Plan for City Hall is in the details

I appreciate the Daily Pilot’s interest in covering the story about

needed City Hall facilities in Newport Beach and would like to take

this opportunity to clarify a few points in the article (“No decision

on new City Hall,” May 29) as well as offer a few corrections.

First, I agree that the question is “too tough to answer in one

night” and would like to point out that the first council

presentation of the needs assessment results was made April 8 at a

public study session. This was the culmination of work put out to bid

by the city late in 2001 and conducted in 2002.

At that meeting, Griffin Structures Inc. presented findings that

had been submitted in several documents in the course of their work,

and which included an analysis of our City Hall facilities relative

to various standards, a computation and assessment of our City Hall

needs, a conceptual design of various alternatives by which the needs

could be met, and preliminary project cost estimates for these

alternatives. Among the alternatives that were presented was an array

of choices by which various parts of the existing City Hall might be

retained, as well as an alternative that provided all new facilities

on the existing site.

Among the findings that Griffin presented are the following:

City Hall and the fire station adjacent to it are seismically

deficient. Further, the fire station should meet even higher

standards as an “essential facility,” which it categorically does

not.

Even the “newest” staffed building on the site (housing Planning,

Building and Public Works departments and built almost 20 years ago)

has no elevators, is mechanically inefficient and has notable seismic

deficiencies compared to current codes.

The layout and function of the whole complex is inefficient and

crowded, both for public visitors and for city staff. Operations,

recruitment and effectiveness are adversely impacted by the

configuration. Some buildings (such as the Main Building, built in

1945) are narrow and split inefficiently with a corridor running down

the middle.

Americans with Disabilities Act violations are widespread, with no

building complying with the act’s requirements.

The dated mechanical systems and the energy consumption of the

facilities are inefficient and costly, both to operate and to

maintain.

Each alternative that retained some of the existing buildings

scored poorer on an evaluation matrix than the alternative for new

construction, particularly as to making room for adequate parking,

improving total efficiency of the buildings and improving safety and

security.

Council asked several questions of city staff and of Griffin at

the April 18 public session, and these were responded to in detail

and presented at the regular council session of May 27, to which your

article refers. As you note, the new facility would provide an

opportunity for workplace efficiencies, which the existing buildings

do not. If capitalized, these improvements represent savings of about

$2 million annually, currently lost to inefficiency and inadequacies

of the existing structures. Energy and maintenance cost reductions

further are computed to save about $125,000 per year, comparing the

proposed facility with the existing one.

Further, the plan allows for a parking structure to be built that

contains about 100 stalls more than the complex itself requires (for

a total of 350 sorely needed parking spaces), and this would add

revenues of about $300,000 annually (not $300 as misprinted in the

article), less some costs for fee collection and control. The net

income would amortize the cost of the parking structure in its 10th

year, leaving future income to further pay down the cost of other

parts of the project. However, I do not believe that a parking fee

should be charged for people conducting business at City Hall.

This income and other cost benefits of the new facility were not

deducted from the preliminary project costs presented by Griffin,

which includes not only City Hall, but also the large parking

structure, a new fire station and the option of a Community Meeting

Room/Emergency Operations Center. Construction of some components

might be phased, and this analysis would by part of the next phase of

work. With the needs assessment and alternatives portion completed,

it is a natural and evolutionary next step to have the consultants

further develop the recommended approach and provide the city with

more accurate costs, cost-saving recommendations and related

implications.

We should take a measured and incremental approach to looking at

what these implications are, and the schematic design phase does

exactly this, without any further commitment regarding construction,

or of more detailed architectural work. We also can begin to look at

the relationship with the commercial neighbors to see if the city can

benefit from squaring-off the site or other adjustments, which would

emerge in the schematic design analysis, such as development of a

larger public square.

I am firmly of a belief that the City Hall should remain at its

present location, which has served the city well for many years. We

have provided other public facilities in other sections of the city

(such as the new police building and various libraries) and are

planning others in the Newport Coast area in accord with the

negotiated annexation agreement. Our traditions are important, and

this location for City Hall in “old Newport Beach” is part of this.

But these traditions should not further encumber the city by

continuing to operate out of inadequate, inefficient and costly

working space.

* TOD RIDGEWAY is mayor pro tempore of Newport Beach.