DOCSLIB.ORG

PBS Strategy for Using Historic Buildings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PBS Strategy for Using Historic Buildings PBS Strategy for Using Historic Buildings U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE Held in Public Trust sets out a comprehensive historic preservation strategy for the Public Buildings Service of the United States General Services Administration. Although in part it is an update of the 1979 report by Administrator Solomon’s Task Force on Historic Preservation, it examines GSA’s significant stewardship responsibilities in a new light—one that integrates them better into the agency’s businesslike approach to providing and maintaining Federal workspace. Included are suggestions for better managing GSA’s historic assets to insure their viability and attractiveness within our funding limitations, for being more aggressive in seeking out private historic leaseholds, reaching out to work hand-in-hand with organizations and agencies across the country to ensure livable communities, and—among other things—understanding the value of careful and appropriate daily maintenance and repair of historic properties to guarantee a uniform and inviting first impression of GSA facilities. The report includes many examples of solutions to frequently encountered challenges and best preservation practices developed by GSA regions, other agencies, other countries, and the private sector. These strategies will help GSA put the American government’s architectural treasures to 21st century use while stretching the dollars available to renovate historic courthouses, custom houses, border stations, and other Federal buildings. We must all embrace these initiatives to use historic buildings imaginatively and sensibly. This report is just one of many steps GSA is taking to ensure that historic buildings remain a vital part of our inventory and day to day business. ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE 1 Preface In February, 1999, The Historic Buildings and the Arts Center of Expertise was invited to update a report prepared by General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator Jay Solomon’s 1979 Task Force on Historic Preservation. The Solomon Report, as it has come to be called, was GSA’s first substantive effort to reflect on the agency’s stewardship role and preservation practice. Two decades later, a new report is being undertaken to reexamine GSA’s preservation goals and strategies in light of today’s economic, political, social, and cultural climate. Much has happened in the fields of preservation, architecture, urban planning and real property management since 1979. Preservation has come of age as a profession supported by a multidisciplinary, international network of technical and advocacy organizations bound by a common value. Post modernism and contextual design have arisen as moderating alternatives to the dehumanizing aspects of modernism and the trite revival of past styles. New technical interest groups have formed to support the preservation of modernist architecture and 20th century materials such as reinforced concrete, stone veneer, plastic laminates, and modern alloys. Urban renewal has been supplanted by Main Street revitalization and Business Improvement Districts that support reinvestment in historic buildings and urban infrastructure. Federal agencies are learning to do more with less. A shift in emphasis from expense-based facilities management to return-on-investment-based asset management has broadened GSA’s traditional engineer­ ing focus and increased the accountability of facilities management teams. We are using cutting edge software to objectively balance economic and social goals in capital investment decisions. We are also aware of the limitations of quantitative decision-making tools. Our Public Buildings Heritage program and Planning with Communities initiative seek to broaden GSA employee and customer appreciation of our profound opportunity to lead the nation in urban reinvestment and public building stewardship. Welcoming this opportunity, we recast GSA’s stewardship strategy. We are grateful to the many firms and individuals who have contributed to the comprehensiveness and depth of this effort. We apologize for any participants overlooked in the list of contributors provided at the end of the report. Special thanks are due to Rolando Rivas-Camp, Director of the Historic Buildings 2 and the Arts Center of Expertise, for his support of this research and creative ideas on presentation; to Joan Brierton and Hellie Snyder, of the Center, for invaluable editorial assistance, the bibliography, and coordination of illustrations and other details; to Andrea Mones, NCR Regional Historic Preservation Officer, for insightful advice on structure and for conceiving many of the innovations described in the report; to Don Horn, co-creator and manager of the BPP program, for his extraordinary knowledge of GSA’s nationwide inventory and databases; to Connie Ramirez, for generously providing Cultural, Environmental and Accessibility (CEA) Program research and case studies; to Claire Crerar and Brad Wolf of the CEA Program, for exceptional responsiveness to frequent requests for statistics, program data, and images. We are also indebted to Sheldon Kravitz, Michael Vaughn, Stan Kaczmarczyk, Curt Smith, and Ivan Swain, for their invaluable perspectives on PBS capital investment and portfolio management initiatives; to Jim Bergdahl, for sharing his extensive knowledge of courts projects and concerns; to virtual Center members Kyle Brooks and Steve Kline, for contributing precedent-setting case studies and photographs; to all Regional Historic Preservation Officers, for participating in group discussions about PBS steward­ ship, scrutinizing the report drafts, and gathering information for the report; to Dottie Washington, Adrienne Coleman, and Marty Shore, for case histories on private fundraising efforts; to Marilyn Kaplan, Preservation Architecture, and Jack Watts, Fire Safety Institute, for the latest research on historic building codes; and to Tom McGrath and Imogene Bevitt, National Park Service, and Andrew Powter and Natalie Bull, Public Works Canada, for sharing the National Park Service and Heritage Canada training models. We invite your continued participation in the stewardship initiatives outlined in this report. We remain interested in innovative practices and model case studies that contribute to these goals. Send comments and questions through our website at www.gsa.gov/historicpreservation or to Caroline Alderson, GSA Historic Buildings and the Arts Center of Expertise (PNH), 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405. CAROLINE ALDERSON HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND THE ARTS CENTER OF EXPERTISE 3 Contents 2 Maintaining a Stewardship Outlook 16 Within Fiscal Constraints 2.1. Stewardship Priorities from a Portfolio Perspective 16 2.1.1. Relative Cultural Significance Historic Quality Index (HQI) A Message From The Commissioner 1 2.1.2. Financial Performance Preface 2 Revenue Producers Contents 4 Vulnerable Tenancies Executive Summary 6 2.1.3. Strategic Focus Outstanding Architectural Significance Vulnerable Building Type 1 Introduction 8 Urban Location Adaptable Building Type and Scale 1.1. Objectives of this Report 8 2.2. Viability Challenges and Solutions 18 1.2. Background 8 2.2.1. Increased Tenant Requirements 1.2.1. Public Building Legacy 2.2.2. Safety and Seismic Code Compliance 1.2.2. PBS Preservation Policy – Legislative Intent Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1935 2.2.3. Insufficient Size to Merit Capital Investment Required National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 2.3. Reinvestment Decision Process 20 Executive Order 11593 2.3.1. Cultural Reinvestment Team (CART) Decision Tree Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act 2.3.2. Decision Criteria for Capital Investment Executive Order 13006 2.3.3. Multi-Asset Portfolio Planning Analysis 1.2.3. Administrator Solomon’s 1979 Task Force on Historic Preservation 2.3.4. Decision Criteria for Repair and Alteration Report Recommendations 2.4. Reinvestment Strategies to Promote Historic Building Viability 21 1.2.4. PBS Accomplishments Since 1979 2.4.1. National Performance Review and Business Process Reengineering 1.3. A Strategy Based on Stewardship Values 12 2.4.2. Go-Team on Strategic Finance 1.3.1 Urgency 2.4.3. Reducing Repair and Alteration Costs Troubled Assets Scope Cutting Pending Disposals Performance-Based Code Compliance 1.3.2. Philosophy for Reinvestment Emphasis on Cyclical Maintenance over Recurring Repair PBS Values NRC Study on Federal Facilities Policy of Preference 2.4.4. Public-Private Partnerships 1.3.3. Benefits Private Investment and Continued Federal Use Reuse Potential Private Investment and Non-Federal Use (Outleasing) Carnegie Mellon Study on Re-Valuing Buildings 2.4.5. Disposal Operating Costs Public Image 4 4.5. Community Outreach and Pubic Education 48 3 Satisfying Customers in an 32 Urban Preservation Framework 4.5.1. Public Buildings Heritage Program 4.5.2. GSA Brand Brochures 3.1. Promoting Use of GSA Historic Building Inventory 4.5.3. GSA Visibility in Professional Conferences and Advocacy Venues Over Leasing and New Construction 32 4.5.4. Linking Capital Investment, Public Education, and Marketing 3.2. Lease Acquistion 33 4.5.5. Education and Outreach: Do They Compete with Maintenance? 3.2.1. Limitations of the 10% Preference for Historic Buildings 4.5.6. Proactively Marketing What We Do Well: Tours, the Web, 3.2.2. Overcoming Obstacles to Leasing Historic Buildings and New Initiatives Interpreting Tenant Requirements Flexibly Marketing and Negotiating Strategies 5 Conclusion 50 3.3. Security
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2004  the JUDICIAL COUNCIL of the NINTH CIRCUIT
    Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES COURTS 2 0 0 4 A NNU A L R EPO R T The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2004 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker Chief Probation Officer William Corn Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Harold Marenus Cover: Detail from wrought iron grillwork enclosing original elevator shafts at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Inside Cover: the Great Hall at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. TABLE OF CONTENTS Ninth Circuit Overview 3 Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder 6 An Overview of the Ninth Circuit 7 The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit 8 Judicial Council Organizational Chart 0 Judicial Policy Advisory Groups Judicial Transitions 2 New Judges 5 New Senior Judges 6 Deceased Judges Committees of the Ninth Circuit 8 Circuit Seeks to Improve Juror Experience, Jury Management 20 Public Information and Community Outreach Committee 23 Task Force Seeks Solutions to Pro Se Caseload Issues Space and Security 26 Courts Act to Hold Down Costs for Space and Facilities 27 Seattle Welcomes New Federal Courthouse 28 Work Progresses on Other Projects 29 Courthouse Projects Under Construction, in Design 32 Plans Move Ahead for Los Angeles, San Diego Courthouses Ninth Circuit Highlights 34 Landmark Courthouse Named for Respected Judge 36 Appellate Practice Workshop on Immigration Matters 38 Ninth Circuit Conference Highlights Human Rights 4 Awards Recognize Noted Attorneys, Court Staff 43 Circuit’s Largest District Celebrates Diversity The Work of the Courts in 2004 46 Appellate Filings 49 District Court Filings 52 Bankruptcy Court Filings 55 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Report 56 Matters Before Magistrate Judges 58 Federal Public Defenders See Caseloads Rise 60 Circuit Probation Caseloads 62 Case Activations by Pretrial Services 64 District Caseloads Annual Report 2004 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT Front row: Senior District Judge Jack D.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPSForm10-900-b (June, 1991) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. New Submission . Amended Submission A, Name of Multiple Property Listing PWA-Era County Courthouses of Iowa B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each) PWA-Era County Courthouses of Iowa, 1934 -1941 C. Form Prepared bv____ name/title Marlvs A. Svendsen organization Svendsen Tvler. Inc. Date January 2003 street & number N3834 Deep Lake Road telephone (715)469-3300 city or town Sarona state Wisconsin zip code 54870 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this o«ov««*tatlo« torn * (/ Ib* AttHoMl R*f liter documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional i*o,«lm»o«l//*t forth ! S6 Oft fort 60 «*4 th* J*o(*taif of Ib* Inferior'/ ft«*tfoitf/ ««d feMoli**/ for ifohooloff a«dl NUtorfo f*Nw*nialio«. ([J see continuation sheet for additional comments). ix~^ /-) ^ ' /n r\ r, ft£ef>4.
    [Show full text]
  • New Executive Office Building - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    New Executive Office Building - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Executive_Office_Building Coordinates: 38°53′57.7″N 77°2′20.4″W From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The New Executive Office Building (NEOB) is a U.S. federal government office building in Washington, D.C., for the executive branch. The building is located at 725 17th Street NW, on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue. To the south is the Old Executive Office Building (Eisenhower Executive Office Building), which is next to the White House. The other sides are bounded by 17th Street NW (west), H Street NW (north), and Jackson Place and Lafayette Park (east). Within the same block are several buildings: Blair House, Trowbridge House, and Renwick Gallery in the south and the Decatur House to the north. Known as Federal Office Building #7, it was built from 1965[1] to 1969 and is ten stories tall, similar to the height of the Old Executive Office Building. According to Michael J. Bednar of the University of Virginia School of Architecture, "Four taller office buildings dating to earlier in the 20th century were demolished and replaced with next rowhouse office builds. One has an open base to serve as an entry to the New Executive Office Building via courtyard. The historic structures were preserved and rehabilitated for The New Executive Office Building, viewed from smaller federal agencies. The New Executive Office across 17th Street NW. Building has an offset H-shaped plan with a long brick facade along 17th Street."[2] The building was designed by architect John Carl Warnecke, who also designed 722 Jackson Place and the National Courts Building (717 Madison Place) on the opposite side of Lafayette Park during the same period.
    [Show full text]
  • Lasc to Open Courtrooms April 16 at Historic Spring Street Federal Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles
    Los Angeles Superior Court – Public Information Office 111 N. Hill Street, Room 107, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected] www.lacourt.org NEWS RELEASE March 8, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LASC TO OPEN COURTROOMS APRIL 16 AT HISTORIC SPRING STREET FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) has announced that the complex civil litigation program located at Central Civil West (CCW) Courthouse and some civil courtrooms at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse will relocate to the historic Spring Street Federal Courthouse, located at 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, in mid-April, with hearings set to begin April 16. Designed by Gilbert Stanley Underwood and Louis A. Simon as a major example of Art Moderne architecture, the Spring Street Courthouse was completed in 1940 and originally served as both a courthouse and post office. It was the third federal building constructed in Los Angeles to serve its rapidly growing population in the early twentieth century. Since the mid-1960s, it has functioned solely as a courthouse, most recently for judges from the United States District Court, Central District of California before their relocation in 2016 to the new First Street Federal Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. “Relocating to the Spring Street Courthouse will enable us to expand access to justice,” said LASC Presiding Judge Daniel J. Buckley. “LASC is honored to help preserve this national historic landmark as a place for the administration of justice.” Savings from the relocation of the complex litigation program will offset much of the costs of the Spring Street Courthouse lease, providing opportunities for expanding courtrooms without additional cost.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    E-Served: Jan 21 2020 9:18AM PST Via Case Anywhere 1 David M. deRubertis, State Bar No. 208709 The deRubertis Law Firm, APC 2 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, California 91604 3 Telephone:(818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 4 E-mail: [email protected] 5 Lee R. Feldman, State Bar No. 171628 Alicia Olivares, State Bar No. 181412 6 FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES A Professional Corporation 7 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90025 8 Telephone:(310) 207-8500 Facsimile: (310) 207-8515 9 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 Danessa Valentine & Jalisa Moore 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE 14 DANESSA VALENTINE, an individual; Case No.: BC602184 15 JALISA MOORE, an individual; and all [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Carolyn B. others similarly situated, Kuhl, Department 12] 16 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF DAVID M. deRUBERTIS 17 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL v. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 18 SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 19 entity; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, COSTS 20 Defendants. Date: February 13, 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 Dept.: 12 22 Complaint filed: November 24, 2015 Trial: NONE 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECL OF DAVID M. DERUBERTIS ISO MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT & MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COSTS 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID M. deRUBERTIS, ESQ.: 2 I, David M.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment-G
    ATTACHMENT G: List of California Superior Courts Handbook for Challenging Mental Health Conservatorships, Publication #5110.01 36 Alameda County Superior Court René C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street Oakland, California 94612 1221 Oak Street, 3rd and 4th Floors Oakland, California 94612 Hayward Hall of Justice 24405 Amador Street Hayward, CA 94544 Mental Health Division John George Psychiatric Pavilion 2060 Fairmont Drive San Leandro, CA 94578 Alpine County Superior Court 777 State Route 89 P.O. Box 518 Markleeville, CA 96120 Amador County Superior Court 500 Argonaut Lane Jackson, CA 95642 Butte County Superior Court: Civil Division Chico - North Butte County Courthouse 1775 Concord Avenue Chico, CA 95928 Oroville - Butte County Courthouse One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 Calveras County Superior Court: Civil Division 400 Government Center Drive, San Andreas, CA 95249-9794 Colusa County Superior Court: Civil Division 532 Oak Street Colusa, CA 95932 Handbook for Challenging Mental Health Conservatorships, Publication #5110.01 37 Contra Costa County Superior Court Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 725 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Richmond Courthouse 100 – 37th Street Richmond, CA 94805 Pittsburgh Courthouse 1000 Center Drive Pittsburg, CA 94565 Del Norte County Superior Court Main Courthouse 450 H Street Crescent City, CA 95531 El Dorado County Superior Court Placerville Main Street Branch 495 Main Street Placerville, CA 95667 Cameron Park Branch 3321 Cameron Park Drive Cameron Park, CA 95682 South Lake Tahoe Branch 1354 Johnson Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Mental Health Placerville Fair Lane Branch 295 Fair Lane Placerville, CA 95667 Fresno County Superior Court B. F. Sisk Courthouse 1130 O Street Fresno, CA 93721-2220 Handbook for Challenging Mental Health Conservatorships, Publication #5110.01 38 Glenn County Superior Court 526 W Sycamore St Willows, CA 95988 Orlando Courthouse 821 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent
    No. S264419 Exempt from Filing Fee Govt. Code §6103 (2nd Civil No. B306827) (Los Angeles Sup.Crt. Nos. JCCP4674/19STCV36610) In The Supreme Court State of California Barbara Franklin, Petitioner, v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent. ____________________ Daimler Trucks North America LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW After a Summary Denial of a Petition for Peremptory Writ by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One Douglas J. Collodel (Bar No. 112797) [email protected] CLYDE & CO US LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Document received by the CA Supreme Court. Telephone: 213.358.7600 Facsimile: 213.358.7650 Attorneys for Respondent, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Table of Contents Page(s) Table of Contents ..............................................................................2 Table of Authorities ..........................................................................4 Preliminary Statement .....................................................................8 Factual Background ....................................................................... 13 I. What are the specific circumstances justifying the order? .................................................................................... 14 A. The Scale of Respondent’s Operations ...................... 15 B. Court Personnel Affected by the COVID-19 Crisis ........................................................................... 16 II. Is the use
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-08-889 Federal Courthouse Construction
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO September 2008 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed GAO-08-889 September 2008 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION Accountability Integrity Reliability Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Highlights Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Highlights of GAO-08-889, a report to Proceed congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Since the early 1990s, the General GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take occupancy of a Services Administration (GSA) and new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but occupancy has been delayed by 8 the federal judiciary (judiciary) years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. GSA has spent $16.3 million designing have been carrying out a a new courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in multibillion-dollar courthouse downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 construction initiative. In downtown Los Angeles, California, million remains appropriated for the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. one of the nation’s busiest federal Courthouse. Project delays were caused by GSA’s decision to design a larger district courts (L.A. Court), the courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making by federal judiciary has split its GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen cost district, magistrate, and bankruptcy escalations, and low contractor interest that caused GSA to cancel the entire judges between two buildings—the 41-courtroom courthouse project.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to Comments on The
    CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA Dual-Branded Hotel at Coleman and Brokaw RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY 2021 Responses to Comments RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This document contains all of the written comments received by the City of Santa Clara on the Dual-Branded Hotel at Coleman and Brokaw Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and presents the City’s responses to each of the substantive comments submitted by public agencies and members of the public. Written comments were received during the 30-day public review period, which extended from March 26, 2021 to April 26, 2021. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to approving a project, the decision- making body of the lead agency must consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all comments received during the public review process. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.) Although written responses to comments on an MND are not required by CEQA, the City has determined to exceed the minimum requirements and prepare a response to the comments received that pertain to the adequacy of the IS/MND. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the State agencies that were invited to review the IS/MND included the following:1 • California Natural Resources Agency • California Department of Conservation (DOC) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regions 2 and 3 • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) • California Department
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-12-206T Federal Courthouse Construction: Nationwide Space
    United States Government Accountability Office Testimony GAO Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Friday, November 4, 2011 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION Nationwide Space and Cost Issues Are Applicable to L.A. Courthouse Project Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director Physical Infrastructure Issues GAO-12-206T November 4, 2011 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION Nationwide Space and Cost Issues Are Applicable to L.A. Courthouse Project Highlights of GAO-12-206T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 2000, as part of a multibillion-dollar GAO reported in 2008 that GSA spent about $33 million on design and site courthouse construction initiative, the preparations for a new 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse, leaving about $366 million judiciary requested and the General available for construction. However, project delays, unforeseen cost escalation, Services Administration (GSA) and low contractor interest had caused GSA to cancel the project in 2006 before proposed building a new courthouse in any construction took place. GSA later identified other options for housing the Los Angeles to increase security, L.A. Court, including constructing a smaller new courthouse (36 courtrooms) or efficiency, and space—but construction using the existing courthouses—the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. never began. About $400 million was Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. As GAO also reported, the estimated appropriated for the L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    Los Angeles Superior Court – Public Information Office 111 N. Hill Street, Room 107, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected] www.lacourt.org NEWS RELEASE March 8, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LASC TO OPEN COURTROOMS APRIL 16 AT HISTORIC SPRING STREET FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) has announced that the complex civil litigation program located at Central Civil West (CCW) Courthouse and some civil courtrooms at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse will relocate to the historic Spring Street Federal Courthouse, located at 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, in mid-April, with hearings set to begin April 16. Designed by Gilbert Stanley Underwood and Louis A. Simon as a major example of Art Moderne architecture, the Spring Street Courthouse was completed in 1940 and originally served as both a courthouse and post office. It was the third federal building constructed in Los Angeles to serve its rapidly growing population in the early twentieth century. Since the mid-1960s, it has functioned solely as a courthouse, most recently for judges from the United States District Court, Central District of California before their relocation in 2016 to the new First Street Federal Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. “Relocating to the Spring Street Courthouse will enable us to expand access to justice,” said LASC Presiding Judge Daniel J. Buckley. “LASC is honored to help preserve this national historic landmark as a place for the administration of justice.” Savings from the relocation of the complex litigation program will offset much of the costs of the Spring Street Courthouse lease, providing opportunities for expanding courtrooms without additional cost.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Superior Court of the State of California County of San
    1 Kevin I. Shenkman (SBN 223315) Mary R. Hughes (SBN 222662) 2 Andrea A. Alarcon (SBN 319536) SHENKMAN & HUGHES 3 28905 Wight Road Malibu, California 90265 4 Telephone: (310) 457- 0970 R. Rex Parris (SBN 96567) 5 Ellery S. Gordon (SBN 316655) 6 PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, California 93534 7 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 8 Milton C. Grimes (SBN 59437) LAW OFFICES OF MILTON C. GRIMES 9 3774 West 54th Street Los Angeles, California 90043 10 Telephone: (323) 295-3023 11 Robert Rubin (SBN 85084) LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT RUBIN 12 237 Princeton Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 13 Telephone: (415) 298-4857 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 16 PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ) Case No.: BC616804 17 ASSOCIATION and MARIA LOYA, ) ) 18 Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATION OF KEVIN SHENKMAN ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 19 v. ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX ) COSTS 20 CITY OF SANTA MONICA, and ) DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) 21 Defendants. ) Date: June 25, 2019 ) 22 Time: 9:30 a.m. ) Dept.: 44 ) 23 ) 24 25 26 27 28 1 SHENKMAN DECLARATION 1 I, Kevin I. Shenkman, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of 3 California and I am a principal of Shenkman & Hughes PC, attorneys of record for Plaintiffs 4 in the above-captioned case. The facts set forth in this declaration are within my personal 5 knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify as follows: 6 The Litigation, Trial and Judgment 7 2.
    [Show full text]