addition would also house the building and safety department and the planning department. The existing building would be remodeled and brought up to ADA standards and remodeled, in materials and colors, to match the new building. No departments would be moved permanently but temporary moves would be required to make way'for the new construction. The advantages of this approach relate to its visibility and functionalirv to the citizens: it would be completely ADA compliant and would, as noted, de the old and the new together, and to the Veteran's memorial park. The disadvantages relate to the issues associated with temporary moves while work is being done. Also very- little expansion space is available. The total estimated construction cost of Scheme A, including Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment is $2,563,000. Scheme B . This scheme involves the addition of a new wing and targeted remodeling of the existing building. It further includes a new, attractive internal courtyard. The addition would house the planning and safest' department and space for expansion; council offices would be conveniently located in the existing building off the entrance and separate from the administrative office. The new wing and courtyard are fully ADA compliant. This scheme provides opportunities for future city administrative expansion, should that be desired. However, close-in parking would be lost. The downsides of this approach include: a) loss of close parking; b) lack of comprehensive "civic" presence, visibility and connection to the memorial; and c) the building is a bit fragmented, with some parts being new and others being left "as is". The total estimated construction cost of Scheme B, including Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment is $3,239,00. Scheme C This approach is the "not-so-simple" - simple approach. It involves adding an elevator to serve as a vertical circulation core. Thus, ADA compliant restrooms can be located in the basement as well as the new council offices. This scheme requires the Parks and Recreation Department to move to another building. The estimated cost of moving the Department to the Garvey Community Center is $200,000. The estimated cost of a separate budding would be $350,000. While this approach meets many objectives: council offices are created separate from administrative functions and ADA compliance is achieved for some parts of the building, several other objectives do not get addressed: the rest of the building is not in conformance with ADA; the planning, building and safety department does not get expanded; and the parks department has to move. Also, the complex does not receive the comprehensive updating achieved in other schemes. The total estimated construction cost of Scheme C, including Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment is $1,831500 plus the cost of the Parks and Recreation Department relocation. Scheme D The last scheme presented is the most straightforward approach and the easiest to accomplish. In this approach, new council offices are added to the building and the rest of the building remains the same. The council offices would be ADA compliant. This scheme is predicated on the fact that since the scope of the project is small, the entire budding does not need to be fully ADA compliant. The obvious advantages to this scheme are the minimal disruptions, lower costs, and achievement of the primary, council office objective. However, the other building objectives are not achieved. The total estimated cost of Scheme D, including Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment is $798,000. As with anv decision, there are cost and trade-offs that need to be carefully considered with each alternative. We are looking forward to bur meeting next week to help sort through these issues and move toward a final building program. In the interim, please free to call either Doug Joyce or Dale Brown at 626 405-8001.