HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-6-27 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�
M�
o
'il
MCI
�
�m
nA
�x
RECEMED
'06 JJN 19 A 9 :14
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MEMO FROM: R.U. HALL
c ate-
_ W.E. HALL COMPANY
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
DearlMay0i1 . ebb: �� 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
i71
Dale n
Copies Sent To:
,I "tayor
�auncil Member
/Manager
It ney
,a '4 t ---
D
0
0 ----
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
DearlMay0i1 . ebb: �� 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
i71
Dale n
Copies Sent To:
,I "tayor
�auncil Member
/Manager
It ney
,a '4 t ---
D
0
0 ----
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
i
a ti r S
JA
�Y. 17 11,
>
x.� gy,Y.•. �,a .. .xr
* i 7
�r
p t t
, Ykgy }TMy �sL� J4 fis �
Y
q+ 3 a
t
'af
am'
�d
i
ar
t
by
x�
ryryF
✓Y
k,. ` CUM, �
$a:K:
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
Cemer/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 serve a lot of people. Even a small view
park at the library site would support the concept of a City Cemer, 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,
�iLOr2u+o�_ Y � �l7
Bob and Donna Nichols
iry
i
U
�
a
�O
�1
P-0
"C�
iry
i
a
1
s
Z•.M
I�
1�
C!'
iWr
a
�L
T
a
�o
x
U
W
H
a
O
a
3
w
z
w
O
U
a
Z•.M
I�
1�
C!'
iWr
a
�L
T
a
�o
x
U
W
H
a
O
a
3
w
z
w
O
U
V I
U
ct
�
O
�
O
. v
® .
. :.
s
IF
i + *a
E �
INA
V:
Cd
C�
CCf
MEMO
1�
I�
x
U
W
E�
O
a
3
w
z
w
O
V