No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - City Hall Design Committee - Draft Final Report. .73//00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH l 2 Will CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 7r yr r Agenda Item No. 17 November 12, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Larry Tucker, Chairman City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Committee SUBJECT: City Hall Design Committee — DRAFT Final Report ISSUE: This document is the draft Final Report of the City Hail Design Committee ( "Design Committee "). It is anticipated that this draft Final Report will become the Final Report at the Design Committee's meeting of November 10, 2008. The Final Report will be presented to the City Council on November 25, 2008 at which time any changes to this draft Final Report will be brought to the attention of the Council. COUNCIL ACTION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: I — COMMITTEE FORMATION, TASKS By Resolution 2008 -14 (see Exhibit A), on February 26, 2008, the City Council established the 6- member City Hall Design Committee ( "Design Committee "), The purpose of the Design Committee is to: A. Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to world class architects interested in participating in a design competition for the City Hall and Park Master Plan project, B. In consultation with the Ad Hoc Building Committee, develop recommendations for a detailed set of General Design Parameters to be used by the participating architects; C. Review the qualifications of architects who respond to the RFQ; D. Recommend to the City Council three to four architects to participate in the design competition; E. Review design concepts submitted by the selected architects, and hold public meetings to receive public input on the design concepts; and F. Recommend an architect and design concept to the City Council. The members of the Design Committee are: • Larry Tucker (Chair and ex officio); • Andy Bowden, Licensed Landscape Architect; • Rush Hill, Licensed Architect; • Walt Richardson, Licensed Architect, • City Hall and Park Design Wpebt➢on — Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 2 Steve Sandland' Licensed Architect, and Linda Taylor, Licensed Architect. The Design Committee has also provided technical support for the City Council Ad Hoc Building Committee (formed on March 11, 2008 by Resolution 2008 -16 and referred to as the "Building Committee "). Mayor Ed Selich and Councilmembers Steve Rosansky and Mike Henn comprise the Building Committee. In consultation with the Building Committee, the Design Committee accomplished the following tasks in addition to Items A -E above: 1. Received questions and proposed answers in regards to the terms of the RFQ. 2. Suggested edits to the General Design Parameters (see Exhibit B), the document that sets forth the design constraints applicable to the City Hall and Park site 3. Prepared a Judging Procedure and Criteria (see Exhibits C and E) by which to judge the responses to the RFQ and the design competition itself; 4. Used the Judging Procedure and Criteria to review more than 50 responses to the RFQ, eventually narrowing the submittals down to thirteen (13). Prior to final selection of the top five firms for the design competition, staff contacted client references for the thirteen firms on the short list and made the comments available to the Design Committee. Five (5) firms were then selected, formally recommended to and accepted by the City Council. The five finalist firms are: • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Gonzalez Goodale • Johnson Fain • LPA, Inc • Rossetti 5. Accepted questions raised by the five design finalists and proposed answers prior to the submission of their designs (see Exhibit D). 6. Conducted an all day public hearing on Saturday, September 27, 2008 where each of the five finalist firms made a 45 minute presentation of their concept plans followed by a 45 minute question and answer session. 7. Held three public hearings to obtain public input regarding the five finalist firm concept plans. 8. Prepared this Report to the City Council, which includes a ranking of the designs, an explanation of the Committee's reasons for the design given the highest ranking, and Recommendations for Further Consideration by the City Council. Importantly, the RFQ and the subsequent Professional Services Agreements executed with each of the five firms provide that the designs submitted are the property of the City upon submittal. These documents, in part, read as follows: From the RFQ: The City reserves the right to divide the Project into multiple parts, to reject any and all proposals and re- solicit for new proposals, or reject any and all proposals and temporarily or permanently abandon the Project. City makes no representations, written or oral, that it will enter into any form of agreement with any respondent to the RFQ for any project and no such representation is intended or should be construed by the issuance of this RFQ. • City Hall and Park Design Wetition — Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 3 Ownership of Submitted Design Documents: All design documents, DVDs, and accompanying materials submitted to the city by the firms through this RFQ process shall become the property of the City of Newport Beach upon their submission. From the PSA 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents'), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. At the Design Committee's direction, city staff placed extensive information, including agendas, minutes, the General Design Parameters, Judging Procedure, Q & A's, and various technical reports for the City Hall and Park site on the City's website (www. city. newport-beach ca us). The website became a primary method of communicating information to the design firms and to the public. The Design Committee has met on 12 occasions to date: April 7, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, July 28, September 27, September 29, October 13, October 27, 2008 and November 10, 2008. The meetings lasted two to three hours, except the meeting of September 27, which lasted nine hours. Each meeting was open to the public, and the agenda for each meeting was published on the City's website. Each meeting provided at least one period for public comment, but most meetings provided multiple opportunities for audience input. On Saturday, September 27`", the Design Committee held an all -day meeting during which each of the final design teams presented their concept plans to the Design Committee. Notice of the meeting of September 27 was announced by the Mayor at the City Council's meetings on September V and September 23`0. The all -day meeting was also advertised three times in the Daily Pilot and was the subject of a front page Daily Pilot article on September 24, 2008. Detailed minutes of the meetings have been published and are available for public review. The "boards" that show the five concept plans presented on September 27`" have been on display since the end of September at the Central Library, the Mariner's Branch Library, the Balboa Peninsula Branch Library, the OASIS Senior Center, the Newport Coast Community Center and City Hall. Several members of the public provided comments on special comment cards — these comments were reviewed by the Design Committee and are attached (Attachment G). In addition, commencing October 5, 2008, the presentations part of the Committee meeting of September 27 has been shown several times on the City's "NBTV" community programming channels (Channels 3/30). II — RECOMMENDATIONS The Design Committee has ranked the architects and design concepts, but also has a series of other recommendations for consideration by the City Council. • City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 4 A. - RANKING OF DESIGNS The primary purpose of the Design Committee, as noted in Resolution 2008 -14 (F), is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to the architect and design concept which the Design Committee believes that the Council should select. However, because the five designs were all well thought out, and were so varied in approach, the Design Committee concluded that it would rank the designs in order of preference and provide a commentary as to why the Committee ranked the first choice design as it did, so the City Council has the benefit of the Design Committee's thinking. Pursuant to the Judging Criteria, the Design Committee members considered four criteria in reaching their individual rankings: (i) Functionality of Design; (ii) Creativity and Timelessness of Design, (iii) Practicality, Efficiency and Constructability; and (iv) Sustainability. The Design Committee decided that each member would award 5 points for his /her top choice, 4 for his /her second choice, and so on. The Committee's point tally was as follows: Note from the above tally chart that Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) received three top scores, while tying LPA in total points. Gonzalez Goodale and Johnson -Fain also received one top score each. Based upon the fact that a majority of the Committee ranked BCJ as its top choice, the Committee determined that it would recommend BCJ's design to the City Council as the top design. The Committee articulated the following major reasons for its decision: • The aesthetics of the structures - one Committee member said, "the design captures an iconic image for the City of Newport Beach and tries to capture the spirit of the city with the wave design of the clerestory windows and a sail design for the Council Chambers." Another said, "(BCJ's is) the most exciting design concept." • The parking structure is separate from the City Hall facility, located along the berm of MacArthur Boulevard, and will be less expensive to build than an entirely or mostly underground parking facility; • The design minimizes grading and dirt export, minimizing cost; • The design creates an airy working environment for the City staff, providing extensive glass and clerestory windows allowing significant natural light and direct sun flow into the work environment. • The design creates a people- friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall, • The roof structures cover a large amount of space, allowing the buildings underneath Flexibility within the office pods that comprise the City Hall building, • City Hall and Park Design Sipetition - Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 5 • BCJ was able to capitalize on inexpensive technologies for the roof /structural system. The curved steel should not be considered exotic or expensive, and most materials are 'everyday items' using very common construction technology, • There is good vehicular access from the library parking lot to the parking structure; • The design demonstrated use of sustainable design features in the building structure and systems which should result in reduced operating costs; • The landscape along Avocado Avenue is a continuation of the library landscape scheme and ties the sites together; and • The Park plan proposes to maintain as is, those areas that would require State and /or Federal permits were they to be modified. The Park design leaves most of the topography of the Park unchanged so that it is primarily a "natural park " The Design Committee noted during and after the presentations that each of the five plans could benefit from certain refinements /redesigns to the initial design The same is true of the BCJ plan. Accordingly, the Committee suggests that the City work with BCJ to redesign the following parts of the BCJ Concept Plan, and such other additional elements as the City deems appropriate: • Consider changing the "Pod" modular sections. The modular sections should be changed to improve circulation and to promote the "One Stop Shop" concept; the floor plan needs redesign since a one -stop shop on two floors and in more than one pod will not be efficient. But the fact that the design team can do any configuration of buildings under one canopy is beneficial. • Review the Sail Design Feature. Consider the modification of the sail feature to reduce the incursion into the view plane. • Add Surface Parking. The Entry plaza should be redesigned to allow for some surface parking. • Improve the Aesthetics of the Parking Structure. The proposed parking structure could benefit from a redesign so it will look less like a parking structure. • Reduce Amphitheatre and Add Parking. Consider reducing the size of the amphitheatre to create more open space. The design needs to add more parking to the north, for the park. • Integrate City Hall and the Park better. The park's integration with City Hall needs work. There is a significant conflict between vehicles and pedestrians which needs to be addressed. • Refine Council Chambers, Community Room and Parking. The Community Room needs an outdoor function area or should be combined with the Council Chambers. The Council Chambers should be able to be expanded. The Council Chambers is out front, close to Avocado, but all of the parking is behind the City Hall building. • Reduce Light and Glare. Consider using louver or other systems to address light and glare from the clerestory windows. The building should be reoriented slightly so that the clerestory windows are not as prominent from above the site BCJ's design has the highest potential for glare from the east, so mitigation needs to take place. The exposure of the west side of the building to direct sunlight should also be addressed. • Improve the Link to the Library. The eating area between the City Hall and Library could be improved to be "a nice place to go for visitors, staff, and Library patrons. This would make the Master Plan a true Civic Center that's alive and vibrant." The connection between the Library and the parking structure was never fully explained. c • City Hall and Park Design Competition - Draft Final Repoli November 12, 2008 Page 6 The point differential between the first place team and the fourth place team was narrow. If the City Council were to prefer another one of the design teams and its concept plan over BCJ and its plan, the Design Committee would be pleased to provide the City Council suggested amendments to that alternate plan if the City Council desires that the Design Committee do so. B - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION Unlike a design competition that would ask competitors to use a flat site with circulation improvements and utilities already brought to the site, the teams in this competition had to work with a site with considerable dirt export and significant constraints as set forth in the General Design Parameters. Adding to the complexity, the design includes a park element, a City Hall element, and a significant amount of parking, all of which were to be integrated to the extent feasible with the existing Central Library. Some of the designs were stronger on the park and site design elements than others. Some were stronger on building designs or the parking solutions. So while the Committee did not have the authority to "mix and match" concepts, but only to rank the designs, the Committee does have several recommendations that the City Council may want to consider as it seeks to come up with the best possible project for the City. In other words, if the City Council were to concur with the ranking recommended by the Committee, the Council may nonetheless conclude that the highest ranked design of the Committee could be improved by incorporating concepts from other plans in the final project. Several members of the Design Committee provided written comments to the designs presented and those comments are attached in Attachment H for the City Council's edification. The Committee's Recommendations for Further Consideration are intended to provide general observations that the Council may want to consider as it implements a design. The Committee's Recommendations are as follows: 1. Design Elements. The Design Committee spent most of its meetings on September 29 and October 13, 2008 discussing the five concept plans and summarizing what the Design Committee thought were important design elements which would be desirable in any plan. The Design Committee believes that, while each concept plan and design team may not have each design element addressed at this time, the City Council may want to consider working with the selected Design Team to implement the following design elements in the Final Design (in no particular order): • Maintain the berm along MacArthur Boulevard; • Provide appropriate and effective mitigation of light and glare on the site, so that neighboring residences are not adversely affected by light and glare, • Separate pedestrian and vehicular access ways and primary circulation elements; • Provide a floor plate that will easily accommodate future modifications to internal department sizes and layouts, i.e. provide for maximum flexibility; • Be logistically feasible, understanding how the duration of construction will affect the surrounding commercial, retail and residential area; • Integrate the Library so as to develop a true civic center; • Provide for restrooms for visitors to the park; • Provide for easy parking for visitors to the park; • City Hall and Park Design Wetition - Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 7 • Show strong visual and physical connectivity between the North Park Parcel to the Central Park Parcel (such as textured paving to cross San Miguel); • Consider a "cafe" , small coffee shop or coffee /snack cart or kiosk for visitors /employees in the City Hall building; • Have a vehicular connection from City Hall parking to the Library's existing parking lot, • Contain the Council Chambers and the multi - purpose community room in a single building or wing separate from the remainder of the City offices to allow for easy after - hour and weekend access to the Council Chambers and multi - purpose room. A direct link between the City offices and Council Chambers for staff and elected and appointed officials would also be recommended, • To the extent possible, design the Council Chambers and Community Room to be able to act together as a single large community space, and also provide for the possibility of useable contiguous outdoor space for community events; • Provide access to natural light from all staff workstations, • Provide continuity of landscape treatment from the Library olives along Avocado; and • Provide screening or other appropriate accommodation for roof - mounted antennas and dishes as required for City operations. 2. Design Team's Flexibility. The Design Committee believes the selected design may have significant changes as the schematic design phase of the project plans proceeds. Therefore, the Design Team selected should have a demonstrable track record of good working relationships with clients, and meeting their wishes even if those wishes are not entirely consistent with the Design Team's vision. 3. Staff Input. The City Council should review and consider the merits of the Report of the City Staff on the constructability of each Plan presented and the opinions of staff as to the functionality of each Plan (the perceived efficiency of staff work -Flow, comfort and ambience, and maintenance risks associated with the operation of the facility contemplated in each plan). This Report is included as Exhibit F. 4. 3rd Party Cost Estimator. The Committee recommends that the City Council undertake an independent investigation of the cost information submitted by each of the designs deemed a feasible alternative design by the City Council. 5. Phasing. The Final Design should depict a timeless building. However, if budget constraints would impact the ability of the City to construct the Council's preferred design, the City could consider phasing the project to construct the building in Phase I and the park in Phase II. This could be accomplished by cleaning up the existing vegetation by removing non- native species, filling in those and other barren areas with native species, irrigating only as necessary to allow the newly planted materials to survive and then allow the remainder of the park to remain natural. The park element could remain that way, or the design features of the selected park design could be implemented later as money to make those improvements becomes available. III — IN CONCLUSION This report concludes the Design Committee's scope of work as outlined in Resolution 2008 -14. As it concludes its work, the Design Committee wishes to state its sincere thanks to the many firms that submitted thorough responses to the RFQ and especially to the five design teams • City Hall and Park Design Competition - Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 8 chosen for the competition. The effort and creativity that went into each of the five Concept Plans from the design teams was impressive. It was clear to the Design Committee that each team took to its task very diligently, getting to know the community, the site, the facility needs, and the project parameters. Each design had elements that were inspired and creative - reflecting the high caliber of the competing firms. At its meeting on November 10, 2008, the Design Committee approved this Report on a unanimous vote. Lastly, the Design Committee would als o City Manager, Dave Kiff for doing an Committee. Much of the RFQ, General Report were authored in whole or in part, and much appreciated. Respectfully submitted: like to thank the City Staff and especially Assistant outstanding job as the staff liaison for the Design Design Parameters, answers to questions and this or edited by Dave. His work was timely, professional Larry Tucker, Design Committee Chairman Exhibits: A - Resolution 2008 -14 B - General Design Parameters, as Amended C - Judging Criteria - RFQ D - Q & A for Phase II - The Five Concept Plans E - Judging Criteria - Concept Plans F - City Staffs Functionality Report G - Responses from public comment cards H - Comments from Committee Members (pending) 0 0 Exhibit A 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- '' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE CITY HALL DESIGN COMMITTEE WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008, the voters of Newport Beach approved Measure B, which provides that a new city hall shall be located on City owned property north of the Central Library; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to follow the will of the voters and develop a new city hall on said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to have its Ad Hoc Building Committee continue to oversee the overall city hall project; and WHEREAS, the City Council also wishes to have professional advice on issues related to design of the new city hall and a master plan for 19.8 acres owned by the City between Corona del Mar Plaza and the OCTA Transportation Facility; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: Section 1. The City Council establishes the City Hall Design Committee, which shall be comprised of four (4) licensed architects and one (1) licensed landscape architect. Each member shall be a resident of Newport Beach and shall have at least five (5) years of professional experience, preferably including experience in large scale commercial and /or public facility design. The Committee shall also include a non - voting Chairman, who shall have experience as a meeting facilitator. Prospective members shall be interviewed and recommended by the Ad Hoc Building Committee, and appointed by the City Council. Section 2. All meetings of the Committee shall be noticed and open to the public, and meeting minutes shall be posted on the City's website. Section 3. The primary duty of the Committee shall be to oversee and conduct a design competition for the city hall and master plan project, including the following specific duties: a. Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to world class architects interested in participating in a design competition for the project. b. In consultation with the Ad Hoc Building Committee, develop recommendations for a detailed set of Design Parameters to be used by the participating architects. c. Review the qualifications of architects who respond to the RFQ. d. Recommend to the City Council three to four architects to participate in the design competition. Ll 0 e. Review design concepts submitted by the selected architects, and hold public meetings to receive public input on the design concepts. f. Recommend an architect and design concept to the City Council. Section 4. The Committee shall sunset on December 31, 2008, unless extended by action of the City Council. This Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on February 26, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Henn, Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MA ATTEST: CITY CLERK None 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2008 -14 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 26th day of February 2008, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 27th day of February 2008. (Seal) C� 'Y City Clerk Newport Beach, California • • Exhibit B 19 0 0 04 1� City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition ` S General Design Parameters (adopted by the City Council on April 22, 2008, posted April 24, 2008 and amended on May 13, 2008) The following General Design Parameters are for the firms /teams selected to participate in the Newport Beach City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition. a. Access to Site and Circulation — Vehicular access to the City Hall and Park site shall be off of Avocado Avenue. Farrallon shall not be extended through to MacArthur from its current eastern terminus at Avocado. Farrallon may be considered as an entrance point to the City Hall and Park provided that no direct connection to MacArthur Boulevard exists from Farrallon. There shall be no "right -turn in" vehicular entrance to the City Hall and Park site from MacArthur within the Central Parcel. Exhibit A shows surrounding streets. today's access points to the Library, and identifies the three key parcels (North Parcel, Central Parcel, Library Parcel) subject to the master plan. b. City Hall location on the site — The City Hall and its parking shall generally be located in the Central Parcel south of the projection of Farrallon Drive, as shown on Exhibit B. c. Building Height — The height of the City Hall building (and parking facility) shall be no higher than the height limits imposed by the Newport Village PC Text View Plane limitation as depicted on Exhibit C except that architectural design features, appropriate to the scale of the primary structure, may penetrate the view plane created by the aforementioned height limits. Height limits in the Newport Village PC Text are generally 45 feet above grade OR the View Plane limitation (expressed in feet above mean sea level), whichever is lower. All landscaping and park improvements, at maturity, shall be lower than the View Plane limitation. d. Geotechnical Considerations — Geotechnical considerations will be set forth in a soils investigation performed by Leighton Associates in April 2008 which is to be attached as Exhibit D when completed. The current expected date for the final report is the end of April. Preliminary results show no unique soils or water table issues. e. Library Access and Orientation to City Hall — The Newport Beach Central Library currently faces away from the Central Parcel and the site of City Hall, towards the ocean. The Design should, to the greatest extent practicable, maximize the Library's relationship to the City Hall structure through consideration of a second entry, plaza, shared parking, landscaping or any other appropriate means within the context of the proposed design. f. Natural Park Considerations — The northerly 5 -6 acre portion of the Central Parcel ( "Newport Center Park ") has been proposed as a natural park (i.e. one that is reflective of the region's natural habitats and not overly manicured nor oriented towards turfgrass). Of particular importance is preserving the view from the southernmost meadow area and creating a landscaped border around the natural park area as a transition from the more manicured streetscape to the natural park. g. Other Park Requirements — The southernmost meadow area of the Central Parcel and the 3 -acre North Parcel shall have park amenities such as restrooms, a tot lot, picnic and 0 0 General Design Parameters Posted April 24, 2008 Page 2 of 9 sealing areas (including a softscape ampitheater, if appropriate), drinking fountains, and an ADA- accessible path (the latter being around all or part of the 20 -acre master plan area). Both parcels shall be integrated as portions of the same Newport Center Park. They shall have activity- oriented facilities but not any organized sports fields. h. Lighting - Exterior lighting throughout the Project (City Hall, Parking, and Park) should be designed in such a fashion as to be the minimal intensity necessary to meet safety needs. Landscaping Considerations - The landscaping of the Park and City Hall area shall use water conserving plant material to the greatest extent possible. The intent is to not create a desert or dry landscape palette but a palette that is "California- friendly" and blends into the landscape palette of Newport Center and Newport Beach. Best Management Practices in water conservation, irrigation and drainage shall be employed in the design. j. Parking - 350 spaces shall be provided for City Hall with an additional 100 spaces for the Central Library (the Library has a shortage of spaces currently). Parking for the general public should be convenient to the City Hall and Library buildings. The parking structure should be a separate structure from the City Hall building. The additional 100 library spaces need not be in the City Hall parking structure. k. Space Allocation and Needs Assessment Criteria - The 2002 Needs Assessment prepared by LPA (a link to this document, and any updates to the document, on the City's website is Exhibit F) will be the basis for the primary program requirements for the City Hall Structure with the following adjustments: • The City desires an open Floor plan concept with maximum flexibility for future needs; • The building shall be designed for 270 full time employees at 200 -250 square feet per employee, not including public areas; and • The building's overall size shall be approximately 72- 79,000 total square feet including public areas. Please note that the 2002 Needs Assessment includes these two program requirements, both of which remain desirable: • A "one -stop shop" permit counter (for permits relating to Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire Prevention along with a cashier); and • A 150 -seat Council Chambers. I. LEED Criteria - The City Hall Structure(s) shall be designed to at least a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ("LEED ") standard of silver, with a goal to go higher, if feasible within budgetary limitations. m. Corona del Mar Plaza Considerations - The City will develop a direct entrance to the Central Library's existing parking lot, as shown (generally) in Exhibit E. This entrance may or may not be signalized. No further improvements to CdM Plaza's access are envisioned at this time. n. View Considerations - Views are a sensitive issue in Newport Beach. In addition to the criteria in "c" above, the design should protect the public views westward over the property from MacArthur Boulevard. The design should also be sensitive to the westward views I f, 0 0 General Design Parameters Posted Apnl 24, 2008 Page 3 of 9 from homes east of MacArthur Boulevard over the property. Any penetrations above the view plane as permitted in "c" above should only serve to enhance the architectural appearance of the City Hall structure or frame or enhance the private or public views across the property. Usable landscaped roof treatments or roof terraces are acceptable — these are neither encouraged nor discouraged. Also, the building and parking facility's lighting design shall take into consideration nighttime views from the residences east of MacArthur Boulevard. All landscaping and park improvements, at maturity, shall be within the view plane on Exhibit C. o. Building Design — The city is not setting any design theme for the City Hall building other than seeking a timeless design that will wear well over the years and not be dated in a few years. The design should reflect the character of Newport Beach. It should be harmonious with the adjacent Library and the eclectic architectural styles of Newport Center. The building should be recognized as a significant public building. p. Budgetary Constraints – The budgetary goal of the Project is as follows: • Approximately $400 -450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF &E); • Approximately $20- 25,000 per space for the parking structure; and • Approximately $15 -20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and drainage) and site improvements. The above amounts are exclusive of soft costs. The City Hall is not at this time planned to be an "essential services building." The budget parameters expressed here are not absolute amounts but are intended to indicate the price range the City expects the project to cost. Designers should use these numbers as a guide in preparing their submittals. Design economy will be an important consideration. Exhibits Exhibit A – Diagram showing 20 -acre Master Plan area showing North Parcel, Central Parcel, and Library Parcel along with surrounding streets and current site access points to the Library (attached). Exhibit B – Diagram showing the area of the Central Parcel where City Hall and Parking are to be located (attached). Exhibit C – Diagram of the 20 -acre master planning area showing View Plane restrictions over the property (attached). Exhibit D – Soils Report (link attached). Exhibit E – Diagram showing any potential or revised access, parking or circulation considerations for Library area and CdM Plaza (attached). Exhibit F – 2002 LPA Needs Assessment with updates (link attached). Exhibit A The Master Plan Area 0 General Design Parameters Posted April 24. 2008 Page 4 or 9 LLegend: BLUE arrow is the delivery access point to Library. arrrows show the public access point to the Library. 0 0 General Design Parameters Posted April 24, 2008 Page 5 of 9 Exhibit B City Hall and Parking Facility Location within Central Parcel The area southerly of the red line in the direction of arrow is the area where City Hall and Parking are to be located. The City does not anticipate using the entire portion of the parcel southerly of the red line for the City Hall and parking structure - this diagram is provided merely to advise where on the parcel both should go. Exhibit C View Plane Limitations _ e i i+. • • Exhibit D Soils Report Use the following link. http://www city,newpori- beach .ca.us/ CityHallDesignCommittee /2008_Geotechnical_Study.pdf u • General Design Parameters Posted April 24. 2008 Page 8 of 9 Exhibit E Potential locations for increased access to CDM Plaza _ ` cm HALL SS OPPORTUNITIES Ox�ur y • • General Design Parameters Posted April 24. 2008 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit F 2002 LPA Needs Assessment with any updates (a website link) http: / /www.city.newport-beach ca us/ cmo/ CityHall /cityhalidesignparkmasterplan asp • • 0 0 Exhibit C 0 0 Newport Beach City Hall & Park Master Plan Judging Procedure & Criteria P _t 1 Judging Procedure In Part 1 (recommending up to five firms from the RFQ submittals), the Design Committee will consider all submittals except those that have been disqualified for providing less information than is required in Section V of the RFQ or for not meeting the minimum experience qualifications or showing appropriate financial stability in the RFQ. The Committee will rank the submittals according, generally, to a point score based on the following: Experience and References (50 %). Does the quality of the team's expertise and design work as submitted (including "at least three recent large scale projects of similar scope, preferably with a public agency for a public building ") meet the Committee's expectations for functionality, timelessness of design, and overall design vision? (25 %) • Does the proposing team have appropriate expertise and experience working successfully together in architecture, landscape architecture, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil engineering and other related engineering services, project scheduling, cost - benefit analysis, value engineering, LEED and sustainable design, and general administration of all design and construction components of the project? (10 %) • How is the team's track record of completing functional project goals on time and on budget? Are the end users satisfied that the project met all their objectives? (15 %) Project Approach (30 %). Is the team's philosophy and approach to the Project - including program requirements, vision, and expectation of the Project's functionality appropriate? Does the team's Project Approach statement satisfactorily address specific methods or processes they would use to ensure a successful collaboration with all of the Project stakeholders, including City officials, staff, and community members? Design Management Approach (20 %). Is the stated design management approach (including managing the intended scope of work and related professional services to assure the timely and cost effective completion of the Project, working with the City's team, Quality Assurance /Quality Control, and the incorporation of LEED and other sustainable elements) appropriate? Are there unique qualifications of the team in terms of design management? The Committee will recommend teams to the City Council as Part 1 concludes. The City Council will use similar criteria to review, modify, or accept the Committee's recommendations. y� U F 0 Exhibit D 0 0 NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL AND PARK DESIGN COMPETITION CONCEPT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PHASE QUESTIONS 8 ANS'vVERS August 5, 2008 Will there be any guidelines/limitations/formats for the presentation of competition deliverables and design concepts? Yes. We'd like to see the following from each team as "leave behinds': • Two sets of four 30" by 42' illustrative display boards - the four boards would show Overall Site Plan (Including Parking Structure) Conceptual Landscape Development Plan or Conceptual Park Master Plan. Building Floor Plans (with major spaces identified), and Bustling Elevations. Your display boards should be oriented with Avocado Avenue at the bottom of the boards. Ten (10) bound copies of the PowerPoint or other formatted presentation that you'll be giving on September 27 -', 2008 A flash -drive or DVD of the PowerPoint or other formatted presentation. About a video. We note here that the RFO suggests that the five firms should: Prepare and give to the City a f0 -15 minute "highlight' DVD for aging on the City s government programming channels) that profiles and presents the team's design concept (Note. if requested. the City's team of production assistants can help those firms/teams that do not have this expertise on statf) We have re- thought this request. Firms do not have to direct and produce a highlight DVD or video of their presentation Indeed, we don't expect that - we will. however, using our own camera crews, be videoing your presentation (thus, a PowerPoint may be your more likely method to deliver your message) to the Design Committee. We will edit and produce a video that is a compilation of the presentations - our video will air on our Community Programming Channel and be on our website for webstreaming. In addition to the above items, any and all other types of exhibits, models. and graphic information are welcome as part of your presentation, and will be considered in the judging. However, we are requesting the specific items above as "leave behind" materials so that they can be exhibited in a public location for the citizens of Newport Beach who are unable to attend the presentations to review, compare arid. at the appropriate forum, provide comments. 2. Will any exceptions to the height limits imposed on this site in general be allowed for trees or other landscape features or amenities? No. Only architectural design features for the building can exceed the height limit. We will reiterate the General Design Parameter reflecting this here' Building Height - The height of the City Hall building (and parking facility) shall be no higher than the height limits imposed by the Newport Village PC Text View Plane limitation as depicted on Exhibit C except that architectural design features, 0 0 Concept P!an Phase 08A August 5 2008 Page 2 of 4 appropriate to the scale of the primary structure, may penetrate the view plane created by the aforementioned height limits. Height limits in the Newport Village PC Text are generally 45 feet above grade OR the View Plane Imitation (expressed in feet above mean sea level). whichever is lower. All landscaping and park improvements, at maturity, shall be lower than the View Plane limitation (our emphasis added here). 3. We would like staff to clarify building height restrictions for the proposed City Hall and Park Master Plan. The general design parameters for the City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition states "Height limits in the Newport Village PC text are generally 45 feet above grade OR the View Plane limitation (expressed in feet above mean sea level), whichever is lower." Looking at Exhibit C (see attached), the view plane diagram; a majority of the topography of the site is within 5 to 10 feet of the view plane and in some areas the site is already above the view plane. According to the design parameters, the building height will be limited by the view plane height, as it is the more restrictive of the two height options. Please confirm that these are the parameters that we are to be working with knowing that the existing site topography is encroaching within the view corridor? If not please clarify. Yes. generally the View Plane limitation is the driving limitation - designers may assume that the City assumes that significant excavation will be necessary for the budding and parking facility. 4. Please clarify where the "southernmost meadow" area is located. Please see the diagram entitled "Southernmost Meadow" on the website 5. Please clarify the intent of the video. How will it factor into the evaluation of the competition submittals? See Question #1. Scoring and evaluation will be done in accordance with the Judging Procedure and Criteria (we're in Part 2 now) as posted on the website: hua a atv newwrl beach ca uVC,NHeoDes,anCommReerQd Q5 21.1udainu�,:11Cnteria od! 6. May we get the topographic map for the north parcel from the City? Yes. see website Please clarify the competition submittal exhibits requirements. See answer to Question #1. 8. Please Clarify format required for submission at competition deadline. Is submission limited to a "10 -15 minute highlight video" and "45 minute presentation "? Are hard copies of presentation required? See in part the answer to Question #1. The video will be done by the City's programming crew. and will come from your presentation to the Committee on September 27, 2008 In other words. your firm does not need to prepare and present a video unless you chose to do it - we'll film your presentation, and make a highlight video from that that the Newport Beach community can watch on community television and on the city's website. 9. Is a cost estimate required? A cost estimate would be helpful, but is not required. The Judging Criteria speaks to: 4 0 0 Concept Plan Phase Q&A August 5 2008 Page 3 of 4 .. a resource expenditure by the City that is appropriate for a large municipal facility in this community." And asks "Is the design responsive to budget constraints?' You will want to appropriately demonstrate how your concept plan reflects this. Without such a demonstration, your Plan may not gel all the points it could in this section of the Criteria. 10. Please clarify "activity- oriented amenities" in the park, stated in the Design Parameters. As you know. Design Parameter G states. G. The southernmost meadow area of the Central Parcel and the 3 -acre North Parcel shall have park amenities such as restrooms. a tot lot, picnic and seating areas (including a softscapo amphitheater. if appropriate), drinking fountains. and an ADA- accessible path (the latter being around all or part of the 20 -acre master plan area). Both parcels shall be integrated as portions of the .same Newport Center Park They shalt have activity- onented facilities but not any organized sports fields The Building Committee notes the phrase "such as" and encourages designers to think along the lines of the Parameter, but to propose, if appropriate, concepts and amenities we may not have considered. Note that we did not suggest active ballfields -- that amenity is not under consideration. 11. Has the individual presentation dates to the Design Committee /City Council been determined? Yes More details to follow on your exact presentation time, but please hold the following on your calendar. Saturday, September 27, 2006 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California City staff will inform you as to the specific time your firm will make its presentation. Each firm will have about 90 minutes before the Committee, which includes an up to 45- minute presentation and 45 minutes for Q &A. We will insist that members of the competing firms only attend their own presentation period - listening in and checking out the competition before your own presentation is not allowed. 12. Please clarify a discrepancy in program square footage of council chambers: 5,575 SF vs. 6,663 SF. The proper number is 5.575 square feet. inclusive of a 150 -seat aud;ence area 13. Please clarify future expansion requirements for the City Hall building and for the existing Library building. There are no specific expansion requirements at this time for either facility. If we led you to believe otherwise, please disregard that The program requirements for the City Hall and Parking Facility are as stated in the General Design Parameters: 350 parking spaces for City Hall: 100 additional parking spaces for the Library, and A 72.000 to 79,000 square foot City Hall building. Concept Plan Phase OBA August 5. 2008 Page 4 of 4 The Building Committee notes that expandability of the City Hall building is not a judging criterion that will be specifically scored. However if a design team wants to highlight an aspect of its design that accommodates expansion, there is no prohibition to doing so. That feature of the design may be considered along with the many other features of each design that aren't specifically scored 14. Please provide a name and contact information for the Library project representative. Please direct all of your inquiries to Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager, at 949- 644 -3002 or dkifi city. newport- beach ca.us. 15. Please clarify process and dates for attending relevant Design Committee meetings to achieve the open public process envisioned in the RFQ. At this time. we envision your attendance at the Design Committee meeting of September 27. 2008, and suspect that attendance at other Committee meetings will be unnecessary. This guidance does not apply to the City Council meetings. which will be later in November - December 2008. 16. Is there additional information / environmental study on the stream / swale in the Central Parcel? Clarify current activity of the stream /swale? Yes, please see the website. 17. Our civil engineer is requesting a CADD file of the Hall and Forman topo. Can this be provided? Yes, please see the website 18. Will there be plan information provided for both the Library and Corona Del Mar Plaza? Please see the website for Plan Information for the Library. The CDM Plaza information affects private property. and is attainable at the Building Department's counter - respectfully, this information should not be necessary to your work in the Concept Plan phase. 19. Will there be topological and view corridor information provided for the entire site? Yes as the question applies to lopograpny - please see webs to There is no view plane limitation on the upper 3 -acre park site 20. What is the status of the Avocado extension? Yet to be determined. 21. How much room for interpretation on the site plan lay out will be allowed? This is a challenging question to answer, and we're not sure how to answer it, so we won't ,', (n Exhibit E 3� 0 r Newport Beach City Hall & Park Master Plan Judging Procedure & Criteria Part 2 In Part 2 (ranking criteria for the up to five firms /teams' concept plans), the Committee and the City Council will review and rank the up to five (5) teams' submittals generally as follows: 1. Functionality of Design (30 %). Does the Concept Plan show an entire Project (City Hall, park, and parking structure) that meets or exceeds all program parameters, that will be functional for the community and that will promote an effective municipal organization? • Integration. Does the Concept Plan successfully integrate the park, City Hall and the existing library? • Building. Does the Concept Plan show an efficient use of the building that limits square footage and maintenance costs but that still maintains an open, airy, and expansive feel? Will the public feel welcome without compromising the any of the building's intended efficiency, security, or staff amenities? • Park. Does the park design meet the desires of the community for a natural park with appropriate recreational amenities? • Space. Is the amount of space taken up by each element appropriate, balancing building and parking needs with natural park space? 2. Creativity and Timelessness of Design (25 %). Does the Concept Plan show a unique, exciting design that will remain appropriate, interesting, original and substantial into the long -term future? As a public space, will the design solution make a valuable and lasting contribution to both the social and physical environment of the City? 3. Practicality, Efficiency and Constructability (25 %). Does the Concept Plan reflect a resource expenditure by the City that is appropriate for a large municipal facility in this community? Is the design responsive to budget constraints? Does the Concept Plan and its supportive documentation fully reflect the requests of the Committee and the Council made to the design team? 4. Sustainability (20 %). Does the Concept Plan show sufficient elements of sustainability, including at least the minimum appropriate level of LEED certification (silver), energy efficiency, water quality protection, water conservation, and more? 7 I Exhibit F 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL DESIGN COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT October 13, 2008 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM: Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director 949 -644 -3311 or sbadum @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Staff Review for Functionality and Operational Needs — City Hall At the September 29, 2008 meeting, the Committee requested that City staff review the five designs for functionality and operational needs. On October 7, 2008, City Department Heads met to review the five proposed designs for the City Hall and park. And discuss each design's attributes with respect to efficient work flow and our ability to provide an excellent customer service experience. We also held two general employee informational meetings on October 9 and 13 in which employees were encouraged to comment on the designs with respect to workflow environment and their ability to provide service. The following key areas were discussed: Entry /Exit The entry is the first impression for customers. Staff reviewed the designs' entry and exit for compliance with good traffic engineering practices as well as pedestrian access from the street. Parking Staff examined internal circulation within the parking areas, proximity to services, and accessibility to the library and City Hall workspaces. The ability to service "off hour" events such as Council meetings, community meetings, and special events was also reviewed. Internal Circulation Internal circulation within the building was examined for employees and customers with respect to appropriate adjacencies. However, in most cases, staff understands that the internal adjacency needs could be addressed through minor re- design. Connectivity to the library was also reviewed. J 0 0 Staff Functanalfty and Operation Rem" October 13, 2008 Pare 2 One Stop Shop Permitting Staff reviewed the general size in order to accommodate good work flow and customer service at the one -stop permit shop. Expandability was also considered. • Council Chambers Staff reviewed each design's City Council /Community /Multi -use areas as to how the area would function during work and after work hours as well as the ability to function independently from the rest of City Hall. Convenient connectivity to parking and security was also discussed. Natural Lighting (Directlindirect) Staff reviewed each design as to the proposed lighting and its affect on the employee working environment and customers. Lighting in parking structures was also discussed as to customer experience and security. Ventilation (Passive /Mechanical) Ventilation of work spaces and the parking structures was reviewed. Expandability While it has been acknowledged that our City is close to 'build out', new issues and regulation may cause the need for staff to expand in some areas, and decrease in others. Recent examples include water quality and new CEQA greenhouse gas issues. Staff looked at each design with respect to its ability to add or expand structures. Construction / Maintenance Expense Staff qualitatively reviewed costs based upon construction types and typical building code issues. • Security Security for customer and employees was also considered. Amenities for Employee Retention /Recruitment Staff reviewed each design for elements that would attract or retain employment. The attached staff comment summaries are provided for each design. It is not the intent of staff to endorse any particular design, but highlight what staff feels are desirable and less desirable design features. Submitted by: Dav Ciff Assis ant City Manager 0 0 Staff FuncGonalily and Opeabonal Reoe October 13. 2008 Page 3 Johnson Fain Entry /Exit • The 90 degree turn in the entry driveway will be problematic to traffic flow through the intersection. • With the building depressed into the terrain, retaining walls, entry ramp, and the garage are your first impression of City Hall. It appears that the building can't be seen from Avocado. • There is no visual indication that parking also serves the library. There is no vehicle connection to the library as well. • It appears that the loading dock is proposed along the exit ramp and is visible from the entry ramp. Parking • Parking at the entry level requires customers to use stairs /elevator to get to the One Stop Permit shop and Council Chambers /Community room. • All parking underground. No surface parking. This could have a "Triangle Square" effect, where patrons are less likely to feel comfortable in or to use a facility without easy surface parking Internal circulation • The rectangular two story layout lends itself to multiple configurations with good functionality. One Stop Shop Permitting • Location at the end of the building may impede future expansion. • Separated from parking by stair /elevator Council Chambers /Community Space • Separated from main building and will be able to function as a separate facility after hours. • Since it is located over entry ramp, there was a concern about noise and vibration. • Excellent plaza space for events and general customer/ employee space. Natural lighting • Lighting is predominately indirect. No natural views from employee spaces. Light wells could be improved if portions of the MacArthur berm are eliminated or reduced. • Interior garden spaces bring indirect natural lighting to interior spaces. Ventilation • Below grade design will require extensive mechanical ventilation which will raise operation and maintenance costs over options that allow for open doors and open windows. r_ • • Staff Funceonaidy and Operational Review October 13. 2008 Page 4 • Below grade parking structure could have humidity and odor issues. Expandability • The building could be expanded along the northerly wall in the future. Construction and Maintenance Costs • Below grade design adds the cost of retaining walls and subdrains into building system, however, may be offset by some grading savings. • Parking structure under occupied buildings increases costs. • Green roof will require additional maintenance considerations. Secu ri • Council Chambers over the entry ramp could be a security threat. • The 'Arrival Plaza' will be difficult for Police to patrol. • Underground parking can be problematic for employee security. • Access control to green roof could be problematic. Gonzalez Goodale Entry /Exit • The 90 degree turn in the entry driveway will be problematic to traffic flow through the intersection. • Drop off at the 'Arrival Court' is problematic for traffic flow because it is too close to the intersection. • Additional entry/exit from library parcel provides a clear connection for overflow library parking. • No loading dock area identified. Parking • Parking at the entry level requires customers to use stairs /elevator to get to the One Stop Permit shop and Council Chambers /Community room. • All parking underground. No surface parking. See "Triangle Square' effect (in Johnson -Fain comments) Internal circulation • The rectangular two story layout lends itself to multiple configurations with good functionality • Recreation should be on first floor for improved customer access. • Good connectivity with Library. • Civic Mound provides good useable outdoor space. One Stop Shop Permitting • Centralized location at main entrance with spacious lobby. Easily expandable. Separated from parking by stair /elevator. 0 Council Chambers /Community Space • Separated from main building and will after hours. 0 Staff Functionaldy and Operebonal Review October 13, 2000 Page 5 be able to function as a separate facility • Excellent plaza space for events and general customer/ employee space. • The enclosed connection to City Manager, City Attorney, and Council offices is a good feature. Natural lighting • Lighting is predominately direct. Natural views from employee spaces. • Green roof with skylights is effective for interior spaces. Ventilation • Above grade design provides ample passive ventilation opportunities. • Below grade parking structure could have humidity and odor issues. Expandability • The building could be expanded along the northerly wall (into the 'Mound') in the future. Construction and Maintenance Costs • Parking structure under occupied buildings increases costs. • Green roof will require additional maintenance considerations. Security • Public plaza viewable from Avocado. Underground parking can be problematic for employee security. Access control to green roof could be problematic. Rosetti Entry/Exit • Good entry road to surface and structure parking. • Additional entry/exit from library parcel provides a clear connection for overflow library parking. Loading dock shares access with library, good use. Parking • Sufficient surface parking for customers and park users. There maybe an opportunity to reduce the number needed to preserve park space. • Parking within the structure requires customers to use stairs /elevator to get to the One Stop Permit shop and Council Chambers /Community room. • Underground structure needs to be reconfigured. Dead end aisles are undesirable. The angled layout may prove confusing to customers. Staff Functionality and Operational Rewew October 13, 2006 Page 6 Internal circulation • The three building layout limits internal circulation. Connectivity is through public areas. • Connectivity with the Library is difficult. Parking structure serves as a barrier. One Stop Shop Permitting • One stop counter and associated space appears to be too small. Submittal package seems to indicate that some permitting is on a different level? • Centralized location at main entrance off pavilion lobby. • Separated from parking by stair /elevator Council Chambers /Community Space • Located at back of facility. • Not separated from main building and may have difficulties functioning as a separate facility after hours. • Good plaza spaces for events and general customer/ employee space. • The enclosed connection to City Manager, City Attorney, and Council offices is a good feature. Natural lighting • Lighting is predominately direct. Natural views from employee spaces. Ventilation • Above grade design provides ample passive ventilation opportunities. • Below grade parking structure could have humidity and odor issues. Fxpandabilitv • The three building layout over parking structures with complex roof limits expansion. Construction and Maintenance Costs • Parking structure under occupied buildings increases costs. • Complex roof and articulated design will add cost. • Green roof will require additional maintenance considerations. Security • Public plazas not viewable from Avocado. • Underground parking can be problematic for employee security. • Loading dock visible from Avocado. Bohlin Cvwinski Jackson Entry /Exit • Excellent entry road with functional drop off area. C i Staff Functionality and Operational Review October 13, 2008 Page 7 • Additional entry/exit from library parcel provides a clear connection for overflow library parking. • Loading dock shares access with library, good use. Parking • Separate three level parking structure with entry into the second level at grade. • As currently designed, pathway to the Council chambers and public concourse is a long route. The public concourse could be relocated to the opposite side of the building to improve connectivity. Internal circulation • The 'Pod' design limits internal circulation. Too many separate areas. • Multiple public access points could require more reception personnel. • Connectivity is through public areas by the exterior public concourse. One Stop Shop Permitting • One Stop counter and associated space appears to be too small. • Not a centralized location (third 'pod' on public concourse). Council Chambers /Community Space • Very visible from Avocado. • Not central to parking which is located at back of City Hall. • Separated from main building and will function as a separate facility after hours. • Good plaza spaces for events and general customer/ employee space. Natural lighting • Roof design provides excellent interior lighting. • Above ground design provides natural views. Ventilation • Roof and above grade design provides ample passive ventilation opportunities. • Parking structure portions below grade could have humidity and odor issues. Expandability • The Pod design with its oversize roof is very expandable. Construction and Maintenance Costs • Complex roof and will add cost. • Separate parking structure and building saves cost. Securi • Location of Council Chambers near entry road provides excellent security. • Underground parking can be problematic for employee security. • Loading dock visible from Avocado. II I 0 0 Staff Functionality and Operational Review October 13, 21x18 Page 8 LPA Entry /Exit • Excellent entry road. • Additional entry/exit from library loading dock access does not provide a clear connection for overflow library parking. However, the design may be modified to meet that purpose. Parking • Separate three level parking structure with entry into the second level at grade. • At grade level has good connectivity with public service areas. Internal circulation • The two story layout lends itself to multiple configurations with good functionality. • Good connectivity with Library. Eliminates need for additional checkout and 'backdoor' entrance. One Stop Shoo Permitting • Centralized location at main entrance with spacious lobby. • Easily expandable. Council Chambers /Community Space • Very visible from Avocado. • Separated from main building and will function as a separate facility after hours. • Good plaza spaces for events and general customer/ employee space. • The enclosed connection to City Manager, City Attorney, and Council offices is a good feature. Natural lighting • Hallways on exterior walls with office space at the core provides good interior lighting • Above ground design provides natural views and lighting. • Indirect lighting from skylights enhances interior space. • Location closer to Avocado improves views from office spaces. Ventilation • Roof and above grade design provides ample passive ventilation opportunities. • Parking structure portions below grade could have humidity and odor issues. Expandability • Expandable, if willing to sacrifice plaza space. Construction and Maintenance Costs • Economical design • Separate parking structure and building saves cost. l Staff Functionality and Operatmal Review October 13, 2018 Page 9 Security • Location of Council chambers near entry road provides excellent security. • Underground parking can be problematic for employee security. • Loading dock visible from Avocado. General comments applying to all designs • Staff preferred designs that had building closer to Avocado to provide a strong street presence. • A vehicle connection to City Hall parking from the existing library parking is preferred. • Proximity of OCTA transit station may increase transients in the adjacent park which may require more security. • Staff members preferred a more useable park with potential for passive and some low impact active use such as jogging trails, fitness circuit, or a volleyball cou rt. • The City currently uses microwave and radio antennas for communications and connectivity to other City facilities. This should be factored into any design. • Parking structures should provide clearance for larger City vehicles and service vehicles. • Alternative fuel City vehicles should be provided for (CNG, plug in hybrid, or electric). Employee Retention and Recruitment Issues • Proximity of OCTA transit station and accessible walkways provide alternative transportation opportunities for employees. • Lack of affordable restaurants in the immediate area will cause more off site trips at lunch and break times. We might consider a light cafeteria and /or coffee concession. • No employee wellness options have been included in any of the designs. A small fitness center /exercise room, half court basketball, volleyball court, circuit training, or similar facility could be considered. • Effective bicycle storage areas and shower /locker area will increase the number of employees who ride to work or who take advantage of wellness opportunities. 1] Exhibit G 0 0 Bohlin Gywinski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Please check one may` I Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee U Other J-� 0 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson TO-INN MOUSE - ail 111 r�� i S� M, - 011�mm 1 Please check one Newport Beach Resident l. Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other O �KJ I Z it A ) �.r't � /4 gko-\-�- w Bohlin Cywinski Jackson rae 1 w k � In G6Pfiv a-tS T14e, lJJ 4- C,o M" M -rtl I I'-S WA-;� P — _fie -6 -t f1t- O.NU ►tio Nn-- �.1 -�-. ! �' lwt t, c► V l C ' I • i LI Please check one O �t J S k Newport Beach Resident = Newport Beach Business 5 City Hall Employee 0 -' Bohlin Gywioski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business Other Please check one Newport Beach Resident City Hall Employee = Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 I .%I Ahlin Cywinski JackscO v " )ck, Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 Other a City Hall Employee Bohlin Cywinski Jackson ::�;r SIG, ,i 4-,Z-v A h 1 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O 7 �. Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee = J / W)hlin Cywinski .lacks* f i Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other n Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 Other Fx_j ; GL<,2�< Cc7' Mtg(4 - -- sI Whlin Cywinski Jacks(* Please check one �—�� Newport Beach Resident (J Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other O /� n _ i•nn �i n Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other .ahlin Cywinski Jacksce %mooaF zlV,6. Please check one Newport Beach Resident 1W Other Newport Beach Business a City Hall Employee C Bohlin Cywinski Jackson r Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other Newport Beach Business = City Hal] Employee = e: j r Obhlin Cywinski Jackso* Please check one Newport Beach Reside t� Other O .4 rt Beach Business City Hall Employee Y r 0 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson 1 LSD 6//1,t � b> S (r C5 -& x67P YOSIC Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other a /T9 Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee A42F- s/1au�D i/, d, 4hlin Cywinski Jacksco r. A l _ _ t Please check one Newport Beach Resident �_ ( Newport Beach Business F—I City Hall Employee Other Bohlin Cywinski Jackson )3 f 11,u IK tCv i)-�x e>4 6or Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other *2(7 W U «, j(0y) avchc *OC ,41 Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson 13l ( t1kY OsTol Jac 1 �vs - WOYSr 4 ):,- T yocip, Please check one Newport Beach Resident u Other = Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson c, C-tod D c,u CIS ,) 4 w (- o1 A- Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee � �6 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other *"in Cywinski JacksGe Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson "''^/ ', S S K ri Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O Newport Beach Business � City Hall Employee 0 Abhlin Cywinski Jacksce Please check one Newport Beach Resident IZI Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other /BohlinCywinski Jackson r Please check one Newport Beach Resident 0 Other Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = cj Shlin Cywinski Jackst* WCw r woo It O;Ao/ -r7 4t.9, Ct e61 C7/So Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other IC h IL c.rIgS ) — uohee¢ dd y" pr.,k +i Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee = y1 a p it t -05 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other IC h IL c.rIgS ) — uohee¢ dd y" pr.,k +i Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee = 0 BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON 0 AFTER FIFTY -TWO YEARS OF MARRIAGE TO NEWPORT BEACH ARCHITECT HERBERT E. RILEY AND A RESULTANT ARCHITECTURAL INDOCTRINATION, I CONSIDER MY VOTE ON THE MODELS AND SCHEMATICS DISPLAYED FOR OUR NEW CITY HALL TO BE A VALID ONE. MY OWN BACKGROUND IS FINE ART. THE OFFICE OF BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON BY FAR EXCEEDS THE OTHER PRESENTATIONS IN CREATING A "NEW FACE" FOR THE COMMUNITY , EQUAL TO THE NEW MILLINIUM. THEIR REPORT IS MOST THOROUGH. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BUILDING, NEWPORT BEACH WILL HAVE CREATED A "JEWEL" IN THE CENTER OF OUR CITY. THE WONDERFUL DESIGN SUGGESTS THE SURF, IT IS EXCITINGLY SIMPLE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE LAMINATED BEAMS ARE BOTH BEAUTIFUL AND EASILY CONSTRUCTED. TO ARRIVE AT THIS ENTRANCE WOULD BE A PLEASURABLE AND IMPRESSIVE EXPERIENCE. BERNICE C. RILEY 211 VIA LIDO NORD r NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 �S O Qi G fi- r r C s r° lV 0 0 a&L cc ,mac= G 4 xED G lG✓6 z;_ --fL ('0nze'le S ' ! Cr��a�e P��os�.I of ��74IJ� -• ICJ, USQ.5 WILL r'"!''"l rA Al.� �AIQ�C'.pjcnS� �mnil.(o^ 0 A I A _ I _ Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other = Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee = % r- � aanojdwg �leH ,t»� 0 ssauisn8 yoeag uodMaN iwpisa-d yoeag uodmaN auo payo aseaid °'a�ybd •%/ 4 'i `r"w 'r 'rj 1,yj�, 04f ��.,/ v r� { ✓.y� "q Wlw ��„'w :.w� SN / . '7'iCR?f s � n YM �v .i .HJJ.%r 9Yy >�OJ, /ra•y i1 a,15 r�• � `V7t 7'�'v vi Ji ^ ?v, '1N7 •.�.) ,-sr� Y.7' 4VJ'/ /7. -•1 fSa✓/�1'f tea^ yf S ✓./ 1�',�'/:g..7 7d �,. ;t'J fr-7y� C,' '1fYl .. •�+. 'tj r.:1, J I �•t �: t; �/ y4viv /Y''+itif�r i*y ?a�+!1 ie -7:J; spy I� /tnL rl'i �, H7. 'IIlf ,• N Stl f S I J /i` .1 , a/epooE)- sa/ezuoE) 11410 aaaXoIdw3 I1eH .�17: a ssauisng yoeag uodmaN ivapisa-d yoeag uodmaN auo xoayo asea�d - ,i it ;, ; -• t � r�:r-` -- alepoo!9- salezu0c) r, of a aaAoldwg 11eH AID E-1 ssawsng yaeag uodmaN ® luap!sa�j yoeag uodmiN auo VaV aseald a1epooE)- sa1ezu00 O13LP0 OaaXoldwg 11eH KID I_ J "'u''�41 peag uudt%aN luap!sag yaeag uod -AaN auo paya aseald �.�Y I 3 0 i V ; ; J alepoo,c)- salezuoE) 0 0 zio � .40 017/ %'°�/' off✓ a1epooE)- sa1ezu00 O13LP0 OaaXoldwg 11eH KID I_ J "'u''�41 peag uudt%aN luap!sag yaeag uod -AaN auo paya aseald �.�Y I 3 0 i V ; ; J alepoo,c)- salezuoE) 0 0 • 0 Gonzales - Goodale .S i `GY-. F�ud, &ckone Please ch Newport Beach Residen� Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other = Please check one Newport Beach Resident 7-7 — 5 Sew -Add Gonzales- Goodale S14 L 2a "{ ,.t,m Y O -- Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = 0 0 Gonzales-Goodale 90DzS _ r9y _ 1 70) re f�,vs� ✓� Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business Other = Gonzales- Goodale City Hall Employee = 0 - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 T9 0 Gonzales- Goodale 0 L— oa „n D1 ✓ r_ _ rAl e Please check one Newport Beach Resident ® Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Other t C 0 Gonzales - Goodale o 'J.4 V15ue- /,Zy,t /t^ Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other C C nd Newport Beach Business 0 Gonzales- Goodale Please check one Newport Beach Resident L�'�. Newport Beach Business Other z City Hall Employee 0 WA City Hall Employee 0 qJ • Gonzales- Goodale 0 Please check one Newport Beach Resident 0 Other Newport Beach Business = Gonzales- Goodale City Hall Employee = 7 :3.e4 CK VA- ����u a6 w1� I e tntce — Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other IN Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Gonzales - Goodale l s � - 7 a, L' ,, ",,r , C, /l Lf��c ewe c1, .l% oT/ /:+� ✓ �.s se� G Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business � City Hall Employee Other = Gonzales - Goodale Please check one Za eonzales- Goo dale 1�J�1,r.�Gl Y-�) loG2i� 0 i Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other Newport Beach Business 0 Gonzales- Goodale City Hall Employee = l.J -- Pleaay.4mt&-one Newport Beach Resident Other O Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee = - -- c3 0 Johnson -Fain E Newport Beach Resident = Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee I XI Other = __>1 c� Please check one Newport Beach Resident [� J Other = Please check one Kid Newport Beach Resident Other* 10 Johnson -Fain 0 Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 Johnson -Fain Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee != o Johnson -Fain • Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee Other Johnson -Fain Please check one Newport Beach" Resident FK Other = Newport Beach Business =— City Hall Employee = J Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other 0 L�1 • Johnson-Fain • Newport Beach Business C' Johnson -Fain !AL' CI AAA City Hall Employee = Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other = Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = �1 0 Johnson -Fain 0 'ze.� . �_ __�- Newport Beach Resident I�T Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee Other Johnson -Fain t7 w l.�C -l��t) ► Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 Other = /" I Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other __J / 1 Johnson -Fain 0 ac ZA N Newport Beach Business O Johnson -Fain City Hall Employee = Please Newport Beach Resident Newpor: Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other 0 Johnson-Fain 0 MIA • Please check one Newport Beach Resident 0 Other a - .4 ,�+.. Newport Beach'Business City Hall Employee a,- Johnson -Fain LU A ii�p L� �, 2.0 ( T�,S l il) F_ F_ LI�" 1 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City fjall Employe Other a 11It/�C�� V ` V►/ '"1 J 7 e -v" ;7-, 7 rJ C )1 _ 1 1 • Johnson -Fain • Please check one Newport Beach Residrnt� Other a Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = %Jl�o�efl �i¢ a�esgn �e best Q h10/19 �l16,Ot See/! plia 6 {(e� to /�OQP ul��`(f1J 9� L Z If Johnson-Fain - -�0 u5� - boi- 0-C l.(nv, Ka� Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business a City Hall Employee a Other Johnson -Fain cow Please check one Newport Beach Resident E_'�r Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee • • Johnson -Fain lJ- 0 1,4L - A- /,; - /,).. j I Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business E:] City Hall Fmployee 0 Other a Johnson -Fain mow,, )/ o n/:1i D /.lam Q 9'{ &C i /t_ - d et c%t* V i si 14ve a Con 74�1t Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 _{ C 4P Johnson -Fain e I/i fev 9A PS TO -���► t"� tiro lie v n — (6000 CQCewo/v 7�2 MiN euPL1C r/ � o /g, (<ej; rdU Please check one Newport Beach Resident M Other a Newport Beach Business V Johnson -Fain City E{all Employee 0 /77 01 y Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business Other City Hall Employee = 7.1 c- 1` r r' c xe 0* /k2rl�, %w \f6HA�wv rPlPJ 66AjC6?01- r5 F n 7:L' f 71 7� lr is f f AtiUNl� �,'► � D� ONE � - !s IAIT&nI97 5 °f A W �� 0-/Y, Y 100 i` T� 0 LPA 0 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other Newport Beach Business = LPA City Hall Employee = Please check one %4 Newport Beach Resident Other / Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee LPA Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O Newport Beach Business I ✓ I LPA City Hall Employee 0 Please check one Newport Beach Resident fd' Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee Other a P • LPA • Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business L J City Hall Employee 0 Other = LPA I k, W I n�e� l Please check one Newport Beach Resident Ev Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other l 7t! -iNl� M 5 0 1 LPA 0 M T $yi 4�0� IrVA, VAS rTOly I�.I fa alb r� �?" ✓ PU ✓ /�,NG7 /PLUS I Ato 77 Mq!!f-tjdT vu� fgot ce,04 09w- Please check one: Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other O I'll i r vr' L.s o c r rl r A7 s r- Clue Cr om/t � ON, `fie V�4 C-2; 6Avu �, wrvn r c 1)QAl cl z 4� ILP,A RP� �- �1&�^. �A�JCY� tom!' l l/1,2 J Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee F7 Other O 41Z l� trN� P 1- an D¢� N4! -r 0 0 �)pn0'7- A)CLt A--c.4, LPA 'Sa Wl*R )S (it— Tr9hc.3) t/r Please check one Newport Beach Resident I—_ Newport Beach Business Other City Hall Employee 0 I I '� LPA Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other = Please check one Newport Beach Resident,I Other a Newport Beach Business LJ City Hall Employee L___1 LPA Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = LPA • rA f 6n l he4 1, C) VA IC- a.c,v. he t,ctc pool i� �, Wp��lcrf -.f Eta T>% S 100k.5 1-0 h2 ile wocS (>(oFC45�ow41 Ll Or.(,� _ 1-0 zfI A , VI V .1A LA-" ksE. Please check one Newport Beach Resident 0 Other Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 LtJ ca,2 C:f tau 410 y-t G Gr «n mar r✓� �ny�� c T—U L- ! a.4 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other a Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 Please check one: Newport Beach Resident Other O r� U fffgA 571 W !12 ce s-f<I'ot�t C✓ 5 < 94ove Col 4t6oq f ' h r l CS 61-'�, Newport Beach Business 0 .` City Hall Employee 0 jCl1-G ���U�� G j2 �( - S %IrV /1tl/cE A —Diofe l iehPlGS ko 71471F G.�>tr2 �s �a y-�n� , zz ,s I e`-" ldj "elU, 6o =� �6e2 4 vc,4 iz, %fir >��ie 6/ejelfcit Please check one: Newport Beach Resident EO Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 Other n J 0 0 LPA Al I f Please check one: Newport Beach Resident 0 Newport Beach Business n City Hall Employee Other LPA L11415, flAA9 �r ricabc cncl:K U[x. Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 City hall Employee Other n P�J Iv • • Rossetti Please check one Newport Beach Reside ra Ne Aport Beach Business � City Hall Employee Other O C , 0 ✓1 'e ✓ -1-A - IMA" Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other = riff -A Rossetti g,4,1 ,, td,,- Newport Beach Business = Rossetti Cite Hall Employee Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 2- Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other = �A /c Rossetti Newport Beach Business = Rossetti City Hall Employee = P!ease check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business 0 - -City Hall Employee /I I'I / 6 Fj Rossetti PleaWcheck one ,e7f' � cp ` -�� Newport Beach Resident CS� Newport Beach Business E] City Hall Employee u� Other Rossetti Please check one Newport Beach Resident E!5"� Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other O d Mi aaXujdu:3 IEH ,IIJ I ssaLnsng quaag ia:,�", yodmaK auo )Joaga aseajd , Or" iVi i L !;passed 0 1 acsg� v OA 0 0 Rossetti Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business El Other City Hall Employee 0 ia> 0 0 Rossetti Please check one Newport Beach Resident F—I Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee Other `� L� qv (,J T (-0 `" Rossetti >v �r� 4C' 1 Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Busines� City Hall Employee = J� Rossetti — /. (,� Yid �✓ �c� ii't,� �.v Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O Newport Beach Business a Rossetti City Hall Employee 0 � 1 %may z°C�0�09'i�a Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee = ^r gym, 0 Rossetti L, Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee Other = Rossetti NP�v u5el �aH _ (d a �— Ov v X PC, W-L,_ 6VI f PC) vo Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business City Hall Employee 0 Other = I'l l^ Please check one Newport Beach Resident 5t Other Newport Beach Business It Rossetti City Hall Employee = lr��Li/ 9XZ� t�'� i'�. -1:-1v �..� !, /, ' •rte - .. __ -_ _ Please check one Newport Beach Resident Other O Newport Beach Business 0 City Hall Employee 0 v /1j Q) J IN 4/ the lal/i�eseev s f I //?, .,- OoQAoldw3 IIeH KID = ssautsng yoeag uodm;)N -- n.� ivapisa-d yoeag luodmotq auo �oago aMld r(,, nip :� 1 r _ / ��•r bi; J. ..S '� a � add f �. �" * l +r.r. !J I . l i ✓j' 'i /�O = aaXoldwq IIeH 'CI!J T vin Y-)3va'? -�1s plassod = ssoumsng yoeag uod,naN it Aua �Ny?q 1 ,5vl a 4-VIlY O 1ay7O ddl ivapisa-d yoeag uodmaNT auo xoayo asaald *P') • .. asso�{Jc 0 Rossetti Please check one Newport Beach Resident 0 Other a r Please check one Newport Beach Resident Newport Beach Business = Rossetti City Hall Employee = Newport Beach Business = City Hall Employee 0 OaarioldcuH HUH YQTD F—I ssauisng yoeag uodmah Jaql0 1$ luapisa�j yaeag iiodmarN aao Inaya aseald °^ t� �l bTyi HI f)Y v S JA blM lr,� pd m aey o - s p"jPI -;I;LV - Sai nC/S �,')fvd 5 t� �l bTyi HI f)Y v S JA blM r4 0,17 j�w� i tj�8SS0� Ll Exhibit H Information Pending • ►Y3 0 0 Steven Sandland 1. Roblin Cywinski Jackson Stren 1) This design creates an iconic image for the City of Newport Beach and tries to capture the "spirit' of the City with the "wave" design of the clerestory windows and a "sail' design for the Council Chambers. 2) The parking structure is located against the berm along MacArthur Blvd. and not below the City Hall thereby remaining within the project cost Design Parameter. 3) The landscape plan maintains the natural landscape over the majority of the park area. 4) The design minimizes grading of the site and dirt export thereby reducing project cost. 5) Views of the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Blvd. are maintained. 6) The edge along Avacado Avenue is a continuation of library landscaping with a grove of olive trees that ties both sites together. 7) The plan creates an excellent working environment for the City stat7with abundant natural light from clerestory windows. 8) Access from visitor spaces in the parking structure into building is a short pleasant walk. 9) The plan creates a people friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall with an outdoor cafe adjacent to the library. 10) The loading dock is located across from the library loading dock away from cars and pedestrians. 11) The vehicular entry experience is welcoming and the stacking distance for cars leaving the site is adequate. 12) Most of the parking structure will be naturally ventilated. 13) There is good vehicular access from library parking lot directly into the parking structure. 14) The design team has demonstrated excellent use of sustainable design elements in the building structure and systems which will result in significantly reduced operating costs. 0 0 Steven Sandland 15) The design team has stated a commitment to adjust their final plan to "be in alignment" with the approved budget and to "collaborate with the City to define the project in greater detail." Weaknesses (a) Modular design is inefficient. Some departments are split up between modules and are not sized correctly per the program. (b) lire "sail" clement on Council Chambers extends into the view plane. (c) The amphitheater area is too large and is a conflict with vehicular traffic. (d) The "civic concourse" is on the wrong side of the building. (e) There is a conflict with pedestrians and vehicles crossing from the park into the City Hall area. (f) The Council Chambers and community room are not combined and cannot be used together. (g) 'there is the potential for glare from headlights or windshield reflection from cars on the top deck of the parking structure. (h) The rendering indicates that interior lighting from the City Hall structure could create glare form the clerestory windows and building storefront. 0 0 Steven Sand1wd I1. Gonzalez — Goodale Strengths 1) The building has a good presence from Avacado Avenue. It has an appropriate setback and an open inviting appearance. 2) Both levels of the parking structure naturally will be ventilated. 3) The plan creates an excellent working environment for the City staff with abundant natural light. The use of window louvers will control glare. 4) There is good vehicular access from library parking lot directly into the parking structure. 5) The juxtaposition of the Council Chamber, community room and civic terrace maximizes public interaction within these spaces. The water element in front of the Council Chamber is soothing. 6) The building is a rectilinear shape which will minimize construction costs. 7) The organization of the spaces for the City Hall workspace is very efficient. They are flexible for future reconfiguration. 8) The plan has good pedestrian circulation between the park, City Mall and the library. 9) The one -stop -shop is prominently located and easy for visitors to find. 10) The plan has good pedestrian access from Avacado Avenue to City Hall and Council Chambers. 11) The plan has a civic terrace in front of the entrance to City Hall that is an excellent venue for outdoor activities. Weaknesses (a) This plan has located the parking underneath the City Hall structure which will increase project costs $7 million to $10 million over the budget established as a Design Parameter. (b) The lowest level of parking is at elevation 129 which will increase the quantity of excavation and export. (c) The natural ventilation of the parking structure requires the terracing of the dirt on the sides of the structure and will increase the quantity of excavation and export. 0 0 Sle"n Sandland (d) The sharp right turn at the ramp to the parking structure is an awkward entry and not welcoming to visitors. (e) There is a conflict between the drop off area tratlic and traffic exiting the parking structure at Farallon. (f) 'Ilse building profile will be visible as you drive along MacArthur Blvd. and could detract from the view of the ocean. (g) There are trellises on the roof that penetrate into the view plane corridor. (h) Wine bar use and location without any immediately adjacent parking is impractical. (i) No loading area or loading dock is identified in the plan. (j) The amphitheater located just south of San Miguel Drive is too large and in the wrong location. (k) Vertical circulation between the parking structure and the City Hall and Council Chambers is a problem as shown it is served by stairs and one elevator. (1) Split level plain is awkward- (m)The wetlands area has been reconfigured which will require additional permitting. • III. Johnson Fain 0 Steven Sandland Strengths 1) The park flows into, over and around the City Hall. "The park is the main idea" of this plan. 2) Good integration of the site and buildings. The buildings are designed as two pavilions in the park and partially buried. 3) The park design shows an good understanding of the Design Parameter of a natural park. 4) The terraces between City Hall and the library creates a nice space and an excellent connection for the two facilities. 5) The boardwalk from the OCTA site to the City Hall will be an excellent experience. 6) The building height conforms to view plane ordinance. 7) The landscape plan maintains the natural landscape over the majority of the park area. 8) Views of the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Blvd. are maintained. 9) The juxtaposition of Council Chamber, community room and adjoining terrace maximizes flexibility and public interaction within these spaces. 10) landscape plan is designed to enhance the wetlands and make habitats healthier. 11) The landscape plan effectively uses programmatic zones to create different landscape experiences. 12) The roofs are vegetated minimizing any visual impact of the building for residents above it. 13) The design team has confirmed that a LEED Silver designation is achievable. Weaknesses (a) This plan has located the parking underneath the City I fall structure which will increase project costs $7 million to $10 million over the budget established as a Design Parameter. (b) The below grade parking structure will require additional excavation and export increases construction cost. Ll Steven Sandia.: (c) With half the building below grade, it will require mechanical ventilation which will increase operating costs. (d) The sharp right turn of Farallon at the ramp to the parking structure is an awkward entry and not welcoming to visitors. (e) The loading dock is directly visible from Avacado Avenue. Its location also creates a conflict with the vehicles leaving the parking structure. (f) The plan as submitted provides no real definition of building architecture. No elevation along Avacado Avenue was provided. (g) The ramp to the parking structure passes directly below the Council Chambers which raises noise, vibration and security issues. (h) The plan removes the berm along MacArthur Blvd. The building will be prominent from MacArthur Blvd. (i) The building provides no natural ventilation and no natural light to a significant portion of the office work stations. (j) Pedestrian access to City Hall from Avacado Avenue is very circuitous. (k) The plan has no vehicular connection from library site into the parking structure. (1) The drop off area is in an awkward location. It is on the wrong side of the entry drive requiring two 180 degree turns to drop someone off then return to the parking area. (m) It is difficult to get to one- stop -shop on the upper level of the building from visitor parking on the first floor of the parking structure. (n) There is a conflict between the pedestrian path to the library and vehicles on the upper parking level. (o) The plan requires uses of the stairs or elevator to get to the Council Chambers and community room from the parking levels. 0 IV. LPA 0 Slewn Sandland Strengths 1) The parking structure is located against the berm along MacArthur Blvd. and not below the City Hall thereby remaining within the project cost Design Perimeter. 2) The design minimizes grading of the site and dirt export thereby reducing project cost. 3) Views of the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Blvd. are maintained. 4) The plan creates an excellent working environment for the City staff with abundant natural light from skylights. 5) Access from visitor spaces in the parking structure into building is a short pleasant walk. 6) The one - stop -shop is easy to find and walk to from the parking structure. 7) The plan creates a people friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall. 8) The vehicular entry experience is welcoming and the stacking distance for cars leaving the site is adequate. 9) The design team has demonstrated excellent use of sustainable design elements in the building structure and systems which will result in significantly reduced operating costs. 10) The building is primarily a rectilinear shape which is economical to construct. 11) The organization of the spaces for City Hall work space is very efficient and flexible. 12) The juxtaposition of the Council Chamber, community room and civic terrace maximizes flexibility and public interaction within these spaces. 13) Most of the parking structure will be naturally ventilated. 14) The design team has demonstrated excellent use of sustainable design elements in the building structure and systems which will result in significantly reduced operating costs. 0 0 Steven Sandland Weaknesses (a) The tower extends into the view plane. The "flap" element on the top of the tower seems out of place with the rest of the design. (b) The building architecture is very plain. (c) The landscape plan is the weakest part of this master plan. It does not respect the Design Parameter for a "natural" park. (d) The manmade "tide pool" play area is not an appropriate use for this park. It will create maintenance and liability issues. (e) The creation of a "grasslands bluff' play area by filling in the wetlands crates environmental problems and is not an appropriate use. (f) The "jetty" element in the walk on the west side of the building is unnecessary and will create maintenance and liability issues. (g) There is no direct vehicular access from library parking lot into parking structure. It is blocked by the location for the central plant. (h) The plan provides no direct connection to the library. The walkway from the City Hall terrace passes next to the library loading dock. It will also require an elevator at the library to meet ADA requirements. (i) The use of bridge elements across portions of the park and over the entry drive will add to project costs. (j) No loading area or dock is identified on the plan. (k) There is the potential for glare from headlights or windshield reflection from cars on the top deck of the parking structure. (1) The photos of the model indicate that interior lighting from the City Hall structure could create glare from the skylights and building windows. 0 0 V. Kosetti Steven Sandland Strengths 1) The landscape plan maintains the natural landscape over the majority of the park area. 2) Views of the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Blvd. are maintained. 3) The vehicular entry experience is welcoming and the stacking distance for cars leaving the site is adequate. 4) Most of the parking structure will be naturally ventilated. 5) There is good vehicular access from library parking lot directly into the parking structure. 6) The edge along Avacado Avenue is a continuation of library landscaping. 7) The plan has windows on all perimeters of the building and maximizes light to all work stations. 8) The plan conforms to view plane requirements. 9) The surface parking spaces on the north parcel arc a good idea. 10) The roofs arc vegetated minimizing any visual impact of the building for residents above it. 1 I) The amphitheater is an appropriate size. 12) The loading dock is located off the library service drive. 13) The design team has demonstrated excellent use of sustainable design elements in the building structure and systems which will result in significantly reduced operating costs. Weaknesses (a) Parking layout is difficult to understand and navigate for visitors. (b) The City Council Chambers is not easy to locate. it also cannot be separately secured from City Hall. (c) Parking under 2 buildings had dead end aisles. E 9 Steven Sandland (d) Because the plan has three separate buildings the amount of exterior wall area is large thereby increasing cost. (e) No connection between the Council Chambers and community room. (f) The geothermal idea for HVAC didn't make sense in this location. (g) The footbridge over San Miguel Drive is an unprogrammed cost. (h) The parking structure separates the City Ball from the library. (i) There are three lobbies which could be confusing for visitors. 0) The plan does not show a one - stop -shop area or counter. 0 Newport Beach City Hall Suggested Modifications to Walter Richardson FAIA October 27, 2008 Bohlin Cvwinski Jackson & Park Design Competition Submitted Plans 0 Redesign entry plaza to eliminate pedestrian /auto conflicts. This could be wonderful plaza with surface parking. Reduce size or eliminate amphitheater. Improve pedestrian circulation from City Hall to park. Lobby /entry areas for offices should be on parking garage side with west side used for outdoor view terraces. Redesign floor plan of office buildings. "One -stop center" cannot be on two floors and in two buildings. This is simple solution as any configuration could occur under the overall canopy roof. Mitigate any light/glare potential from roof design — probably could be accomplished through use of some type louver system. North park parking. Reduce water element in park. Needs larger outdoor function area off community room or better combine with council chamber. Rotate building closer to north — away from houses to east. Solid green roof over parking instead of linear east -west strips. This is still most exciting piece of architecture. Suggested Modifications to Submitted Plans Walter Richardson FAIA LPA Join library parking at southeast corner of City Hall. Rethink southwest corner of City Hall to take better advantage of best view. Solve main park path ending at elevator. Join City Hall to library via bridge to second floor. Eliminate path around to front door. Redefine park design — less structured, more natural. Parking at north park. Push whole City Hall complex closer to MacArthur to allow more landscape along Avocado — perhaps extend olive grove. Weak park. Could develop limited surface parking along entry drive. 0 0 NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL & PARK DESIGN COMPETITION RANKING OF DESIGNS Submitted by Linda Taylor AIA October 27, 2008 Introductory Comments First, I would like to reiterate that without exception, each of the designs clearly shows that it is the product of an excellent design team and a concentrated, heartfelt effort to provide the City of Newport Beach with an outstanding city hall in a park. Ranking them seems to make way too strong a statement, as though there are significant deficiencies in the lower ranked designs, when in fact it was very difficult to rule anyone out Among the things we wanted from this competition was not only a look at design concepts with enough development to be able to measure them against our community-based judging criteria, but also glimpse into each design team's philosophy towards making public buildings and spaces. There is still much to resolve before there is an actual completed design, so it is important at this point to have a sense of each team's approach to tackling our project, which so far has included varied, sometimes loosely defined and conflicting interests. Taking from the project description and design criteria set forth by the City, one of the more unique characteristics of this City Hall is its coexistence with the natural park. And not the typical side -by -side coexistence but an integrated "can't tell where one stops and one starts' sort of coexistence, at least that's my interpretation of the meaning of "City Hall in the Park." We need a design that recognizes that our site existed first as a civic commitment to open space, and now that it has been called into service for a city hall and park site, the design must very carefully respect what is being given up. In this way, the winning design concept needs to have the park as a "main event" or guiding principle of the design. This is not to say that the building is not an important civic building that deserves a design that will make the citizens of Newport Beach proud. It means we are looking for a design that accomplishes both visions. Functionality The judging criteria allocated 30% to Functionality of Design, including building functionality, park functionality, and integration of the park, city hall and existing library. Building Functionality Although functionality and responsiveness to the programmatic needs of the users are essential keys to design success, the building at this point is still quite conceptual and in need of direct dialogue between the users and the designers in order to ensure true functionality. The bulk of the programmed City Hall space is comprised of offices and workstations with typical support spaces. This is not a highly specialized use nor particularly complex it its circulation and adjacencies, with the possible exception of the attention that must be paid to ease of public access and public assembly. Most teams chose a simple and appropriate modular approach with adequate Flexibility to make significant adjustments in the departmental !ayouts when the users and the designers actually get together. In the absence of that important dialogue (as well as detailed floor plan information), I did not focus as much on the internal arrangement of spaces as on the ability of the overall design to undergo modifications of form without fighting or losing the integrity of the building concept. 0 0 Newport Beach City Hall Design Competition Ranking of Designs - Linda Taylor AIA October 27, 2008 Page 2 In this regard, the strongest were the BCJ and the LPA designs. BU's design uses modular "floating" roof sections supported on a lightweight steel frame allowing maximum variation in the arrangement of spaces below. LPA's design has a similar (although less spectacular) roof structure hovering over a modular interior space. Both of these solutions offer greater flexibility than the others as they are not constrained by a retaining wall aspect at the north and /or east ends of the building, or considerations for the structural and building systems components penetrating the subterranean parking layout below. The Rosetti plan appeared to offer the least flexibility by splitting the program into three separate buildings. With regard to the most public and distinctive part of the building, the City Council Chambers, four of the five designs (Rosetti being the exception) provided a version of a separate and visible pavilion for this function. This is a desirable approach and should be retained, especially in combination with the community room One aspect of functionality that did not seem to get its due attention is the service and maintenance side. The BCJ, LPA and Rosetti designs all provided service access off of a common driveway with the Library service entrance, a concept that may turn out to be the most straightforward and least offensive to accomplish, but it nevertheless makes for a poor first view of the building as you approach up Avocado. The Johnson Fain design shows it along a primary subterranean parking drive aisle and the Gonzalez Goodale design does not show one at all, but can probably be assumed to be similar to Johnson Fain. Given the size of trucks and frequency of deliveries, this remains a potential problem for all of the designs, but more so for the parking structure solutions. Park Functionality As intimated in my introductory comments, the primary concern here is about understanding and meeting the expectations of the community. As far as appropriate public amenities such as resirooms, picnic areas, drinking fountains, convenient parking, accessibility, etc., no one nailed it all down, but all of the designs could reasonably be expected to provide the necessary amenities. Of greater concern is the degree to which the existing site is being reshaped in the various designs. This is a concern for several reasons, including cost considerations, view shed expectations, and restoration approach and philosophy. It is clear that the natural plant and animal habitats on this site have been disturbed and degraded by human activities in the area for decades, and that simply leaving it alone will not make it the park that the community desires. However, a minimalist approach that seeks to retain as much of the existing topography as possible, and return it to a state of healthy and naturally sustainable ecosystems while providing reasonable access for human enjoyment would be ideal. In the presentations, the designers covered a wide range of interpretations of the term "natural park ". The Johnson Fain proposal stood out for its retention of almost the entire site as a restored habitat; truly a city hall embedded in a nature park. The Olin Partnership, Johnson Fain's landscape design firm, gave an impressive litany of possibilities that could he tackled as a whole or incrementally, but in the end, this design retains the look and feel of the existing topography to a greater degree than any of the others Next in line, I favored BU's approach for its simplicity and restraint as well as Rosetti's for its comprehensive view of the various opportunities afforded by the park site, and for their successful 0 0 Newport Beach City Hall Design Competition Ranking of Designs — Linda Taylor AIA October 27, 2008 Page 3 treatment of the MacArthur berm. The Gonzalez Goodale scheme had a number of good ideas, but generally seemed to overwhelm the existing topography with extensive site work, as did the LPA design. Integration of the City Hall, Park and Library My vote for the best integration of the three elements is the Johnson Fain design. In their scheme, the City Hall hunkers down low under the view plane on the north and east leaving only the park vista for travelers on MacArthur and neighbors in Harbor View, and then opens up to plazas and terraces on the south end of the site in an exciting outdoor civic space, engaging the library and providing ocean views to the west for the City Hall staff and visitors. The design makes the most of a progression from the more structured, manmade environments at the Library end becoming more natural as you move through the City Hall and up into the park, all clearly connected and inviting the walk BCJ visually integrated the City Hall and the Library along Avocado by extending the existing olive grove all of the way to the Farallons entrance. They also drew a connection from the park down between the City Hall and the parking structure, opening up into a large triangular plaza space that then gives potential access to the Library. Gonzalez Goodale allows for the Library and City Hall to acknowledge each other, but leaves the natural park out of the picture, up the hill on the other side of the City Hall. Both of these represent opportunity for greater integration than is delineated, and could work well. The LPA and Rosetti schemes both have barriers to integration with the Library, although the parking structure in Rosetti s is more significant than the service road in LPA's. On the flip side, LPA's park is not well integrated with the City Hall, while Rosetti's is stronger in that regard. FUNCTIONALITY RANKINGS: Building: LPA, BCJ, GG, JF, RS Park: JF, BCJ, RS, GG, LPA Integration: 1F, BCJ, GG, LPA, RS Composite: BCJ, JF (tie), GG, LPA (tie), RS Creativity and Timeless Design (25 %) No doubt this is the most subjective of the criteria, but the description given to the competitors mentions the following qualitative design characteristics: unique, exciting, interesting, appropriate, original, substantial, long -term, a valuable contribution to our social and physical environment. I believe that the description best fits both the BCJ and the Johnson Fain designs. However, I am giving the edge to BCJ for the following reasons: 1.) The BCJ design is compelling in its richness of form layered upon an underlying structural simplicity. 2.) It has the requisite "open and airy feel" that perfectly addresses our climate. 3.) The rhythmic ocean wave roof is a graceful metaphorical expression of the place that is Newport Beach, and uses the repetitive form to capture an economy of scale without being monotonous. 4.) It uses a simple and appropriate palette of materials that effectively convey a friendly human scale to welcome the community 5.) It has the strongest potential for an exciting, iconic presence without overwhelming the site. 6.) The BCJ team has an amazing track record of delivering civic and community projects of the highest design quality, each unique and responsive to its client, site and program needs. The first -class Newport Beach City Hall Design Competition Ranking of Designs - Linda Taylor AIA October 27, 2008 Page 4 engineering firm of Arup and the landscape design credentials of Peter Walker (PWP) additionally reinforce this choice. CREATIVITY/ TIMELESS DESIGN RANKINGS: BCI, JF, LPA, RS, GG Practicality / Efficiency / Cons tructability (25%) One of the primary issues here is parking. There is little doubt that subterranean parking, which is proposed in three of the five schemes, will be a significant construction cost premium. If it is mechanically ventilated, it will also represent a significant increase in energy and maintenance costs in the years ahead. The question we must ask is one of cost benefit: Is retaining the land for people and nature worth the cost of putting the cars underground? As open space continues to become scarcer, we will all place a higher value on retaining and protecting it. And it is a decision we cannot go back on later. As far as selection of a preferred scheme, I find this decision to be a toss up ... definitely cheaper to stay away from subterranean initially, but potentially a very good value twenty years from now and beyond when open space is at a higher premium, A related cost issue focuses on effective use of materials and building technologies. Concrete design and construction will play a much greater role in the Johnson Fain, Gonzalez Goodale and Rosetti schemes. This can be an Important consideration in an open bid process where concrete work can vary hugely in quality, and correcting a poor concrete job is virtually impossible. Building floor slabs atop subterranean parking will require far more attention in order to minimize deflections that are acceptable in a parking structure but not in an office building. Structural grids will be dictated by optimal parking space layouts rather than optimal open office bay layouts. Utility drops will be less flexible with parking below, as are slab depressions. In the Johnson Fain design, some of the cost premium may be offset by the dual use of concrete retaining walls as the exterior of the building, thereby eliminating a building "skin" on those surfaces. Their design is also helped by its simple, rectangular form. The Rosetti design appears to have more complexity in its concrete forms, and the Gonzalez Goodale design requires surface treatment to its exterior walls in addition to extensive retaining. Both the BCJ and LPA designs are able to capitalize on simpler construction technologies and lighter structural components. The BCJ roof appears complex and therefore potentially more expensive, but the description provided in the submittal (one of the few that provided this information( shows it is actually quite simple and not uncommon. The curved steel beams will definitely carry a premium, but should not be considered exotic by any means. The vierendeel trusses are everyday stuff so don't let the name fool you. I am assuming that the LPA structure is similar, but simpler still and certainly can be accomplished very cost effectively, although not much is described in their presentation. Other cost premiums include export of excavation dirt and other site development costs. Excavation is a fact of the project, and although LPA sought to offset the export burden by using the fill dirt on site, it poses a significant problem to the community's understanding of the natural park concept. BU probably did the best job of treading lightly on the site as a compromise between constructability/ sustainability efficiency and community needs. 9 0 Newport Beach City Hall Design Competition Ranking of Designs - Linda Taylor AIA October 27, 2008 Page 5 Another materials cost premium will be in high - performance glass, as extensive use of glass meets the staff and community desire for natural light, but it must not be at the expense of high energy consumption. BCJ, LPA and Johnson Fain effectively use passive and active sun control and ventilation systems to reduce glazing impact, but glass cost will be a factor in all of the schemes except possibly Rosetti. Under the topic of practicality, I would include the degree to which screening of light spillage and /or reflective surfaces such as cars will be necessary to satisfy the expectations of the neighbors across MacArthur and on up the hill. Each of the schemes had drawbacks in this regard: 1.) Johnson Fain: Design penetrates the MacArthur berm, which could possibly be mitigated. Otherwise, this design has the least impact on the neighbors' views. 2.) Gonzalez Goodale: Building has monitor roof projections which could be mitigated, but the potential for light spillage on the east side appears to be significant from the section drawing. 3.) BCJ: The main roof is totally below the view plane, but some ambient light spillage could occur from the clerestory windows facing north. Also the "sail' on the council chambers may require modification for light mitigation. The parking structure proposes trellis screening on the upper deck which will require careful detailing to effectively mitigate reflection and light spillage, but it may also help buffer the City Hall building from views from above. 4.) Rosetti: The design has the advantage of a good berm along MacArthur as well as green roofs on the buildings, but it appears to have an exposed upper parking deck adjacent to the Library with potential for exposure to car reflections and light standards. 5.) LPA: There are many similarities to the BG design with a need to implement similar mitigations. PRACTICALITY, EFFICIENCY & CONSTRUCTABILITY: LPA, BCJ, then a gap followed by 1F, GG, RS Sustainability (20 %) Basically all of the designs exceeded the sustainability goals in both ideas and expertise. Although they are all quite different, I have confidence that any of the teams will be able to assist the City in evaluating the cost benefit of the various strategies From the submittal materials, I ranked them as follows: SUSTAINABILITY: LPA, BCJ (tie), RS, GG, JF Conclusion / Rotings Based upon my evaluation, which included careful review of all materials plus at least four walking trips through the site as well as consultations with engineers, contractors, and land planners (none involved in this project), I have ranked the teams as follows: 1. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (94) 2. Johnson Fain (88) 1 LPA (83) 4. Gonzalez Goodale (76) 5. Rosetti (71) "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Harkless, LaVonne •RIPJTED:" �h 1 -12 -09 From: Karen E. Tringali [karen tringali@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11.37 AM To: Henn, Michael. Webb, Don (City Council). Rosansky, Steven. Daigle, Leslie, Selich, Edward, Curry, Keith. Gardner, Nancy Cc: Bludau, Homer, Harkless, LaVonne Subject: City Hall & Park Master Plan As you prepare to conclude the City Hall r3 Park Master Plan design phase this month, you will be making decisions on which architect best understood your vision for a new city hall and its parks Your vision was articulated to the contestant architects in the form of the General Design Parameters, which were developed in part as a result of issues that were highlighted by both sides on the Measure B campaign Whether you pick one of the designs as submitted by the contestants, or whether you develop a hybrid design incorporating the best of each, the most important component of your decision-making process is how well the selected design follows your commitments to the public as published in the General Design Parameters From my perspective. the most important of the 16 parameters include 1 Protect public and private view corridors along MacArthur and surrounding streets a) manage building and architectural feature heights within established view planes b) minimize site lighting and glare 2 Develop park components in the same timeframe as the city hall and parking structures as an integral part of the master plan a) one park area with ocean views, meadows restrooms and other activities - oriented amendies b) one park area with ocean views in a more natural state reflective of the area 3 Achieve at least a LEEDS Silver standard if not better 4. Manage costs within budget criteria, particularly in light of the current and predicted economy This is a project that we all want to be proud of Being proud not only of its appearance, functionality and environmental sensitivity, but proud of the process by which it takes shape And that process includes continued public participation on our part. and as our council your enforcement of and commitment to the General Design Parameters which you developed in the spirit of the communities' dialog resulting from Measure B Thank you for your efforts on our behalf Xaren Tringah Corona del Mar 949.719.9390 P/F 11111A Pieria wrisoer the environment before printing O � ism n N T Di s 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 17 November 12, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Larry Tucker, Chairman City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Committee SUBJECT: City Hall Design Committee — DRAFT Final Report ( mum 11110-08] ISSUE This document is the draft Final Report of the City Hall Design Committee ( "Design Committee "). It is anticipated that this draft Final Report will become the Final Report at the Design Committee's meeting of November 10, 2008. The Final Report will be presented to the City Council on November 25, 2008 at which time any changes to this draft Final Report will be brought to the attention of the Council. COUNCIL ACTION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: I — COMMITTEE FORMATION, TASKS By Resolution 2008 -14 (see Attachment A), on February 26, 2008, the City Council established the 6- member City Hall Design Committee ("Design Committee "). The purpose of the Design Committee is to: A. Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to world class architects interested in participating in a design competition for the City Hall and Park Master Plan project; B. In consultation with the Ad Hoc Building Committee, develop recommendations for a detailed set of General Design Parameters to be used by the participating architects; C. Review the qualifications of architects who respond to the RFQ; D. Recommend to the City Council three to four architects to participate in the design competition; E. Review design concepts submitted by the selected architects, and hold public meetings to receive public input on the design concepts; and F. Recommend an architect and design concept to the City Council. The members of the Design Committee are: • Larry Tucker (Chair and ex officio); • Andy Bowden, Licensed Landscape Architect; • Rush Hill, Licensed Architect, • Walt Richardson, Licensed Architect; 0 0 City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 2 • Steve Sandland; Licensed Architect; and • Linda Taylor, Licensed Architect. The Design Committee has also provided technical support for the City Council Ad Hoc Building Committee (formed on March 11, 2008 by Resolution 2008 -16 and referred to as the -Building Committee "). Mayor Ed Selich and Councilmembers Steve Rosansky and Mike Henn comprise the Building Committee. In consultation with the Building Committee, the Design Committee accomplished the following tasks in addition to Items A -E above: Received questions and proposed answers in regards to the terms of the RFQ. Suggested edits to the General Design Parameters (see Attachment B), the document that sets forth the design constraints applicable to the City Hall and Park site. Prepared a Judging Procedure and Criteria (see Attachments C and D) by which to judge the responses to the RFQ and the design competition itself ; Used the Judging Procedure and Criteria to review more than 50 responses to the RFQ, eventually narrowing the submittals down to thirteen (13). Prior to final selection of the top five firms for the design competition, staff contacted client references for the thirteen firms on the short list and made the comments available to the Design Committee. Five (5) firms were then selected, formally recommended to and accepted by the City Council. The five finalist firms are: • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Gonzalez Goodale • Johnson Fain • LPA, Inc. • Rossetti 5. Accepted questions raised by the five design finalists and proposed answers prior to the submission of their designs (see Attachment E). 6. Conducted an all day public hearing on Saturday, September 27, 2008 where each of the five finalist firms made a 45 minute presentation of their concept plans followed by a 45 minute question and answer session. 7. Held three public hearings to obtain public input regarding the five finalist firm concept plans. 8. Prepared this Report to the City Council, which includes a ranking of the designs. an explanation of the Committee's reasons for the design given the highest ranking, and Recommendations for Further Consideration by the City Council. Importantly, the RFQ and the subsequent Professional Services Agreements executed with each of the five firms provide that the designs submitted are the property of the City upon submittal. These documents, in part, read as follows: From the RFQ: The City reserves the right to divide the Project into multiple parts, to reject any and all proposals and re- solicit for new proposals, or reject any and all proposals and temporarily or permanently abandon the Project. City makes no representations, written or oral, that it will enter into any form of agreement with any respondent to the RFQ for any project and no such representation is intended or should be construed by the issuance of this RFQ. 0 0 City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report AS REVISED November 12, 2008 Page 3 Ownership of Submitted Design Documents: All design documents, DVDs, and accompanying materials submitted to the city by the firms through this RFQ process shall become the property of the City of Newport Beach upon their submission. From the PSA 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents'), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. At the Design Committee's direction, city staff placed extensive information, including agendas, minutes, the General Design Parameters, Judging Procedure, Q & A's, and various technical reports for the City Hall and Park site on the City's website (www.citv.newport- beach.ca.us). The website became a primary method of communicating information to the design firms and to the public. The Design Committee has met on 12 occasions to date: April 7, April 21, May 5, May 19, June 2, June 16, July 28, September 27, September 29, October 13, October 27, 2008 and November 10, 2008. The meetings lasted two to three hours, except the meeting of September 27, which lasted nine hours. Each meeting was open to the public, and the agenda for each meeting was published on the City's website. Each meeting provided at least one period for public comment, but most meetings provided multiple opportunities for audience input. On Saturday, September 27"', the Design Committee held an all -day meeting during which each of the final design teams presented their concept plans to the Design Committee. Notice of the meeting of September 27 was announced by the Mayor at the City Council's meetings on September 9" and September 2341. The all -day meeting was also advertised three times in the Daily Pilot and was the subject of a front page Daily Pilot article on September 24, 2008. Detailed minutes of the meetings have been published and are available for public review. The "boards" that show the five concept plans presented on September 27" have been on display since the end of September at the Central Library, the Mariner's Branch Library, the Balboa Peninsula Branch Library, the OASIS Senior Center, the Newport Coast Community Center and City Hall. Several members of the public provided comments on special comment cards — these comments were reviewed by the Design Committee and are attached (Attachment F). In addition, commencing October 5, 2008, the presentations part of the Committee meeting of September 27 has been shown several times on the City's "NBTV" community programming channels (Channels 3130). II — RECOMMENDATIONS The Design Committee has ranked the architects and design concepts, but also has a series of other recommendations for consideration by the City Council. 0 0 City Nall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report AS REVISED November 12, 2008 Page 4 A. — RANKING OF DESIGNS The primary purpose of the Design Committee. as noted in Resolution 2008 -14 (F), is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to the architect and design concept which the Design Committee believes that the Council should select. However, because the five designs were all well thought out, and were so varied in approach, the Design Committee concluded that it would rank the designs in order of preference and provide a commentary as to why the Committee ranked the first choice design as it did, so the City Council has the benefit of the Design Committee's thinking. Pursuant to the Judging Criteria, the Design Committee members considered four criteria in reaching their individual rankings: (i) Functionality of Design; (ii) Creativity and Timelessness of Design, (iii) Practicality, Efficiency and Constructability; and (iv) Sustainability. The Design Committee decided that each member would award 5 points for his/her top choice, 4 for his /her second choice, and so on. The Committee's point tally was as follows: Note from the above tally chart that Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) received three top scores, while tying LPA in total points. Gonzalez Goodale and Johnson -Fain also received one top score each. Based upon the fact that a majority of the Committee ranked BCJ as its top choice, the Committee on a snlitvote of 3-2. determined that it would recommend BCJ's design to the City Council as the top design. The Committee articulated the following major reasons for its decision: • The aesthetics of the structures — one Committee member said, "the design captures an iconic image for the City of Newport Beach and tries to capture the spirit of the city with the wave design of the clerestory windows and a sail design for the Council Chambers." Another said. "(BCJ's is) the most exciting design concept." • The parking structure is separate from the City Hall facility, located along the berm of MacArthur Boulevard, and will be less expensive to build than an entirely or mostly underground parking facility; • The design minimizes grading and dirt export, minimizing cost; • The design creates an airy working environment for the City staff, providing extensive glass and clerestory windows allowing significant natural light and direct sun flow into the work environment. • The design creates a people - friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall; • The roof structures cover a large amount of space, allowing the buildings underneath flexibility within the office pods that comprise the City Hall building; Gonzalez- Johnson- BCJ LPA Rossetti Goodale Fain Bowden 00 © ©© Hill © ©0 ©0 Richardson ©0 © ©0 Sandland ©0 © ©0 Taylor © © ©00 Note from the above tally chart that Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) received three top scores, while tying LPA in total points. Gonzalez Goodale and Johnson -Fain also received one top score each. Based upon the fact that a majority of the Committee ranked BCJ as its top choice, the Committee on a snlitvote of 3-2. determined that it would recommend BCJ's design to the City Council as the top design. The Committee articulated the following major reasons for its decision: • The aesthetics of the structures — one Committee member said, "the design captures an iconic image for the City of Newport Beach and tries to capture the spirit of the city with the wave design of the clerestory windows and a sail design for the Council Chambers." Another said. "(BCJ's is) the most exciting design concept." • The parking structure is separate from the City Hall facility, located along the berm of MacArthur Boulevard, and will be less expensive to build than an entirely or mostly underground parking facility; • The design minimizes grading and dirt export, minimizing cost; • The design creates an airy working environment for the City staff, providing extensive glass and clerestory windows allowing significant natural light and direct sun flow into the work environment. • The design creates a people - friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall; • The roof structures cover a large amount of space, allowing the buildings underneath flexibility within the office pods that comprise the City Hall building; 0 0 City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report AS's November 12, 2008 Page 5 • BCJ was able to capitalize on inexpensive technologies for the roof /structural system. The curved steel should not be considered exotic or expensive, and most materials are 'everyday items' using very common construction technology; • There is good vehicular access from the library parking lot to the parking structure; • The design demonstrated use of sustainable design features in the building structure and systems which should result in reduced operating costs; • The landscape along Avocado Avenue is a continuation of the library landscape scheme and ties the sites together; and • The Park plan proposes to maintain as is, those areas that would require State and/or Federal permits were they to be modified. The Park design leaves most of the topography of the Park unchanged so that it is primarily a - natural park." The Design Committee noted during and after the presentations that each of the five plans could benefit from certain refinements /redesigns to the initial design. The same is true of the BCJ plan. Accordingly, the Committee suggests that the City work with BCJ to redesign the following parts of the BCJ Concept Plan, and such other additional elements as the City deems appropriate: • Consider changing the "Pod" modular sections. The modular sections should be changed to improve circulation and to promote the "One Stop Shop" concept; the floor plan needs redesign since a one -stop shop on two floors and in more than one pod will not be efficient. But the fact that the design team can do any configuration of buildings under one canopy is beneficial. • Review the Sail Design Feature. Consider the modification of the sail feature to reduce the incursion into the view plane. • Add Surface Parking. The Entry plaza should be redesigned to allow for some surface parking. • Improve the Aesthetics of the Parking Structure. The proposed parking structure could benefit from a redesign so it will look less like a parking structure. • Reduce Amphitheatre and Add Parking. Consider reducing the size of the amphitheatre to create more open space. The design needs to add more parking to the north, for the park. • Integrate City Hall and the Park better. The park's integration with City Hall needs work. There is a significant conflict between vehicles and pedestrians which needs to be addressed. • Refine Council Chambers, Community Room and Parking. The Community Room needs an outdoor function area or should be combined with the Council Chambers. The Council Chambers should be able to be expanded. The Council Chambers is out front, close to Avocado, but all of the parking is behind the City Hall building. • Reduce Light and Glare. Consider using louver or other systems to address light and glare from the clerestory windows. The building should be reoriented slightly so that the clerestory windows are not as prominent from above the site. BCJ's design has the highest potential for glare from the east, so mitigation needs to take place. The exposure of the west side of the building to direct sunlight should also be addressed. • Improve the Link to the Library. The eating area between the City Hall and Library could be improved to be -a nice place to go for visitors, staff, and Library patrons. This would make the Master Plan a true Civic Center that's alive and vibrant." The connection between the Library and the parking structure was never fully explained. 0 0 City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report AS REVIM November 12, 2008 Page 6 The point differential between the first place team and the fourth place team was narrow. If the City Council were to prefer another one of the design teams and its concept plan over BCJ and its plan, the Design Committee would be pleased to provide the City Council suggested amendments to that alternate plan if the City Council desires that the Design Committee do so. B — RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION Unlike a design competition that would ask competitors to use a flat site with circulation improvements and utilities already brought to the site, the teams in this competition had to work with a site with considerable dirt export and significant constraints as set forth in the General Design Parameters. Adding to the complexity, the design includes a park element. a City Hall element, and a significant amount of parking, all of which were to be integrated to the extent feasible with the existing Central Library. Some of the designs were stronger on the park and site design elements than others. Some were stronger on building designs or the parking solutions. So while the Committee did not have the authority to `mix and match" concepts, but only to rank the designs, the Committee does have several recommendations that the City Council may want to consider as it seeks to come up with the best possible project for the City. In other words, if the City Council were to concur with the ranking recommended by the Committee, the Council may nonetheless conclude that the highest ranked design of the Committee could be improved by incorporating concepts from other plans in the final project. Several members of the Design Committee provided written comments to the designs presented and those comments are attached in Attachment G for the City Council's edification. The Committee's Recommendations for Further Consideration are intended to provide general observations that the Council may want to consider as it implements a design. The Committee's Recommendations are as follows: Design Elements. The Design Committee spent most of its meetings on September 29 and October 13, 2008 discussing the five concept plans and summarizing what the Design Committee thought were important design elements which would be desirable in any plan. The Design Committee believes that, while each concept plan and design team may not have each design element addressed at this time, the City Council may want to consider working with the selected Design Team to implement the following design elements in the Final Design (in no particular order): • Maintain the berm along MacArthur Boulevard; • Provide appropriate and effective mitigation of light and glare on the site, so that neighboring residences are not adversely affected by light and glare; • Separate pedestrian and vehicular access ways and primary circulation elements; • Provide a floor plan that will easily accommodate future modifications to internal department sizes and layouts, i.e. provide for maximum flexibility; • Be logistically feasible, understanding how the duration of construction will affect the surrounding commercial, retail and residential area; • Integrate the Library so as to develop a true "civic center"; • Provide for restrooms for visitors to the park; • Provide for easy parking for visitors to the park; City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report AN . November 12, 2008 Page 7 • Show strong visual and physical connectivity between the North Park Parcel to the Central Park Parcel (such as textured paving to cross San Miguel): • Consider a -cafe" , small coffee shop or coffee /snack cart or kiosk for visitors /employees in the City Hall building: • Have a vehicular connection from City Hall parking to the Library's existing parking lot • Contain the Council Chambers and the multi - purpose community room in a single building or wing separate from the remainder of the City offices to allow for easy after - hour and weekend access to the Council Chambers and multi - purpose room. A direct link between the City offices and Council Chambers for staff and elected and appointed officials would also be recommended: • To the extent possible, design the Council Chambers and Community Room to be able to act together as a single large community space, and also provide for the possibility of useable contiguous outdoor space for community events: • Provide access to natural light from all staff workstations: • Provide continuity of landscape treatment from the Library olives along Avocado: and • Provide screening or other appropriate accommodation for roof- mounted antennas and dishes as required for City operations. • If feasible, consider retaining the high point of the southernmost meadow area to maintain the oceanward view. 2. Design Team's Flexibility. The Design Committee believes the selected design may have significant changes as the schematic design phase of the project plans proceeds. Therefore, the Design Team selected should have a demonstrable track record of good working relationships with clients, and meeting their wishes even if those wishes are not entirely consistent with the Design Team's vision. 3. Staff Input. The City Council should review and consider the merits of the Report of the City Staff on the construcfability of each Plan presented and the opinions of staff as to the functionality of each Plan (the perceived efficiency of staff work -flow, comfort and ambience, and maintenance risks associated with the operation of the facility contemplated in each plan). This Report is included as Attachment H. 4. V Party Cost Estimator. The Committee recommends that the City Council undertake an independent investigation of the cost information submitted by each of the designs deemed a feasible alternative design by the City Council. For budget information submitted by design teams see Attachment I. 5. Phasing. The Final Design should depict a timeless building. However, if budget constraints would impact the ability of the City to construct the Council's preferred design, the City could consider phasing the project to construct the building in Phase I and the park in Phase Il. This could be accomplished by cleaning up the existing vegetation by removing non - native species, filling in those and other barren areas with native species, irrigating only as necessary to allow the newly planted materials to survive and then allow the remainder of the park to remain natural. The park element could remain that way, or the design features of the selected park design could be implemented later as money to make those improvements becomes available. 0 0 City Hall and Park Design Competition — Draft Final Report November 12, 2008 Page 8 III — IN CONCLUSION This report concludes the Design Committee's scope of work as outlined in Resolution 2008 -14. As it concludes its work, the Design Committee wishes to state its sincere thanks to the many firms that submitted thorough responses to the RFQ and especially to the five design teams chosen for the competition. The effort and creativity that went into each of the five Concept Plans from the design teams was impressive. It was clear to the Design Committee that each team took to its task very diligently, getting to know the community, the site, the facility needs, and the project parameters. Each design had elements that were inspired and creative — reflecting the high caliber of the competing firms. At its meeting on November 10, 2008, the Design Committee approved this Report on a unanimous vote. Lastly, the Design Committee would also like to thank the City Staff and especially Assistant City Manager, Dave Kiff for doing an outstanding job as the staff liaison for the Design Committee. Much of the RFQ, General Design Parameters, answers to questions and this Report were authored in whole or in part, or edited by Dave. His work was timely, professional and much appreciated. Respectfully Submitted, LARRY TUCKER Design Committee Chairman Attachments: A — Resolution 2008 -14 B — General Design Parameters, as Amended C —Judging Criteria — RFQ D — Judging Criteria — Concept Plans E — Q & A for Phase II — The Five Concept Plans F — Responses from Public Comment Cards G — Comments from Committee Members H — City Staffs Functionality Report I — City Hall Cost Summaries City Hall Cost Summaries Important Note: The table below reflects rough estimates. In some cases (see notes) the design teams did not break down specific cost items, stating instead that the designs are within the General Design Parameter estimates. Staff cautions that this comparison is challenging and may not be fair to the firms (Gonzales Goodale, Rossetti, and LPA) that did provide more detailed cost estimates for each component. Or to Johnson Fain, which restated its confidence that its $69 million estimate reflects the total cost of the project. For example: • Note pl — The City's General Design Parameters (see next page) assumed that grading costs are included in a site work amount of $15 -20 • per square foot. • Note p2 — Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) said that City Hall would cost $36.7 million and that BCJ's plan for the park and parking structure reflects the GDPs with the exception of the significant site prep / groding work required to construct the new building below the view plane. • Note K3 — Gonzalez Goodale's cost estimate includes grading and detailed cost breakdowns. The higher cost of the parking structure reflects the fact that Gonzalez Goodale proposed a parking structure below City Hall. • Note p4 — Johnson Fain did not break down costs, but asserts that the entire project (including grading for parking below City Hall) is estimated at $69 million. • Note N5 -- LPA identified $3.47 million in grading costs which staff included in LPA's "Park and Site Work" amount below — this inflates LPA's estimate, but to a level assumed to be the same as Gonzalez Goodale and Johnson Fain. • Note M6 — Rossetti had some subterranean parking, some parking in a structure, and some surface parking. Rossetti included $5.6 million for earthwork (cut, fill, export), an amount which is included in Rossetti's "Park and Site Work" amount. Rossetti's amounts below do not include $1.89 million for the plan's bridges. rM Name t Parking Structure Parking Structure Park & • GDP Budget Estimate $ 36,000,000 $ 11,250,000 5 12,000,000 $ 59,250,000 1 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson $ 36,763,102 $ 11,250,000 $ 12,000,000 5 60,013,102 2 Gonzalez Goodale $ 32,375,549 $ 20,819,329 $ 10,747,980 $ 63,942,858 3 Johnson Fain proposed this model $ 69,000,000 4 LPA $ 38,799,209 $ 13,323,719 $ 19,603,284 $ 71,726,212 s Rossetti $ 37,143,000 $ 8,273,000 $ 6,892,000 $ 22,571,000 $ 74,879,000 6 City Hall and Paris Design Competition — Draft Final Report AS REVISED November 12. 2008 Page 10 RFQ's General Design Parameter: p. Budget Constraints — The budgetary goal of the Project is as follows • Approximately $400 -450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF &E); • Approximately $20- 25,000 per space for the parking structure; and • Approximately $15 -20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and drainage) and site • improvements. The above amounts are exclusive of soft costs. The City Hall is not at this time planned to be an "essential services building." The budget parameters expressed here are not absolute amounts but are intended to indicate the price range the City expects the project to cost. Designers should use these numbers as a guide in preparing their submittals. Design economy will be an important consideration. p a p 0 8 October 2008 Steve Badum, Public Works Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dcar Mr. Badum: 40 RECRVED0MNSON FAIN 2(08 NR 12 IN & 29 SCOTT JOHNSON. FAIA DESIGN PARTNER r,r TI I CITY �c I 7 cr. ^u "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTEL" - + 11 I 1 -12-A We appreciate the opportunity to address several items which have been raised as a result of our interview for the Newport Beach City Hall and Park. We were asked to provide clarification on both the labeling of the architectural plans and what the exterior building materials might be. Accompanying this letter is an I I x 17 inch booklet which attempts to do both. Plans are described and an index calling out all materials in the renderings and elevations has been included. We would be pleased to meet in person and discuss these items in more detail. With respect to questions regarding the conceptual construction budget, our initial estimates, which have been provided by an independent estimating firm and a California- based general contractor, show a total hard cost in the range of $69 million for the complete project as represented. We note that the budget target discussed by the City Hall Design Committee was approximately $60 million. We believe there are a number of areas which can be examined more closely in concert with the Committee, and perhaps others, in order to resolve this difference. Among the potential areas for cost reduction are: Relocation of first basement parking to grade for reduction in excavation and natural ventilation Reduction or removal of second level terrace and parking roof Reduction or removal of green roofs Reduction of park to area west of San Miguel Drive Simplification of park and reduction in plant materials and irrigation requirements Regrading of driveway walls to reduce retention Reduction in exterior building material costs Phasing portions of the current scope Potential sale of excavation materials in lieu of exportation and disposal ARCHITECTURE URBAN OEGf.A•RUNNWG INT.RIORS I201NORTHEROADWAY LOSANGELIMCAM112 3252746MIM. 3232740XFAX WV K*NSONFAWCON �J J O H N S O N F A I N We would be pleased to meet and discuss these items and others in more detail. While we fully understand the importance of budgets, particularly in public projects, and our many civic projects have been on budget and on schedule, it was our intent to demonstrate in our conceptual scheme as many qualitative and sustainable benefits as possible, knowing that the final scheme would be fashioned in concert with representatives of the public. Finally, should further budget comparisons be made between schemes, we respectfully suggest that all programs be confirmed for equality and priced by an independent estimator. We look forward to your thoughts and appreciate your interest in the possibilities for this great site. cc: Stephen Sandland, Architect Andy Bowden, Landscape Architect Rush Hill, Architect Walt Richardson, Architect Linda Taylor, Architect I arry Tucker, Chairman David Kiff, Assistant City Manager ENCS. AAOMCYAF (MBANOFSIGN.F)ANNING INTFAIONS 1201N( 115AOADWAY LOSM(AUS.CA"012 )2)2246WOTFL )23.224.WJGIA% YM' JOwNSONFNNCOM P Newport Beach City Council Wednesday, November 12. 2oo8 Efforts to Date • Design Committee • Formed Feb 26, 2oo8 (Resolution 2oo8 -14). • Five Members: • Larry Tucker (Chair and ex officio member); • Andy Bowden, Licensed Landscape Architect; • Rush Hill, Licensed Architect; • Walt Richardson, Licensed Architect; • Steve Sandland; Licensed Architect; and • Linda Taylor, Licensed Architect. • Members have each lived in NB for at least 2'7 years, know the city well, and have dedicated a significant amount of hours for the betterment of the city. More importantly, each is exceptionally competent. Committee's Initial Tasks • Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to world class architects interested in participating in a design competition for the City Hall and Park Master Plan project; • In consultation with the Ad Hoc Building Committee, develop recommendations for a detailed set of General Design Parameters to be used by the participating architects; • Review the qualifications of architects who respond to the RFQ; • Recommend to the City Council five architects to participate in the design competition; • Review design concepts submitted by the selected architects, hold public meetings to receive public input on the design concepts; and • Recommend an architect and design concept to the City Council. Committee's Additional Tasks • Received questions and proposed answers to the RFQ; • Helped edit the General Design Parameters (GDPs - these are the design constraints applicable to the City Hall and Park site); • Prepared a Judging Procedure and Criteria to judge the responses to the RFQ and the design competition itself; • Reviewed the 50+ responses to the RFQ; • Narrowed the 5o+ down to 13; • Reviewed City staff's reference checks on the 13; • Short - listed five firms to the City Council: • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson • Gonzalez Goodale • Johnson Fain • LPA • Rossetti • Worked on Q&A raised by the five design finalists prior to the submission of their designs, all in open session. c,ommittee's Additional Tasks (cont'd) NOTE: All Committee business was conducted during meetings open to the public. • Held ii meetings open to the public, with extensive public participation encouraged at each meeting. • Conducted an all day public hearing on Saturday, September a7, aoo8 to learn about the five firms' designs. • Following the 9 -z7 meeting, held four public hearings to obtain public input regarding the five firms' concept plans. • Prepared a Final Report to the City Council which: • Ranks the designs; • Explains the Committee's reasons for selecting the design given the highest ranking; • Offers recommendations to the City Council relating to design and other issues as the Project moves forward; • Makes further recommendations applicable to any plans chosen by the City Council; and • Points out changes between the draft report and final report, to be issued November 25, zoo8. Rankings Recommendation • The Committee recommended that the Council select Bohlin Cywinski Jackson and its plan as the going - forward project. Opp ��— �=�Mww ��M! BCJ's City Hall and Parking Concept a t tire it 4 6 ffff tffrt b! f Cfffi dm_ f�cist afff tt f ft 40 rffff %Rff6 twos flff •4 @�/60 ! 6ft6C. fOff >• f, * 61 W 13 �v iEbffi fffiii fiffi BCJ's Park Concept Ai i0i..• fYOi• •.10 OO aO..i• •1 i000..i.es• •<IU[<u \u• <<uuu< •i Y<1< Key Reasons for the BCJ Plan • The aesthetics of the structures. • "The design captures an iconic image for the City of Newport Beach." • A parking structure separate from Ci Hall {and located along the MacArthur Boulevard berm • Likely will be less expensive to build than an entirely or mostly underground parking facility. ocr Design minimizes grading and dirt export, minimizing cost; • Design creates an airy working environment for the Coty staff, including significant natural light and direct sun flow. Design creates a people - friendly courtyard between the parking structure and City Hall; Key Reasons for the BCJ Plan (cont"d) • The roof covers a large amount of space, allowing building flexibility underneath. • Design capitalizes on inexpensive technologies for the roof /structural system. • Good vehicular access from the library parking lot to the parking structure; • Design uses sustainable design features ... which should result in reduced operating costs; • The landscaping along Avocado is a continuation of the library landscape scheme and ties the sites together; and • The Park design leaves most of the topography of the Park unchanged so that it is primarily a "natural park." Refinements to BCJ's Plan • Consider changing the "Pod" modular sections. • Review the Sail Design Feature. • Add Surface Parking. • Improve the Aesthetics of the Parking Structure. • Reduce Amphitheatre and Add Parking. • Integrate City Hall and the Park better. • Refine Council Chambers, Community Room and Parking. • Reduce Light and Glare. • Improve the Link to the Library. Additional Recommendations (for any plan the Council selects) * Design Elements: • Maintain MacArthur berm; • Mitigate light and glare on the site; • Separate pedestrian and vehicular access ways and primary circulation elements; • Provide a floor plan that will easily accommodate future modifications to city functions; • Be logistically feasible, understanding how the duration of construction will affect the surrounding area; • Integrate the Library so as to develop a true civic center; • Provide for restrooms and easy parking for park visitors; PAd Recommendations (for any plan the Council selects) Design Elements (cont'd) : • Show strong connectivity between the North Park Parcel to the Central Park Parcel; • Consider a "cafe" or small coffee shop; • Have a vehicular connection from City Hall parking to the Library's parking lot; • Contain the Council Chambers and the multi - purpose community room in a single building; • Create a direct link between the City offices and Council Chambers for staff and officials; Additional Recommendations (for any plan the Council selects) ,; Design Elements (cont'd): • Design the Council Chambers and Community Room to act together as a single large community space; • Provide for useable contiguous outdoor space for community events; • Provide access to natural light from all staff workstations; • Continue landscape treatment from the Library olive groves along Avocado; • Screen roof - mounted antennas and dishes as required for City operations; and • Consider retaining the high point of the park's southernmost meadow area to maintain the oceanward view. -1. Additional Recommendations (for any plan the Council selects) Design Team's Flexibility. Ensure that the Design Team selected has demonstrable track record of good working relationships with clients, and meeting their wishes even if those wishes are not entirely consistent with the Design Team's vision. Staff Input. The City Council should review and consider the merits of the Report of the City Staff on the constructability of each Plan presented and the opinions of staff as to the functionality of each Plan. Additional Recommendations (for any plan the Council selects) Phasing. If budget constraints impact the construction of the Council's preferred design, consider phasing the project to construct the building in Phase I and the park in Phase II. 3rd Party Cost Estimator. Get a 3rd party cost estimate for each of the designs deemed a feasible alternative design by the City Council. • NOTE: The cost information provided was rough and should be verified. In Conclusion • Committee recommendation is BCJ... • With refinements suggested; and • Consistent with our additional recommendations. • We thank: • The five firms for the effort and creativity which went into each concept plan; • The City Council for its support of our work; • The staff support (Dave K, Steve B, Shirley Oborny) • As Chairman, I strongly support the involvement of the design professionals of the City Hall and Park Design Committee in the next phase of project design. • We look forward to continuing to work with the Council on this Project.