Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - New City Hall & Park ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 22 April 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager dkiffCdicitv.newaort- beach.ca.us or 949 -644 -3002 SUBJECT: New City Hall and Park Project: Consideration and Approval of Concept Design, Direction for Schematic Design Phase ISSUE: Is the City Hall and Park Project ready to move to the Schematic Design phase? RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Approve the proposed Concept Design for the City Hall, and Park Project, as proposed or with changes; 2. Direct staff and the Design Team to begin the Schematic Design phase, planned to end in November 2009 with the certification of the City Hall and Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR). DISCUSSION: Following the approval of Measure B on February 5, 2008, the City Council embarked upon a design competition to design a new City Hall and Park on the parcels immediately adjacent to the Newport Beach Central Library on Avocado Avenue and between Avocado and MacArthur Boulevard. The design competition ended in November 2008 when the Council directed staff to move forward with a contract to hire Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) as the preferred architect and plan for the Park and City Hall. BCJ's selected landscape architect, Peter Walker and Partners Landscape Architecture (PWP) began work with BCJ on the park program for the site. The "Design Team" for the Project is: • BCJ (Greg Mottola, Steve Chaitow, and Daniel Lee along with Peter Bohlin) • PWP (Sarah Kuehl and Paul Sieron) • ARUP (Civil Engineers, including sustainability, structural, and MEP) • C.W. Driver (ProjectlContract Management and cost estimation) • LSA & Associates (EIR Consultants) • City Staff (Dave Kiff, Steve Badum, Dave Webb, Jaime Murillo) Between the time when BCJ /PWP was hired in January 2009; the Design Team has met here in Newport Beach over a series of six two -day design sessions every other week. In addition, the Team has held conference calls six times during the weeks that the Team did not meet face -to -face. During each of the six two -day sessions, the Team also met with the three members of the Building Committee (Mayor Selich and Council Members Webb and Rosansky) along with two members of the City Hall and Park Design Committee (typically Rush Hill and Stephen Sandland, with Andy Bowden alternating). City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 2 Critical to the Design Team's work in this Phase was the direction given by the Design Team in its Final Report (November 2008), and by City Council at its January 10, 2009 Goal Setting meeting. At this meeting, the Council gave direction as shown below. Two of the two -day visits included public meetings of the Design Committee (on February 25, 2009 and March 23, 2009), where the Design Team presented the developingy Concept Plan and received feedback from the public and the Committee. During the February 25` public meeting of the Design Committee, the Design Committee invited members of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission (Philip Lugar, Marie Marston, and Tim Brown) as well as two members of the Arts Commission (Wendy Brooks and Robert Smith) to offer their ideas. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT DESIGN REFINEMENT PHASE. What follows is a summary of much of the direction and changes that came out of the January through April "Concept Design Refinement' Phase: DESIGN COMMITTEE'S DIRECTION — FINAL REPORT, NOVEMBER 12, 2008 1. Consider changing the "Pod" modular sections. The modular sections should be changed to improve circulation and to promote the "One Stop Shop" concept; the floor plan needs redesign since a one -stop shop on two floors and in more than one pod will not be efficient. But the fact that the design team can do any configuration of buildings under one canopy is beneficial. 2. Review the Sail Design Feature. Consider the modification of the sail feature to reduce the incursion into the view plane. 3. Add Surface Parking. The Entry plaza should be redesigned to allow for some surface parking. 4. Improve the Aesthetics of the Parking Structure. The proposed parking structure could benefit from a redesign so it will look less like a parking structure. 5. Reduce Amphitheatre and Add Parking. Consider reducing the size of the amphitheatre to create more open space. The design needs to add more parking to the north, for the park. 6. Integrate City Hall and the Park better. The park's integration with City Hall needs work. There is a significant conflict between vehicles and pedestrians which needs to be addressed. 7. Refine Council Chambers, Community Room and Parking. The Community Room needs an outdoor function area or should be combined with the Council Chambers. The Council Chambers should be able to be expanded. The Council Chambers is out front, close to Avocado, but all of the parking is behind the City Hall building. 8. Reduce Light and Glare. Consider using louver or other systems to address light and glare from the clerestory windows. The building should be reoriented slightly so that the clerestory windows are not as prominent from above the site. BCJ's design has the highest potential for glare from the east, so mitigation needs to take place. The exposure of the west side of the building to direct sunlight should also be addressed. 9. Improve the Link to the Library. The eating area between the City Hall and Library could be improved to be "a nice place to go for visitors, staff, and Library patrons. This would make the Master Plan a true Civic Center that's alive and vibrant." CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION — JANUARY, 10 2009 City Hall Floor Plan • Floor Plan should easily accommodate future changes to departments, sizes, layouts. • Provide a prepared food element/coffee stand for the Library and City Hall connection area. • It is a "good goal" to provide access to natural light from all staff workstations • The "pods" beneath the canopy roof should be changed to improve circulation and ensure an effective "one -stop shop." City Mall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 page 3 • A new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) should not be located at the new City Hall, but should instead be incorporated into the new Police facility, when constructed. • Modify the sail feature to eliminate any incursion into the View Plane. Views • Ensure good screening of roof - mounted antennas and dishes. • Retain the view value (including to the harbor) of the high point of the current site. • Maintain the view protection of the MacArthur berm, but not necessarily the berm itself. Council Chambers & Community Room • The Community Room and Council Chambers should "act together as a single unit" and a large community space. • The Community Room /Council Chambers spaces should accommodate meetings that cause greater attendance, either using the exterior or TV screens /audio in the Community Room. • Make the Community Room and Council Chambers separate from other City offices for ease of after -hours use. Light and Glare • Consider "louvers or other systems" to address light/glare from clerestory windows. • Protect the interior of the building on the west side from direct sunlight. • "Provide appropriate mitigation of light/glare so that residences are not adversely affected." Linkage with the Library • Improve eating area between Library and City Hall. • "Integrate library (with City Hall and the Park) so as to provide a true civic center." • Have a vehicular connection from City Hall's parking structure to the Library's parking lot. • Provide continuity of landscaping from Library to City Hall along Avocado The Park • Reduce size of or eliminate amphitheatre. • Provide for easy surface parking for park visitors. • Improve the integration of City Hall and the Park. • See the Jeffrey Open Space Trail in Irvine as an example of a well- designed park that uses California- friendly landscaping. DESIGN TEAM SESSIONS WITH THE BUILDING COMMITTEE — Six Meetings • The 450 -space parking structure: Blend it in with its surroundings, sink it down further to lessen view impacts from MacArthur, choose an appropriate roofing material. • Replicate the view value of the MacArthur berm using landscaping that abuts the parking structure. • A library expansion is needed, and should be done concurrently with the City Hall and Park project to take advantage of economies of scale. • There should be a connection between the North Parcel and the main park parcel ( "Central Parcel ") — the Committee settled on an elevated bridge. • There should be something in the North Parcel to draw users to it — the Committee advocated a small "bark park" and a view belvedere. • Rather than including a formal sculpture garden and a tot lot, the Central Parcel should include places for public art — "some monumental, some more intimate, some that can double as a place for children to play." • Park users should be able to use the restrooms in the Community Room and, at the North Parcel, the transportation center — i.e. no new restrooms are proposed for either the North or Central parcels. • Suggestion to change the roof of the Library expansion to start to blend the current library's roof style with the wave -like roof style of the new City Hall. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 4 There should be places in the park with turf (or turf -like sedge), picnic benches, seating areas, water fountains. Concern stated over the square footage of the City Hall structure. DESIGN COMMITTEE PUBLIC SESSIONS — FEB 25 & MARCH 23, 2009 • General support for the park design (and landscaping style) and City Hall design — many previous concerns about the initial concept plan had been successfully addressed. • Committee members expressed residual concern over light and glare from the City Hall building, the library expansion, the parking structure, and cars in the parking structure — requested more analysis. • Residents in the area expressed similar concern about glare, lights, and impacts to private and public views. Members of the Design Team noted that a significant amount of glare exists today from street lights on MacArthur. Should the City consider eliminating some of those lights or reducing wattage? • Concern stated over a possible wind - tunnel or Venturi effect between the Council Chambers and the Community Room. The Design Team reviewed local wind patterns and speeds. The Team also studied immediate land contours and building forms — they concluded that wind would not be focused through the space between the Chambers and the Community Room. • Arts Commissioners spoke of the need for a sculpture garden and art opportunities in the park and inside and on the walls of the City Hall building and on the walls of the parking structure. PWP recommended making the entire park available for various art pieces, with placement depending upon the scale of the piece. • Parks Commissioners spoke of their interest in accessible restrooms near the park to accommodate families, a place for community gatherings — indicated that the "civic lawn may work for this (instead of an amphitheater, which is not in the plans) "' questioned whether the North Parcel was the right place for a Bark Park — and whether the small size of the Bark Park would make it less useful. Interested readers should review the draft minutes from Design Committee's most recent meeting, which are Exhibit A to this staff report. In addition to the above, City staff (including representatives from all departments on -site, Library Services, and General Services) were consulted during this Phase as to the following issues: • One -Stop Shop ( "OSS ") — design, size of counters, etc.; • Departmental adjacencies (which departments should be close to which other department[s]); • Conference room needs; • Storage needs (electronic and hard copies); • Public counter, public workspace needs; • General workspace layouts (offices and flexible space) • Leadership in Environment and Energy Design (LEED); • Building Code compliance; • Fire vehicle access and fire prevention issues; • Library needs (expansion, coffee station, ATM, more workstations, expanded area for children); • Opportunities for art presentation and placement; • Park program needs; and • Park maintenance issues. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 5 SIGNIFICANT DESIGN ISSUES. As the members of the Building Committee are aware, the refinement of the initial Concept Plan seen in November 2008 has led to several important changes, which have impacted the cost of the project. These include: 1 — Library Expansion. The Concept Plan we will present to you includes a 17,135 SF (square foot, or square feet) two -story expansion of the Central Library to accommodate more children's programs, an expanded children's play area, additional open seating and carrels for patrons, a coffee /food element, a professional audio recording space, computer stations, study areas, a second entrance that guides visitors into the City Hall & Park area, a place for an ATM and the Credit Union, and more. 2 — Significant Excavation & Export. With the City Hall and Parking Structure nestled further into the ground to avoid any intrusion into the View Plane and to improve the aesthetics of the public views from MacArthur Boulevard, soil excavation and export requirements have grown to about 284,000 cubic yards. C.W. Driver estimates that excavation costs will range from a low of $10 per cubic yard to $24 per cubic yard (with an average of $16.37 /cubic yard used for most of our cost estimates, equating to $4,651,000). The variation in the amount per cubic yard is because of the export/disposal alternatives — landfill disposal being the most expensive, and finding another development nearby that needs clean fill (and selling the material to them) being the least. 3 — The Size of the City Hall. Item K of the Design Competition's General Design Parameters (see the Parameters in full in Exhibit B) said that the "City's 2002 Needs Assessment ... will be the basis for the primary program requirements for the City Hal! Structure with the following adjustments. • The City desires an open floor plan concept with maximum flexibility for future needs, • The building shall be designed for 270 full time employees at 200 -250 square feet per employee (Note: this translates into between 54,000 - 67,000 square feet), not including public areas, and • The building's overall size shall be approximately 72- 79,000 total square feet including public areas." The Parameters also said that a One Stop Shop and a 150 -seat Council Chambers are desirable. About Maximum Flexibility. As to the first bullet above and the openness and flexibility of the Floor Plan, the Concept Plan: • Contains three general office space sizes and three general workstation sizes, instead of the six office variations and six workstation variations in the 2003 LPA plan (for the existing City Hall site); • Incorporates conference rooms of a similar size to offices, allowing these to be interchanged as functions change; • Includes about 3,000 square feet of unassigned space (both office and workstation); • Is a structure that is a series of bays that are fairly consistent from bay to bay, allowing departments or functions to move fairly easily if functions or adjacencies change; • Limits interior columns to allow significant modification within each bay; • Uses the spaces in between the bays for storage, vaults, mechanical equipment rooms, circulation, and restrooms, further increasing the flexibility of the workspace areas within each bay. About Square Footage per Employee and Gross Square Footage. As to the second and third bullets above, the 2002 Needs Assessment indicated the City Hall was to have 54,000 — 67,000 SF of Net Square Footage (or "NSF ") and between 72,000 — 79,000 Gross Square Footage (GSF). In City Nall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 6 layperson's terms, NSF is the square footage that a business might be charged for to rent in a building — also referred to as "useable" space in the context of a business' operations. GSF is NSF plus circulation, restrooms, mechanical equipment spaces, and more. With the 2002 Needs Assessment forming the basis for generating the 2003 LPA Plan at the Balboa Peninsula (current) city hall site ( "LPA Plan "), the actual SF of LPA's 2003 plans was 47,355 NSF and 74,857 GSF, which resulted in a Building Efficiency Ratio of 63.3% (NSF:GSF). Interestingly, the GSF of the LPA Plan fit within the range suggested by the 2002 Needs Assessment, but the NSF did not. This suggests that the "grossing factor" (the amount of GSF over NSF) in the Design Parameter is be hard to justify given that the LPA Plan had a fairly efficient layout. Currently, the Avocado site Concept Plan as presented ( "Concept Plan ") has 57,378 NSF and 98,110 GSF, equating to a Building Efficiency Ratio of 58.5 %. Again, while the NSF falls within the suggested range of the 2002 Needs Assessment, the GSF does not, further suggesting that the grossing factor may not be entirely appropriate in the Design Parameter. Below are brief explanations of the differences in NSF and GSF between the LPA Plan (which proposed meeting the 2002 Needs Assessment) and the Concept Plan. More about NSF. A 10,000 SF increase in NSF from the LPA Plan to the current Concept Plan is due to additional workstations, conference rooms, and programmatic areas where the City expressed interest to add program to the 2002 Needs Assessment. There is an addition of 5,000 SF in offices and workstations (including 3,500 SF of unassigned spaces for future expansion), and an extra 2,500 SF in conference spaces for a variety of meeting types and sizes. Furthermore, adding NBTA added 1,000 SF and more community meeting space added another 1,500 SF. The 2002 Needs Assessment did not include a community room, but the LPA Plan allocated a minimal amount of SF to that program element. These programmatic additions together attribute to the 10,000 NSF difference between the two plans. • More about GSF. There is a 23,000 SF increase in GSF in the Concept Plan compared to the LPA Plan. As explained above, 10,000 SF is attributed to added program, leaving 13,000 SF of additional GSF. In general, with the NSF increase in program, there is a proportional increase (the rule of thumb is about 30 %) in GSF attributed to additional circulation, mechanical spaces, and other auxiliary areas directly related to the NSF increase. Circulation. As noted, when increased proportionally to the 10,000 NSF increase, circulation adds roughly 3,000 SF to the GSF. In addition, there is a 2,000 SF increase in public circulation in the Concept Plan compared to the LPA Plan — the LPA Plan used more exterior circulation, and the Concept Plan moves some of that indoors to improve flexibility. In the LPA Plan, a majority of the public circulation (both horizontal and vertical) was along the exterior of the building, which would have resulted in frequent occurrences where the public and staff circulated the same areas within the building or were forced outdoors. In the Concept Plan, the interior public circulation allows for more effective interaction and separation between the public and the staff and makes staff circulation more convenient in order to serve their constituents. The increase in vertical circulation (about 1,000 more SF) encourages interaction and ease of communication among staff on different levels, allows for faster responses to 'front desk" needs, and provides for more effective long -term flexibility. As departments fluctuate in size and adjacencies change over time, this circulation configuration and building arrangement allows for greater adaptation. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 7 Mechanical Spaces. There is roughly a 6,000 SF difference in mechanical SF between the two schemes. The LPA Plan had mechanical equipment on top of the roof at the Peninsula City Hall site, eliminating the SF from the GSF total. Because of site constraints, protecting public views, and aesthetics, mechanical equipment cannot be located on the roof of the Avocado site. The larger program requirement (10,000 increase) and circulation allowance (6,000 SF) and the inclusion of mechanical spaces (6,000 SF) necessitate a larger building envelope; and therefore, an increase of 1,000 SF in wall thicknesses. These SF increases demonstrate the 23,000 SF difference in GSF between the LPA plans and the current Concept Refinement Plans as shown in Table 1: Table 1 Comparison of LPA Plan and Concept Plan Area LPA Plan Concept Plan Initial Square Footage 75,000 75,000 -- Revised Program Needs (NSF) 10,000 -- Circulation Tied to Revised Program Needs 3,000 Mechanical Equipment Inside 6,000 Wall Thickness 1,000 -- Public Circulation 3,000 Comparing efficiency ratios of the LPA Plan and the Concept Plan is difficult given that some of the GSF of the LPA Plan is not considered because it is outside the building (i.e. circulation and mechanical). However, if the mechanical equipment were moved from the interior of the Concept Plan to the exterior, the Building Efficiency Ratio would go to 62.2 %, which is close to the LPA Plan's Building Efficiency Ratio of 63.3 %. The floor plans of both the LPA Plan and the Concept Plan graphically convey the efficiencies of these plans (see Exhibit D). The Council may wish to discuss with the Design Team the costs versus benefits of bringing more interior circulation outside. A preliminary discussion with C.W. Driver tells us that there may not be any cost reduction in this change based on the increased complexity of the building form to achieve this objective and that the reduction of circulation SF within the building translates primarily to a loss of air, not building materials. 4 — Emergency Operations Center (EOC). On Tuesday night, April 7, the Building Committee held a public meeting to discuss whether this Project should include an EOC (versus keeping the EOC at the Police Headquarters or finding another location). About 75 people attended. The current EOC is the Police Auditorium at the NBPD HQ, and is arguably undersized. The Fire Department's emergency preparedness coordinator, Katie Eing, submitted an EOC "ideal" plan that would include a 4,200 SF EOC (see Exhibit C for the memo that the Building Committee reviewed). Among the larger questions discussed at the April 7 meeting were: Should the EOC be at City Hall versus the PD versus another location? If the EOC were at City Hall, how can it best be placed within the Project area so that any structure above or around it would not have to be constructed to "essential building" standards? Should the EOC be dual -use (set up in its EOC mode full time but functioning as an EOC, a place for emergency training, and a place for other City - employee computer training) City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 8 • Should the EOC also be used for non -City employee meetings and open to the public? The Building Committee met again later in the week and recommended: 1. That the Design Team be directed to include an EOC component into Schematic Design that could be placed in a location that did not cause other program elements to increase in cost, and that could, if some other reasonable option were found, be removed from the design and placement reconsidered; 2. That the City staff report back soon to the City Council on EOC issues, including the functionality of the current facility, an optimal design and size for a new EOC that effectively utilizes neighboring spaces, and EOCs elsewhere that effectively integrate technology (like a "virtual EOC "). The Design Team has already begun working on Item #1 above, based on roughly a 3,000 SF assumption for the EOC's primary program and utilization of new conference spaces in the City Hall to minimize new SF needed to be added to the current program. 5 — Cost Issues. General Design Parameter K said that: the budgetary goal of the Project is as follows: Approximately $400 -450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF &E); Approximately $20 -25, 000 per space for the parking structure; and Approximately $15 -20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and drainage) and site improvements. The above amounts are exclusive of soft costs. The City Hall is not at this time planned to be an "essential services building." The budget parameters expressed here are not absolute amounts but are intended to indicate the price range the City expects the project to cost. Preliminary estimates done by C.W. Driver in hard costs ( "hard costs" exclude design fees, contingencies, a escalation factor for inflation from today's dollars, overhead & fee, bonding, more) for the Concept Plan show the following rough costs in Table 2: Table 2 Estimated Hard Costs, including per unit costs Component Cost Amount Units Cost /Unit Library Expansion $ 5,769,000 17,135 SF $336.68 Library-City Hall Landscaping $ 9,821,000 366,125 SF $26.82 City Hall $ 43,194,000 98,110 SF $440.26 Parking Structure $ 12,128,000 450 parking space $26,951.11 Main (central) Park Parcel $ 4,300,000 186,000 SF $23.12 North Park Parcel $ 4,960,000 138,830 SF $35.73 Excavation /Import $ 4,650,000 284,000 cubicyard $16.37 Est Hard Costs Total = $ 84,822,000 Notes to Table 2 include: Library-City Hall Landscaping includes the civic lawn, landscaping around the City Hall, around the Parking Structure, around the Library Expansion, more; City Hall Structure includes $1,600,000 for a photo - voltaic system incorporated into the roof, and $5,000,000 in structural steel costs; City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 9 Parking Structure includes $2,500,000 for an overhead trellis system on the top story to enable drivers on MacArthur to not see cars on the top deck (NOTE: This trellis may be reduced or removed in the presented Concept Plan); Central (main) portion of the park includes up to three walkbridges over the wetlands area. Northern Parcel park improvements include $2,304,000 for the San Miguel bridge crossing and its related infrastructure [elevator, etc]); As shown above, this equals about $84,822,000.00 not including so- called "soft" costs and not yet including the EOC component. Soft costs are expected to be another 15 -20% of the total project costs. Reviewing Design Parameter K again in light of the above: Approximately $400 -450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF &E). In April 2008, the Design Committee noted that "(this number) could go up to $450 /SF (with) architecture and soft costs ... not included." As shown above, in hard costs, the C.W. Driver estimate is $440.26 /SF for the City Hall structure; Approximately $20- 25,000 per space for the parking structure. At $26,951 per space, the proposed design's estimate is higher and includes a $2,500,000 trellis system proposed so that people on MacArthur and east of MacArthur do not see cars on the top deck of the structure. If you deduct the cost of this structure, the price per space goes down to $21,395 /space; and Approximately $15-20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and drainage) and site improvements. This is an area where the site geography, the design's impact on the site (especially in regards to excavation), the landscaping and irrigation plan, the Walk Bridge over San Miguel, the wetlands bridges, and other park improvements skew the costs significantly higher than the Parameters' budgetary goal. The park's cost ranges from $23- 35 /SF, not including excavation nor the relatively more intensive landscaping around the City Hall and Parking Structure. One member of the Design Committee noted early on that $15 -20 per square foot number for site improvements should be a minimum (Rush Hill, April 21, 2008). Concluding staffs analysis of this "significant issue," we recognize that cost is a major factor in any City project, if not the overriding factor. The Council will wish to consider this Project (and its complexity — combining a library expansion, a new EOC, a parking structure, a detailed park, and a City Hall) in the context of the City's budget as well as within the City's Facilities Financing Plan. That said, the fact remains that this is a once in a century project if done correctly. SCHEDULE. The working schedule, which has been met to date, has been as follows: • November 25, 2009 — Identify Design Challenge winner and winning design; • January 13, 2009 — Contract with selected architect and project management firm; • January 13, 2009 to April 14, 2009: Design Team refines the approved Concept Plan over four months, including review by Design Committee, two public sessions, and approval by City Council on April 14, 2009; • January 27, 2009 — hire an environmental consultant to begin baseline studies and preparation of EIR (traffic/circulation, biology, hydrology, light/glare, etc); • April 15, 2009 — November 24, 2009 -- Schematic Design phase. Design based on Concept Plan reviewed and approved April 14, 2009; • April 1, 2009 — November 24, 2009 — EIR prepared, circulated, and adopted by November 24, 2009; • November 25, 2009 — March 2010 -- Design Development Phase City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 10 • December 2009 —June 2010 —Construction Documents, including early grading package; • March 2010 —August 2010 —Project Bidding, again including early grading; • June 2010 —February 2012 —Construction Phase; and • March 2012 —June 2012 —Furnishing and Move -In. " From this point forward, the schedule provided is more generalized given that the EIR and any early grading package will drive greater specificity. Environmental Review. CEQA review has begun on Project via a full EIR. The schedule includes adopting the Project's EIR at the time that Schematic Design is complete (November 24, 2009). For More Information. For more information about the City Hall and Park project, as well as the design competition and the Design Committee, please see the City's website (www.city.newoort- beach.ca.us) and click on the "City Hall and Park Master Plan" icon. Interested readers should also use the website to subscribe to the City's "E- Select Alert' system to stay abreast of the City Hall and Park Project. Submitted by, %�v DAVE KIFF Assistant City Manager Exhibits: A — Minutes of the Design Committee from Feb 25, 2009 and March 23, 2009 B — General Design Parameters (May 13, 2008) C — Efficiency Comparisons D — EOC Memorandum, April 6, 2009 City Halt and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 11 Exhibit A DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Hall Design Committee Minutes of the City Hall Design Committee meeting held in the Friends Room, Newport Beach Public Library, City of Newport Beach, on Monday, March 23rd, 2009, 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order Members present: Larry Tucker, Chairman Andy Bowden, Landscape Architect Walt Richardson, Architect Stephen Sandland, Architect Linda Taylor, Architect Staff present: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager Steve Badum, Public Works Director Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant Consultants present: Gregory R. Motolla, AIA, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) Steven Chaitow, AIA, LEED AP, BCJ Daniel Lee, Project Architect, BCJ Paul Sieron, Partner, PWP Landscape Architecture (PWP) Sarah Kuehl, Partner, PWP Members of the Public: Barry Allen Vicki Applebee Anne Balderston Wendy Brooks Ken and Joan Carr Allan Horowitz Robert Shafer Gary Standard Karen Tringali Jan Vandersloot Thomas W. Courtney, Jr. Denise Waltemath William Ficker James Warren Novell Hendrickson Sandra Warren City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 12 2. Approval of Past Meeting's Minutes Regarding the minutes from the February 25, 2009, meeting Ms. Taylor referred the committee to the 4m paragraph on page 3 and suggested changing the word "elevated" pavement to "enhanced" pavement. Chairman Tucker asked Mr. Sandland for clarification about his reference to a green roof on page 6. Mr. Sandland said he was referring to a complete roof similar to the one at Pelican Hill Resort. With those revisions, the minutes from both the February 29, 2009, and November 10, 2008, meetings were approved. 3. Public Comments on Non Agenda Items No comments were offered. 4. City Hall and Park Master Plan Project Mr. Motoola, BC], said they would be giving a presentation (attached) on the progress they've made since the last meeting. Ms. Kuehl, PWP, gave an overview of the landscaping followed by Mr. Mottola's overview of the buildings. Mr. Chaitow, BC], talked about the direction and speed of the wind and the LEED process. Committee's Questions /Concerns Mr. Bowden ➢ Is the dog park still in the plans? Mr. Tucker — yes. ➢ Will there be a restroom in the northern parcel? Ms. Kuehl — no, but the Transportation Center's restrooms are close to the parking on the northern parcel, and open to the public. ➢ What is the crossing San Miguel? Ms. Kuehl — current proposal is an overcrossing over San Miguel but it's considered an optional item. ➢ How many parking stalls for the northern parcel? Ms. Kuehl — 16. ➢ Are the pathways accessible from the parking area to the parkway? Ms. Kuehl — yes, and all pathways are ADA accessible. ➢ How has the pedestrian walkway that crosses the main entrance been addressed? Ms. Kuehl — we addressed it three ways: demonstrating, she pointed to two pedestrian entries near the main entrance. They don't actually hug the road but they relate to Farallon. In addition she talked about a pedestrian crosswalk, a 90 degree intersection, to get to the pathway (indicating). There is also another exit from the 2nd floor of the garage to get straight into the park. ➢ Can you park on the surface parking and get into the park? Ms. Kuehl — not at this time, without stairs. There are three parking choices: the parking structure, the parking at the north parcel and the surface parking with a little engagement of the corner of the civic lawn space. He thinks the parking structure edge can be screened with plant material if properly planted and treated. Mr. Motolla — in their discussions with the design team, they want to make sure the plantable slope along MacArthur that's put back in place after the parking structure is built is one that can survive with good plantings and not erode. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 13 ➢ Regarding the parking roof structure, he inquired why the green roof concept is not being shown in the most recent designs. He wants to make sure it was fully explored before it was discounted as not being practical for this application. Mr. Motolla — there will be a lot of opportunity in the park for enjoying landscaping whereas a green roof on the parking structure would not be an accessible roof without adding walkways and railings, a lot of water, etc. There are a lot of other priorities to balance as well. Ms. Kuehl — she said screening both the top of the garage and the MacArthur elevation of the garage are problems. The screening of the MacArthur elevation helps to screen some of the top of the garage. An expensive architectural frame of planting over the top doesn't screen it that much or completely solve the problem. She thinks the real problem is the elevation, not the roof. They are trying to screen the cars and cut the light but it won't necessarily be "green "; although, they are using landscaping to help. ➢ He cautioned to make sure the landscaping complies with the new water model ordinance, AB1881. It's going to be very restrictive which means a lot of drip irrigation, etc. Chairman Tucker ➢ What is the size of the dog park? Ms. Kuehl — it's about 10,000 sq. ft. It could be made larger. Mr. Richardson ➢ Is there a plan if the library cannot be added onto? Mr. Mottola - the important part is the linkage from the library to the City Hall. Logistically, it makes a lot of sense to time an addition with the rest of the project. ➢ The north and south ends of the parking structure are shown as blank architecture. What will the ends look like? Mr. Mottola - the hedge will carry out some distance which will help to screen it. It's still a work in progress. Mr. Sandland ➢ He asked Ms. Kuehl to take him through the experience one would have when driving into the entrance off Avocado. After her description, he suggested there be a sketch that helps visualize the two sides of the entrance. He expressed his concern about the parking structure edge along MacArthur. He thought the parking structure was more sunken down into the ground or the ground was rolling up over it. Mr. Motolla - said he received positive feed from the Building Department of a more straightforward edge. Ms. Kuehl - explained that the modeling is a little deceptive. She draws it differently where the planting mounds up and acts in the same shape as the berm does. ➢ What is the landscaping of the mound? Ms. Kuehl — it would probably be planted with sedge but it can't be patchy. They won't do it if it can't be done. ➢ He said the preferred the previous scheme of the Belvedere with more rounded edges and located closer to San Miguel. The bridge flowed naturally off that. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 14 • He said he would rather see the dog park pulled more toward Avocado away from MacArthur and more depressed so it's not so prominent when coming down MacArthur. Ms. Kuehl — she said they plan to screen it so it's not perceived at all, and possibly lowering it into the ground. • Regarding the louvers, he cautioned about bird nesting and also suggested alternatives be looked at for lighting issues, such as screening devices. Mr. Motolla — they are considering different window treatment strategies such as shade cloth or fritting of glass. Ms. Tavlor ➢ She agrees with Mr. Sandland that the end of the parking structure is a big issue. Doesn't want to make the green grass narrow and useless but if it could be adjusted to make more space between the structure and MacArthur it should be looked into, or moving the parking structure and the City Hall toward Avocado. She asked for clarification of the light study. Mr. Motolla — the lights were on in the parking structure and the control measures taken were to demonstrate what could be seen. He said the office building was lit with 25' candles onto the floor and a third of that into the ceiling. They are trying to give the building a presence into the evening but not so bright as to create a problem. The park will not be lit at night because it will close at sundown. Mr. Badum agreed. ➢ Do we have a process for selecting art, who will make the choices and how do we guarantee we get the quality of art we want? Mr. Tucker —right now they have only selected locations where art could go. The art is not part of the budget for the City Hall /Park project. Ms. Kuehl — thinks the best public art is collected over time. ➢ Will the olive grove continue? Ms. Kuehl — in the beginning it was being considered but the site topography is significant with rolling hills and folds so it doesn't make sense to run the trees all the way down in front of the buildings anymore. Chairman Tucker invited public comments: • Mr. Ficker — agreed the MacArthur view is very important. Suggested the City contact The Irvine Company about replacing the existing parking lot at the library with a parking structure which might relieve the need for as much parking that's being put on the library site. It would also give extra parking for the Corona del Mar Plaza. He's opposed to a trellis covering the upper deck. Likes the connection to the library and the concept of a sculpture garden. • Mr. Warren — asked why the parking structure is a tiered structure. Mr. Motolla - the circulation pattern requires a ramping of the decks and as such one side of the parking structure ends up being tiered. Chairman Tucker - lowering the structure is more expensive and will create a higher retaining wall. Mr. Warren said the top of the structure being green was an important reason the residents were excited that BCJ got the contract instead of the other firms. He thinks BCJ should start working toward that again. Many other successful buildings have earth on top, for example, the Muth Interpretive Center. • Mr. Courtney — biggest concern is the parking structure which is a big eyesore. He suggested making the parking structure underground. Chairman Tucker - there were several meetings on that kind of design and those were not chosen by the City Council. Mr. Courtney said he's concerned about the light issue. He also asked if anybody has City Hall and Paris Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 15 considered not going forward with the project due to the current financial climate. Chairman Tucker - it's beyond the committee's purview. • Ms. Waltemath — still concerned about the lighting and glare in the evening. Doesn't want to see vehicles' lights and glare from the uncovered portion of the parking structure. Asked if the noise change to the neighborhood has been considered. Encouraged natural plantings for water conservation. Chairman Tucker - City Council wanted some area of turf grass. The noise issue will be addressed in the EIR. The parking structure roof top is still being looked at based on the comments received tonight. • Mr. Allen — he didn't understand the presentation that was made on the Venturi /wind tunnel effect. He suggested that a flat roof on top of the City Hall might be less expensive than the wavy roof. He suggested putting artificial grass and landscaping on top of the parking structure. He asked if there's an estimate of how much the project will cost. Mr. Kiff - City Council has cost estimators involved but the estimate is not yet complete. • Anne Balderston — feels the protection of the public views from MacArthur, San Miguel and part of Avocado are very important. People will be upset if they lose any of the views. She's concerned about the protection of the open space of the northern part of the southern parcel. Hopes the City honors the history of the people voicing their desire to protect the open space for the native plants and habitats. She also wants to protect the high point of the site. • Jan Vandersloot — wants to make sure the view of harbor, as opposed to the water, is protected. If the view knoll is moved north the view of the harbor will be subtracted. He asks that the coastal sage scrub be retained as much as possible, specifically the Lotus Scoparius and the Golden Bush because they bloom at different times of the year. He suggests the Coast Live Oak trees be planted along the entrance because they can transition to the natural area. He likes the bridge across San Miguel. He's in favor of planting as many colorful native plants and California friendly plants along MacArthur as possible, as opposed to just a green hedge. He's in favor of lowering the parking structure down to the level of the City Hall which would retain the view from MacArthur. Chairman Tucker asked the committee for recommendations: Mr. Sandland suggested studying the feasibility of: ➢ moving the parking structure and the city hall towards Avocado be looked into. If it's moved just 10 feet at a two -to -one slope, five feet of slope could be picked up that would mitigate a lot of that edge along the parking structure; ➢ lowering the parking structure because dropping it just two feet, when added to the five feet, would give an additional seven feet of landscaping; ➢ placing a solid deck over the easterly bay of parking and a portion of westerly bay (synthetic ground cover) to prevent fog /dew from dripping on cars. Mr. Sandland also felt: • his concerns with the Venturi effect have been addressed but it needs to be synthesized into a final report; • the final entrance off Avocado needs more work; City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 16 ➢ he prefers a rounded belvedere over a squared -off belvedere, a much more natural condition; a bridge structure coming off the belvedere should have a more organic feel to it; ➢ a dog park should be pulled back towards Avocado and lowered so it's not such a prominent element on the northerly parcel. Ms. Taylor: ➢ requested more information on the lighting study of the site; ➢ would also like to see how much the parking structure could be moved over. Mr. Bowden: ➢ requested more detail of the pedestrian crossing across San Miguel. Mr. Tucker said they haven't been asked for that detail yet. Mr. Richardson ➢ requested more detail or a sketch of the entrance, although he understands it's still in the works. Chairman Tucker: ➢ felt Mr. Sandland's comments about moving the dog park and rounding the belvedere are personal preferences; ➢ agreed the type of parking structure covering should be studied, he's concerned about how it would look like in five years. feels the moving of the parking structure should be considered but he's not sure how much would be gained by lowering it two feet; ➢ said the committee desires the architects look at the edges of the parking structure along MacArthur; ➢ thinks the recommendation is for the edge of the parking structure along MacArthur be looked at, the architects look at the feasibility of moving the city hall and parking structure 10'to the west and lowering it 2'. He's not recommending an expensive study. Also, the feasibility of a synthetic covering over the parking structure. Chairman Tucker said the committee endorses what it's seen to date. He moved to recommend the suggestions above be looked at and recommends the Building Committee recommend to the City Council approval of the concept. The committee agreed. S. Confirming or Amending the Committee's Calendar 6. Adjourned to next meeting City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 17 IZII i V City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition General Design Parameters (adopted by the City Council on April 22, 2008, posted April 24, 2008 and amended on May 13, 2008) The following General Design Parameters are for the firms /teams selected to participate in the Newport Beach City Hall and Park Master Plan Design Competition. a. Access to Site and Circulation — Vehicular access to the City Hall and Park site shall be off of Avocado Avenue. Farrallon shall not be extended through to MacArthur from its current eastern terminus at Avocado. Farrallon may be considered as an entrance point to the City Hall and Park provided that no direct connection to MacArthur Boulevard exists from Farrallon. There shall be no "right -turn in" vehicular entrance to the City Hall and Park site from MacArthur within the Central Parcel. Exhibit A shows surrounding streets, today's access points to the Library, and identifies the three key parcels (North Parcel, Central Parcel, Library Parcel) subject to the master plan. b. City Hall location on the site —The City Hall and its parking shall generally be located in the Central Parcel south of the projection of Farrallon Drive, as shown on Exhibit B. c. Building Height — The height of the City Hall building (and parking facility) shall be no higher than the height limits imposed by the Newport Village PC Text View Plane limitation as depicted on Exhibit C except that architectural design features, appropriate to the scale of the primary structure, may penetrate the view plane created by the aforementioned height limits. Height limits in the Newport Village PC Text are generally 45 feet above grade OR the View Plane limitation (expressed in feet above mean sea level), whichever is lower. All landscaping and park improvements, at maturity, shall be lower than the View Plane limitation. d. Geotechnical Considerations — Geotechnical considerations will be set forth in a soils investigation performed by Leighton Associates in April 2008 which is to be attached as Exhibit D when completed. The current expected date for the final report is the end of April. Preliminary results show no unique soils or water table issues. e. Library Access and Orientation to City Hall — The Newport Beach Central Library currently faces away from the Central Parcel and the site of City Hall, towards the ocean. The Design should, to the greatest extent practicable, maximize the Library's relationship to the City Hall structure through consideration of a second entry, plaza, shared parking, landscaping or any other appropriate means within the context of the proposed design. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 18 f. Natural Park Considerations — The northerly 5 -6 acre portion of the Central Parcel ( "Newport Center Park ") has been proposed as a natural park (i.e. one that is reflective of the region's natural habitats and not overly manicured nor oriented towards turfgrass). Of particular importance is preserving the view from the southernmost meadow area and creating a landscaped border around the natural park area as a transition from the more manicured streetscape to the natural park. g. Other Park Requirements — The southernmost meadow area of the Central Parcel and the 3 -acre North Parcel shall have park amenities such as restrooms, a tot lot, picnic and seating areas (including a softscape ampitheater, if appropriate), drinking fountains, and an ADA- accessible path (the latter being around all or part of the 20 -acre master plan area). Both parcels shall be integrated as portions of the same Newport Center Park. They shall have activity- oriented facilities but not any organized sports fields. h. Lighting — Exterior lighting throughout the Project (City Hall, Parking, and Park) should be designed in such a fashion as to be the minimal intensity necessary to meet safety needs. i. Landscaping Considerations — The landscaping of the Park and City Hall area shall use water conserving plant material to the greatest extent possible. The intent is to not create a desert or dry landscape palette but a palette that is "California- friendly" and blends into the landscape palette of Newport Center and Newport Beach. Best Management Practices in water conservation, irrigation and drainage shall be employed in the design. j. Parking — 350 spaces shall be provided for City Hall with an additional 100 spaces for the Central Library (the Library has a shortage of spaces currently). Parking for the general public should be convenient to the City Hall and Library buildings. The parking structure should be a separate structure from the City Hall building. The additional 100 library spaces need not be in the City Hall parking structure. k. Space Allocation and Needs Assessment Criteria — The 2002 Needs Assessment prepared by LPA (a link to this document, and any updates to the document, on the City's website is Exhibit F) will be the basis for the primary program requirements for the City Hall Structure with the following adjustments: • The City desires an open floor plan concept with maximum flexibility for future needs; • The building shall be designed for 270 full time employees at 200 -250 square feet per employee, not including public areas; and • The building's overall size shall be approximately 72- 79,000 total square feet including public areas. Please note that the 2002 Needs Assessment includes these two program requirements, both of which remain desirable: City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 19 • A "one -stop shop" permit counter (for permits relating to Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire Prevention along with a cashier); and • A 150 -seat Council Chambers. I. LEED Criteria - The City Hall Structure(s) shall be designed to at least a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( "LEED ") standard of silver, with a goal to go higher, if feasible within budgetary limitations. m. Corona del Mar Plaza Considerations — The City will develop a direct entrance to the Central Library's existing parking lot, as shown (generally) in Exhibit E. This entrance may or may not be signalized. No further improvements to CdM Plaza's access are envisioned at this time. n. View Considerations — Views are a sensitive issue in Newport Beach. In addition to the criteria in "c" above, the design should protect the public views westward over the property from MacArthur Boulevard. The design should also be sensitive to the westward views from homes east of MacArthur Boulevard over the property. Any penetrations above the view plane as permitted in "c" above should only serve to enhance the architectural appearance of the City Hall structure or frame or enhance the private or public views across the property. Usable landscaped roof treatments or roof terraces are acceptable — these are neither encouraged nor discouraged. Also, the building and parking facility's lighting design shall take into consideration nighttime views from the residences east of MacArthur Boulevard. All landscaping and park improvements, at maturity, shall be within the view plane on Exhibit C. o. Building Design — The city is not setting any design theme for the City Hall building other than seeking a timeless design that will wear well over the years and not be dated in a few years. The design should reflect the character of Newport Beach. It should be harmonious with the adjacent Library and the eclectic architectural styles of Newport Center. The building should be recognized as a significant public building. p. Budgetary Constraints —The budgetary goal of the Project is as follows: City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 20 • Approximately $400 -450 per square foot for the City Hall structure (not including FF &E); • Approximately $20- 25,000 per space for the parking structure; and • Approximately $15 -20 per square foot for landscaping, irrigation, access, site work (grading and drainage) and site improvements. The above amounts are exclusive of soft costs. The City Hall is not at this time planned to be an "essential services building." The budget parameters expressed here are not absolute amounts but are intended to indicate the price range the City expects the project to cost. Designers should use these numbers as a guide in preparing their submittals. Design economy will be an important consideration. City Hatt and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 21 Exhibit D �,I=V, Lei ZV !1111 TO: Members of the Building Committee FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager DATE: April 6, 2009 RE: Information about Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) At tomorrow night's Building Committee meeting, the lone action item on the agenda is to discuss, or revisit, whether the new City Hall structure should include an Emergency Operations Center ( "EOC "). - 7_L9;i�L�111il� The following is important background information about the City's EOC operations. 1 — ABOUT THE CURRENT EOC • The current EOC is within an 1,148 square foot (22'4" by 51') room known as the "Police Auditorium" within the Police Headquarters at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. • The Police Auditorium is also used as public space for community meetings (such as EQAC) and Police Department events. • During EOC drills, the conference room near the Police Chief's office is used as the Incident Commander's briefing room and as a press room. Other conference areas are farther away in the headquarters building. • The Police Auditorium is usually set up with tables and chairs. EOC division "boxes" are stored in locked cabinets in the Auditorium and nearby. Network wiring is present for laptops, but the laptops are not set up unless the EOC is activated or during drills. 2 — ABOUT THE NEW CITY HALL The new City Hall is nearing the end of the Concept Design Phase. This is the phase whereby the general layout and square footage of the City Hall structure, as well as of the parking structure, the park, and the library expansion, are approved in concept so that more detailed plans and environmental work can begin. The next phase of the Project is "Schematic Design" and will last about 7' /z months. The new City Hall is proposed for 1100 Avocado Avenue, inland from the Newport Beach Central Library and between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. The new City Hall is proposed to be a large, relatively narrow two -story building constructed in "pods" or wings, each of which is roughly 18" higher than the other, starting at the lowest point near the Central Library. The structure is proposed to have a basement underneath the southernmost wing of the building where the City's print shop, loading dock, and certain storage will reside (see yellow circle in Diagram A). City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 22 • The new City Hall includes a multi - purpose Community Room of 2,070 square feet (45 feet by 45 feet), including a 280 square foot catering kitchen and 1,060 square feet of storage (see blue circle in Diagram A). • The new City Hall is not proposed at this time to be an "essential services" building. In 1986, the California State Legislature said that certain buildings providing essential services (like police stations, fire stations, and EOCs) should be capable of providing these services to the public after a disaster (the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986). The Act says that these buildings be "...designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist the forces of earthquakes, gravity and winds." • The new City Hall is slated to begin construction in late 2010 and be completed in mid -2012. Diagram A As shown below, the basement is envisioned beneath the southerly wing of the City Hall, as shown within the yellow circle. The Community Room is to the left, in the blue circle. — -- •- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 23 If we assume that a new basement is excavated beneath the second wing to the right (as shown above) for an EOC, and we assume 4,200 square feet dug to 13' deep, then that would generate about 2,022 cubic yards of additional export (per e-mail from C.W. Driver, April 6, 2009). At about $16.93 /cubic yard for excavation and export, that equates to about $34,000. The City has been assuming that excavation and export will cost between $10 per cuyd (therefore $20,000 in this instance) on the low side and $24 1cubic yard on the high side ($48,000). City Hall construction costs are estimated at $449/sf (outside of excavation and export). Therefore, adding 4,200 sf to the building via additional basement space equates to $1,885,800.00 plus $34,000 for excavation, equaling $1,919,800.00 (note that this does not include any building changes for essential services construction). 3 — ABOUT A NEW POLICE FACILITY The Newport Beach Police Headquarters at 870 Santa Barbara is 35 years old, having been constructed in 1974. Current variations of the City's draft Facilities Financing Plan (FFP) show the NBPD HQ being reconstructed in either 2017 or 2021, at a cost in current dollars of about $64 million. PROs and CONS In the next section of this memo, the staff has prepared "pros and cons" of having the EOC at a new City Hall versus at a new NBPD Headquarters. The City Manager's analysis comes first, followed by a memorandum to the Building Committee from the Fire Department, the department handles our emergency preparedness: FROM THE CITY MANAGER — ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES A — Having the EOC at the new Police Department Advantages: 1. Entire new PD building will be built to essential building standards; 2. PD HQ has a 24/7 operation — there is always someone there to begin EOC set -up; 3. PD already has redundant communications systems; 4. EOC not limited to once location (basement) as at new City Hall. Disadvantages: 1. There maybe no new EOC for 10 -12 years. 2. During that period, the parking at the current PD HQ is inadequate for EOC functions (drills, actual emergencies). B — Having the EOC at the new City Hall Advantages: 1. City Hall is the location where most EOC team members work; 2. City Hall members of the EOC Team will have greater /easier access and familiarity with EOC location; 3. Some joint use could be accommodated easily — such as limiting joint use to City employees for computer training, etc. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 24 4. The EOC would be available within three years; 5. The City Hall EOC would have adequate parking. Disadvantages: 1. The need for a structure housing the EOC to be built to essential building standards — this would likely add greater cost to the new City Hall; questionable (but worth review) if a basement EOC below one wing of the new City Hall would require only that wing to be built to essential building standards; 2. If placed in the basement, additional soils removal substantial additional cost; 3. Police personnel working in the EOC would not be as EOC were at PD; 4. The new City Hall's basement location appears to be exclusively as an EOC or limited to just City staff use; would be required with the potential for familiar with facilities as they would if the the only option if the EOC is to be used 5. Because of excavation /site constraints, the EOC at City Hall could cost more than same EOC space at P.D., but we don't yet know how much more. FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT — ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES "We have been asked to provide a brief analysis regarding the location of the City's Emergency Operations Center (EOC). During consideration of this matter, it became evident that all parties involved agree that there is a need to identify a new location and operational strategy for the EOC. In order to understand the operational needs of the EOC, it is first necessary to understand the purpose of the EOC. "When a major emergency or disaster strikes, centralized emergency management is essential. When the EOC is activated, representatives from all City Departments will report to the EOC. Working together at that location, the department representatives will be able to centralize City authorities, simultaneously coordinate department activities, and liaison with different levels of local, state and federal government. The EOC allows for face-to -face coordination among personnel who must set priorities for the use of limited resources and evaluate the need to request mutual aid. During non - emergency times, the EOC is used for emergency preparedness training and planning. "At the present time, the Police Department Auditorium is used for the City's EOC. This "EOC in a box" concept is not equipped or ready to handle a major disaster or emergency. Our last EOC drill in November 2008, once again demonstrated that the facility cannot safely and functionally hold the entire EOC staff. Two of the EOC sections comprised of 12 people are located in a separate room in the Police Department, because they don't physically fit in the EOC. For any EOC to work properly and effectively, all five EOC sections must be located in one room. "Because plans are underway to construct a new City Hall the questions at this time are: 1. Should we include an EOC facility in the new City Hall plans? 2. Should we wait and include an EOC when the new Police Department facility is rebuilt, with a date unknown at this time? 3. What are the possible room uses for a dedicated EOC? "The following is a list of pros and cons for each potential EOC site. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 25 A — Having the EOC at the new Police Department Pros The Police Department is a secured facility. There is someone on duty 24 hours a day at the facility. The Police Department is built to essential facility requirements. Cons Emergency planning is a City function and while the Police Department plays an important role, they are not in charge of emergency management during a disaster. The City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services in a disaster, and has the overall responsibility for directing the emergency. The EOC should be near or adjacent to the City Manager and City Council, so essential decisions can be made quickly. The Fire Department has expertise in the Incident Command System and emergency management. Per the City Municipal Code Ordnance, the Fire Department is in charge of emergency planning day -to -day and during non - emergency times. Maintenance and upkeep of the EOC equipment and systems is part of the non - emergency planning process and will benefit from its proximity to Fire Department staff. 95% of EOC staff work at City Hall, not at the Police Department. The Police Department Auditorium is not connected to the City's main computer servers, which are essential to the continued operation of government in an emergency The current Police facility cannot safely and effectively accommodate the EOC setup and the EOC staff. Inadequate parking for all EOC staff at the Police Department, which makes it very difficult to conduct training and drills at that location. Currently, the EOC takes approximately one hour to completely set up, which puts the City at a disadvantage during the initial onset of a disaster. The EOC should be in a constant state of readiness to immediately handle any disaster or emergency situation. The Police Auditorium is a shared room and is not always available for EOC trainings, meetings, and drills. The EOC is needed for training and meetings approximately 100 days each year, which does not include the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) or Amateur Radio Operators RACES training and meeting needs. B — Having the EOC at the new City Hall Pros City Hall is the central location of government for the City of Newport Beach. On a daily basis, essential management decisions are made by the Management Team and City Council. Therefore, it should be the same during emergencies or disasters. The Mayor and Council play a vital role during an emergency. Therefore, they should be located near the EOC to hold emergency Council meetings and to keep the public informed. 90% of EOC staff already work at City Hall, so there are no travel or parking issues. Disasters and emergencies are long duration events, so having most of the EOC staff located at City Hall would be beneficial. They can work at the EOC and can keep up with their regular daily assignments during a disaster. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 26 The Fire Department is located at City Hall and manages the day - today operations of the EOC and emergency lannin . Having the EOC at City Hall can provide backup communication capabilities for both Fire and Police. Currently, no City departments have backup dispatch capabilities. We rely on other cities for backup communications, which could be problematic during an area -wide disaster. The close proximity to the employee's regular workstations, data, files and records enhances the effectiveness of the EOC. The EOC should be located near the Public Works Traffic Center, so we can get clear visuals of what is happening in the City. Most news outlets will report to City Hall to get accurate information on the disaster situation. The Mayor is the official spokesperson during a disaster so he /she should be located at City Hall. The new City Hall design will be used for the next 50 years or more. During that time, there is a high risk the City will be affected by a disaster. The City will greatly benefit from having an easily accessible EOC at City Hall to manage the disaster and get the City back to normal as soon as possible. CERT and RACES volunteers could work in the EOC on a daily basis to support disaster preparedness at no charge to the City. CERT and RACES volunteers have all gone through background checks so they could have access to sensitive information. This would greatly enhance the outreach efforts of the City's Disaster Preparedness Program. Cons Including an EOC at the new City Hall will increase the cost of the overall facili . City staff are not usually at City Hall on nights and weekends. During a disaster or emergency, members of Police Management (approx. 4 positions) will need to travel to City Hall to fill their positions in the EOC. The Fire Department also analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of having a single -use versus a joint -use versus a triple -use EOC. This analysis follows. A — Single Use EOC Pros The EOC would always be setup and in a state of readiness. Secure information such as plans and confidential phone numbers could be stored in the EOC. The EOC would always be available for EOC training and meetings. CERT and RACES volunteers could work in the EOC on a daily basis to support disaster preparedness at no charge to the City. This would greatly enhance the outreach efforts of the City's Disaster Preparedness Program. Cons The room would not be used for other City trainings that do not pertain to the EOC. The room would not be available for general public use. B — Dual use EOC that doubles as a training room for City employees and CERT and RACES members. Pros The EOC would always be available for EOC trainings as well as City trainings. The EOC City Hat! and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 27 would be an ideal place to conduct computer or any other type of City training. City employees have all been through background checks, so they can be around sensitive EOC information. Having the ability to conduct City training in the EOC maximizes the space. The EOC would be a secured location and used by City personnel only. The EOC would always be setup and in a state of readiness. Secure information such as plans and confidential phone numbers could be safely stored in the EOC. Cons The room would not be available for general public use. C — An EOC available for general public use. Pros The public would have an additional room to use for meetings. Cons The room would not be a secure facility. The public would have access to the room without City staff present. The EOC would not always be ready for a disaster or emergency. We would be back to the "EOC in a box" conce t, which is what we currently have. Secure information such as plans and confidential phone numbers could not be stored in the EOC. We could not have computers and essential communications equipment stored in the room or they would not be readily available. The room could not be a backup dispatch center for police or fire. The EOC and City staff would be competing with the general public for room availability. CERT and RACES volunteers would have to compete with the general public to use the room. The exhibits attached to this document include a summary of EOC or DOC (Departmental Operations Centers) activations since the October 1993 fire in Laguna Beach and Newport Coast (Exhibit A) and a diagram of how an EOC would be optimally laid -out per the Newport Beach Fire Department (Exhibit B). SUMMARY The questions for the Building Committee, if it chooses to make a recommendation to the full City Council, are as follows: 1. Should the EOC be located at the new City Hall or continue to be located at the NBPD headquarters? 2. If located at the new City Hall, where in the building structure should the EOC go? Should the wing next to the proposed basement area also have a basement to accommodate the EOC? 3. If located at the new City Hall, should the EOC be single use? Double use (city employees and city meetings only in addition to an EOC use)? "Triple' use (including community meeting space)? City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 28 Exhibit A Summary of EOC and DOC Activations Since 1993 Date Incident Summary Who was the Incident Departments Commander (IC)? involved 1993 Laguna Beach Fires- The EOC Fire Department was the IC All EOC staff from was activated to support the every City Laguna Beach fires. department. 1995 Flooding from rain -The EOC General Services and Fire All EOC staff from was activated to support Department were in Unified every City flooding on the Peninsula. Command department. 1997 El Nino Flooding- Both the Fire Both Fire and General Fire and General Department and General Services were responsible Services Services DOC's were activated for their own DOC's to support the field crews. respectively. 2000 Y2K -The EOC and several The Police Department was Police, Fire, DOC's were activated at a level the IC in the EOC during Utilities, Admin one to respond to any this event Services. technology failures as predicted. 2001 September 11 -The EOC was The Police Department was All EOC staff from activated to a level one in the IC in the EOC during every City response to the terrorist attacks. this event department 2004 El Nino Flooding- General General Services General Services, Services DOC was activated to Fire, Utilities. support field crews. The City received over $200,000 in FEMA reimbursement for the flooding damage. 2008 Bonita Canyon Fire- The EOC Fire Department was the IC All EOC staff from and Fire, Police and Utilities every City DOC's were activated to support department the fire incident in Bonita Canyon. In addition, we have activated the EOC and DOC every year since 1995 for drills and exercises. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 29 Exhibit B Proposed EOC Plan from NB Fire Department Included: Main EOC room (2,400 so Conference Rooms (1,054 so Kitchen (assume 144 so Storage (assume 6' by 40' or 240 sf) Bathroom (assume 14' by 20' or 280 so Total = 4,118 sf rounded to 4,200 for wall thickness, other. City Hall and Park Concept Plan Approval April 14, 2009 Page 30 Exhibit D Efficiency Comparisons -r -- -- ter-- -zr----- �._r-- -zr - -- � x. m (1/.e..... - nM fb. P,g—AM Wf Newport Beach City Hall a..I, cauWm. q) Bohlin Cywinski Jackson xMa w, w® - zr - --- -ter - -- ter--- zr - - -- I t_ av� w am ei.umm. esav Flea v,narm w,w. NewDon II City Hall S.M. Cywinakl Jaokaoe �oov NE WPORTBBACHC'T19H,9LL - I IST FLOOR NRNETURE PUN SCALE: VA4-1 -0' ' I I,�•I�}i yI I �' L -�'' PRWECT:U00TT0 •�.� 1y -T'T� 1i1� I L.. _ r(}�_ ! Elul [ DATE:06g805 ° ° Public 4tks — — Recreation Administration Services y (Fiscal/Revenue) I imp v LP Planning LJ ._l Building I b Y ink NEWPORT BE f CH CIT Y H14LL -- - - -- - RMGftORRNRNE/URFPNN SCM.E:1,@b1N - PRWECT. RRMRO DATE OPI . City Manager City Attorney fi Administrative Public Works Service �J' AUnRRi ` ---r Logi e6w ahie ' rr -9 Phl v i > ? x xrp2rf: MIS. Fire City Clerk Human Resources