HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3502(C) - MOU Regarding Conditional Approval of a Lot-Line AdjustmentCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. is
May 10, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Homer Bludau, City Manager
949 -644 -3000
hbludau ancity.newoort- beach.ca.us
Steve Badum, Public Works Director
949 -644 -3311
sbadum@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF GRIFFIN STRUCTURES SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVES AND
SELECTION OF SITE PLAN FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF CITY HALL,
FIRE STATION, AND PARKING STRUCTURE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve recommendation of the Building Committee to proceed with the schematic
design for Replacement Option 3, including replacement of Council Chambers, as
detailed in the attached presentation (April 23, 2005).
2. Direct staff on whether or not to include the 2,600 square -foot community room as
part of the project.
3. Direct staff to include either a 250 or 350 -car parking structure.
4. Approve recommendation to proceed with a LEED certified building.
Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Lido Partners, Inc. for conditional
approval of a lot -line adjustment.
6. Direct staff to work with a financing team to develop potential financing for the
project.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The facilities comprising the current City Hall complex vary in age and efficiency. An
April 2002 Building Assessment by Griffin Structures concluded that the facilities have
met the short-term needs of the City in the past, but developing issues with work
environments, space allocations, lack of adequate parking, and inefficiency in systems
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 2
have been caused by inadequate long -term planning. The lack of a central lobby or
entry point causes confusion in circulation and difficulty in control of security. None of
buildings meet current practices for seismic design or ADA requirements, and the
separation of buildings causes great inefficiencies in HVAC and electrical systems, as
well as confusion on the part of the public. The City Hall complex is composed of the
following structures:
Building A — Council Chambers
3,578 square -foot structure built in 1975. It has public seating for 112 people in the
Council Chambers; the building is rated to safely hold 187 people.
Building B — Main Building
This 12,803 square -foot building was built in 1945 and houses the City Clerk and City
Managers staff offices, part of Administrative Services, Human Resources, and part of
Recreation and Senior Services
Building C — Professional Services Building
This 13,489 square -foot building was built 1985 and houses the Building, Planning, and
Public Works Departments
Buildings D and E — Annex Buildings
13,489 square -feet compilation of buildings, circa 1945 -1960 housing the Print Shop,
MIS, central phone server, Fire Administration, part of Recreation and Senior Services,
and the City Attorney's Office
Fire Station - constructed in the mid- 1950's and remodeled on three occasions.
The demand for more space has slowly grown over time. Increasing population and the
associated effects on housing, business, transportation, and public infrastructure has
increased the need for more staff and workspace to ensure quality public services.
Increasing regulations such as the CEQA, the Coastal Act, water quality laws, and
updated Building and Fire Codes have also increased the need for staff over time.
More recently, the demand for limited housing in Orange County has caused an
explosion in remodeling and expansion of existing homes.
Discussions to replace, remodel, and relocate City Hall have been going on since the
1960's. In the 1970's, there was a plan to consolidate City Government functions to the
Fashion Island area. The proposed 19.2 acre property, named Civic Center Plaza,
would include the Police Department, Fire Department, City Hall and a County Court.
That effort never came to fruition and only the Police Station and a Fire Station were
eventually constructed at that location. In 1985, the City added its first building to
replace the temporary offices (commonly referred to as the Tea House) that were
situated in the parking lot along Newport Boulevard and the temporary annex, leased
space in a building at the corner of Via Oporto and 32nd Street. Unfortunately, the
building was downsized due to funding limitations, resulting in a new building with little
room for future staff growth and record storage needs. In the early 1990's, Newport
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 3
Boulevard was widened and the City Council elected to replace the parking lot along
Newport Boulevard with a green belt as it is today.
More recently, we are seeing the same situation that occurred before 1985 with the
addition of two temporary trailers to house employees. The first trailer was required to
house our code and water quality enforcement personnel that are required under new
Federally mandated water quality regulations and programs. The building inspectors
have been moved to a second trailer to allow for additional planning and building plan
check personnel to keep up with the increasing building and remodeling demand. Last
year, the City processed 11,628 building permits which exceeds all other cities
countywide. However, unlike 1985, there is no more space to construct additional
structures to replace these temporary facilities.
RECENT HISTORY:
At the July 24, 2001 City Council meeting, staff was directed to develop a scope of
services for a City Hall Needs Assessment to pursue a long -term strategic plan for City
Hall facilities that would address space needs, facility access, mobility, storage, and
customer service.
An invitation to submit qualifications was sent to all architectural firms with a Newport
Beach business license and a small list of firms recommended by other local agencies
(see attached list of all 51 solicited firms). Twelve firms attended a site tour of the
campus, and of those, the following eight firms submitted their qualifications to provide
space utilization and needs analysis services:
• Environ Architecture Saunders Design Group
• Griffin Structures, Inc. Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
• Dougherty & Dougherty Roberto A.Viggayan &
• The Hill Partnership, Inc. Associates
• James Lawson Pirdy, AIA, Inc.
Staff reviewed the qualifications of the firms and the following three firms were chosen
to respond to the City's Request for Proposal:
• Dougherty & Dougherty
• Thirtieth Street Architects
• Griffin Structures, Inc.
Griffin's proposal was ranked the highest based upon the firm's qualifications, past
experience on similar projects, and availability. Staff then negotiated a $154,780
Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Griffin Advisors, Inc. to perform a
comprehensive space utilization assessment, needs analysis, and provide
recommendations for the City Hall campus facility expansion. These studies were
completed in August 2002.
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 4
Based on the result of the space needs assessment study, on June 10, 2003, Council
approved a PSA with Griffin Structures Incorporated (Griffin) at a cost not to exceed
$578,185 for project administration and management; and A/E design services through
the completion of schematic design (see attached report dated 6/10/03). In addition to
the approval of the PSA, staff was directed to: engage in discussions with the adjacent
property owner of Via Lido Plaza Center regarding a potential lot line adjustment. Staff
was also directed to schedule a series of community workshops to receive input
regarding planning and design of the project.
At that meeting, Mr. Roger Torriero of Griffin also presented a report titled,
"Comparisons of Continued Occupancy of Existing City Hall vs. Effective Cost of
Occupancy in a Replacement City Hall" which discussed the advantages of constructing
a new facility versus remodeling and expanding the existing City Hall. After some
discussion, the Council majority (6 -1) passed a motion receiving and filing the report
and additionally determined that no further investigation of a possible site for City Hall
off the current Balboa Peninsula campus was necessary (see attached City Council
Minutes and agenda report dated 6/10/03).
Shortly after that meeting, the Building Committee met to discuss the City Hall project,
and it was decided to put the contract with Griffin on hold due to potential conflict of
interest concerns regarding Roger Torriero's involvement with a group attempting to
redevelop the Lido Village Marina area. Since that time, Griffin has resolved the
potential conflicts to the satisfaction of the City Manager and City Attorney by
withdrawing from participation in the Lido Village Marina project.
DISCUSSION:
On February 8, 2005, the City Council approved moving forward with the schematic
design process and lot line adjustment discussions with the adjacent property owner.
As a condition of moving forward with the schematic design process, Griffin was
charged with investigating the question of whether or not to remodel or replace the
existing buildings at City Hall. Councilmember Webb had expressed the desire to keep
as many existing buildings as were economically sound as a part of the project. Staff
and Griffin were also directed to conduct public outreach workshops to gather input on
the schematic design for any new or remodeled facilities.
While site layout scenarios were developed, the first public workshop was held on
March 5, 2005 (minutes available in City Clerk's office). The architect, LPA, gathered
opinions on design elements and priorities for a new City Hall campus. Due to low
turnout, the second meeting was postponed to allow for improved public noticing. (see
attached Council memo dated April 12, 2005 for public outreach efforts)
The design team, with the assistance of Councilman Webb, explored several remodel
scenarios and narrowed them to three site layouts, each with a different combination of
new and existing buildings. These options and alternatives were presented at the
second public workshop on April 2, 2005 (minutes available in City Clerk's office).
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 5
Department adjacencies were then developed for each option and construction cost
estimates for the City Hall portion of the project were developed. These estimates
include substructure, superstructure, interiors, MEP (plumbing, HVAC, and electrical),
contingency funds, and an additive option to replace the Council Chambers. The
following three options were then presented to the public in the April 23`d and 25th
workshops:
During the public outreach, an email address was established to collect public input,
opinion, and suggestions. Over the past several months, the City has received over
100 contacts and several questions have been asked that were not answered in the
formal presentations. A question and answer section is attached, as well as a summary
of public comments received.
The Building Ad Hoc Committee has selected Option 3 as the most efficient solution,
and is recommending the replacement of the Council Chambers and inclusion of the
community center.
The 2,600 square -foot community room (an addition of $497,000 to the project) would
have a meeting capacity of approximately 150 people and would be a resource to
organizations throughout the community. It may include a small service kitchen which
could be used for special events. The community room would be situated in a way that it
would have external entrances to allow access when City Hall is closed. However, the
addition of the community center does present the need for increased parking. While
the building needs assessment report provided detailed information regarding the
practical needs for City Hall parking and set that number at approximately 250 , parking
must be provided based on maximum attendance if all City facilities were in use
simultaneously. This condition requires the City to provide a structure with about 350
parking stalls. A very preliminary estimate for the 350 -space structure prepared by
Griffin Structures would be $4.6 million.
The current fire station is 11,520 square -feet and is located on 0.26 acres and does not
meet the standards for an essential building as set by the modern emergency facility
design. The existing station was originally constructed in the mid- 1950's and although it
was remodeled three additional times, the remodels did not consider future gender
requirements, paramedic service, and high -rise residential structures at the time of its
original construction or the remodels. (see attached City Hall Fire Station Rebuild:
Location & Space Need Considerations memo)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Existing Space
29,440 s.f.
12,222 s.f.
3,622 s.f.
New Space
40,782 s.f.
56,000 s.f.
63,600 s.f.
Total Space
70,222 s.f.
68,222 s.f.
67,222 s.f.
Cost Estimate
$23,670,000
$22,215,000
$19,180,000
Chamber Addition
$550,000
$550,0001
$550,000
Total Cost
$24,220,000
$22,765,000
1 $19,730,000
During the public outreach, an email address was established to collect public input,
opinion, and suggestions. Over the past several months, the City has received over
100 contacts and several questions have been asked that were not answered in the
formal presentations. A question and answer section is attached, as well as a summary
of public comments received.
The Building Ad Hoc Committee has selected Option 3 as the most efficient solution,
and is recommending the replacement of the Council Chambers and inclusion of the
community center.
The 2,600 square -foot community room (an addition of $497,000 to the project) would
have a meeting capacity of approximately 150 people and would be a resource to
organizations throughout the community. It may include a small service kitchen which
could be used for special events. The community room would be situated in a way that it
would have external entrances to allow access when City Hall is closed. However, the
addition of the community center does present the need for increased parking. While
the building needs assessment report provided detailed information regarding the
practical needs for City Hall parking and set that number at approximately 250 , parking
must be provided based on maximum attendance if all City facilities were in use
simultaneously. This condition requires the City to provide a structure with about 350
parking stalls. A very preliminary estimate for the 350 -space structure prepared by
Griffin Structures would be $4.6 million.
The current fire station is 11,520 square -feet and is located on 0.26 acres and does not
meet the standards for an essential building as set by the modern emergency facility
design. The existing station was originally constructed in the mid- 1950's and although it
was remodeled three additional times, the remodels did not consider future gender
requirements, paramedic service, and high -rise residential structures at the time of its
original construction or the remodels. (see attached City Hall Fire Station Rebuild:
Location & Space Need Considerations memo)
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 6
The replacement fire station design would be based upon the current county standards
as adopted by the Orange County Fire Authority and would meet all current standards
for an essential facility. The footprint of such a design requires 0.84 acres and requires
a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property owner in order to keep the facility in its
current location next to City Hall. The preliminary estimate to construct an appropriate
facility is $3.875 million. Since no design work has been performed as of this date, this
cost would be subject to change and is merely a rough "guesstimate" of potential costs.
The total estimated cost of the recommended Option 3, including replacement of the
Council Chambers, a 350 -stall parking structure, relocation costs, and anticipated
indirect costs, is $41,516,000. Please see the attached Conceptual Program Budget
Option for a breakdown of the costs for each of the options listed above.
POTENTIAL LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
The City Council, at its February 8, 2005 meeting directed staff to pursue lot line
adjustment scenarios with the adjacent owner. The adjacent property is the Via Lido
Plaza and is owned by Lido Partners, Inc. Both adjacent properties are irregularly
shaped and have inefficient allocation of available space for their current uses. The
execution of a lot line adjustment would provide a more regular shape for a more
efficient layout of the City Hall campus providing adequate space for a modem fire
station, parking structure, and a new City Hall while preserving the existing green space
along Newport Boulevard. All of the three remodel /replacement options require the lot
line adjustment to occur in order to proceed with a project.
The potential adjustment proposes a one for one exchange of approximately 0.33 acres,
so that each property owner has no loss or gain of value; thus eliminating the need of
compensation for either property. The attached Memorandum of Understanding has
been prepared to provide for the land exchange in the event that City Council chooses
to proceed with a replacement project. Both parties, the City and Lido Partners, will
execute the lot line adjustment documents and record the results with the Orange
County Recorder upon City Council's final approval of a project, which could occur this
fall. If the City Council decides not to proceed with a City Hall replacement project, the
documents will not be executed and the existing property line will remain in its current
configuration. Also included in the MOU, is the mutual agreement to allow Lido
Partners to construct a new driveway on Via Oporto to accommodate for the loss of the
current delivery entry adjacent to the existing fire station.
CONCLUSION:
If Council approves the recommended actions, Griffin Structures and its team will
proceed with the schematic design of the recommended option in accordance with the
previously approved PSA with Griffin (see attached Council action dated February 8,
2005). At the conclusion of Griffin's Scope of Work, a schematic design will be
presented to Council (Fall of 2005) for a decision on whether or not to proceed with a
City Hall project.
Subject: Selection of Site Plan for Schematic Design of City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Structure
May 10, 2005
Page: 7
Environmental Review:
This activity is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Implementing Guidelines. However, an environmental review and appropriate
documentation will be required upon establishment of a viable project concept.
Funding Availability:
On June 10, 2003 Council appropriated and authorized expenditure of the funds
necessary to complete this phase of the project.
Submitted by:
W-Opy"' _4+�/
'Homer L. Bluddu
City Manager
Submitted by:
StOph G. Badum
PuW Works Director
Attachments: Power Point Presentation, April 25, 2005
Firms Solicited in RFQ Process
City Council Report, dated June 10, 2003
Professional Services Agreement with Griffin Structures, Inc.
City Council Report, dated April 12, 2005
FAQ
Public Comments and Input
City Hall Fire Station Rebuild: Location & Space Need
Considerations Memo
Conceptual Program Budget Option Comparison
MOU with Lido Partners
AU-
0
Fr
C-4 -
z
NEW
IL
Wgir
sv-
W4
..... . . . . .
...... .....
Tf
NA
9
co
CD
E
a)
0
cc
E
a)
CL
E
0
0
O
cn
tm
O
LO
rn
qcr
cc
ci
CD
U')
co
cn
V—
cc
0
cc
C
.0
CO)
CO)
CL)
-4--
0
CL
i
C)
C)
CD
CY)
Y7
Lc)
q:r
CY)
T--
cc
C.)
CO)
CD
m
x
CD
r_
C
0
m.
CD
00
Ez
0
E
CD
CD
LO
m
-6
CD
E
CO)
ui
0
cc
U-
I
C6
CD
1-:,
vi
cc
(A:
CD
C
U')
O.
7.
av
C.)
0
1=
cc
CO)
le
0
"D.
CD
CO)
CD
_0
c
CO)
x
CD
0)
00
cc
cc
CO)
CO)
O
C
cc
_r_
CO)
CO)
CD
cc
cc
CO),
CD
cc
CD
0
CL
cc:
CO).
0
CO)
C
0
Cal
IL)
0.
W,
rj-
. . . . . . . . . . .
�W;
e—m
rJ
IN3WSS3SS'V iq i a i i n a
(D (D cz
E C +-
(D
(D
U) CZ
U) E
0 0
0)
0) (D
CZ U) CZ
0
(D 0 (D
(D (D
–0 E
E =5 (D
(D cZ C)
0
.0
cz
Ln
CD
r_ (1)
0 IZ-
0
7C3 fl..i C) cz
(D Cr C) E
Z U) (D
=5 CZ > (D
C) <
(D
U) (D
+ 4—
12'
U) LL
(D cz E (D
U) ;-- 0 — U)
0) (D =5 .
Q) (D -0
U) — (1) 0 *5
7C3 (/) U) =5
x LD -0
C) 72 C) U)
m z b < S; cz C) (1)
.LN3[NSS3SSV NOUT-YningOVdS
c
CIO
U)
Q)
CIO,
E
(D
(D
-0
CZ
CZ
CJ
cz
(D
_0
E .0-
0
.(D
co
3:
00
0
.0
z
co
-0
N
(D
w
..(D
z
I--
CZ
(D
4)
0
ca
.0
E
:t_-
, 0
SO
+�
CZ
C)
C)
0
0
C)
0
(D
CIO
-0
CIO
(D
(D
C)
Ile
CIO
0
CIO
CIO
CD
,
>
U)
cri
SNOS1d8VdV4O3
LL
CY)
CY)
C\i
C)
(D
C\i
Cf)
r
LO
LO
ti
CY)
LO
(D.
(D
(D
N
0
(D U)
cm
N
N
N
CY)
CY)
CD
CY)
CD
CY)
CD
l
LO
co
C\i
O
C)
CD
Am
U')
CD
C5
C:�
CD
co
CD
CD
CD
CD
co
co
R*
U.)
!I-
U')
CD
co
CD
CO
CT
-*�'
1�-
U')
co
co
U')
U')
CO
U')
=
LO
"
M
co
co
.1.
U')
co
co
cz C:
co
em
co
co
co cz
CD
C)
25
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
O.
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
CD
8
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
(Z)
C)
C)
73 =3
cl�
C6
Cfj
LO
(0
C)
cy)
c)
CY)
C)
Co
co
,
.
0
1�-
(.0
1�-
(D
,
0)
(n
SO
Co.
E
C)
co
(D
Co.
4v
Im
<
CO
0-
co
>
Y
co
U) co
W,
a>
Co
Co
a-
-0
Z
0
M. co
x
m Fn
.9)
i>:
co co
Cc iE
0
m Cc
SIN3wiuinoi83OVdS
Z
Cc
>%
Cc
a)
cc
.0
L.�
cc
a
-@�
cc
C-4
0
cD
0
E.
Q
N
E
o
Cc
E
0
0
0.
0
V
E
0
0
cc
a
cc
W
Cc
0
a)
a)
0
cc
cc
cc
cc
E
ZE
'0
a
a
cc
a)
Cc
cc
0
a)
Q
.a
Cc
0
Cc
cc
>
a)
a
a
CL
a)
w
.—
cc
0
@
w
cn
a)
a)
a)
CM
L..
cts
M
W
cc
cr
0
a.
0
GC
w
cc
0
CD
--a
a)
cc
Co.
ZZ
0
0-
cc
C%A
CT
0
LZ
CL
cc
cl)
U)
0.
S. Gam. r
rr.l1
83d"'3 KHAA,
p
cv
C
tv
11 "a
lC O
a O i
0 4) O Q > O.. cc
O V i
2.
t!) + Go O . O. Q
i O N
O D-
in i N
N
O
cn a) N .0 N O
CD
i O r.'. •cn . V N
cc ..� O c
•�
cc +. i
a i C ;: O i
lC
cc 'a
0 ++ +• O Q +CD .
U O O r CD CD
AL) N N
N.� •Q:'. 0 Cc N.'.
C O ++ Q } O
Q
Q O y 16 CO tv
y c..
O y
i CL O � O C O N.
>.
Q }>. C O +O. _
cc
O = V
Q V �.. •V N Q: O
7 •� Q
N 3 O O
(� O Q
✓ _ �' C ''' > O O.
O N O N U.)
CC
77 o
• .••i.. • • • ••
S3111NnidOddO (INV SINIV81SN00 311S
1,
rn
0
E
>
W
CL :1
0
m
W
0 -0
Lo
L
0
tm
c
00
cc
(A
0 0 CL
2
R
o
0 cc (A
S
LL
'00
0
M
0
0
r-
0
t
o
0 CL
to
0)
Z.
Uo
CL
0 r
0
7
Do
r
Lu
0
1,
JO
c
0
E
>
W
CL :1
0
m
.2
>
0 -0
Lo
L
0
tm
c
00
cc
(A
0 0 CL
2
R
o
0 cc (A
L4.
LL
JO
c
0
0
ILL
0
7
r
(b
C14
ui
.
a.
cc
C.)
IL V"4,.w
I.W
POIN
A 8 v N A A 3
�o
Z
q<
W
z
O
U)
0.
z
w
J.
z
0
Z
U)
w
0
a
U)
Z
z
w
a
2
U)
U)
lie
w
O
U)
Cl)
Z
U)
w
0
a
U)
U)
z
�:
a
d.
Z
U)
w
0
a
Z
U)
W
U)
w
a
W
U)
I
a.
U)
U)
z
LLJ
d.
cr.
O
-�o
a.
Z
U)
W
U)
w
a
W
U)
I
a.
4
lu
yy
ii i i a vNj i vis ns
c
0
LLI
mi
(food"
�M4
O
a.
Ailll8VNIViSnS
O
V.
W O.
A=
W,
O CL
E
m
X
W
� a a.
J = cm
cn
'rte
Cl)
c
U)
U)
U)
ai
00
Cl)
CL
(1)
O
LU
Cl)
6 T.
I
If
in- JL
-7 7'
�w
NU
C
0
0.
E
x
W
LL
N.
oP-.
rML
Ox
w
I NOlidO I I G 1) Yl 3 'd
U-
V)
cm
co
cc CT
LL LL
r_ (n LL
LL V)
75- V) U) LL 04 cr
a: 0 04 r_ 0 .. C14
0 r_ cm E V) '.P co CM
sY0 7N E Clt Cq
citDUM0cm r- L w cm Z LL I-- t--
0
-j
C I
0 U-
V)
V) cm
co
IL U. C-4
co
6.
I
1
4i
0
-j
C I
0 U-
V)
V) cm
co
IL U. C-4
6.
I
1
4i
OL-
f
i Y1
I
I NOIldO 130OW38
V;
-J/'
0-'
uj
MM
c
m
m
O
m
0.
m
CL
E
O
A
U) U-
E
E
O
0 r
0
m
Q y
CL 0
CL
•
m x
a. LU
E
c
10
0
0%
(n
ri) LLI
U
ou
-J/'
0-'
uj
MM
c
0•
Xi-
A-A
RMM
m
m
O
m
0.
m
CL
E
O
A
U) U-
E
E
.E
0 r
0
m
Q y
CL 0
o D
E
E
a,
V)
0
U LU
02
u V)
0•
Xi-
A-A
RMM
m
m
O
m
0.
m
CL
E
O
A
CL
E
.E
O
U>W
0•
Xi-
A-A
RMM
k6
0•
Xi-
A-A
RMM
G N 0 I 1 d 6 1 _ 3d (iLAj I tj
)I
i.
W
17 /.
Cni
LL
r
Z
O
a
O
N
C
N
c
M
u
m �
C
i
•�
N
O
Q O
LL
d
W
N
a
d
R c
t O
C
N
C
N
>
0
+
a
w
£ U
co
N
t UO
d
0
CL
•
3
CL
m
miroU.
mwo�z
.
YLi
p
�fn
1
1! 1►
)I
i.
W
17 /.
Cni
LL
r
Z
O
a
O
N
C
N
c
M
u
m �
fY6 'O
•�
N
O
LL
'
C
N co
d
3.
cn
, Q
a fn
£ U
co
•' 6
E
miroU.
0w.'oCi
iCl :,t ff _ o
'f.
G NOIldO i3OOUV38
m v
rn m
c m y
m c �
N ELL C O 0
m �
w m d a N
Q) O N lrn `
G
.fir Oc'u,0 w� �v�� u y Q 0-0 ._
CLCL CL
m.`. �'x.:.0 m m m c cm t E.2 'Q,yv
p �cn mwu` z YLL o' o y z Q off, m d c
' U..w ar.cn Q—
I
-----------------------
,. J
a)
j LL c
i o
cc
+mom.
y
Lu �_- c
>� .,.F. : %A�. :ate• -�. �
o
O
�. Z I
O i y
U
W i
N ch
_C
Z
F-I
3
H
W
m C
H
ml
W
j
U
¢
6 r
i
c
o
(n
m
O
�
R
C
'ate/
w
=�
w
W
w
Ci
Z
co
3
�
a
c
O
CU
a
a
w
� R
H
U
¢ L
H y
n O C
¢ v a
w o a
C
d Y
O
X O
(n W ¢
Em
c
O
In
N
0
U
c ?' .
o c
»_- O
U)
o &
ARE
c
W
W
J
h
s E
O E m
O O) Y
U c c
>. Q
O � �
y C `
O
U u.
� O
g► $ 1 o O
N' CD N
1 C 1 (V
1 N
v
a
a E
E 16
R L
L U
U U
U C
C �
= O
U
U ;
U J y z
v Q Z L
LL
L':
m C
i6
U.
ml
W
j
Q
J
y
� O
g► $ 1 o O
N' CD N
1 C 1 (V
1 N
v
a
a E
E 16
R L
L U
U U
U C
C �
= O
U
U ;
U J y z
v Q Z L
LL
L':
N G) . y 0° o
Z� ��y
O... =a..
E Q �'
00 x
0 w
O w
N
a R
CL cc
0 x
g •
'u
�d
�J
u
0
-i
0 LL
4) to
OD
4) -tr
.h V CD
LL oq c)
: qAW
�41
:4
NOIidO
13aOIN38
LU
d
4)
E
4)
U
LL L)
C
LL
4)
LL M
. LL
LL
cn
cn LL
3 LL
E
I I C.4
Of
4)
6 cn
mm
0 C N
CD
E
m C'4-
>
0
Z. LO On
.0) co
(a Ln
0 CS
-;v-CN
0 0
N - CD
L) CD L) c) L) N
0 CO
to
R Ljj 4) 0 Ti
LU Z LL Ln
o C6
CD
T
0
-i
0 LL
4) to
OD
4) -tr
.h V CD
LL oq c)
: qAW
�41
:4
to
LU
0
-i
0 LL
4) to
OD
4) -tr
.h V CD
LL oq c)
: qAW
�41
:4
Z NOI.LdO
(D
(D
(D
E
Z, X CD
E W
0 3
(n "
cl�
= 0 CL
t•.s cn
0
r- O7
0 M
CL � r-
CL.E (D
ii c
r
0 (D
K
W
lalooyq3d
-Fu
.2 0
07
uj
C
r— D
CO
.W
.0
(D 'Z-- C
0-
. 0
co
(D
ch
0''
CL
EM: M 0
LL f
0
0.
—M
E
O
E
0
(D U-
'.P
0 M
0
0
E -z-
E C
E 0
, 0
P
CL
CL 0
0
0
(D
IM
0
0 —j
0 c�n 0
U
00
¢N
Na
cn w ch
uj
cc
uj
cr
A
.01
4Li
Z NOUdO 130ON2 6
0
0 u
C
In In Ur-- U. V)
C za
0 = 0
U o
i
C,
.2 cD
0
0
w LL
CD.
CD
M
CD tr
¢m
.2 (n
E CD
.!2 'm
CD
W cn
CL
C,
C:
CD
AD r_
m
X CD
a LL
0
w 2r z
W
V- w
0 "
CD CD.E
>
U) .=
w
0
CD CD LL
0 CD
W -0
CL
w 0 CD
m CD
MM r
> -
E o
CL M
Z
> �: 70
o
c m Z
0 CD m
CD r- 0
CD M CL
LL
-i
cc. u 0
0
0 u
C
In In Ur-- U. V)
C za
0 = 0
U o
i
C,
.2 cD
0
0
w LL
CD.
CD
M
CD tr
¢m
.2 (n
E CD
.!2 'm
CD
W cn
CL
C,
C:
3
Z NOlidO 1300W38
LLI
LLI
Z
0
. iz
LLI
zI
2-
CD
*a
.2 w
N
CD r_
m
'T( & 0
w
C U.
0 b -0
W. Z
a
x
0
CD CD
CD 0
Ill
CD
rj) >
0 CD
� .CD LL
M M
0
CL %
D -0
-,Z:.
CD
0 0 mo
3r.
:3 >W. r- 0
r- m
CD M
�e :LL:
m -1.
cc u 0
r<
cl
CD
LLI
LLI
Z
0
. iz
LLI
zI
2-
0
rL
L)
U)
*a
.2 w
r-
CD
w
-0 Z CD
w m
0
L)
Cn
m
CD "
U) cn
(Z)
0 If
<0
CL
—
rz
w 5
20
—
CD -U.
r<
cl
CD
m
4
(n
0 (n
M
(Z)
o
o
=
.0a
0
0
CD 0'
= r-
L)
cl L)
cc U)
U) 4
0
rL
L)
U)
w
¢
H
U
M
¢
r
U)
a0
U)
11>
c
Y O
0 A
c
« O
U) �°
w
cm m
Z,
`0.:4
r
a o
OU:
- _
0
0
N
P.
w
H
U
¢
H
U)
¢
W
a
U)
A
w
w
U)
y a
O �
U Q
O �
c
o
w Q
1. ZVi
G
PEI
0
0
0
a
w
c E
E
U U
)
� VI fn J
y U) y Q
0 Y H
O rn
> U) a a U ao
°1 O w > > w M
U i 2 a x w U)
//7-
r:
�^ O
� O
of o i o
of r i
N 1 N '
\ N n
� N
N
v
E
.n E
E 1°
� L
L C'�
U —
U
U �
c 0
O
O U
U 3
w
U J y 2
Ul Q
Z L_
C r 0
m
O o
o
i.
.
O.
N
N
U
LZ
o
4w
U.
U
G
PEI
0
0
0
a
w
c E
E
U U
)
� VI fn J
y U) y Q
0 Y H
O rn
> U) a a U ao
°1 O w > > w M
U i 2 a x w U)
//7-
r:
�^ O
� O
of o i o
of r i
N 1 N '
\ N n
� N
N
v
E
.n E
E 1°
� L
L C'�
U —
U
U �
c 0
O
O U
U 3
w
U J y 2
Ul Q
Z L_
C r 0
m
O o
o
MV.
<
c
0
CO
W X
0
LL
I=M
.
O
o.
m
OE
cc
O.0
CL
I
m
r
ti
�a
T.
r
:J
G1
1.
TF
d
rn
CD C O
.0
E U LL
t .T LL d
LL 0 C N LL LL
= O C N £ U N ,C SN .. N
7 � �" N > N C:) (NO .�. N
>. O 7 N
�(,i (0 (,iMc.iN �:o d W MZfMO CG
V
a
W
Ix
O
J
C
O
w
IL
N U)
U)
a co
CD
LL
W M :.
C
r '. I'' .
1. 0 Ia.
/ v
v
_ a a
NOWO
/ 1
C
NOIIdO
1N3iN3DVld3d
C
0
cn
a
U)
ui. 0
CD
ca
CJD
X CD
m
0 a
0
C
0
U)
0
0
W 0
m
a.
LL 'r
U)
0
.0
a cx
E
E
E 0
3:
(1
t
CD CD
.@ U)
:3 0
'-P
:3 2 M
= r- -
-
0
"
2
O
m
� r-
r CD
E m
E
E I
U)
z
U)
d l0
CL
CL
cr 3
CD
CD
0
CL
'r, 0 r-
%P
0
C
M (I
r_
0
a'
cc U)
0
0
0 -j
CL 0 0
0 -1 U
CL 4::.
ow
.0
U
0
0)
0
u
— 0
U) H
LLI
CL
w
i H
I.
rz
n--n lJ
ui
ty
j�p�`^yyn r.
7
aM
.14 6.11
•.-d
C NOlidO 1N3UI33-4]d3H
-i
LU
LU
cri
cr
TE
z
0
2
a
w 3
"C
D CD z
E
0
CD
R
M U.
U
w
U) .0
M
V
N Cn
CD
>
E
20
o
O.
0
E —
'S
CL
O
CD
cc M.
-i
LU
LU
cri
cr
TE
z
0
2
a
v
LLI
LU
C NOlidO IN VV30VId3d
NS
I /ito
4e I
LL.
rL
0
oio--1
iii
N
CD CD
Z
M
E
w
CD
M LL
'Z
a
U
E
fn w
CD
w .0
CL
t
0
> a
0
w 0
CL
E
m
CL
O
CD 3
M
m
NS
I /ito
4e I
LL.
rL
0
oio--1
iii
a s,
�N
N
L
C
r
C
r
L
L
t. J
s
•s
'1
r
J
c
s O
C
«_ 0
� LPL
IL
PO
co m
Z
O
I-- v
ao
0 U
M
W
¢
M
f-
U
¢
f-
U)
W
[L
i
R
Ul
w
w w
L
y a
O �
U Q
O m
O O
W CC
C
O
N
O
U
a Z.
0 a
V O
L ca
N =
C A
0
U U
I �\
W
LU/
J>
li
w
c E
O _d
U E y
y �
y
)
c �
O C C
U _
w Q
O > U)
O O
U
°o
0
0
n
a
[L
W
�^ O
0 0 l C>
a �I w ► M
1 T
� � T
N
N N
d �
R
R L
t U
U U
C 0
0 O
J U
Q U �
a U ~ f 0
co
3 > d C O 6 R
d 2 W N U r Q H
0 0 0 �i
O` LO O N .Q
I` r 00
V.
a N T ca
co M N 0)
E NC M r
E 441 61)- 6e)-
N M Q p
Q Q. Q Lf)
m _ O O O ,°
U '..0 5
31Aa3HOS
Lo
C%j
V.
N
=
O
1<11000
Lo
C%j
V.
N
=
a
1<11000
0
to
N
V
a
w
V
v!
y
N Ir it
(O It
it
i�
Iq !
j
°D
0) �
v
rn
l
u�
co
(O I(O
4)
N
4)
00
• N N
N
m
O
m
r
m r
m
co
co
LO
m
0)
(o I0)
v
r
(o
N
co
v
V O
N
LO
O)
O)
O)
O)
I
i
(0
V
V
V
r m
(h O
00 l r
LO
O
V
(h
(O
(O
V
O)
O)
N
N
O
00
00
O)
O
O
j
C4
r V y
O
LO
0)
LO I ((O
r
N
O
LL�7
O
O)
i
N I N
i
(h
i
O
i
(h
i
r
i
r
N V I
(O �
0)
O)
V
00
r
co
(O
47
N
00
00
O)
V
O)
r X00
I�
00 V
(O i
Nt O
N
LO
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O) N 1
(D
V
V
V
V
V V I
r (�
u�
v
m
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn rn �
(O
O)
N
N
(h
O
N
V
N
C)
O
O
O
O
O
(O
4)
(O
(O
00
LL)
00
O
O
O
O
O
(O
00
O
N
N
N
O)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0
O)
O�
0)
(O
(O
0
I
{
I
(U
O
la
U
p
L
U
U
U
U
UU
L
of
a)
a)
ai
aa))
aa))
aa))
m
m
m
m
E
N
U
l0
a)
C
m
a)
r
la
U
la
U
a)
(m
i
t
m
w
O
n
ai
ai
m
n
n
n
co
N
C
C
m
4
O
O
la
la
:
2
co
O
a)
a)
a)
¢
J
in
in
Z
U
Z
Z
Z
O
—
O
Q
a)
O
S
a)
r (O
O
I�
O
U)
IN
N
(e)
IN
LO
a)
ai
0
...
>
4k
a)
O
Q
Q
O
E
T
in
C
C
IN
0
>
((p°
#
a)
- l0
E
la
a)
O
Y
N
(a
E
a)
a)
O.
00
co
O
C
m
'
o
°
Y
(ryp
J
L
r
a
o
in
to
"'
a
r
O
J
m
U
E
O.
a)
r
O
`
O
CL
m
m
3
w
a
co
(i
m
li
a)
¢
U
a)
O
LO
0)
o
v
o
o
Z
O)
(h
LO
O
(
V
>
LO
O)
O)
O
O
O)
N
(h
N
Cl)
N
W)
N
0)
O)
V
00
w
00
(h
(h
LO
V
LO
V
r
U
>
O
O
aa))
0)
co
v
C
a)
C
O
O
a)
a)
a)
d
of
(n
O
a)
o
ai
3
°)
N
rn
d
o
O
U
~
O
`)
Y
p
E
E
co
m
>
o
0)
O
m
a)
U
I�
O
m
O
m
as
O
U
a)
C
a)
L
C
m
O
U
N
O
`
V
U
co
C
N
Q
a)
O
N
O
a)
=
w
O
U
CL
O
E
m
g
o
U
Q
3
w
CL
E
�
a)
1-
a)
O U
T
LO
12
(
O
C a)
C
U
>
V;
0
E
U
m
O 2
O
T la
co
w
H
w
n
o
m Q
10
U Il
y
d
V
0
.0
a
w
V
v!
y
N
(O (D
N
N
LO
O
V
07
(°
V
co
Cl) N (O
'9
V
I co
I-
co
N
�
ISO
47
�N
I(O
O)
a0
I-
LL7
O
O LO '(O
iLO
O
LO
O
LO
O
LI;
O
(O
(O I-
I-
(O
I-
N
LO
V
(O
r
(O
ILO
ILO
I� (O n
I(O
r�
(O
r
N
(O
I-
O)
I-
In
•
O) :O)
IO)
O)
0)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
0)
V V V
O) :O) O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V
O)
V ! (h
0
m
O
m
�
O
h
O
m
(O
(O
I(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
O) (O
(O
O
,O)
O
(O
tO
O
O
(O
00
O
(O
(O N
N
N
N
N
1�
N
N
N
N
N
I O)
O)
O)
O)
O
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O
O
(O
N
N
N
0)
O)
O)
a) a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
I
a)
C) U
U
(i
C)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
()
L IL
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
(a
L
U U
a) N
U
a)
U
a7
U
a)
U
a)
U
m
U
a)
U
a)
U
a7
U
a7
U
a7
a) a)
°
N
a)
N
a)
N
N
N
N
N
m m
m
m
m
m
Im
m
m
m
m
t t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
d n
n
d
n
n
n
n
d
n
n
C
n
I
a) a)
d
a)
a)
d
IZ
a)
a)
a)
a)
d
°
a)
Z Z
Z
�Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
U
Z
O
N
a)
I
g
m
W
a)
#
Io
t
t
a)
°
o
CL
a3i
!Z
rn
o
o
rn
n
°)
°
n
°
~
z
3
H
3
m
3
m
U
'O
Z
(+07
d
N
Z
(+O")
Z
Z
O
n
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
n
C)
I
I
C
Y
C
la
I O
a1
m
3
o
a)
a)
III
Y
O
a)
C
a)
N
E
C
U
s
co
S
m
!
O
N
c
U
N
N
.
N
C
i5
a)
co
L
H
a)
I
o
' U
a)
3
U
C
Vl
a) N
Y
L
�
C
0
O
Q
Y
O
~
N
N
O.
Q
C
O
N
C
C
j
L
Vl
C
t
a)
C7
` O
Q
Y
U
Z
a)
a) U
S in
O
°.
a)
.N
d
C
°
N
C
C U
U(
O
C
N
Q.
L
N
Co
W
)
C
L
Y
0.
N
N
co
Q
t
o¢
ii
0
S
S
S
a
Y
12
Y LL
N
to
V
a
as
�.I
V
y
(e)
(O !
N i
N
O
00
O
LO
O
m
O
N
O
C '00
O_
O
00
O
(O
W)
O)
O
(O
M
C
O
0)
(n
(q
(O
(O
r
00
N
1?
(O
(?
N
9)
O
00
O
OQ
1�
O
00
LO
C i1�
LO
(O
O
(O
C
r
C
r
O
(O
0)
O
LO
N
LO
O
(O
N
I� .(O
I(O
N
(O
C
LO
r
r
N
1�
(O
1�
C
C
C
C
0)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O '
Cl)
(h
O
O
(O
(h
O
O
O
LO
O
(O
(o
(O
(o
(O
(o
LO
0)
(O
(o
W)
r
(O
m
(O
(D
N
W)
(O
m
(O
m
N
(D
(O
(D
N
N
N
IT
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
N
0)
0)
0)
(O
0)
0)
0)
6
0)
0)
0)
0)
O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
N
0)
N
0)
N
0)
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
(a
U
l0
U
(a
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
la
L
U
(a
(a
a)
(a
(a
(a
a)
(a
(a
(a
(a
0)
on
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
0)
m
N
0)
m
C
C
C
l0
U
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O
CL
O
n
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3
3
3
3
3
a)
a)
0
`o
a)
Z
z
z
Z
z
I z
z
z
IZ
z
z
U
z
i
n
o
o.)
(
O
O
v
O
O
a)
#
#
0
>
Q
o
O
#_
O
O
m
m
>
m
O
p`
3
E
U)
C
C
(n
ii
3
C
d
n
m`
O
o
n
0)
U
0)
U
u
>
N
>
0)
U
O
m
=
3
a)
Y
O
m
3
r
r
m
Q
O
r
Vl
Z
C
m
O-
O-
N
O-
m
m
v
>
3
3
a)
~
m
3
O
U
O
N
Z
Z
o
Z
1-
v
O
LO
00
(o
C
r
(h
O
O
v
O
LO
O
(o
N
O
(0
O
r
O
W)
C
(h
(h
N
(h
N
N
N
C
N
N
0
0
LL
p
C
a)
a)
Z
co
N
d
B
n
n
J
J
I
Z
(n co
N
d
N
U
C
Q
N
`
D
N
O
O
Q
N
C
L
C7
L
2
N
a)
C
U
L
O
C7
5
U
Q
N
r
la
J
N
I/1
a)
l0
Q
N
aN
E
la
U
0
r
N
o
C
O
N
m
0
m
Q
u
a)
m
O
m
m
z
a
Q
U
Q
°)
°)
v
_
ajf C
O n
'2
C
(tea
C
0) co
0)
.y
N E
T
U
Y
J
J
J Q
J
J
Z C7
I Z
(e)
a
w
V
O
! I
I I
I
i
I
I
I
!
�
�O
a0
I
a0
N
O
LO
m
[O
I�
O
O
LO
D)
D) 'O
N
O
Cl)
N
V
(O
N
N
O
(D
O)
O
Cl)
O
N
00
I�
O
m
N I
m
O
W
V
(D
O
m
a
m
a
a
C6
c7
a
N
N
I�
(D
r
W)
r lc7
(D
a
r
a
a
N
r
(D
r
N
D)
O)
m
m
V
O)
O)
O) IO)
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
O)
O)
v
O)
O)
O)
m
m
i
m f
O
O
O
Cl)
O
Cl)
I(D
O
Cl)
�O)
N
(OD
((D I
(D
(D
(OD
(D
I�
(OD
(OD
m
(D
N
N
N
N
N
(D
N
N IN
N
N
M
N
' D)
D)
M
M
M
M
M
I
O)
M
M
O'
M
I
I
N
m
�U
U
U
U
U
U
'
U
U
U
U
�m
�m
�m
U
,m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a)
m
a)
m
a)
m
a)
m
a)
m
a)
�m
w
a)
a)
m
a)
m
a)
m
a)
m
0
0
0
0
o
m
U
o
0
0
10
��
to
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
1a)
w
a)
a)
a)
1a)
d
d
d
d
d
m
o
z
d
d
d
im
z
Iz
z
z
z
z
U
z
z
z
Iz
N
o
i
I
I
j
(O7
N
E
I
a)
a)
m
N
' J
VJ
VJ
>
J
V
N
+
m
❑
'�
d
co
❑
(D
O
J
L
rn
U
CO
❑
>
Q
Q
n
m
r
r
S.
r
d
m
o
Q.
3
a�i
>
3
m
g
3
>
�E
Z
U
Z
Z)
Z
U
(7
Z
N
O
N
(�
O
O
r
O
r
O
O
O
N
O
N
N
co
co
O
O
(D
O
m
co
m
m
N
co
O
N
m
N
O
m
m
N
N
N
m
N
N
N
X17
O
L
O
N
m
0
CD
m
W
.
❑
Y
J
a)
E
C
m
¢
�
O
U
E
,
°)
(L
p
w
a)
L
Ya
N
O
(n
(A
(A
H
Y
C
U
N
J
U
.O.
O
m
Q
2
N
W
V
N
d
L
V
LLV
O
O
L
0
O
H
d
E
L
a)
m
¢`
U
w
o
Q
L
`
w
w
a)
w
�°
Q
m
E O
O
-
m
N
d
C
an
L
0
m
E o
0
(n s
I in
U)
H¢
�
Z) a
> c
> Q
0
w
V
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda It 21
June 10, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY CO
FROM: Public Works Department
Lois Thompson
949 -644 -3311
fthompson@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: CITY HALL FACILITIES SCHEMATIC DESIGN — APPROVAL OF
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Receive and file report titled, "Comparisons of Continued Occupancy of
Existing City Hall vs. Effective Costs of Occupancy in a Replacement City
Hall."
2. Direct staff regarding any information or investigations that Council would like
for staff to undertake regarding a possible site for City Hall off the Balboa
Peninsula. If nothing further is desired on site selection, make that
determination.
3. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Griffin Holdings
Incorporated, for the not to exceed price of $578,185 and authorize the Mayor
and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
4. Approve a Budget Amendment appropriating $253,185 from the balance of
the General Fund Reserve for Capital Improvement to Account No. 7011-
02910545.
5. Authorize staff to engage in discussions with Fritz Duda, owner of the
adjacent Via Lido Plaza center, regarding a lot -line adjustment.
6. Direct staff to schedule a series of community workshops regarding the
planning and design of the project.
DISCUSSION:
In July 2001, Council directed staff to pursue a long -term strategic plan in the form of a
City Hall Facilities Master Plan that would map our facility requirements in order to
better serve the public. At the January 8, 2001 City Council meeting, Griffin Holdings
Subject: City Hall Facilities Schematic Design — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures, Inc.
June 10, 2003
Page: 2
(Griffin) was hired to develop a City Hall Facility Needs Assessment as Phase I of the
City Hall Facilities Master Plan process.
At the April 8, 2003, Council Study Session, Council viewed a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the results of the City Hall Facility Needs Assessment. In general, the report
stated the current City Hall campus is seriously deficient in serving the current and
future needs of the City. The existing buildings range from 23 to over 60 years of age
and have exceeded their useful life. The recommendation of the study incorporates a
long -term, integrated approach, addressing current and long -term workspace needs
with respect to staffing, facilities access, mobility, storage, parking, and customer
service. Current deficiencies in the following areas were investigated and documented
in the study:
• Customer Service interface — Poor circulation and lack of a central lobby or entry
point is confusing to the public. For example; Public counter is disjointed with key
functions such as the Cashier and Building permit issuance separated in different
buildings.
• Employee Workspace — Many employees share workspace or have workspace in
areas that were once conference rooms or even hallways. There is no room for
expansion to accommodate future public needs.
• Records Storage — Some records are currently stored offsite. With the inflow of
Newport Coast plans and potential future annexations, we are using storage
container bins within the City Hall parking lot.
• Meeting Rooms - Existing spaces are cramped and some have been converted
to office space.
• Seismic building code compliance — None of the City Hall buildings, including the
Fire Station, would survive a major seismic event without significant structural
damage.
• ADA compliance — There are widespread problems requiring costly
improvements.
• Parking — Many employees currently park off site. Customer parking is very
difficult at various times of the day.
As a result of the April 8, 2003, Study Session, the Council had three areas of concern
and directed staff to report on these items:
• Will there be operational savings expected from new facilities?
• Will there be significant improvement in productivity expected from new facilities?
• Would the parking structure generate income?
In a response to these questions, Griffin authored a White Paper addressing these
areas of concern. The report is included as an attachment to this memo and staff
recommends Council receive and file same. The report summarizes the current and
existing conditions and shortcomings, which constrain efficiency and productivity levels.
A discussion of current literature is included that supports the expected 15%
improvement in productivity. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed throughout
Subject: City Hall Facilities Schematic Design — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures. Inc.
June 10. 2003
Page: 3
City Hall and staff themselves expected an overall 14.7% improvement in productivity.
These percentages are then computed to the dollar equivalent of a 15% improvement
based on current compensation levels for City Hall staff.
The result indicates a probable productivity benefit of more than $2 million annually.
Although a productivity benefit does not translate directly into "cash in hand" savings,
there will be offsets of future staff recruitments due to improved efficiencies. There are
also gains to be had from reduced security, safety risks, and lost opportunity costs.
Griffin also surveyed past utility costs and compared those costs to the typical utility
costs modeled for the proposed City Hall. An energy savings of 17% is expected over
the first five years of operation, with a savings of $3.75 million over the 40 -year building
life.
Griffin researched actual City Hall building maintenance costs over the past five years
and deferred maintenance costs. When compared with BOMA Experience Reports
(new facility long -term maintenance costs), the difference is $3.7 million extended over
a 40 -year building life.
Staff responded to Council's question on how much revenue could be expected from a
parking structure. Local market rates for monthly parking were surveyed and staff has
estimated the potential of the proposed parking structure at conservative annual net
revenue of approximately $210,000 per year. This net revenue is based on the data
within the following table:
Parking Revenue
Existing Parking Meters $ 0.50 per hour
Lido Marina Village Structure Current Charges $ 70.00 per month
100 "overage" spaces available in proposed structure
50 spaces on monthly basis $ 3,500.00 per month
50 spaces on hourly basis 7am -9pm @ 50% occupancy $ 10,500.00 per month
225 spaces 6 -9pm M -F, 7am -9pm Sa /Sun @ 25% $ 10,481.25 per month
Projected Monthly Income $ 24,481.25
Projected Gross Annual Income $293,775.00
Anticipated Expenses
Parking Lot Attendant 14hr'365'17 salary + benefits $ 86,870.00
Net Annual Revenue $206,905.00
Please note: There are 24 surface parking spaces proposed in addition to the 325 spaces in the
parking structure. It is assumed the 24 surface parking spaces would be non - metered and free of
charge.
Subject: City Hall Facilities Schematic Design — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures, Inc.
June 10, 2003
Page: 4
Per City Manager direction, staff also collected visitor data for a period of two weeks at
each of the public counters. Actual visitor counts indicate there is an average of 500
persons per day who visit our public counters. Although some of these visits may
include multiple public counters within City Hall, it is indicative that many people each
and every day are visiting our offices for service.
Griffin recommends a reasonably sized City Hall that would accommodate current and
future needs, estimated at 62,000 square feet (current size is approx. 44,000 sq. ft.).
Griffin's recommended solution is to construct an entirely new facility including the
replacement of Fire Station #2 and the construction of a 350 space parking structure.
The estimated cost of such a project is estimated at 28 million dollars. Taking
advantage of the current interest rates, the City could finance the project over 30 years
at an annual cost of approximately two million dollars. The annual costs could be offset
by the savings in capital maintenance and improvement costs, operational efficiencies
due to centralization of employees and records, and potential parking revenues from
adjacent uses, which badly need additional parking.
The next step, or Phase Il, in the Master Plan process is to establish schematic plans
providing a detailed concept of the proposed City Hall replacement project. This project
phase would provide enough information in the areas of space allocation and cost, so a
decision could be made to proceed or not to proceed with Phase III, which is the
preparation of construction plans and specifications and ultimately the construction of a
new City Hall, Fire Station, and parking structure.
Griffin has submitted a proposal for Phase II of this project. The scope of the services
to be provided by Griffin for this project are summarized as follows:
■ Architect and Program Management — Griffin will sub - contract and administer all
contracts required to plan and design the facility, prepare the schematic design
drawings, and develop a budget estimate with defined scope of work and
preliminary schedule
■ Budget — development of cost estimates for all components of the work
■ Constructability Review — technical management of project design, performance
of architectural and engineering design, suggest refinements to improve future
sequencing of work, and participate in value engineering exercise
■ Schedule — Griffin will prepare a critical path management schedule for approval
by City, provide monthly status reports, periodic presentations to City Council,
and coordinate meetings with other groups and organizations as directed by the
City
A detailed scope of services is included in the attached Professional Services
Agreement.
Subject: City Hall Facilities Schematic Design — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures, Inc.
June 10, 2003
Page: 5
In addition, preliminary review of the site plan alternatives indicates a lot -line adjustment
with the adjacent property owner would be beneficial for both parties. Staff is
requesting approval from Council to engage the adjacent property owner in discussions
regarding the 'land swap" and then bring the issue back to Council for decision at a
future meeting.
Environmental Review:
This activity is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Implementing Guidelines. However, an environmental review and appropriate
documentation will be required upon establishment of a viable project concept.
Public Notice:
The scope of services identified in this Professional Services Agreement provides for a
series of community and Council workshops to solicit input regarding the planning and
design of the project.
Funding Availability:
There is $325,000 appropriated in the current budget for City Hall expansion planning.
To accommodate the next phase of the process, staff recommends approval of a
Budget Amendment to appropriate $253,185 from the balance of the General Fund
Reserve for Capital Improvement to Account No. 7011- C2910545. Upon approval of this
budget amendment, there will be sufficient funds available in the following account for
the schematic design work:
Account Description
City Hall Expansion Plan
Prepared by:
Lois Thompson
Administrative Manager
Account Number Amount
7011- C2910545 $578,185
Attachments: White Paper
Professional Services Agreement
Budget Amendment
Submitted by:
� yuaa _aN r
Stephen G. S m
Public Works Director
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INCORPORATED
FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 8th day of February; 2005; by
and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INCORPORATED, a corporation whose address is 385
Second Street, Laguna Beach, California, 92651 ( "Consultant'), and is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now
being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of
City.
B, City is planning to implement program management services for a new City Hall,
replacement Fire Station, parking structure, and related site improvements.
C, City desires to engage Consultant to provide program management services for
the schematic design phase only., per Exhibit A attached. ( "Project ").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to.provide the. services described. in .this Agreement. ... .
E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be Roger
Torriero.
F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
I . TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 28th day of February, 2006, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and
Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included
In Exhibit A.. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may
result in 'termination of this Agreement by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays
due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby
agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance
in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days
after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project
Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable
time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultants
control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the
circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the attached Exhibit
B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work
performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items
and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Five Hundred Seventy Eight
Thousand One Hundred Eighty Five Dollars and no /100 ($578,185.00)
without additional authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made
during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name
of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services
performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it
relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent
on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any
reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty
(30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in
advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited
and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant:
A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the
services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this
Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and
awarded in accordance with this Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically
authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement.
43 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work without the
prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means
any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper
completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of
Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be
necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any
authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of
Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Profecf.- This Project-Mariager'shall be available f6 'City-at
all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has
designated Roger Torriero to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall
not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in
Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement. personnel to the Project
without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -
key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written
request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the
necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as
contemplated by this Agreement.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department.
Stephen G. Badum shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the
authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or
his /her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to
the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7
CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this
Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable:
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all
such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in
Consultant's work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction
company forbid documents. Consultant will be required to
coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction
company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of
Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards
to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the services required by this
Agreement; and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate
with community professional standards. All services shall be performed
by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor
have any contractual relationship with City.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever
nature that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant further represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at
its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the
term of this Agreement, any and all licenses, permits, insurance and other
approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license
during the term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be .in default by
reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City
to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's
work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or
governmental agencies.
R. HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents
and employees (collectively, the "indemnified Parties) from and against any and
all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage
to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits,
losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including,
without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind
and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work negligently
performed or services provided under this Agreement (including, without
limitation, defects in workmanship or materials and /or design defects [if the
design originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities
conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors
and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents: employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or
indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of
them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require
Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be cohstrued as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in ahy-
action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply
to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are
applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of
indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant,
except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the
expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's
employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant
shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing
the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the
right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that
Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the
services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's
designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have
jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to
cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points
in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals
and policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her
duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and
progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that
have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City; and 'bHor to*Commen66bi6n1:
of work. Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during
the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type
and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of
insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance
coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by
City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance
of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with
City's at all times during the term of this Agreement.
B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.
C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company-currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner
to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size
Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk
Manager.
C. Coverage ,Reourrements.
Workers Comoensation Coveraoe. Consultant shall maintain
Workers Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability
insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of
the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each
subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation
Insurance and Employers Liability Insurance in accordance with
the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's
employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all
Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least
thirty (30) calendar days prior to such change. The insurer shall
agree to waive all rights of subrocation against City, its officers,
agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by Consultant for City.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial
general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury, and property damage, including without limitation;
contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed
under this Agreement, or the general -aggregate limit shall be at
least twice the required occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile LiabiNty Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage
for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for
any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not
less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for
each occurrence.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which
covers the services to be performed in connection with this
Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000),.
E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance
policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees,
agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds
with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf
of the Consultant.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to
City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses; or liability arising
directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services
provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any
self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess
insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided
hereunder.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as
though a separate policy had been written for each, except with
respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either
party except after thirty (30) calendar days written notice has been
received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following
shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other
disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of
the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or
cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty
percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more
of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint- venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this
Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of
Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights: duties or obligations of the
Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written
consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be
performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of City.
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 Consultants
expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for
reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents
for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization"from Consultant will be at City's-sole risk and without liability -to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to
Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than
Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for
such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received
from Consultant written consent for such changes.
18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer
or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant
shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with
(a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate
storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by
City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project
by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in
writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify
Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of
such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version
of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with
the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will
provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be
transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and
Excel.
n
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents: including drafts; preliminary drawings or plans; notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information.
20. OPINION OF COST
Any opinion of 'the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his /her
judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of
City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material; or over
competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the
accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright
infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and
specifications provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and
any services; expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum
period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date
of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and
invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of
City to examine; audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and
invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all
work, data, Documents; proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
23. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be
deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant
shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his /her designee
with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive
interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its
.I
investments during the time period: from the date of withholding of any amounts
found to have been improperly withheld.
24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what
would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work
accomplished by Consultant, the additional design; construction and/or
restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement.
25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such
persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially
affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such
persons -from making; or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably
financially affect such interest.
If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act.
Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's
violation of this Section.
Consultant agrees that neither Consultant or Consultant's Project Manager will
for the term of this Agreement enter into a contract with any person for services
concerning development of any real property within 1000 feet of City property
located at 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, California.
27. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this
Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and conclusively shall
be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after
the deposit thereof in the United States mail; postage prepaid, first -class mail,
addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices; demands, requests or approvals
from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at:
Ain: Stephen G. Sadum
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
Phone: 949- 644 -3311
Fax: 949 -644 -3318
All notices; demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Attn: Roger Torriero
Griffin Structures Incorporated
385 Second Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: 949 - 497 -9000
Fax: 949 - 497 -8883
28. TERMINATION
In the-event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of---
this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not
cured within a period of two (2) calendar days; or if more than two (2) calendar
days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to
give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after
receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the
Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving
seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of
termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination
for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of
termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other
information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement,
whether in draft or final form.
29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes,
ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities; including
federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted.
4 7
In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City;
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
30. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach
of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein: whether
of the same or a different character.
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal
agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein.
32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement
and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms
of this Agreement shall govem.
33. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
34. SEVERABILITY
35.
RR
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters
relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be
adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not
discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age.
67
IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1 i
C
fc
U
C
C1TY OF NEWPORT
A Municipal Corq6rat
29
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit'B — Summary of Professional Services
I
:ATED:
20 May 2003
Ms. Lois Thompson
Administrative Coordinator
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Exhibit A
Re: Proposal to the City of.Newport Beach
Program Management Services for Schematic Design of
New City Halt, Replacement Fire Station, Parking Structure, and Related Site Improvements
Dear Ms. Thompsom
We are very pleased to have the oppormniy to submit our Proposal to the City of Newport Beach, per our
discussions, in the form of this letter and its attachments.
The work we propose includes furnishing all professional services and appurtenant requirements, materials,
and labor necessary to perform the following tasks:
I
. Proje` Adminis'2tion and Management This includes the management of the Architect and others
on the Design Team in the production of all work through Schematic Design (SD), cost estimators,
various-corsnitants,-and "all other aspedtss-of the Project. Such management includes schedule and test
control, exercise of diligent quality control of the Proiect, and service as the sing e- poirr-of- contact for
the City in the course of this work For example, during the SD phase, we will exercise our best efforts
to control the cost of the Project and seek to maintain the budget within the City's established budget
level. Further, within 10 days of the beginning of the project, we will prepare aProject Critical Path
Management Schedule for review and approval by the City which identifies all the tasks required for
completion of each component of work to complete the Project.
2. A/E Design Services through the Completion of Schematic Design. We will cause the production of
SD documents and services through our Architect (LPA, Inc.), continuing the work begun in the earlier
phase of services with the City, and including such items appropriate to the Schematic Design level:
(a) basic AE services for SD incorporating the approved program requirements,
(b) examination of the site and surroundings,
(c) review presently proposed and probable future functions and requirements,
(d) prepare Schematic Design drawings, and prepare outline specifications and related documentation,
including site plans, floor plans, elevations, sections, and all other drawings necessary to describe
the project,
(e) include provisions for future additions, if any, and development or the site owned by the City as
well as the abutting stracts,
(f) develop all related documentation necessary to fix and illustrate the size and character of the .
Project and the approved revisions of it, including applicable essential related to kind and quality
of materials, type of structure, mechanical, electrical, and sanitary systems, conceptual interior
design and other fundamental information.
GRIFFIN HOLDINGS INCORPORATED
385 SECOND STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
(949) 497 -9000 • (949) 497 -8883 fax
y�
_. Budget We will develop, for the Citv's review and approval, a detailed cos: estimate at the SD phase.
Tais budget will include all indirect and direct components of the work, such as: consruction costs,
including requisite insurance and bonds; off -site improvements; utility hook -up services; permits and
fees; professional fees, such as program management archirecture and engineering; special oensuhants,
geotechnica and environmental, testing and inspection, etc.; site improvements, including ar in public
places (if any); furniture, fixtures, & equipment (FFE), including communicationsisecurity, mm-nor art-
work, plants; graphics; other occupancy expenses.
4. Schedule. We will prepare a total project schedule for City review, which includes the remaining
design services, construction, and completion of the Project. Throughout tine project, we will revise
and maintain the schedule as necessary, and will exercise our best efforts to epsur e adherence to the
Project Schedule after it is approved by the City.
5. Consuuctabnlity Review. We propose to participate in any formal value engineering exercises as
necessary, and also to:
(a) provide technical management of the Project's design, including performance of achitectural and
engineering design reviews and any requied revisions for each project component,
(b) suggest refinements to the project components for the purpose of improving the ; aw. e sequencing
of the work, budget reductions, and quality of 'the outline specifications and related
documentation.
(c) perform preliminary Consrructability Reviews for the purpose of compieteaess, clarity,
consistency, cost vs. budget analysis, code compliance; general "corsuvctability," coocdu glop
and value engineering, as directed,
(d) assure that all City - approved and City - issued design review comments and revisions are
indorporcted by the various Stib - Consultants into the drawings and documents.
6. Status Presentations. We will also provide monthly status reports to the City's Project Monitor, and
will make periodic presentations to the City Council and other groups or organizations as directed by
the City.
The attachment to this letter provides a percentage breakdown of services by various tasks which
encompass the work outlined in the paragraphs above. We believe the proposed fees are well within
Industry guidelines for services of this scope and type.
In ciosing, we are certain that our extensive past and current experience on similar projects within other
municipalities, our familiarity with the City of Newport Beach, our understanding of the proposed project,
and our knowledge of the nature and scope of work which is described here, will provide the best product
of work for the City. We look forward to this Project, and our staff are ready to begin immediately upon
City authorization,
Thank you.
Sincerely,
LOOV
}}
Roger Torero �rM
CEO
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC.
GRIFFIN HOLDINGS INCORPORATED
385 SECOND STREET, LAGr -TNA BEACH, CA 92651
(P,9' ) 497 -9000 • (949) 497 -8883 fax
Exhibit B
Professional Servites for Program management Related to Schematic Design of
New City hall Replacement Fire Station, Parking Structure and Related Site improvements
I i I I
!Summary of Phase Percentages
Based on Estimated Work Time Required I I I 1
I I I 1 I 'i
Total Contract Amount $578,185 ID0.0% I j
�
I I
j I ! Breakdown by I Breakdown by
Maior Task GrouD I Sub -Task
% $ I I % ! $
;Pro ram Mana ement & Administration ?3.3% i $135,000!
Management of Design and Related I t 1.7% 15b7,500
T4eetin San Coordi: -anon Services I i I 7.8% I $45,D00
i !Cost estimation Management
i 3.9% $22.500
I
i
Pro'ectControl, Program Review, Constructability 1 9.1%
I $52562
I 9•I% $52,562
Cost Estimation Technical Services & Scheduling 6.9% '1
$40,000
1 I !
i Precon Services and Management; Control
_!Value En meerin. and Cost Estimation Services
I'
J
I
2.6% $15,000
35% .I. $20;000
!Scheduling. 1
1 ;
{ 0.9% i $5,000
l i i I i
I I
1
I
r—besiLin Services 1 53.4%
j $308,993]
j
Pro ram Review and Orientation
j j
! 27% $15,450
!Site Surroundings Civil, Landscape, etc.
{ 1
i 5.3% 530,899
j :'Conceptual Design O tions - I
I
j
I 10.7% { $61,799
Preliminaa Engineering Structure, Mech, Elec,
I
(
10.7% $61,799
Materials and Outline Specifications
! 8.0% I $46,349
I ' Design Documents
16.0% j $92 698
i I
1
I
I I
! {
I
I
I
I I
! j Subtotal
{ 92.60%
I $536,5551
1 92.x0%
S 5536,555
I i i
I
j
1
1
Other Allowances
Reimbursables for Pro ram Mana ement
I 3.5%
! $20,DD0
1
! 3.5%
I $20,000
!Reimbursables for A/E
I 3.7%
1 $21,630
1
17%
1 $21,630
I 1
I
I
I
l
{
I
Grand Total
1 100.00%
I $578,1851
i )MOM
? $578,185
j
I
1
1
I!
!
f
I
V
1
1
I
I
+
I
l i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
APPROVED
tB 8 2005 i
lam-
By City Council
City of Newport Beach
Agenda Item No. 16
February 8, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Steve Badum
949 -644 -3311
sbadum@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: CITY HALL FACILITIES SCHEMATIC DESIGN — REAFFIRMATION OF
APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INCORPORATED
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Reaffirm approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures Incorporated, for the not to exceed price of $578,185.
2. Direct staff to conduct a 30-day review regarding the viability of a lot line
adjustment with the owner of the adjacent Via Lido Plaza center, and if such
efforts are inconclusive, then proceed with Schematic Design within the
boundaries of the existing city -owned site.
3. Direct staff to schedule a series of community workshops regarding the
planning and design of the project to obtain public input.
4. Reaffirm the current site as the future site for a new City Hall.
DISCUSSION:
On June 10, 2003, Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with
Griffin Stuct6res Incorporated (Griffin) at a cost not to exceed $578,185 for project
administration and management; and A/E design services through the completion of
schematic design (see attached report dated 6/10/03). In addition to the approval of the
PSA, staff was directed to: engage in discussions with the adjacent property owner of
Via Lido Plaza Center regarding a potential lot line adjustment. Preliminary review of
the site plan alternatives indicated that a lot -line adjustment with the adjacent property
owner would be beneficial for both parties. Staff was also directed to schedule a series
of community workshops to receive input regarding planning and design of the project.
Also at that meeting, Mr. Roger Torriero of Griffin presented a report titled,
"Comparisons of Continued Occupancy of Existing City Hall vs. Effective Cost of
Occupancy in a Replacement City Hall" which discussed the advantages of constructing
a new facility versus remodeling and expanding the existing City Hall. After some
Subject: City Hall Facilities Schematic Design — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Griffin
Structures, Inc.
February B. 2005
Page: 2
discussion, the Council majority (6 -1) passed a motion receiving and filing the report
and determined that no further investigation of a possible site for City Hall off the current
Balboa Peninsula campus was necessary (see attached City Council Minutes and
agenda report dated 6110/03).
Shortly after that meeting, the Building Committee met to discuss the City Hall project
and it was decided to put the contract with Griffin on hold due to potential conflict of
interest concerns. Since that time, Griffin has resolved the potential conflicts to the
satisfaction of the City Manager and City Attorney.
On January 19, 2005, the Building Committee met to discuss reinitiating the City Hall
Schematic Design contract. At that meeting, the Committee reaffirmed the previous
Council actions. Additionally, the committee recommended that the lot line adjustment
discussions with the adjacent property owner be limited to thirty days to prevent
extended delays to the project.
Environmental Review:
This activity is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Implementing Guidelines. However, an environmental review and appropriate
documentation will be required upon establishment of a viable project concept.
Public Notice:
The scope of services identified in this Professional Services Agreement provides for a
series of community and Council workshops to solicit input regarding the planning and
design of the project.
Funding Availability:
On June 10, 2003 Council appropriated and authorized expenditure of the funds
necessary to complete this phase of the project. Sufficient funds are available in the
following account:
Account Description
City Hall Expansion Plan
Submitted by:
;fi G. Badum
Works Director
Account Number Amount
7011- C2910545 $578,185
Attachments: Professional Services Agreement
City Council Report, dated June 10, 2003
City Council Minutes, June 10, 2003
Power-point Presentation June 10, 2003
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 14
April 12, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Homer Bludau, City Manager
644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Marilee Jackson, Public Information Officer
644 -3031, mvjackson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Jessica Etezady, Admin Manager, Public Works Dept
644 -3335, jetezady @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Public Outreach Efforts for the City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking
Lot Project
ISSUE:
What was the outreach associated with the City Hall Project's public workshops?
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
On February 8, 2005, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement
with Griffin Structures, Incorporated (Griffin) for project administration and
management; and Architectural and Engineering (A/E) design services to work on a
replacement or remodel of City Hall, the replacement of the City Hall Fire Station, and
the addition of a multi -story parking lot. At that time, the City Council directed staff to
schedule a series of community workshops to receive public input regarding the
planning and design of the project.
Three community meetings were then scheduled to solicit input from the public:
1. Saturday, March 5th — Visual Assessment
2. Saturday, March 19th — Present Findings and Alternatives
3. Saturday, April 2 "d —Conclusions and Recommendations
Due to a low turnout at the March 5th public workshop, the March 19th session was
cancelled and rescheduled for April 2 "d. We also set a third meeting for April 23`d to
allow more time for public outreach efforts. Then, we added a fourth workshop (in the
evening) — now set for Monday, April 25th at 6:30 p.m.
Public Outreach for the City Hall. Fire Station, and Parking Lot Project
Apnl 12, 2005
Page 2
We have made the following public outreach efforts for these workshops:
1) Letter from City Manager Homer Bludau mailed citywide March 28, 2005 to
29,078 residents and businesses listed on city utility bill accounts. The mailing
included the Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights.
2) We issued e-mail notices also on March 28, 2005 as follows:
♦ 5,215 contacts through business and utility account databases
♦ 425 interested parties contacted through the Public Information Office's "Info
by E -mail" contact list.
3) We prepared Four Quarter -Page Advertisements in Daily Pilot, which ran or will
run:
♦ Sunday, March 27, 2004
♦ Thursday, March 31, 2004
♦ Sunday, April 17, 2004
♦ Thursday, April 21, 2004
4) We issued Notices and News Releases to:
LA Times and Daily Pilot
♦ OC Register and The Current
♦ Various Weekly Publications
♦ Newport Beach and Corona del Mar Chambers of Commerce
♦ OC Metro Mail
Balboa Beacon
♦ Adelphia /Cox Bulletin Boards
5) We posted 4' by 12' banners at the following locations:
♦ City Hall Front Lawn
♦ Corner of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway
♦ Corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway
♦ Central Library Entrance
♦ Bonita Canyon Sports Park at corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road
6) We prepared and distributed fliers as follows:
♦ Tri -fold flyer mailed to 152 Homeowner Associations
♦ 290 flyers mailed via West Newport Beach Association list (at their expense)
♦ Available at counters at City Hall
7) We prepared, printed, and distributed posters as follows:
♦ 11" x 17" posters Posted at City Hall Cashier's Office, Lobby, Building
Department, all four library branches, and Recreation and Senior Services
Facilities
♦ 24" x 36" posters Posted at the Pavillions Supermarket in Lido Village
8) We updated the City's web site as follows:
♦ Link to flyer with meeting information posted on front page for instant access
♦ Links to constultant- prepared documents on the City Hall Project page
Public Outreach for the City Hall, Fire Station, and Parking Lot Project
April 12, 2005
Page 3
9) We prepared community programming as follows:
♦ "City Scenes" program running on cable TV with coverage of the March 5th
community workshop presentation by Griffin and with a crawl message
promoting the April 2nd and 23d workshops. Program was edited and airing
prior to the addition of the Monday date. nun times include Wednesdays,
Thursdays and Sundays at 8 p.m. on Adelphia 3 and Cox 30 until after April
25th.
♦ "From The Mayor's Comet' City Hall Tour — Part I and II with workshop dates
mentioned throughout and tagged at end. There is a crawl message with
April 2nd and 23d & 25th workshop dates. nun times include Mondays,
Fridays and Saturdays also at 8 p.m. on Adelphia 3 and Cox 30 will start
airing on Friday, April 1st .
10) Mayor Steve Bromberg appeared on Pat Michael's "Around the Town" Cable TV
program running on Adelphia prior to Council meetings in March.
11) We assisted with a three -page Feature Article in The Current (which ran on
Friday, March 181h) covering the needs of the facilities.
12) Mayor Bromberg made special announcements at City Council Meetings.
13) We posted Workshop dates and times on the City Clerk's Calendar.
14) We placed notices on the Adelphia and Cox community bulletin boards that run
continuously; and
15) In an effort to promote continued participation in the outreach process, the City
will:
♦ Continue press releases to Daily Pilot & OC Register
♦ Send updated fliers to HOAs
Update the banners with new workshop information
16) Daily Pilot feature with City Manager on background of City Hall project, which
ran on April 3rd, containing outreach meeting dates and times.
We think our outreach has been seen by many, as there were 91 citizens who attended
the April 2 "d session.
Submitted by:
w�
Homer L. BluOaiu, City Manager
Prepared by:
Marilee Jackson, Public nformation Ofcr
Prepared by:
J ca Ete; YO, Ad ini trative Manager
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Homer L. Btudau, City Manager
March 28, 2005
Dear Resident,
I wanted to let you know about some important issues that the City Council is currently
discussing. These are:
1. Fire Station - Parking Lot -City Hall Project.
The City Council recently approved an agreement with Griffin Structures Inc. to seek your input
about whether to fully replace or simply renovate City Hall on the Balboa Peninsula. Well also
look at replacing the Lido Fire Station and adding a parking structure. We have scheduled three
more opportunities for you to let us know what you think. The three remaining meetings are
set for:
Saturday, April 2nd at 10:00 B.M.
Saturday, April 23`d at 10:00 a.m.
Monday, April 25th at 6:30 p.m.
All meetings will be held at the City Council Chambers
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
The Council is moving forward with this civic center project after completing a detailed Space
Needs Assessment. This Assessment, done in August 2002, showed the current City Hall needs
another 17,000 square feet of room to meet existing service needs, including public spaces like
the permit desks and cashiers. The Assessment concluded that a City Hail of around 62,000 sf
would accommodate the public services and personnel to serve you for the next 40 -50 years.
The study also noted extremely limited public parking, space inefficiencies, seismic structural
deficiencies (especially at the Lido Fire Station) and the existing buildings' lack of compliance
with building codes.
A new complex at the same Peninsula location that would include a parking structure and a
replacement fire station is under consideration. Please consider commenting on these concepts
and any others that you might want to suggest. The City Council is expected to hear a
presentation from Griffin Structures Inc. on the results of the public outreach meetings and the
site layout concepts at its regular meeting on May 10th.
If you are unable to attend the meetings and would like to send comments, the e-mail address
is nbcityha1l0yahoo.com.
3300 Newport Boulevard * Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Telephone: (949) 644 -3000 • Fax: (949) 644 -3020 • www.city.newport- heach.ca.us
Page 2
2. Issues about the Land Surrounding Newport Beach — our "Sphere" Issues.
Your City Council has had a "Sphere Issues Committee" since December, Z003. The
Committee's goal has been to work with County government to look at places where both levels
of government — City and County — might benefit from change. As such, we've met with
members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors several times over the past year. The
issues being discussed are:
a. 777e Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Agency ( SAHRA) — The City and County have
discussed the concept that, in light of the recent annexation of East Santa Ana Heights
and the proposed annexation of West Santa Ana Heights, the City may be in a better
position to administer the SAHRA and Redevelopment Plan. The City has already
taken the lead in buying land for a fire station in Santa Ana Heights (and in designing
the station). We are also working on the design of a redevelopment - funded
community center (open to all) at the University Avenue YMCA and managing a special
Utility Undergrounding Project on the County's behalf in Santa Ana Heights.
b. Coyote Canyon Landfill— The Coyote Canyon landfill (off Newport Coast Drive, north
of San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Ridge Park) was operated by the County from
1963 to 1990 on land leased from The Irvine Company. The County would like the
City to assume some of the County's responsibilities in monitoring the now - closed
facility. We are completing our "due diligence" in this regard, since we see some
benefits to a public re -use of the landfill space, provided that we fully understand and
know the technical issues associated with assuming new responsibilities there.
c. Upper Newport Bay— The City and County have discussed ways that we could assist
the County in improving habitat and managing recreational opportunities at the Upper
Bay. As you do, we see the Upper Bay as a wonderful (but under - funded)
environmental resource for our community and the region.
d. John Wayne Airport — The City and County have discussed the concept of a Joint
Powers Agreement (IPA) that would require both' the City and County to consent to
changes in land use plans and policies in and around the Santa Ana Heights area. We
also seek a provision in the JPA that would require the consent of both the City and
the County to expand the physical size of JWA. We are in the preliminary stages of
evaluating relevant land use plans and policies, as well as the most appropriate legal
vehicle for implementing any agreement.
You will be hearing much more on these issues in the near future. In addition, I will be
providing you with additional status reports. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me
(hbludau city.newport- beach.ca.us or 949 - 644 -3000) if you have questions, thoughts,
or concerns.
Sincerely,
Homer L. Bludau
City Manager
ITEM #2 — E -mail NOTICES SENT 3/28/05
From: City of Newport Beach [ noreply @city.newport- beach.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 4:53 PM
To: Jackson, Marilee V
Subject: City Hall: Remodel or Replace?
Please join us this Saturday morning April 2nd at 10:00 am
in City Council Chambers to give us your input on how to
proceed with remodeling or replacing
buildings and parking issues at 3300 Newport Boulevard.
Please click on the link below for future meetings if you can not
make it this Saturday! Hope to see you there!
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /eitvhallremodel.htmi
If you are unable to attend the meetings and would like to send comments, the
e -mail address is:
n bcitvhall(i0ahoo.com
*This is a one time message from the City of Newport Beach California.
You do not need to unsubscribe to stop receiving future messages.
Please do not respond to this message. Thank you.
7
+a.
�. �� ( � IL��: {i •: .Ili. •;: _ �- .a'�—'' `: �-
'4
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marilee Jackson
Public Information Officer
949 -644 -3031
FIRST OF THREE PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS ON
POTENTIALLY REPLACING CITY HALL, FIRE STATION #2 & ADDING A PARKING STRUCTURE
TAKES PLACE MARCH 5,2005 IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NEWPORT BEACH, CA — February 25, 2005 — The Newport Beach City Council has approved a
professional services contract with Griffin Structures Incorporated to proceed with conducting a series of three
public workshops to receive community input regarding the potential replacement of City Hall, replacement of
adjoining Fire Station #2 and building an adjoining parking Iot structure to relieve antiquated parking allocation at
City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA.
Griffin Structures, Inc. will hold its first workshop at 10:00 a.m. on March 5, 2005 in City Council
Chambers and the public is encouraged to attend and express its ideas concerning constructing potential replacement
and/or remodeled City Hall facilities with emphasis on improving customer service, parking, building efficiencies,
and working conditions. The current City Hall was originally built in August, 1948 with various additions and
remodeling over the last 57 years. Council approved moving forward with gathering public opinion during its
meeting on February g, 2005 at which time the decision also was made to retain the current site on Balboa Peninsula
as the permanent location for City Hall and related facilities.
Future workshops are scheduled for March 19, 2005 and April 2, 2005. For more information on the
workshops, contact Public Works at 949 -644 -3311 or Griffin Structures Incorporated President Roger Torriero at
949497 -9000 for questions regarding the proposed City Hall Facilities Schematic Design.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marilee Jackson
Public Information Officer
949 -644 -3031
SECOND OF THREE PUBLIC INPUT WORKSHOPS ON
POTENTIALLY REPLACING CITY HALL, FIRE STATION #2 & ADDING A PARKING STRUCTURE
TAKES PLACE APRIL 2, 2005 IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NEWPORT BEACH, CA —March 10, 2005 — The Newport Beach City Council has approved a
professional services contract with Griffin Structures Incorporated to proceed with conducting a series of
three public workshops to receive community Input regarding the potential replacement of City Hall,
replacement of adjoining Fire Station #2 and building an adjoining parking lot structure to relieve
antiquated parking allocation at City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA.
Griffin Structures, Inc. will hold its second workshop at 10:00 a.m. on April 2, 2005 in City
Council Chambers and the public is encouraged to attend and express its ideas concerning constructing
potential replacement and /or remodeled City Hall facilities with emphasis on improving customer service,
parking, building efficiencies, and working conditions. The current City Hall was originally built in August,
1948 with various additions and remodeling over the last 57 years. Council approved moving forward
with gathering public opinion during its meeting on February 8, 2005 at which time the decision also was
made to retain the current site on Balboa Peninsula as the permanent location for City Hall and related
facilities.
The final workshop is scheduled for April 23, 2005. For more information on the workshops,
contact Public Works at 949 -644 -3311 or Griffin Structures Incorporated President Roger Torriero at 949-
497 -9000 for questions regarding the proposed City Hall Facilities Schematic Design.
ITEM #5 - BANNERS POSTED IN FIVE LOCATIONS
City Hall; Remodel or Replace?
Saturday April 2, 2005
10 a.m.
City Council Chambers
3300 Newport Boulevard
BEA( H
4-
��.�� ■■ate -
Your input is invited at this public meeting
More public input workshops
Saturday. April 23, 2005 at 10 a.m.
Monday. April 25, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
For information call
Public Works Department
949 -644 -3311
Public Comments and Input
Over the past several months, the City has received over 100 emails and letters
providing input, opinion, and suggestions regarding the project.
80% of the contacts were in favor of the project
81 % of those supporting the project would keep the site
19% of those supporting would prefer a remodel to replacement
The most popular relocation site was the Newport Center area
The following is a collection of excerpts from the public input we received
"The City deserves a City Hall which has the quality of our Main Library, a
building that was hotly debated and criticized for the "expense and waste" of
taxpayers' money. Yet today, all of our residents are proud of the library, it
receives extensive public use and there have been no complaints since it opened
that the decisions were incorrect or too lavish." Carol Hoffman, May 2, 2005
"I must confess that, more often than I'd like to recall, visitors (especially from the
Midwest and East Coast and certainly Europe) have asked "Where is your City
Hall ?" When shown they have either laughed or expressed astonishment that a
spot so wonderful as Newport doesn't have a Civic Center that's also wonderful."
Thomas E. Rubbert, May 1, 2005
"Unless you plan to build another bridge, widen the highway and create better
parking, I would suggest that you down size your plans and move all or most of
your operations away from this bottleneck area." Bill Eckess, April 28, 2005
.. at this times with all of us being taxed beyond our means, my husband and I
do not think it is prudent to provide you and the other council members a new
office building.. in fact, I think that any member who cannot understand this
should be recalled." Dorothy McDonald, April 28, 2005
"The proposed City Hall is not needed. The reason seems to be because the
present facility is too crowded. We need to outsource more work instead of city
employees which are more expensive and will require pension plans." Joseph
W. DeCarlo, April 28, 2005
"The City and its residents deserve a new city hall!" Richard Dick, April 25, 2005
"Build new and build to current standards. Don't throw good money at buildings
that should be torn down. Move confidently into the future." Cal McLaughlin,
April 25, 2005
"My primary concern is that this project be a fiscally prudent one, allocating
space and funds according to the real needs of each department and not based
on "wants and desires" or political deals. I will vigorously fight against any
appearance of monument building." Jim Stratton, April 25, 2005
"Tear it down!" Kevin Murphy, April 21, 2005
"Now that the Marina Park - Sutherland development has been voted down. Any
thoughts given to relocating City Hall there ?" Kirk Elliott, April 21, 2005
"I think functionality is important for a civic structure. Reputation is not. As we
face potentially higher costs for our city with our state unable to pay its bills, I do
not think it is fiscally responsible to take on a huge debt to finance an art project
city hall." Karen Hinton, April 21, 2005
"The city should follow the LEED TI or EB programs for remodel or LEED NC for
new construction." Jeff Stevens, April 20, 2005
"I'm truly surprised by the apparent resistance to a new city hall, which is so
sorely and obviously needed. We were in Redding recently, and it is hard to
understand how such a relatively small inland city with a hard -to- identify
economic and employment base can justify a deluxe city hall while Newport
Beach struggles on with such a substandard facility." Stan Cohen, April 17, 2005
"Let's do it right. We need to take a long view. Whatever the cost, it will
ultimately be returned to the property owners. When one area of a community is
upgrades, the additional value is reflected throughout." Gale Edelberg and Bob
Butnik, April 16, 2005
"No, no, no. Absolutely no to a new City Hall. You and the County Supervisors
are spending us into bankruptcy again!" Jacqueline Guy, April 14, 2005
"The present city hall ought to work just fine! Certainly, with all the great minds, it
can be made to work! We are not for spending any tax money for fancy
government buildings... or for more government!" Jim and Georgia Mahoney,
April 13, 2005
"TEAR DOWN & REBUILD. We need today's much improved standards. I won't
miss the food smells in the City Hall lobby!" Nancy Christensen, April 11, 2005
"I very strongly support a new city hall that will take care of the needs of Newport
Beach for the next 50 years. I feel we owe this to future generations and future
residents." Dave Fish, April 11, 2005
"Several years ago, when the City of Beverly Hills faced this same dilemma, they
chose to remodel (using a world -class architectural firm), but they had an existing
City Hall which was, and still is, a landmark. That is simply not the case in
Newport Beach." Linda Lansford Schumann, April 7, 2005
"Since money doesn't grow on trees even in Newport Beach, a more cost -
effective, less costly solution needs to be found... No one except some City
officials really cares whether or not City Hall is a "taj mahal." An architecturally
notable City Hall edifice adds nothing to the City's appeal, unlike the Library or
the beach or Fashion Island or whatever." Linda and Peter Oeth, April 7, 2005
"Newport Beach's rundown, outdated, patchwork, eyesore, shack of a City Hall is
an absolute disgrace for a world -class city, such as ours! It has been overdue for
a major replacement for decades!" Wendy Brooks, April 6, 2005
"Look at Balboa Island's fire station. Something charming that adds character
would improve the aging Peninsula's architecture." The Rados Family, April 6,
2005
"Get rid of a big part of staff that don't do a good job, you are overpaying a lot of
people." Curtis Herberts, April 6, 2005
"I vote for a remodel. The atmosphere at City Hall has always been so nice, I
would hate to see it lost." Pete Perrin, April 5, 2005
"The location SHOULD remain as is. Don't move it to Fashion Island or some
other suggested locations. It is presently located in what has always been
Newport Beach. Keep it there." Don Thomas, April 5, 2005
"Parking is such an extreme problem on the peninsula and having the opportunity
to park a visitor to our home at City Hall on the weekends is of extreme value.
Please don't do ANYTHING to diminish the FREE parking on weekends."
Suzanne Rhino, April 5, 2005
"City Hall and nearby businesses were impacted when the City removed the
several parking spaces that were once available on Newport Blvd. in front of City
Hall and replacing these spaces and more would be a benefit to the community."
Russell Singer, April 5, 2005
"I believe the city hall should be a crown jewel representing our wonderful city
and should improve efficiency of staff as well as the constituents it serves. It
does not fulfill this need in its current condition. It served us well for many years
but became a burden many years ago. Please build a new city hall... and we will
come." Richard Mayer, April 4, 2005
"Renovate yes, but a new City Hall, no. Bring the current site up to code."
Werner and Diane Escher, April 4, 2005
"I am in favor of the proposed Civic Center that would fully replace the current
facility. I also want to encourage you to include cultural aspects such as exhibits
from the Nautical Museum or facility to hold concerts and plays." Ronald S.
Rubino, April 4, 2005
"Thank you for allowing me to have an input on the Fire Station — Parking Lot —
City hall Project. 1 would like to see the project fit within our means and also
keep our small community atmosphere here at the beach." Mary G. Cirello, April
4, 2005
"The sentimental value of historic structures is something that we also
understand, but in this case, with all due respect, the current facilities have not
attained that stature... we feel that a remodel will be just another band aid, and a
waste of valuable resources." Betsey and Brian Dougherty, FAIA, April 3, 2005
"I have been in the city hall many times and there is more than sufficient space
for the intended purpose. The fire station is also adequate. The replacement of
this structure and addition of an expensive parking garage I find excessive and
unnecessary." Scott Williams, April 3, 2005
"I would prefer to renovate City Hall and put money toward repairing the roads."
Lillian Kamph, April 3, 2005
"I do not feel that we should expect or cause the employees of the City to work in
conditions that we would not want imposed on us... I feel that we must rely on
you, your staff, and the consultants to make the best decision..." Gary and
Bonnie Quiggle, April 2, 2005
"When comparing NB to that of Irvine and Huntington Beach, our city hall is a
disgrace. With all of our multi - million dollar homes, prestigious businesses and
the expansion of Newport Coast, we certainly should be able to afford a
municipal building more in keeping with the stature and quality of our city." Jack
and Shirley McManus, April 2, 2005
"The area that is the current city hall I think would be best served to become a
LARGE parking structure for tourists that want to go to the beach etc. with a
shuttle - trolley service that would make several stops at beach areas — the two
piers, the new Marina park, and places in- between." Bonnie McClellan, April 2,
2005
"For too long this city has been ruled by brain dead people with their perspective
stuck in reverse who only know how to say no. It's time to pull the plug on them
and move ahead." William C. Thomas, April 1, 2005
"Stop the progress on the land at the comer of Pacific Coast Highway and
Jamboree Road while consideration to this site could be looked into... Newport
Beach does not need or require more parks." Harrell F. Kloke, April 1, 2005
"Please preserve plenty of grass around any new city hall /parking structure." Bob
Yant, April 1, 2005
"The Balboa Peninsula has a special character the harmony of which would be
destroyed by a parking structure or the proposed modifications to the present
City Hall. It would "urbanize" a delightful, open, "airy" feeling that exists now."
Roger M. Farel, M.D., April 1, 2005
"I have been to city hall a number of times in the past year, mainly to visit the
building department. I am amazed with the poor working conditions, and that
those poor women at the counter can find anything amid the chaos." Art
Lombardi, April 1, 2005
"I like the existing building. I wouldn't even go so far as to remodel it. But if the
choice is to remodel or replace, then my vote is for remodel!" Fred Messerer,
April 1, 2005
"Let's incorporate the outstanding architecture of our forefathers in the front view
and go from there... forget high ceilings, glass, stainless steel... fancy wood,
keep it basic as a City building should be!" Gay and Bill Kelly, April 1, 2005
"Very simple solution, move city hall facility off peninsula up Superior Ave to
Newport Technology Center, NTC is a "campus" office project that needs
tenants, ... Current CH location is prime real estate, re- develop to create more
entertainment retail and open space, adds visitors and tax revenue to city." John
S. Wadsworth, March 30, 2005
"I believe we need to raze the current structure and replace it with a more
modern, state of the art building. We are a world class city, yet we conduct
business in a third world atmosphere." John Rapillo, March 28, 2005
"I think we need a new city hall which is modern, efficient, and appropriate for a
city the size and stature of Newport Beach. When you amortize the cost over 30
years it is not a big financial deal." Ken and Marita Wittman, March 22, 2005
"I have been in some of the offices and can't believe what staff has to endure.
Without question the current facility is outdated and too small. The current
location is very good, it is a gateway location and the new building should
recognize that position." Hector Godinez, March 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Newport Beach Fire Department
Office of the Fire Chief
Date: May 2, 2005
To: City Manager Homer Bludau
From: Fire Chief Tim Riley
Subject: City Hall Fire Station Rebuild: Location & Space Need
Considerations
While much discussion has taken place regarding the space needs of City Hall and the
parking needs driving the parking structure design, little has been shared regarding the
design considerations for the replacement of the City Hall Fire Station. This memo
intends to provide you with my thoughts concerning the location and space needs of a
modern fire station.
Fire Station 2005 versus Fire Station 1952
The existing fire station located at 475 32 "d Street was built in 1952; a second story added
in 1966; a major modification took place in 1971 when Fire Administration moved across
the alley to Building D; and a final addition was constructed over the apparatus floor in
1994 to accommodate our fitness program. Much has changed in Newport Beach since
1952.
When this station was built, it was designed to accommodate one three - person fire engine
company and the entire Department's administrative staff of four persons. There were no
residential high -rise buildings in Newport Beach like those located not far from here at
601 & 611 Lido Park Drive. This station pre -dated the concept of paramedics by twenty
years, along with its accompanying medical supplies storage and disinfectant room
requirements. We didn't envision the need to accommodate the storage of hazardous
materials, personal protective clothing and self - contained breathing apparatus for every
person, and specialized equipment for terrorism- related responses. The need for every
person to have access to a computer terminal didn't happen until the early 1990's, and we
never anticipated the need to accommodate firefighters of both genders.
Today's service demands drive the need for a modern fire station to meet our service
delivery needs. The City Hall Fire Station currently houses a three - person engine
company, a three - person truck company and a two- person paramedic unit. These units
responded to 4,717 of the 16,327 unit responses the department had in 2004. In addition
to responding to alarms, our personnel each receive approximately 240 hours of training
per year. They conduct approximately 30 fire prevention inspections per unit per month.
They also attend many public education and public service events in their first -in area.
We recognize the citizens of Newport Beach expect a high -level of service; we strive
hard not to disappoint but rather exceed these expectations.
Fire Station Design Guidelines
Due to the unique service delivery needs of communities all across America, there are no
national standards for the design and development of a fire station. In lieu of such
standards, we are fortunate to have received a copy of the Orange County Fire
Authority's Fire Station Development Guide. It just so happens that this document was
developed for the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) by LPA, the architectural firm
providing guidance on our City Hall design project. In addition to the Fire Department,
the Directors of the Building Department and the Public Works Department have
reviewed this document and agree that it is a valuable resource for our fire station design
guidance. We are also using our recent experience with RRM Design Group; the
architectural firm working on the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station, as additional guidance
for our City Hall design development discussions with LPA.
The development of a fire station brings with it certain site acquisition issues. In my
professional opinion, a good site needs to meet the following requirements:
1. A location that allows the station to cover the largest area of the City possible
within our 7- minute response time goal, yet is in reasonable proximity to the area
where the frequency of response is the highest;
2. An appropriately -sized lot between 1 and 1.6 acres;
3. Minimum street frontage for access and egress of emergency vehicles; and
4. A location that is compatible with surrounding uses.
This list of needs is not easy to satisfy in a nearly built -out community like Newport
Beach. The current City Hall site does satisfy the first and fourth criteria listed above and
falls far short in satisfying criteria two and three. According to the OCFA Design
Guidelines and RRM, a station sized to accommodate an engine, truck and paramedic
company should start with a 1.4 acre site with a minimum of 180 lineal feet of street
frontage. This provides for the development of 12,134 square foot, single -story fire
station, necessary circulation to allow fire apparatus to enter the apparatus room from the
rear of the building and exit to the front, sufficient parking to accommodate the exchange
of personnel during shift change, a suitable public parking area, and sufficient room to
pull the apparatus out of the station during a seismic event.
The current station sits on a mere 11,520 square feet or 0.26 acres. Its street frontage is
110 lineal feet; 130 if you include the alley to the west of the station. We currently need
to stop traffic on 32 "d Street to back the engine or ladder truck into the apparatus room,
and the paramedic unit responds out of the back of the station instead of directly onto
32nd Street, sharing the alley during emergency responses with Finley Street through
traffic. We also have our firefighters park in City Hall parking spaces at shift change until
their counter parts have left for the morning.
In contrast, Replacement Option 3 (our preferred option) provides for a 12,500 square
foot fire station on 36,485 square foot lot or 0.84 acres. The street frontage has been
stretched to 142 feet. While this is far short of the recommended criteria, we recognize
that site constraints and lack of a viable alternative site make this the best viable option at
Us time. It does allow us exclusive access to the rear of the fire station with our
apparatus, allowing us to pull - through the apparatus floor instead of backing in.
The development of a fire station also brings with it certain building space requirements.
A summary of the space planning completed as part of the recent Santa Ana Heights Fire
Station will provide a good example of all that is needed in a modern fire station to
accommodate two units with 8 personnel of mixed - gender:
3,002 sq ft Apparatus Room to accommodate a fire engine and a fire truck
120 sq ft Shop Alcove with Storage
178 sq ft Turnout Storage Room
24 sq ft Medical Supply Storage Closet
90 sq ft Decontamination/Janitorial Room
150 sq ft General Storage Room
389 sq ft 2- person Captain's Office
232 sq ft Kitchen
187 sq ft Dining Area
360sq ft Day Room
60 sq ft Janitor/Housekeeping for Station Interior
480 sq ft Workout Room
420 sq ft 8 Dorm Rooms
281 sq ft 3 Crew Restrooms
264 sq ft Locker Room
90 sq ft Electrical Room
80 sq ft Communication Room
1,923 sq ft 10% Allowance for Structure, 20% Allowance for Circulation
8,330 sq ft TOTAL
We provided this information to LPA as guidance for their estimate of the new City Hall
Fire Station. They took this guidance and applied it to a station designed to accommodate
three companies and ten personnel, including additional space to for one additional office
space, two additional dorms, six additional locker spaces, one additional crew restroom,
expanded storage and expanded circulation due to the stairwells found in a two -story
structure. This pushed their initial planning estimate to the 12,500 square feet displayed
in all three replacement options. As you can see, the existing City Hall Fire Station and
its 6,518 square feet barely equal half of the space needs of a modern fire station.
The question of whether or not we could proceed with a new fire station and keep the
existing City Hall buildings has been posed several times. In order to build the preferred
option mentioned above, the available parking at the site would be compromised to the
point where a parking structure would be necessary to meet parking requirements to run
City business. In turn, the required parking structure could not be built without tearing
down existing City Hall buildings. (see attached diagram)
Conclusion
I feel we have taken a major step forward in adopting some guidelines that actually meet
the needs of our operation today and well into the future. We plan on using these same
guidelines when evaluating the replacement needs of other fire stations that are nearing
the end of their efficiency, such as Corona del Mar, Balboa Peninsula and Mariners. Like
the City Hall Fire Station, we realize we will continue to battle the site constraint problem
in a city that has very limited land remaining that is available for public facilities.
However, in the case of the City Hall Fire Station and the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station,
I feel we have the opportunity to build stations that will meet all of current needs and take
us well into the future.
. xawAv iaoa sx
O
W V1
Z a
W
V O
V U
7
=
OL
V a
= O
Q W
W p
W
C
O
a c�
OW
W a
U
O a
Z
V O
Cl) a
W v
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O)
(n
O)
V
O
OD
1--
N
O
O
O
00
fD
F
OD
O
1-_
�
m
O)
N
O)
O)
0
N
M
O)
r
E
Z rc
(O
OD
M
O
M
N
�
V
M
n
V
In
N
In
r
o m
to
to
tm o
to
tV o
M
W
7
�
to
f1- A
�
fA
o�
m
o a
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OD
O
(n
O)
V
1�
N
N
O
O
p
(0
00
E
O
O
1--
OD
O)
1-
OD
:li
O)
0
OD
O)
If)
Z
1�
N
N
oD
(C
N
1�
c
V
O)
(n
V
W)
N
Q rc
M
Cl)
N
7
1--
to
fA
fA
fA
fA
fA
N
ad
N
to
to
to
to
to
CO)
60
W
7
fA
N
N
IL
o
U
r <0
W d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z a
C
O
O
C
0
O
O
C
C
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q m
M
O
(n
N
O)
V
w
1-
M
�
N
O
O
(0
O)
Z;
(L
Oro_
to
V
N
N
O:
V
O)
(LO
-
V
W)
O
60
60
60
O
N
fA
fA
Cl)
Cl)
�
�
N
7
fA
N
N
o.
F
W
0
m
0
0
3
z
m
u>
j
C7
O
w
Q
U
Q
U
Q
Z
`
°
>
>
yV
�
�
F
Vs l
o
s
a
x
<
=
=
a
0
o
>
U
V
LL
LL
LL
�
pi
L
r
�
LL
O
Z°
LL
5
m
0
w
o
�
O
a
rc
w
m
0
8
W
~
IL
Z
Q_
Q
1'
H
U
Z
`VLL��
O
w
K
U
Z
O
O
LL
O
o
3
O
Z
y
W
li
b
F
b
O
rc
rc
O
°a
4i
i
i
uJ
J
0
rc
0
0
rc
0
rc
0
m
W
w
u�
W
y
a
0
0
0
0
0
U
?
U
LL
N
O
O
i
0
<
s
QO
QO
OQ
O
O
F
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND LIDO PARTNERS
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of , 2005
by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City"),
and the LIDO PARTNERS, a California Limited Partnership, and FRITZ DUDA
COMPANY, its General Partner ( "Lido Partners "), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statures of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Lido Partners is a California limited partnership duly organized and validly existing
under the laws of the State of California and is currently operating at 3425 Via
Lido, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3929, and said business is located
within the City limits.
C. Fritz Duda Company, a Fritz L. Duda, president, is a General Partner
of Lido Partners.
D. City owns the property at 3300 Newport Boulevard ( "City Hall Campus "). Lido
Partners owns the property immediately adjacent to the City Hall campus on Via
Lido which is identified as Resubdivision No. 516, parcel 1, as shown in PM 85,
pages 1 and 2 and commonly known as "Via Lido Plaza ".
E. The City is currently pursuing a the potential replacement or remodeling of the
existing City Hall at 3300 Newport Boulevard, the addition of a new parking
structure, and the replacement of a fire station at 475 32nd Street, "City project' ;
and desires to build the most economic configuration to modernize the current City
Hall Campus.
F. Both the City Hall Campus and Via Lido Plaza properties are irregularly shaped
which prevents efficient use by either party.
G. City and Lido Partners desire to reach an agreement to reconfigure each property
in a manner that will result in an equal exchange of property. The exchange can
be accomplished by Lot Line Adjustment in accordance with Chapter 19.76 of the
City Municipal Code.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. Lido Partners and City will conditionally execute a lot line adjustment which will
swap approximately .33 acres as generally shown on the attached Exhibit A.
2. City will prepare the lot line adjustment documents for Lido Partners' review
and input.
3. The City will allow the construction of a new driveway on Via Opporto to
replace the existing delivery access through the current City Hall campus.
4. The proposed lot line adjustment will be executed by both parties, and shall
become effective upon the City Council's approval of the schematic design and
authorization to proceed with final design and construction of the City project.
At such time, the executed lot line adjustment documents shall be duly
recorded with the County Recorder.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the
successor and assigns of City and Lido Partners. This Agreement constitutes
the entire Agreement between City and Lido Partners and supercedes all prior
understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the
subjects hereof. This Agreement may only be modified in writing and signed
by both parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Memorandum of Understanding
and Indemnification Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
a Municipal Corporation
M
Mayor
ATTEST:
VJ
LIDO PARTNERS
a California limited partnership
Fritz Duda Company
Its General Partner
Fritz L. Duda, President,
4,
ig I�
eg: �
Y,
�R
N eeP f5
I
Jy�y I
aia
3
�PP333
OZ Gt �,�
S
e)J
3eE
{"' I ei 6
I
I e-
I
t0.P
�OZ
d
0180doW '' we
qc
f 101
j
'If
4 i
a
ea
ZM ON
Nb
ix
4,
ig I�
eg: �
�R
N eeP f5
I
Jy�y I
d
,
�7jjj x�
'If
Nb
ix
s
g Nc
I
i
r. I
,r
4,
ig I�
eg: �
COUNCIL AGENDA
NO. i=
City Hall Q & A
The following questions were raised during the public outreach process for the
replacement/remodel City Hall and its associated components, parking structure
and fire station.
Question: Has the City explored space reduction options such as
telecommuting, electronic storage, and contracting out?
Answer:
• Telecommuting could work for certain jobs, however, most of the City Hall
positions interface with the public everyday. Many Newport Beach
residents expect staff to be available to them in person, and we have
pledged to accommodate that expectation. Additionally, the current City
Hall is not fully wired for video - conferencing and other requirements of
telecommuters.
• Electronic storage is a current priority for the City. Most new business that
is conducted at the City utilizes some form of electronic document and
record storage. However, there are many thousands of existing records,
maps, and plans dating back to the early 1900's that are in hard copy
form. We attempt to scan these as we can and we allocate funding and
time to converting historical documents. Over time, our need for
document storage will be reduced.
• Contracting out is something that the City already does. Many services
are already contracted out including capital improvement project design,
building maintenance; landscape maintenance, traffic signal maintenance,
building permit plan check, janitorial and building maintenance services,
and others. (See list of City services contracted out).
Question: I have heard that Newport Beach has more city employees per
capita than other cities. Are too many employees driving the need for this
large city hall? How does our City compare to other Cities in terms of
space needs and number of employees?
Answer: Many people have tried to come up with meaningful ways to compare
cities — you can use budgets, residents, employees, visitors, and many other
measures. All are inadequate. Newport Beach (like Huntington Beach, Laguna
Beach. Costa Mesa, and Anaheim) are "full service" cities — cities that have their
own police and fire departments. Other "contract cities" (like Aliso Viejo, Laguna
Hills, and Mission Viejo)_contract with the Orange County Sheriff and the Orange
County Fire Authority for those services — as such, those employees (while paid
by residents' tax dollars) don't show up on those cities' employee counts. But
even comparisons of full - service cities are difficult — case in point: Newport and
Anaheim: an "apple to apple" comparison at face value; right? Maybe not —
Anaheim has an electrical utility, private sector trash; and they use the County's
animal shelter. But Newport Beach has lifeguards, city- staffed trash (in about
80% of town), our own water and sewer service (Anaheim has that. too), and we
are one of the few cities that use a private sector animal shelter. Comparing
Newport Beach and Aliso Viejo is even harder. Aliso Viejo has OCFA's fire
service and Moulton - Niguel Water District's water and sewer service. Many of its
parks are funded and operated by the Aliso Viejo Community Association
(AVCA), a master HOA to which everyone pays dues. So if we operated like
Aliso Viejo does, residents would still pay for a significant number of local
government employees (firefighters on the Fire Authority payroll, sheriff's
deputies on the County payroll, water and sewer staff on MNWD's payroll)
compensated by residents' taxes. They just won't show up on a city payroll.
Residents there would pay even more for parks to the AVCA. All those
employees not on the Aliso Viejo city payroll still have benefits, cars, training,
work comp, headquarters, and all the other things that we in Newport place
under one umbrella.
Other things unique to Newport Beach are Newport Harbor, Upper Newport Bay,
two piers, and over six miles of tourist -heavy beaches which increase the
demand on City services (especially Police: Fire, Lifeguards, beach
cleaning /maintenance, and Emergency Medical Services). To maintain the
health of the Harbor, Upper Bay and the ocean (and our related economic
health), the City has the county's largest (per capita) code and water quality
enforcement program (one that received a nationwide award for its work in
2004).
Our building activity needs to be factored in, too. According to a recent article in
Forbes magazine, five zip codes in Newport Beach are within the top 20
nationwide in terms of median home price. That has corresponded with an
explosion in the remodeling and expansion of existing homes. Last year, the City
processed 11,628 building permits which exceeds all other cities countywide.
Finally, the age of our infrastructure is important, too. Our City was incorporated
in 1906 and the majority of growth occurred in the 1960's and 70's. We are
continually maintaining, repairing, and replacing community assets to maintain
quality infrastructure. In contrast, newer cities like Mission Viejo, incorporated
1987, or Rancho Santa Margarita, incorporated 1999, have not experienced the
same maintenance, repair, or replacement demands.
Today, even as a full - service city, Newport Beach does a lot of outsourcing —
these include trash pick -up (about 18% of town), legal services, tree trimming,
building plan check, median, park, & landscape maintenance, building
maintenance & custodial (including beach restrooms), storm drain cleaning,
investment management, municipal billing services, oil field management,
crossing guards, the animal shelter, and alley sweeping.
All of these factors drive the need for services and associated staffing. The amount
of space required to deliver these essential services is documented in the "Space
Needs Assessment Report" (available on line at the City's website).
Question: Have any other sites been investigated for a new City Hall?
Answer: Yes. Several other sites were discussed by the Building Committee
including Newport Technology Center and Fashion Island.
• Newport Technology center (NTC) — The NTC is over 400,000 square feet
of facilities just west of Newport Boulevard between Industrial Way and
Hospital Way. It is a 4- building campus with 1,336 parking spaces. When
we examined this site at a cursory level, we saw similar problems to the
problems we have at the existing City Hall complex. For example. fitting
the Planning, Public Works, and Building functions together in a one -stop
shop manner doesn't fit at the NTC — extensive remodeling would be
required. We have seen that remodeling existing spaces is often more
costly then building anew — remodeling the NTC will be $50-60 /square-
foot and would be in addition to the purchase price.
The NTC facility clearly has more space than we need. Yes, we could and
should lease out the excess space, but the private sector has had a hard
time leasing that space today — as noted by its vacancy. Currently, most
R &D businesses are locating in larger complexes such as Irvine
Spectrum. Parking is a consideration at the NTC, too — the NTC is parked
at a 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square -feet. This is appropriate for the NTC's
Research and Development zoning designation, but substandard for a
City Hall Facility and additional tenants. We would then have to let space
sit idle to meet the parking requirements or tear part of the building down
to add more parking.
Additionally, the City Council believes that City Hall should either be in a
central location to many residents or in a location reflecting Newport
Beach's historical core. The NTC site is not central, nor does it reflect the
history of the current City Hall location. Indeed, it is adjacent to Costa
Mesa.
• Fashion Island /Newport Center — Many believe that this area has become
the geographic center of town. In the 1970's, there was a plan to
consolidate City Government functions to the Fashion Island area. The
proposed 19.2 acre Civic Center Plaza would have included the Police
Department, Fire Department, City Hall and a County Court. That effort
never came to fruition and only the Police Station was eventually
constructed at that location.
Since that time most of the available vacant land at Newport Center has
been developed. The cost to purchase existing properties and remodel or
rebuild would be very high based upon current market values.
Question: Can't we sell the current City Hall site and use that money to pay
for the new facility?
Answer: Sure. We could certainly sell off the current site and partially fund a
new site. Remember that the sale and price of the current site would be
contingent upon what development would be allowed at the current City Hall site.
The current zoning is Government and Open Space. To get the highest and
best -use pricing, the zoning would need to be changed to commercial,
residential, or mixed use. That requires a General Plan Amendment, plus the
rezoning and would very likely result in a considerable increase in density and
intensity of use. As such, most re- zoning scenarios involve a Measure S vote —
we have seen that Measure S votes tend to make sales of property less
attractive to many would -be buyers. Secondly; there is still the problem of buying
another site. We haven't seen vacant sites large enough to accommodate a new
City Hall (the need is roughly 3 acres). Therefore, the City would have to buy a
currently developed site, remodel it, or demolish it and construct anew. The price
that the City would need to pay would be based upon the current use and
entitlement. Since the Fashion Island area has some of the most desirable
commercial property in Orange County, it is likely that the cost to purchase
property would be very high. The timing and complexity of establishing new
zoning (including a Greenlight vote) and selling the current site; and purchasing a
new site (possibly by eminent domain) and building a new City Hall would be
problematic as well.
Another concern is that moving the city hall from its current location might cause
the decline of the adjacent area. Many believe a new City Hall at the current
location could serve as an economic engine and possibly encourage new private
redevelopment.
Question: What's going on with the adjacent properties? Is there a master
plan? Wasn't there a meeting to develop a "Super Block "?
Answer: Over the years, several potential developers have brought conceptual
ideas to the City regarding the Lido Marina (LMV) and surrounding properties.
Historically, two or three people a year request meetings with City staff to
determine existing zoning, parking, and their options at the LMV location. We
respond as we always do — with whatever information about the site that is public
information. To date, none of these ideas or concepts has been pursued by the
property owners or potential developers.
The City held a meeting with the adjacent property owners to discuss the
potential remodel or replacement of City Hall. It is standard City planning
practice to solicit input via meetings and workshops from adjacent property
owners, business owners, and residents. The purpose of the meeting was to
explore the adjacent property owner plans, if any, to ensure compatibility with a
potential City Hall project. The City does not desire to impose a master plan for
redevelopment. However, if property owners come forward with ideas that may
reduce City costs or improve the economic viability of the surrounding
community, then the City feels it should explore these opportunities and
determine if there is a public benefit. Other than working with the Douda
Company on the proposed land swap, the City is not working or planning with
any other property owner in the area on any redevelopment proposals.
Question: Is Community Redevelopment Law an option for funding City
Hall or for consolidating the parcels around Lido Marina Village and City
Hall?
Answer: Changes to redevelopment law in the mid- 1990's (AB 1290, Isenberg),
made it much more difficult to declare that an area is "blighted" — the first step in
any redevelopment action. We believe that few, if any. areas in Newport Beach,
California, would ever qualify as being blighted.
Secondly, redevelopment law specifically prohibits the use of tax increment
revenue to construct city halls (California Health and Safety Code §33445[g][1 ]).
Question: How will the City finance the proposed new City Hall, Fire
Station and parking structure project? Would it increase property taxes?
Answer: One possible financing option would be to use Certificates of
Participation (COP's), previously used to finance the Central Library project
($7M +). COP's are similar to bonds sold for specific periods of time, with the City
making annual lease payments in the amount of the annual principal and interest
(debt service) payments on the COP's over a 20, 25, or 30 -year time period.
COPs do not require a public vote, because the payments are made from
ongoing City revenues. As such, there would not be a property tax or fee
increase to finance the project.
For example, if the City wanted to finance a $40M project with COP's, given
current market rates, the annual lease payments to cover the principal and
interest debt service would be approximately $2.8 million annually for 30 years.
Question: What are the current costs of maintaining (including deferred
maintenance expenses that may be required soon) the existing building?
Can we consider these costs to be costs saved or avoided with a new
building?
Answer: An excerpt from the April 17, 2003 Utility Comparison prepared by
LPA, states: "Based on reports of selected actual maintenance expenses and
deferred estimated maintenance costs averaged over the past four years, we
arrive at a current rate of maintenance expenditure of at least
$4.00 /squ a refoot/ye a r. This may omit some historical costs. The BOMA
experience reports give averages below $1.25 for "better' buildings. For the first
eight years of a building, we would expect little to no costs for maintenance.
Over the next thirty years, this expense, if unchecked, could result in an
estimated cost of $2.5 million. Over the next forty years, this grows to $3.7
million (current dollars).
Based upon the analysis received from the City of Newport Beach, and the
modeling of the proposed buildings, the anticipated energy savings is
approximately 17% over a five -year period from 2005 -2009, the anticipated
energy savings would be in excess of $163,000. If projected over the next forty
years, the total savings could be as much as $3,776,000."
Question: How will the City assure the proper management of a COP
offering of this size? Wouldn't it be the biggest amount of debt that the
City has ever incurred?
Answer: Yes, it would be the largest amount of debt that we have incurred. The
City has previously issued $17,100,000 worth of debt for its water facilities and
$7,500,000 for the Newport Beach Central Library. The remaining lease
obligations on that debt (both principal and interest) are $8,237,375 and
$8,316,679 respectively. The City's outstanding debt level is extremely low when
compared with other jurisdictions, so we believe that a COP issuance of this
magnitude is well within our means.
For City staff to determine which financing vehicle to recommend to the City
Council, the City Manager would form of a Financing Team composed of the City
Manager, the Administrative Services Director, other City staff, and the following
persons from the private sector: Bond and Disclosure Counsel, an Underwriter,
and a Financial Advisor. The City Council may want to appoint a member of the
Council to the Financing Team.
The City Manager and Administrative Services Director believe a financing
strategy could be developed to accomplish the construction of whatever project
alternative the Council chooses. The goal would be to structure the financing in
such a way that ongoing City operations will not be impacted.
Part of the City's responsibility is to balance the use of available funds between
ongoing operations, such as Police and Fire services, and proper management
of the City's long -term infrastructure assets. Whenever long -term assets require
renovation or replacement, it is conventional practice to finance the cost of such
projects over a number of years. Therefore financing plans are seriously
analyzed whenever the City is considering a major project like this. But there is
one foregone conclusion before the analysis even begins that the period of time
over which we would structure any potential financing would be shorter than the
projected life span of the finished project. We estimate that the new City Hall
project should have a lifetime of 50 -60 years.
Question: You've just told us that this project will be the largest issuance
of debt by the City ever. Why shouldn't this be put to a public vote "?
Answer: It could be put to an advisory vote. But in California's system of city
management. the City Council (the voters' elected representatives) and the City
Manager (the person whom the Council hires to professionally manage the city)
are charged with making decisions like building new city halls. Every year the
City Council presides over the City's finances (in FY 2004 -05, the City's budget is
$170 million, including a $40 million capital improvement budget. Budgets from
years past have included important recent projects such as the replacement of
the Arches Interchange (PCH and Newport Boulevard -- $15 million), the
Groundwater Project (four wells in Fountain Valley and the piping that connects
them to our water system -- $25 million), the Big Canyon Reservoir Cap and
Circulation System -- $6 million, the widening of MacArthur Boulevard ($15
million), and construction or replacement of key City facilities such as the Central
Library, Mariners Library, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station, and other major
infrastructure projects. The budget also includes the management of millions in
routine construction projects, like the $50 million Water Master Plan, the $53
million Sewer Master Plan, the $20 million Storm Drain Master Plan, and a $38
million Pavement Management Plan. The replacement/remodel of City Hall: a
parking structure and a replacement Fire Station are yet another in a chain of
important capital projects over a long history of important infrastructure decisions
that our City Council has made over the years in accordance with the powers that
are granted in the City Charter.
"WEIVED At-TER AGENDA
ED
PPINT
TE
COMMUNITY COMMENTARY °`t i
Hall plans lack openness
By John Buttolph
Much opposition to the
proposed construction of a new
city hall arises from a style of
government by which the Newport
Reach City Council and its city
manager have advanced their
agenda largely hidden from the
public eye.
Rewind back to the Feb. 8
council meeting as a $650,000
consulting contract — originally
awarded two years ago but
canceled because of the
consultant's conflict of interest —
is surprisingly reinstated over
protests from one councilman
with the sensible idea that
rebidding was appropriate for a
contract of such magnitude.
If you blinked, you missed the
grateful consultant's low -key
announcement of three Public
meetings, which the council
"scheduled for the last half of April.
Ten residents who didn't blink and
actually showed up at the fast
meeting were told they would not
be permitted to address the need
for or desirability of a new city hall.
At this and later meetings no
opportunity was provided for
public statements in opposition to
the project Public input was
restricted to "review preliminary
design concepts" for a new city
hall, a new fire station and an
adjacent multi-story parking
structure.
- The perception that Public
notice requirements had been
manipulated to minimize turnout
netted a postponement of meeting
No. 2, the addition of a fourth
meeting to the agenda, and a large
banner in front of City Hall
defining the issue as "Replace or
Remodel ?"
Well folks, the public meeting
part of the process has ended, .
wherein we were treated to a slick
presentation by our city manager
and his highly paid consultant,
leaving many of us with
unanswered questions and a deep
sense of frustration.
Three responses come to mind.
First, why were these public
meetings conducted as if the
decision to proceed at a cost of
tens of millions of dollars had
already been made, with the city
merely going through the motions
of public meetings to diffuse
public opposition?
Was that the best they could do,
and was that all we residents of the
city should expect? The council
disregarded any effort at
salesmanship and arrogantly
preseruted the Project as a fait
accompli. .
Second, why no discernible
attempt to present alternatives to
the "scrape and build" approach?
Why no public discussion of
off -site relocation for high-usage
services like the Building
Department, thus relieving traffic,
parking and space problems at our
current City Hall?
Why no public discussion of
outsourcing, or reducing the
number of city staff housed in City
Hall? Why are we compelled to '
a new city hall, anew fire house
and a new high -rise parking garage
as one project instead of
considering each separately on its
own merits? And, if the city had
already addressed these issues,
why weren't their conclusions
disclosed openly at these public
meetings?
Third, what are we giving up if
the city is permitted to build this
monument to big government
instead of spending tens of
millions on more pressing city
improvements? Think what $40
million could do for our
overcrowded and under- funded
schools, for infrastructure
maintenance, for acquisition and
improvement of open space and
parks, for more police protection
and emergency services, and the
list goes on and on.
Let's compare the need for a
new city hall relative to our city's
desire to acquire John Wayne
Airport to protect water quality,
and to improve traffic circulation
before we allow our council and
city manager to incur a massive
amount of debt for a new city hall.
Remember, the recent
city- sponsored Visioning Festival
didn't even mention a new city
hall. Residents rated road
improvements, more open space
and parks, water quality, and
public safety as their Priority
choices for spending our tax
dollars.
For the city to respond —
without any meaningful public
discussion — by giving its highest
priority to a new city hall complex
costing tens of millions of dollars is
narrow minded and self serving.
If the City Council insists on
proceeding with this massive
link
outlay of public funds based on a
decision- making process largely
hidden from public scrutiny, let
concerned residents e-mail their
council members or attend
Tuesday's City Council meeting
and state whether they want to pay
for it.
"JOHN BUTHDLPH was a candidate
for council in Novamber of 2004 and is
a member of Newporters for
Responsible Government.
'05 "P 10 "'0:12
Oil
7S
-vy\,
-- A
IY\
Cm,
,>r
.kN3AI13a lof
L
E
co
O
d
CD
Cl
V
0
L
a
Y
L
♦i�
Y
f�
1 I��
40W`
14021d
0M
/ smsvi
of
u.,
o
I
N
Q
'
a+
N
AI
(j
1
d
co
N
7
�
o
Q
a
to
C
7
Ul)
Q
Q
Ul)
t7
C
•L
V
C
Q
�
'C
Q
Q
tp
ttf
Ln
a
d
LL
C
Z.
r
N
N
d c
.0 C
C
C
c
•E
c
$
c
•N
•y
°�
E
m
ar
d
d
m
m
In
4 V
d
rL
U
y
m
d
r2
U
U
i0
of
YO
°'
E
E a
w
AR
m
0
0
U 0
to
to
m
of
s
City of Newport Beach Charter
Section 1109. Bonded Debt Limit.
The City shall not incur an indebtedness evidenced by
general obligation bonds which shall in the aggregate exceed
the sum of fifteen percent (15 %) of the total assessed
valuation, for purposes of City taxation, of all the real and
personal property within the City.
No bonded indebtedness which shall constitute a general
obligation of the City may be created unless authorized by the
affirmative votes of two -third of the electors voting on such
proposition at any election at which the question is submitted
to the electors and unless in full compliance with the
provisions of the State Constitution and of this Charter.
T.."V,,Mayt0,N105 A~.O ine:AM0001OM Pip: t
TO
FROM:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
�,/ J ?/kO�—?0c)S)
Agenda Item No. S29
June 14, 2005
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL py
Public Works Department'�6.,
Stephen G. Badum, P.E.
949-644-3311 J'
sbadum@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION - MOU WITH LIDO PARTNERS, INC.
CITY HALL / VIA LIDO PLAZA LOT -LINE ADJUSTMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve revisions to the Memorandum of Understanding with Lido Partners, Inc. for
conditional approval of a lot -line adjustment which was previously approved by City
Council on May 10, 2005.
DISCUSSION:
On May 10, 2005, City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with Lido
Partners, Inc. for the conditional approval of a lot -line adjustment to accommodate the
potential replacement of the existing City Hall and Fire Station and construction of a
parking structure at the current location on 3300 Newport Boulevard. Due to some last
minute changes, the revised version was not included within the Council packet. The
revised version provides corrections and minor changes to improve the clarity of the
document.
In summary, the following corrections and changes have been made:
• All references to an indemnification agreement have been deleted as this
language was inadvertently carried over for a previous MOU document during
word processing.
• All references to the Fritz Duda Company have been deleted as the MOU is with
Lido Partners. Fritz Duda will execute the document as the general partner of
Lido Partners and not as the owner of the Fritz Duda Company.
• Section 1 of the MOU has been revised to clarify that the Lot Line Adjustment
represents a "one for one" exchange of land, .33 acres of City Hall property for
.33 acres of Via Lido Plaza property.
SUBJECT: Clarification — MOU wi. -ido Partners
June 14, 2005
Page 2
• Section 5 of the MOU is revised to include the condition that the City would
approve the modified Via Lido Plaza parking lot re -configuration along with the
approval of the City Hall schematic Design and authorization to proceed with
final design and construction of City Hall. This change is necessary to ensure
that the Via Lido Plaza property remains in compliance with its current use permit
and zoning restrictions by maintaining the required number of parking spaces.
Submitted b
SFr& Badum
Works Director
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND LIDO PARTNERS
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made and entered into as of this
day of 2005 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: a
Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and the LIDO PARTNERS, a California Limited
Partnership ( "Lido Partners "), and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statures of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Lido Partners is a California limited partnership duly organized and validly existing
under the laws of the State of California and is currently operating at 3425 Via
Lido, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3929, and said business is located
within the City limits.
C. City owns the property at 3300 Newport Boulevard ( "Lido Partners owns the
property immediately adjacent to the City Hall campus on Via Lido which is
identified as Resubdivision No. 516, parcel 1, as shown in PM 85, pages 1 and 2
and commonly known as City Hall Campus "). "Via Lido Plaza ".
D. The City is currently pursuing a the potential replacement or remodeling of the
existing City Hall at 3300 Newport Boulevard, the addition of a new parking
structure, and the replacement of a fire station at 475 32nd Street, "City Project" ;
and desires to build the most economic configuration to modernize the current City
Hall Campus.
E. Both the City Hall Campus and Via Lido Plaza properties are irregularly shaped
which prevents efficient use by either the City or Lido Partners.
F. City and Lido Partners desire to reach an agreement to reconfigure the City Hall
Campus property and Via Lido Plaza property in a manner that will result in an
equal exchange of property from both sites. The exchange can be accomplished
by Lot Line Adjustment in accordance with the provision set forth in Chapter 19.76
of the City Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. Lido Partners and City will conditionally execute a lot line adjustment which will
exchange approximately .33 acres from the City Hall Campus property for
approximately .33 acres of the Via Lido Plaza property as generally shown on
the attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of this MOU by this reference.
2. City will prepare and process the lot line adjustment documents for Lido
Partners' review and input.
3. The City shall allow the construction of a new driveway on Via Opporto to
replace the existing delivery access through the current City Hall Campus.
4. The proposed lot line adjustment will be executed by both parties, and shall
become effective upon the City Council's approval of the schematic design and
authorization to proceed with final design and construction of the City Project
and City's approval of the modified Via Lido Plaza parking lot re- configuration
plan. At such time, the executed lot line adjustment documents shall be duly
recorded with the County Recorder.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the
successor and assigns of City and Lido Partners. This Agreement constitutes
the entire agreement between City and Lido Partners and supercedes all prior
understandings and agreements with respect to the subjects hereof. This
Agreement may only be modified in writing and signed by both parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Memorandum of Understanding
and Indemnification Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robin Clauson, City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk
for the City of Newport Beach
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
a Municipal Corporation
IN
Steven Bromberg, Mayor
LIDO PARTNERS
a California limited partnership
Fritz Duda Company
Its General Partner
Fritz L. Duda. President
EXHIBIT A
s � z
i
ui
I � .
J(
W _
ds
C _ - J• '�1
a JI
1.
{1
_ I .
I
F-
w '