Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout37 - City Hall Project Building Committee RecommendationsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 37 June 27, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Council Building Committee Mayor Don Webb Council Member Tod Ridgeway Council Member Ed Selich SUBJECT: COUNCIL BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY HALL PROJECT PLANNING ISSUES ISSUES: 1. Does the City Council believe the current location is the best available site for a new city hall? 2. If so, what is the next step to initiate in the city hall /civic center planning process? BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site. 2. Approve $25,000 for entering into a contract with a new architectural firm to provide three (3) alternative exterior design concepts based on the existing floor plan. DISCUSSION: In November, 2005, Griffin Structures completed its contract for development of a site and floor plan (20% schematics) for the proposed city hall, which was part of the civic center project, consisting of a new city hall, a 300 vehicle parking garage and a replacement fire station. LPA Architects provided architectural services to Griffin Structures for this project. Griffin estimated the cost of the project to be $48,000,000. Rather than continue with project planning, the City Council decided in January, 2006, to form two citizen committees to review separate issues on which Council wanted additional public input: 1) the City's ability to afford the civic center project, while still being in a position to afford other identified and needed public facilities over the next 20 years, and 2) an assessment of other sites in the community which could accommodate a city hall and its associated requirements. Therefore, the Finance Review Committee (Chair Steve Frates, with 9 citizen members) was appointed to look at the City's long Council Building Committee Recommendations June 27, 2006 Page 2 term financial capabilities of affording public facilities, and the City Hall Site Review Committee (Chair Larry Tucker, with 11 citizen members) was appointed to identify and assess potential sites throughout the community for appropriate city hall locations. Both Committees provided oral and written reports during the May 23`d meeting. (See attached City Hall Site Review Committee report.) At the June 13th meeting, the City Council asked the Council Budget Committee and the Council Building Committee to review the Committees' reports and bring back recommendations as to potential Council actions regarding study conclusions. Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway and Council Member Selich compose the Council Building Committee. Two days prior to meeting, Mayor Webb and the City Council received a letter from Dan Young of The Irvine Company stating the Corporate Plaza West site (corner of PCH /Newport Center Drive) identified by the City Hall Site Review Committee as one of two viable city hall locations, was not for sale. (See attached letter.) The lone remaining site identified by the Committee for further consideration was the existing city hall location. After meeting, the members of the Committee offer the following recommendations for Council consideration regarding the city hall project: 1. Based on the comprehensive study and assessment of potential city hall locations by the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee and the written response from The Irvine Company, the City Council should affirm the existing location as the only feasible site currently available for the future city hall and associated civic center structures and direct the Building Committee to pursue further development of plans for a new city hall and associated civic center. 2. Provide up to $25,000 to engage a new architect for the preparation of three (3) alternative exterior design concepts for the city hall structure, based on the existing floor and site plan which has been developed by LPA Architects. The Building Committee believes the city hall floor plan previously developed has the size, layout and spatial relationships to meet the City's needs. The Committee believes the appropriate exterior design concept for the city hall and associated civic center structures is a remaining issue. The Committee believes that obtaining alternative exterior design concepts will assist the City Council in making a decision on the "look" that the Council and the community aspire to see in its city hall. (Vn ttedebb Tod Ridgew d Selich Mayor Council Me r Council Member Attachments: City Hall Site Review Committee Report dated May 1, 2006 Letter from The Irvine Company dated June 7, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REPORT OF THE CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 1, 2006 PUBLIC OUTREACH; SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT. On January 24, 2006, the City Council established the City Hall Site Review Committee. The members of the Committee appointed by the City Council are: Larry Tucker (Chair), Stephen Brahs, John Hamilton, Lloyd Ikerd, Donald Krotee, Wallace Olson, Gordon Glass, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen, John Nelson and Scott Riddles. The Council also appointed Councilmembers Tod Ridgeway, Steve Rosansky and Ed Selich as liaisons to the Committee. In establishing the Committee, the Council adopted the following mission statement for the Committee: "To identify and assess all reasonable potential sites within the boundaries of Newport Beach for a city hall facility and provide a written report and oral assessment report to the City Council, along with Committee recommendations as to the best location(s) for further City Council consideration no later than May 1, 2006." In order to solicit the Community to receive suggestions about potential City Hall locations, an outreach program was conducted. The Chairman of the Committee authored a letter to the Editor of the Daily Pilot soliciting site suggestions. The letter was printed in a prominent location by the Daily Pilot on February 2, 2006. The Daily Pilot also published a front page article on the topic on February 16, 2006, where, again, site suggestions were solicited. Additionally, all members of City Committees and Commissions were asked to suggest sites. The Council liaisons informed the public of the Committee's work and solicited sites at Council meetings. Also, anyone who had e- mailed the Internet address established by the City to accept comments on the City Hall topic, was asked about any ideas each might have for a City Hall site. And finally, anyone who had spoken to the City Council at a Council meeting about any aspect of the City Hall project, and whose address was available to the City Clerk, was also solicited for site suggestions. The Committee met on six occasions: February 13, March 6, March 20, April 3, April 17 and May 1, 2006. Each meeting was open to the public, and the agenda for each meeting was published on the City's website. Most of the meetings lasted two hours. Detailed minutes of the meetings have been published and are available for public review. SUGGESTED SITES. The Committee received 76 comments relating to site suggestions. (See attachment of suggestions.) From these comments, 22 different sites were suggested. The sites were as follows: 1. Vacant Site north of San Miguel between MacArthur /Avocado 2. Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center 3. Land Rover dealership /Police and Fire Station properties 4. Vacant land /existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH 5. Newport Beach Country Club parking lot 6. Banning Ranch land in West Newport 7. Newport-Mesa Unified School District site on east boundary of Banning Ranch 8. Edler Building at Campus /Dove 9. Back Bay View Park at PCH/Jamboree 10. The Newport Dunes property 11. Camelbaek building adjacent to Self Storage /Temple Bat Yam 12. Inland Portion of Ardell Parcel 13. Birch/Mesa comer property 14. Existing City Hall site 15. Coyote Canyon Landfill 16. City Parking lot in Mariners Mile 17. Northwest corner of PCH and Bayside Drive 18. Rogers Gardens 19. Lower Castaways 20. The Lawn Bowling Park off San Joaquin Hills Drive, near San Miguel 21. Medical buildings on Dover Drive, between Cliff Drive and West 16th 22. Two buildings in San Joaquin Plaza (presently occupied by Pacific Life) The sites fell into one or more of the following four categories: (i) Those that were geographically unsuitable; (ii) Those that were technically or practically infeasible; (iii) Those that were not presently or in the near term available because the owner or another party with a long term position was not interested in selling or yielding its interest in the site within the foreseeable future, without other conditions; and (iv) Those that merited further consideration. SITES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION. Those sites deemed geographically unsuitable were: #6 Banning Ranch land in West Newport, too far removed from most of the population; #7 Newport Mesa Unified School District land adjacent to Banning Ranch, too far removed from most of the population; #8 The Edler Building at Campus /Dover, too far removed from most of the population; #13 Birch /Mesa corner property, too far removed from most of the population; and #15 Coyote Canyon Landfill, very little property which could support a structure and parking. Additionally, the Impact Mortgage Building on Dove Street in the airport area was suggested after the site analysis part of the Committee's work was completed. However, in connection with the evaluation of the Edler Building in the airport area Ira ( #8), the Committee concluded that the airport area is geographically unsuitable for a City Hall site, due to it being on the fringe of our jurisdictional boundaries and too far removed from most of the population. Those sites deemed technically or practically infeasible were: #1 Vacant site north of San Miguel between MacArthur and Avocado due to traffic congestion and site design constraints; #9 Back Bay View Park due to costly site constraints, present use as a City park, need for a General Plan Amendment with likely Measure S vote and Coastal Commission approval, which is not likely; #10 Newport Dunes due to State restrictions on city halls for tideland uses; #11 Camelback building adjacent to self storage /Temple Bat Yahm due to problematic access issues; #12 Inland portion of Ardell site due to its location in an already congested area and its incompatibility with contiguous residential uses; #16 City parking lot in Mariner's Mile due to its insufficient size; #19 Lower Castaways due to poor access issues; #20 Lawn Bowling Park due to its use as a park, the need to relocate costly and major Edison lines, its incompatibility with surrounding residential and the likely need to make improvements to Crown Drive that would alter the character of a road adjacent to homes; #21 Medical buildings on Dover Drive due to long term leases of certain tenants, location near residential, need to include former Bank of Newport property for sufficient land and desire of owner to ground lease property; and #22 The Pacific Life Buildings 1 & 5 in San Joaquin Plaza due to building sizes and configuration, non - contiguous location, and shared parking in an office complex. Those sites for which an owner, or other interest holder was not willing to sell, or had other conditions (such as related entitlements on a portion of the same property), were: 42 Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center —still using property and expects to be doing so for the foreseeable future; #5 Newport Beach Country Club parking lot --- complicated due to ownership of land and golf course being different and each having its own lender; #17 Northwest corner of PCH and Bayside Drive -- -owner working on development plans and would consider City Hall use in connection with other land use changes on the property, timing is uncertain; and #18 Rogers Gardens —owner has no interest in selling. The former Newport Technology Center site was not included in the list of suggested sites since the site was purchased by Hoag Hospital about the time the Committee was appointed and Hoag representatives indicated the Hospital planned to use the site for medical office purposes. -3- 5 SITES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. After the elimination of the sites described above, three (3) suggested sites remained from the list, including the existing City Hall site, for further consideration by the Committee. The two other sites were the Land Rover /Police/Fire Station and the Corporate Plaza West site. While the Land Rover site is not available because the owner is not interested in selling the site, there is a parking lot north of the fire station that is owned by The Irvine Company (TIC) and is part of San Joaquin Plaza (formerly Civic Plaza). TIC would consider discussing a joint use parking structure on that land. CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS USED TO EVALUATE REMAINING SITES. Based upon Council guidance and the Committee's perception of important considerations for a City Hall location, the Committee established a matrix of constraints and considerations to evaluate each site not otherwise eliminated from consideration. Included in the constraints and consideration matrix were the following factors: Site availability Sufficient parcel size Site configuration Centrally located Ease of travel Ease of ingress /egress Utilities /Public Services availability Physical constraints Environmental hazards General Plan/zoning designations Adjacent uses compatibility Measure S (Greenlight) vote required Approval of other agencies required Compliance with CEQA Timing of potential sale Private use restrictions Cost to acquire land Cost to improve site /retrofit building Timing to begin construction Unique characteristics Relocation costs The issues with the sites that merit consideration are as follows: #3 Police and Fire Station properties, with joint use parking structure. The details of a joint use parking structure would have to be worked out, including the design, ownership, financing and use. Of course, there can be no assurance that an acceptable arrangement can be worked out. This site has some additional special challenges because it is the home to the City Police Department and a fire station. Each of those facilities may have to be relocated or rebuilt to accommodate a new City Hall on this site. That might entail expenditure of funds for such facilities earlier than otherwise might have occurred. The square footage that will need to be added to the site will require a Measure S vote. CEQA analysis will be necessary. The Committee concluded that this site likely has too many issues to be resolved to be a feasible alternative in the near term. #4 Vacant land /existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH — TIC owns both the building and the vacant lot. The building is the western most of the two buildings owned by TIC in that location and according to TIC representatives is approximately 42,000 s.f. of useable area. The building is vacant presently and is now being marketed by TIC. The vacant land has been entitled by the City for an approximately 42,000 square foot office building with required parking. The Committee assumed that the existing building could be retrofitted to meet the City's office needs, while the vacant land could be improved with new facilities to accommodate the unique parts of City requirements such as a City Council Chambers and other meeting rooms. The Committee identified the following issues with respect to this site: (i) TIC has indicated it is not typically a seller of its office properties in Newport Center, but rather a landlord, but has indicated that the site would be a suitable location for a City Hall and is open to discussions with the City about leasing the site; (ii) the cost to acquire the land and building, if for sale, is unknown; (iii) the cost to retrofit the building is unknown; and (iv) the timing of the project would be subject to making an agreement with TIC and processing the project through the Coastal Commission. Although beyond the purview of the Committee, some members suggested that all of the Corporate Plaza West property be considered for acquisition to allow the City to consolidate other facilities on this site to create a more complete Civic Center complex in a central location. #14 Existing City Hall site. The Committee identified the following issues with respect to the existing City Hall site: it is a small in size; it is not centrally located; ease of travel is an issue; it lies within the Coastal Zone; a temporary relocation off site during construction would be costly; it would involve additional costs to build a parking structure due to its size and finally, the land may be more valuable for residential purposes so there could be a lost opportunity cost in not selling the land and buying cheaper land zoned and/or already improved for office purposes. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EXISTING CITY HALL SITE. The Committee also considered alternative uses for the existing City Hall location if another location proved feasible for City Hall. Based upon the input of several -5- 11 Committee members that residential land values would be the highest and best use of the site, the Committee requested that one of its members inquire about the value of the land for residential purposes from a reputable homebuilding firm. The information reported back to the Committee was that the value of the land, zoned at 25 units per acre, in a two - story configuration could equate to more than $6,000,000 per acre, fully entitled. The Committee has received other information that this amount may be low. The Committee did not undertake to ascertain the net amount of land at the existing City Hall site that would be available for residential use if City Hall were moved. COST AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. For the two sites that seem to have the most promise as a new City Hall site, the Committee endeavored to identify cost and other considerations associated with each of the sites that may be of use to the Council in reaching its conclusion. (1) The Corporate Plaza West building would have to be retrofitted to be used for City Hall purposes. The adaptability of the space, including for unique City needs (such as a Council Chamber or Planning/Building Counter area), has not been reviewed by the Committee, but such a professional review should be conducted prior to any Council decision on the Corporate Plaza West Property. Further, the Committee is not in a position to determine if the cost to retrofit would be extraordinary or typical of an office space renovation. (2) It appears that the Corporate Plaza West land and existing building would be able to provide adequate parking without incurring the cost of a parking structure. (3) The existing City Hall site would need a parking structure. (4) There would be a cost to move the City's operations twice if the existing City Hall location were to become the new City Hall site (i.e. move out, construct, move back). (5) If another site becomes the new City Hall site, then the City will save money by not having to lease and adapt temporary City Hall offices during construction (i.e. City Hall would remain where it is until the new facility is ready to occupy). (6) However, if the City retained ownership of the existing City Hall site until a new City Hall in a new location is ready for occupancy, the City may own two parcels (i.e. the existing City Hall site and the new City Hall site) until after the City moves into the new location and completes the sale of the existing City Hall site. (7) If the City is to maximize the value of the existing City Hall site, the City would need to incur the time and expense of completing the entitlement of the existing City Hall site for residential use. (8) The existing City Hall site would require no additional planning for a City Hall use, other than Coastal Commission approval. Further, the site has already gone through the preliminary design phase for a new facility. This existing level of planning and design and the fact that the City owns the site would allow a project at this site to proceed expeditiously. Q (9) Any other significant construction costs that might be unique to a particular site. FINANCIAL COMPARISIONS. The City has already generated considerable information concerning the budget of a new facility at the existing City Hall site. Missing information with respect to a project at the existing City Hall site would need to be ascertained (e.g. costs associated with a temporary City Hall and to move twice). In order to be able to understand the financial aspects of the Corporate Plaza West location, the City would need to retain a real estate professional to gather needed information to be able to make a financial comparison of a new City Hall on the Corporate Plaza West site versus the existing City Hall site. That information would include but not be limited to preparation of a reliable, all- inclusive budget (hard costs, soft costs, land and existing building acquisition costs, costs to carry that site before and during construction, and all other costs related to acquisition, ownership, design, financing and construction) of the Corporate Plaza West site. The City would also need to address the manner in which it would finance a new location while likely still owning its existing location. Ultimately, if the Council deems it appropriate, the Council should determine how the budget for a new City Hall at the Corporate Plaza West site (less the net proceeds to the City in connection with the sale of the existing City Hall site) would compare with an all- inclusive budget for the conceptually designed new City Hall at the present site (without the fire station component). CONCLUSION. Based upon the above, the Committee recommends to the City Council for further consideration the following two sites: 1) Corporate Plaza West building/vacant land, and 2) The existing City Hall site. The Committee approved this Report by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Larry Tucker, Chairman -7- N 0 THE IRVINE COMPANY June 7, 2006 Mayor Don Webb City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear vat ebb: As an outgrowth of the discussion about possible sites for a new City Hall, we have been asked to indicate in writing whether The Irvine Company would sell our office complex at Corporate Plaza West to the city if that becomes the preferred site. The property is not for sale, but our reason has nothing to do with the discussion of where City Hall should be; rather, it reflects our corporate philosophy as a master planner, community builder, and real estate investor. For decades, we have had a guiding business philosophy and core mission to selectively build, own and reinvest in our own growing portfolio of investment properties to support the long -term viability and appeal of our master planned communities, and to assure as well the long -term success of The Irvine Company as a going and growing concern. As such, we are investors with a commitment to holding our commercial properties for the long -term. We have not been sellers of our commercial properties, nor do we plan to. We are proud of our long and constructive relationship with the City of Newport Beach in helping the city solve municipal problems through thoughtful planning and land use. In this case, however, I regret that because we never sell our commercial properties, I must ask that you remove Corporate Plaza West from consideration as a site for a new City Hall. Sincerely, an ng Executive Vice r siden DY:dlk 550 Newport Canter Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, Caliiomia 92658 -6370 • (949) 720.2000 Page 1 of 1 MEMO "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED: "�7 6 27 goof, Date: June 22, 2000 T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Newport Beach From: John (Jonas) Store, Councilman of Newport Beach, retired Subject: The new City Hall After watching Bill Ficker's brief statement at the council meeting last week it reminded me of the time back in 1971 when the Freeway issue surfaced. A decision of enormous impact to this city was proceeding and many residents were hardly aware of it. Thanks to the hard work of many, a special election was held, 86% of the people voted to rescind the agreement with the State of California, saving the City from the asphalt jungle of freeways and freeway interchanges! The location of the new City Hall may not have quite that serious an impact on our city in the long run. But there is sufficient eveidence in the study of our good citizen and well known architect, Bill Ficker, to question if we really need to spend twenty to forty million dollars more than we have to for the new City Hall. Like, in the "Freeway Fight ", I feel we have time to "take a second look" to make sure we "got it right." Please postpone the authorization to proceed with "construction documents" and allow Bill Ficker to make a complete presentation to your honorable Council of his study. Since / 2�6 � Jo n J;) Store, Councilman, retired PS you all know, coincidentically, that this Avocado site was originally allocated for the "Freeway Monster Inter- change?" Thursday, June 22, 2006 America Online: MORFAR123 �e -<C C'm M Z� n m sm w C3 C) a� o M MCI � sirn nA � RECEMED '06 JJN 19 A 9 :14 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMO FROM: R.U. HALL GLl C7� _ W.E. HALL COMPANY /J 949- 650 -4555 P.O. BOX 2450, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8972 0 � F N cs Q \ 0 THE IRVINE COMPANY June 7, 2006 MC) Dear y0i1 . ebb: rn W VCl1 ' x As an outgrowth of the discussion about possible sites for a new City Hall, we have been asked to indicate in writing whether The Irvine Company would sell our office complex at Corporate Plaza West to the city if that becomes the preferred site. The property is not for sale, but our reason has nothing to do with the discussion of where City Hall should be; rather, it reflects our corporate philosophy as a master planner, community builder, and real estate investor. For decades, we have had a guiding business philosophy and core mission to selectively build, own and reinvest in our own growing portfolio of investment properties to support the long -term viability and appeal of our master planned communities, and to assure as well the long -term success of The Irvine Company as a going and growing concern. As such, we are investors with a commitment to holding our commercial properties for the long -term. We have not been sellers of our commercial properties, nor do we plan to. We are proud of our long and constructive relationship with the City of Newport Beach in helping the city solve municipal problems through thoughtful planning and land use. In this case, however, I regret that because we never sell our commercial properties, I must ask that you remove Corporate Plaza West from consideration as a site for a new City Hall. Sincerely, alfl nl`6hng Executive Vice r siden DY:dlk m M -n Dale c3 n Copies Sent To: ,I "tayor �auncil Member /Manager It ney ,Er '4 t --- D 0 O ----- 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658 -6370 • (949) 720 -2000 �?-mn .T C7 .c, g om Mayor Don Webb my City of Newport Beach �x 3300 Newport Blvd. C2 C) _ w Newport Beach, CA 92663 ae MC) Dear y0i1 . ebb: rn W VCl1 ' x As an outgrowth of the discussion about possible sites for a new City Hall, we have been asked to indicate in writing whether The Irvine Company would sell our office complex at Corporate Plaza West to the city if that becomes the preferred site. The property is not for sale, but our reason has nothing to do with the discussion of where City Hall should be; rather, it reflects our corporate philosophy as a master planner, community builder, and real estate investor. For decades, we have had a guiding business philosophy and core mission to selectively build, own and reinvest in our own growing portfolio of investment properties to support the long -term viability and appeal of our master planned communities, and to assure as well the long -term success of The Irvine Company as a going and growing concern. As such, we are investors with a commitment to holding our commercial properties for the long -term. We have not been sellers of our commercial properties, nor do we plan to. We are proud of our long and constructive relationship with the City of Newport Beach in helping the city solve municipal problems through thoughtful planning and land use. In this case, however, I regret that because we never sell our commercial properties, I must ask that you remove Corporate Plaza West from consideration as a site for a new City Hall. Sincerely, alfl nl`6hng Executive Vice r siden DY:dlk m M -n Dale c3 n Copies Sent To: ,I "tayor �auncil Member /Manager It ney ,Er '4 t --- D 0 O ----- 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658 -6370 • (949) 720 -2000 coBErNGL. E4Hm EER RECEIVED 203 PEARL AVENUE BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 /� BUS: (949) 673 -6339 FAX: (949) 673 -6047 06 • IMAY 30 A 7 :51 V May 25, 2006 Date E CITY CLERK Copies 114, QF NEWppRT BEACH ounr_il Member The Honorable Don Webb,nager Mayor of Newport Beach, and Ito y Newport Beach City Council Members D Dear Mayor Webb and City Council Members: D D It is suggested that you initiate a re -study of modernization, additions and "Greed" remodeling of the present City Hall complex. A proposal is contained herein to add a new 20,000 sq. ft., two -story Building D to replace the existing one and two -story buildings, add two elevators, add optional space to Buildings A and B, add working space to Building C for Building Inspectors and several additional personnel, as well as adding space for filing of plans in -check and approved. An 8 -%z inch by 11 inch Plot Plan is attached to show the proposed Building additions and Parking revisions, together with a Plot Plan showing the facility as it is now. A replacement for the Fire Station can be considered as an option, with its construction able to start before the renovations to the City Hall. New "Greening" of the existing buildings will be provided by placing solar panels on all the flat roofs and replacing the existing single pane windows with double pane insulated windows. The existing thick walls provide excellent insulation. New roof insulation could be added. New roofing throughout is included in the scope of work. The reason for consideration of re- modeling and additions to existing buildings is that they are built very well structurally and the work can be done without displacing occupants, except for those in Building D. Those persons can be temporarily provided office space with restrooms in pre - manufactured buildings (4 or 5 may be required) on the front lawn. Successful rehabilitation has been shown by my having demonstrated, before the Los Angeles City Council, the viability of strengthening over 5,000 URM buildings without displacing occupants and other remodeling of over 20 buildings, including strengthening of the Rose Bowl, in my 45 years of Structural Practice. Since my design efforts included working with Owners, Architects, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers on such remodeling, I can recommend methods and scheduling to cause minimum interference with the functioning City Staff. Structural strengthening and additions can be accomplished mainly from the outside of the walls of the buildings. Any of my consultation, if requested, will be Pro Bono. A visual review of the existing structures of Buildings A and B showed a large portion of the area of exterior and some inside walls at the entrance Lobby and the City Hall Tower are strong, untracked, reinforced concrete (I know where to go in case of an Earthquake). All other walls of the two buildings are of reinforced masonry with no visible cracks. Three of the 24 -foot long windows in the North wing of Building B would have 8 -foot wide panels of gunite added in Page Two the middle of their length for added shear strength in the plane of the walls. The only substandard Building in the Complex is Building D, which is to be replaced. The recommended additions and remodeling of the Complex for your consideration are listed alphabetically, as follows: • Newport Blvd. Landscaping: The trees to the West of the entry to City Hall should be removed. They hide the Building's entry and the Tower. New trees can be added as desired. • Building A (City Council Chambers and Meeting Chambers): Add to the West side, with a width of 15 feet and length of 40 feet, to provide added space for office, storage and multi -media equipment. • Building B (Multi -use building for City Services and Billings): Add mansard canopy and remodel facade at face of Lobby area. Remove two exterior columns at entry. 2. Relocate handsome City Seal from North side of Building A and place it on new facade of Building B. 3. Add 15 feet to the West side of the northerly wing for added office and storage space, as desired. The added space allows enlarging the Men's and Women's restrooms to include handicap requirements. 4. Add handicap ramp at entry to Building B. Page Three • Building C: 1. Add second floor at clear area above the public counters for additional office space. 2. Add 4,200 sq. ft. two -story section at North end, together with an elevator, for use of Building Inspectors, offices and plan storage. • Building D: 1. Remove existing one and two -story buildings. 2. Add 20,000 sq. ft. two -story building, moved north to within 10 feet of the Building C columns. 3. Add elevator and handicap restrooms. 4. Connect second floors of Buildings C and D with a pedestrian bridge. 5. Provide Conference Rooms on North side for use of the Building Department and other Departments for meetings. • Building E: 1. Remove existing manufactured building from front lawn after relocating required space for Water Quality Division to Building D. • Air Conditioning: I. Add central refrigeration equipment on concrete roof of Building B to provide insulated cooling and heating lines to air handlers on roofs of Buildings A, B and C. Page Four 2. Add new ducts in hallway ceilings of existing buildings with new lateral ducts to offices. • Electrical: Add main power as required with new distribution panels and wiring revisions. • Parking: Revise Parking for Staff and Public, as shown on the revised Plot Plan, to eliminate the need for a parking structure. • Cost Estimate: The rough estimate of this work, including a 20% contingency, is $24 million dollars, exclusive of a new Fire Station and Parking for Fire Station Personnel. In my opinion, having a house on Balboa Island for over 40 years and having done remedial repairs recently on the Balboa Pavilion, the City Hall can be remodeled and made more functional in keeping with the character of the historic locale (that many of us enjoy). If you have questions, or would like more information, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Ben L. Schmid, S.E. No. 825 Past President SEAOSC Fellow SEAOC cc: S.J. Cahn Editor, Daily Pilot Page Five its _ Qes big s31 r i a• sr m l, Will NOWram, r a VAN,® P .d g• r r 7 i s g RyP� x[ � t z. lava, P x rya r�pMq� �dJ'`?,� �y4 A,e NKI'1113 a I �: _q , 1,17 "y F 112 dt, A,e NKI'1113 a I �: _q , 1,17 "y F THE FlCKER GROUP WILLJAM P. FlCKER, AIA • NCARB Date: June 26, 2006 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" 32 (2-212\, TING . PLANNING - URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING '06 JUN 26 P3 :47 ARCHITECTURE ®FFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach From: William P. Ficker, AIA Re: Advocacy Plan for a Proposed City Hall at the Ste Bounded by Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. to the west and east, the Central Library to the south and continuation of Farrallon Avenue bounding the north edge of the site. Open space and natural park to remain from Farrallon Avenue to San Miguel Drive. History 1.1 With my initial correspondence in October, with follow -up correspondence in December and continuing comrwnication resulting in my submittal of the Advocacy Plan to the City Council, I have made the effort to always be constructive. 1.2 1 have been denied the time or any interest from the City Council to make a presentation, and this has obviously resulted in frustration. 2.0 Council Action 2.1 At a Council meeting prior to the appointment of the Site Selection Committee, four or five people appeared and requested that the City Council not consider the Avocado site north of the Central Library as a potential site to be explored by the committee. Incredibly, the Council granted the request. This naturally resulted in my withdrawing my name to be considered for the committee. It also confirmed to me that it must be a rather obvious site since there was no request to eliminate other, similar sites from the study, i.e., Jamboree and Coast Highway. 3.0 Action 3.1 From that time forward I have exposed the plan to a few people, primarily to those who might appear to be obvious opponents of the site, as well as a small number of others. I have had no rebuff from anyone except for two individuals, and I appreciate their passion in opposing the site. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675-9628. FAX (949) 675-9638 Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council June 26, 2006 Page 2 of 2 3.2 The Daily Pilot was approached by an individual who thought this was a good idea, and, consequently, the editor and publisher interviewed me and I had an opportunity to make a presentation to them. Exposure to the public has produced an outpouring of support from the residents of Newport Beach. 3.3 1 believe the support that has been indicated deserves to have a full public presentation, and perhaps this could be done in much the same manner as the study sessions were held in the planning phases of the City Hall. 1 would be very happy to make myself available for such a presentation or debate, if that is more appropriate for the issue. 4.0 Request 4.1 1 hereby request that the Council take no action on Item 37 — Council Building Committee Recommendations regarding City Hall Project Planning Issues on either Item 1 or 2. 1 believe they are both premature. 5.0 Conclusions 5.1 The highest priority is to proceed with the new City Hall in the most intelligent, organized fashion. 'Haste makes waste.' In terms of its effect on the community, whether it takes 36 months or 48 months to accomplish is insignificant. The most important thing is to do It correctly and have it reflect our city's intellectual capital, our financial preferences and reflect the spaces and relationships necessary to accommodate carefully scrutinized operations, work schedules and management. 5.2 1 do not see almost any of the above present in the existing planning and only an emphasis on getting started as quickly as possible, regardless of cost and debt that will be loaded onto our city. I hope the City Council will embrace the pursuit of excellence because it is worthwhile. I think the pursuit of excellence, the minimizing of debt, is much more worthwhile than speed at any cost. In the overall calendar of events it probably will be much quicker to spend a year or two organizing the construction of a new City Hall at the Avocado site, less disruptive to the City Hall operations and its customers, and perhaps even have the City Hall in the correct location. 5.3 If my plan is followed, it could well free up the first five years of assuming debt for the City and accelerate projects such as the Oasis Center, which could be initiated immediately. We could then, in a calm and organized fashion, approach our facility's Finance Review Committee's action and be sure the issues of finance and debt reflect the attitude of the community. 5.4 With continued hope to be constructive and with your consideration for the plan and the citizens of Newport Beach acceptance of R. 5.5 My efforts have been pursued in the absence of any special interest groups. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 RECEIVED '06 JLN 27 Alt! :14 June 26, 2006 0 ICE OF THE CITY CLERK STY Of NEWPORT BEACH Dear Don, Although promises have been made for a park on the site adjacent to the library, we strongly request that the City Council will give serious consideration to the Ficker proposal, including a nature type park elsewhere. As a site for our City hall, the central location, excellent financial basis, real soil rather than sand, and ease of access make it a superior solution. Perhaps part of it could include a mini -park with views, nice landscaping, and possibly some sculpture. This would be an oasis for short visits from the folks coming to City Hall, as well as for those working or visiting Newport Center/Fashion Island. Both Castaways and the new Bay View park have been developed with natural vegetation which is greatly appreciated, but don't appear to save a lot of people. Even a small view park at the library site would support the concept of a City Center, and not just a City Hall. Many Thanks for all your good work! We greatly appreciate your considerate and practical handling of matters coming to you from our citizens. Also, as channel 3 attendees of the City Council meetings, we admire the tone of these meetings and feel they are conducive to obtaining good results. Gratefully, iU/4o� ; , 3/ Bob and Donna Nichols r t�f ctJ ' i• ?i a t r �r I 4 1 . , `9 c ♦•N Z..M I� 1� C *- i� a �L T a b�A x U W H a O a 3 w z w O U . v x , s i + *a E � INA V: Cd C� CCf MEMO x U W E� O a 3 w z w O u� `J 4J U ct � O � O . v x , s i + *a E � INA V: Cd C� CCf MEMO x U W E� O a 3 w z w O u� `J