Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Municipal Buildings - Civic Center - 1963-1988
pie..o.. Huntington Beach) California Honorable Mayor, Huntington Beach) Calif. Honorable Council Members Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, Fleming I am writing to you) not in criticism. Some of you are young) some inexperienned, and all. I am sure are anxious to do the right thing. All of you ambitious to make a nice showing of yourselves) and accomplish big things. Personally this isn' t going to affect me. I am not in business,, I do not own any Property, I:,-.do pay rent) which of course includes taxes, I vote and like it here. I'm sure you:-are all as sick of this drivel about the ]location of the new Civic Center as I am. We aren't going to build it tomorrow, are we? Where is our Real Estate man? If the property. on Main Street is such a hot buy, let us buja it now. Lett make mistakes. Do your utmost best today. Write down your decision, sit on it, let it cool) then abide by it, and lire wltbiiit. Quit being so namby-pamby. THOMAS VAN TALBERT J K McDONALD B TALB RT LExington 6 3431 LExington 6 6118 LExington 6 6233 TALBERT & CO. sunce 9904 REAL ESTATE OIL AND INVESTMENTS 219 Main Street P O Box 310 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Office Phone LExington 6 3520 5 December 1963 Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen I am writing you to protest against the moving of our civic center back into the country. I moved to Huntington Beach from the Town of Talbert in May, 1904, and have been a very active citizen since that date I was chairman of the committee for the incorporation of the City in February, 1909 I have served the community in many capacities since that date, namely, supervisor, central committeeman, a member of the probation ,juvenile committee, city councilman and mayor. I moved into the city feeling that it was a lovely beach town along the ocean I dread to think that you are contemplating moving the civic center back in the country. We have many cities and country towns in the interior of the United States of America, but few beach cities Apparently the matter of room and cost is the big problem that you are thinking about. If you figure all things pro and con as between the prospec- tive new location and the one we have, I think you will find that there is not a great deal of difference in the cost The ground here is suitable for high rise and underground parking Even if the cost should be more I think it would be good ousi- ness to pay it and keep the civic center as near the ocean as possible I believe the citizens of the back country will be pleased and happier to come to the present location to do busi- ness near the ocean where it is always cool and pleasant the whole year through. I have always been a great lover and admirer of Huntington Beach and it would be too bad Ena-aserious mistake to move our civic center inland Trusting you will decide to leave the civic center at the present location, I am, Yvery rut Yours , TBT:lia T B TALBERT G9 MAIN STREET POLICE PARKING I '•`: PARKING ' \ Q Z O I Z a 1 PARKING ys� l,Q �Fl NO SCALE PARKING y. SITE PLAN 1 ADMINISTRATION Perim � 2 POLICE Y rrr 3 DEVELOPMENT WING 4 COUNCIL CHAMBER HUNTINGTON BEACH civic CENTER ADMIN TRATION SOUTH ELEVATI POL DEVELWMENT R 5 ® ®'® ® ® ® 3 - - ® . .:. ® ® ® ® ® - - _ - - - - EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION JT COMPUTERS DATA ( GENERAL IO.C. ❑ EVIDENCE/PROPERTY I I PROC. I OFFICES I HEALTH L— — — — — — — — — —, FINANCE ' CAFETERIA ❑ COMMUNICATIONS TREAS � FIRE � PUBLIC WORKS BASEMENT r L� BUS. TRAINING LOCKERS DORMS LIC. I i — EMERG. LOBBY LOBBY I COMM. 1st FLOOR L—❑ CTR. ® NORTH BASEMENT BOILERS/STORAGE r FIRST FLOOR f MAIL L-J CARPORT r 1 lslll� r F — — — — — — J I PURCHASING I PRINT SHOPPROJ � i MGR. I I I I RECORD DETENTION FACILITY I BASEMENT CITY CLERK COUNCIL CHAMBER SECOND FLOOR SOUTH BASEMENT ' WEST ELEVATION PLANNING I OIL U — — - - — — —❑ RECORDS L BUILDING & ® 0 — -T — — — — — —i ❑ THIRD FLOOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I TRAFFIC I IDENTIFICATION + COUNCIL LOBBY CHAMBER}—— ECONOMIC PERSONNEL I r L — ——1 CITY ATTORNEY I�---iPUBLIC INFO.I I I - ❑ - FIRST FLOOR —�FETING ROOMS I EQUIP — — — FOURTH FLOOR I ADMINISTRATION LOWER LEVEL INVESTIGATION I COUNCIL NARC.r L OFFICES ADMINISTRATION — —� COUNCIL CHAMBER L VICE/ PERSONNEL - INTELLIGENCE - FIFTH FLOOR UPPER LEVEL SECOND FLOOR DRAWINGS NOT TO SCALE .,.k PRO E' Property Owners Protective League BOA74, o��'q� T+ 11 PO Box 1776 s�© 'otio ��= Huntington Beach, Calif 92647 CIO Presented to . `'I-L. The City Council of the By City of Huntington Beach MMW'0_&_ September 16, 1968 19 Gentlemen: Speaking on behalf of the Property Owners Protective League, I urge that you consider the following suggestion in regards to a Civic Center site. As you very well know, our previous choice for a site was the aown town area. We felt that a development of this magnitude would stimulate expansion and development, acting as the catalyst in an upgrading cycle for the down town area Since the City Council has abandoned any consideration of a Civic Center for the down town area, the Board of Directors of our organization undertook a study of different possibilities. We are recommending that the Lake Huntington area be considered as the site for the future Civic Center, for the following pertinent reasons : 1) This particular location is more centralized, both geographically and population-wise, than the site under consideration. 2) The lake Huntington area is in close proximity to planned freeways and is accessable by other major thoroughfares. ..n5 PRO, T Property Owners Protective League 4 � P.O. Box 1776 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 Page 2 - re Civic Center 3) This location will not adversly affect the traf- fic flow adjacent to a public school. 4) Integration with the Central City Park would put the Civic Center in a highly aesthetic setting, re- ducing landscaping costs. 5) Parking areas would take on double utilization; week days for business - weekends for park attendance. 6) Land aquisition costs are lower, and only a small portion of the projected park project is needed for buildings. 7) This location is, from a geological standpoint, superior to the one under consideration. 8) The site is close to other planned major civic expansions, such as City Yard and Library. 9) Last and maybe most important, by placing the Civic Center in this location, you are indirectly per- mitting the citizens to approve, via the ballot box, this major capital expenditure. We now urge that consideration of Resolution 2790 be postponed until the merits of our recommendation can be thoroughly analysed. On November the fifth the citizens PRO Property Owners Protective League P.O. Box 1776 ! Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 Page 3 - re Civic Center will be going to the polls to decide the fate of two major bond issues; it is our contention that the above proposal will strenghten the justification for these requests. Thank you. Joseph,8. qIr m REQUE-b f FOR CITY COUNCi`,, ACTION - PaJd6&k- -(0 9 Fd-O Date PSeptember 6, 1988 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator` Prepared by: Mike Adams, Acting Director, Communi y D Subject: CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY _ ciTy� rw Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New'Policy or Exception �e,S Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Staff has prepared an updated version of the Civic Center Master Plan. In order to ensure adequate land area for the planned expansion of the Civic Center, it is necessary to establish a reasonable boundary for site area . Once a boundary has been set, the City can pursue more detailed site planning for the Civic Center within the boundary and the adjacent landowner can pursue site planning for private development outside the boundary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the Civic Center Master Plan boundary, as depicted in Exhibit A of the resolution. ANALYSIS• On August 15, 1988, the City Council held a study session on the Civic Center Master Plan. Staff indicated that the original master plan included the addition of a 38, 000 square foot development wing to the southern end of the Public Works Department, the addition of a 17, 509 square foot third floor to the Police Department, realigment of Seventeenth Street southward to connect with Lake Street and expanded employee parking. Additionally, staff was proposing a 36, 000 square foot multi-purpose building which would accommodate a senior center and conference rooms, and a parking structure. Several conceptual site plans which accomplished the above components were shown. The City Council generally agreed that Seventeenth Street should be realigned southward to connect with Lake Street . The alternative the Council selected showed a site expansion of 1.3 acres due to the Seventeenth Street realignment . When utilized in conjunction with a new parking structure, this alternative permitted the provision of adequate parking area to meet the needs of the Civic Center expansion. PIO 5/85 Apart from comments on the site boundary, the Council indicated concern with the senior center proposal in terms of peak parking demand adequacy and the acceptability of the site to seniors . They also expressed a dislike for parking within the landscaped area along Seventeenth Street. Lastly, they favored inclusion of a day care facility within the Civic Center. On August 19, 1988, staff met with representatives of Mike Rogers Senior Center in order to receive their feedback on the proposed Civic Center Seniors facility. They expressed a strong preference for a separate facility which would not be linked to other civic activities . They also shared the Council ' s concern regarding parking for their monthly meetings which may draw as many as 600 people. In view of the various concerns which have been raised, staff has removed the senior center from the Civic Center Master Plan. Instead, a multi-purpose conference facility has been proposed at the location where the larger seniors facility was to be. The parking within the landscape area has also been eliminated. At the appropriate time, a space utilization study will be conducted to determine exactly how much additional building square footage should be constructed on the Civic Center site. The location of a day care facility will also be explored. At this time, staff is requesting that the City Council take action to approve the Master Plan boundaries as shown on the conceptual site plan. This action will establish the framework within which staff will continue to negotiate a land swap and acquisition agreement with the Huntington Beach Company. It will also supply the Huntington Beach Company with sufficient knowledge to pursue a tentative map for their remaining property adjacent to City Hall . Additional actions to implement the Conceptual Master Plan boundary will include a zone change for the land to be acquired, as well as a precise plan of street alignment for Seventeenth Street . FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2 . Area map 3 . Conceptual Site Plan (to be displayed at meeting) PEC:MA:HS:kla RCA - 9/6/88 -2- (1177d) PACIFIC COAST HODS RECEIVED 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 CITY EIVED Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2499 CLERCITY OF (714) 536-8917 HUNTING i ON DE-ACN.CALIF. SEP 2 10 07 AN '89 September 1 , 1988 S`p D C/ Ory H JJNT/N John �988 Honorable HuntingtonBeachrCityeC Council , Mayr COUNC/L� F�EaCH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Civic Center Master Plan In May 1988, Pacific Coast Homes submitted development plans and entitlement applications for the vacant property located southeast of the Civic Center site (reference Zone Change 88-13, Tentative Tract Map 13569, Use Permit 88732, and Environmental Assessment 88- 20) . The subject plans and applications were submitted following some six months of ongoing meetings with City staff and preliminary residential site planning and engineering by Pacific Coast Homes. The residential project as submitted anticipated the closure of Seventeenth Street and reconfiguration of the site via an equitable exchange of abandoned street areas and fee land. The land exchange was intended to provide additional acreage for expansion of Civic Center parking facilities, and the resulting 104 lot subdivision was designed to orient single family homes to Lake Street, Pine Street and an extension of Park Street. Architectural design, floor plans, and elevations for the proposed subdivision have been submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City's Design Review Board, and preliminary design of street and utility improvements has been completed. The Subdivision Committee on July 19 continued consideration of the project pending completion of the Civic Center Master Plan. Upon review of the new Civic Center Master Plan, however, it now appears that the City may need to acquire additional land to satisfy its long range construction plans and associated parking needs, which would result in the loss of nine lots (approximately one acre) from the residential project. The subdivision must also be redesigned to maintain existing Seventeenth Street between Park and Pine Streets in accordance with the Civic Center Master Plan. Pacific Coast Homes has reviewed and supports the Civic Center Master Plan as proposed, and agrees to revise Tentative Tract Map 13569 to conform with the Master Plan in order to expedite processing and approval of the residential project. In making these revisions, it is our understanding that your support of the Civic Center Master Plan includes an endorsement of the concept of E7 ..-5 u.. io Honorable John Erskine, Mayor September 1 , 1988 Page Two abandoning portions of existing streets and acquisition, via an exchange or other legal means, of the land necessary to accomplish our mutual planning objectives. We appreciate your timely consideration of the master plan for this site and are anxious to proceed with final design of the residential project. Sincerely, W. D. Holman cc: Paul Cook, City Administrator Mike Adams, Director of Planning REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL kCTION . hP r '-r¢�n QS ava,L,4blP�0 � QN ,S �i rPc� SfRfi` �U G/i Ins+eW pr is 4, ,,�,.ia � (4jP-4*1 4 y nc•�-� P�—rD P` r 1v.Qw p� sCf �ir(�M "1 re,-4 ��4�1 �� �,,� bA1Ancf �S l"ifionorable Mayor and City Council4r . �Hi`"'e w 4 WhW-f ,t S6., e Submitted to: Y Y j� 6 Submitted by Charles W. Thompson, City Administr Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Service ar Subject: Request for P.F.C. Funding of Civic Center and Central Library Improvements Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [x] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: There is a need to fund several Capital Improvements to the Civic Center and Central Library facilities. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council request that the P.F.C. accept a lease payment for FY 1985-86 of $531,900 instead of the normal lease payment of $1,253,900. Analysis: In March of 1985, as per City Council direction, a project list was forwarded to the P.F.C. board members requesting that funding be provided from the accumulated reserves. That funding request was denied. The projects were included in the Unfunded section of the City's five year Capital Improvement Program approved in November of 1984. For fiscal year ending 1984/85, there is a projected P.F.C. surplus of roughly $4 million (excess of the P.F.C. reserve requirement). This surplus can be used to fund improvements to both the Civic Center and Central Library. Since the P.F.C. has declined the previous City requests to fund the needed projects, it is necessary to finance the projects from City funding sources. The staff recommendation would provide the necessary funding within the General Fund since our General Fund lease payment to the P.F.C. would be reduced by the amount of the estimated cost of the projects. The impact on P.F.C. resources would be negligible since their reserves are already over $4 million in excess of legal requirements. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Actions: 1. Do not proceed with the staffs recommendations. 2. Fund the projects with other General Fund reserves (estimated at $4 million as of 06/30/85). 3. Reduce the lease payment as recommended, but without first requesting P.F.C. concurrence. Attachments: 1. P.F.C. Eligible Capital Improvement Projects. 2. Graph illustrating P.F.C. reserves. t 1365j • PIO 4/84 ATTACHMENTI PFC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Prioritized by Category Project Category Cost Police Department 1. Communications Console $275,000 2. Jail Remodel & Roof Renovation 80,000 3. P.D. Parking lot expansion (inside gates) 50,000 4. Front Desk/Public Counter Remodeling 10,000 Community Services 1. Central Library Exterior pools restoration 115,000 2. Replacement of Library Doors (enter/exit) 20,000 Facility Maintenance 1. Fire Sprinklers 15,000 2. Ceiling Replacement - City Hall Lower Level Meeting Rooms B6-B7-B8 10,000 3. 4th/5th Floor Building Improvements 22,000 4. Civic Center Fire Alarm System 100,000 Landscape & Parks Equipment/Systems Planter Improvements within Civic Center Parking lots 25,000 TOTAL 722 000 N 1365j PUBLIC FACILITIES CORP 10 M-ILLIONS III i i TOTAL RESOVES 3 4 I,I I , i I : •t 3 ' i I'•I � O 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FISCAL YEAR 4 :. CITY OF HUNTIi\IGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN- STREET HUNT- NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 INSURANCE & BENEFITS DIVISION August 16, 1984 1 P.Z--4 r vs Sim D.R. Wiser Insurance Services 1926 W. Orangewood, #103 Orange, California 92667 Dear Sir: Your insured, Advance Elevator, has a service contract with us , the City of Huntington Beach, for the maintenance on our elevators . It is stated in the contract that a current certificate of insurance, showing both liability and Workers ' Compensation coverage, must be on file in this office during the length of that contract. T'le one we now have shows an expiration date of 7/1/84 for liability and 6/29/84 for Workers ' Compensation. While we are sure that they do maintain sufficient coverage and it is just a clerical oversight that we have not received an updated certificate, it is necessary that we obtain one as soon as possib_'_,:.:. T_ am attaching a copy of the last certificate we received for your convenience. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Siry6 rely, / o acki Fredenburg nsurance & Benefits Office JF: jw Attachment ,:�c: Advance Elevator, Inc. Charles Stafford, Building Maintenance Supervisor City Clerk ' s Office D R Wiser , Inc . Insurance Services rk Argonq Advance Lievator, Inc .. et al . 21"! Carson, CA 90745 500 4. SiAFWOme sloo Al-L Operations at All Locations Cancellation: an 4-25-84 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AUTHORIZED RIPM.SUNTATIVE st City HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT (to boexecuted by insured) The i'm^,oJ aOmo, to protect, defond, indvmnify, so,o' and hold ha,m|o,o the City of Huntington Bea chit" offi�^,,, agent, and r^n|ovoo, against any liability, /o,s, dvmxno' vom, o, vxnvnoo by reason of any and all liability, suits, dmm,, uvmand,' juunmu-,t, and causes of action caused by insured, his employees, agpili s or any subcontractor or by any third party arisino out of o, in consequenue of the i f all or ons or act vitv fGr which this xortificu,: of insurance is t",oivh=�-' 31, 'r)L.0 HARMLESS SIGNED: By !,isured: /71 Title ` hmonmum./ /TvxUO�'6cem must sign,o,present evidence-ofaud,mizudontobindCorpumtion. � I REQUEST .:OR CITY COUNCIL - . TION -XRH 86-11 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administr Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Admin rator/Redevelopmen Subject: REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR 5TH FLOOR MODIFICATIONS Consistent with Council Policy? M Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: 1?U STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is a staff request to utilize a combination of available HCD local option monies and to request funds from the Public Facilities Corporation for modifications to the 5th Floor of City Hall to house HCD, Community Services and Productivity staff members. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize use of available HCD Block grant funds and request funds from the Public Facilities Corporation for modifications to City Hall 5th Floor not to exceed $32,000. ANALYSIS: As a part of our efforts to more efficiently utilize available space within City Hall, we are proposing to relocate the Housing, Redevelopment, and Real Property functions in a central location on the 5th Floor of City Hall, relocate the City's Productivity team elsewhere on the 5th Floor and make minor modifications to the Community Service area. To accomplish this effort, it is necessary to expend funds to complete the necessary improvements which are estimated to not exceed $32,000. FUNDING SOURCE: Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds and/or Public Facilities Corporation Funds. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Utilize other available City funds or defer project at this time. CWT/DLB:ajh 1943h PIO 4/84 e . ..��_�_3 CITY OF /l INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION , III \II Vl,1(1.V III d(-II ,--� Azz TO Charles Thompson. From R i_c h ha rnA rd , Assistant , City Administrator to City Administrator Sl.ibjel:t UPGRADE OF (CIVIC CENTER Date January 28 , 1982 ELEVATORS- Upgrade of the two Civic Center elevators teas brought before the Public Facilities Corporation (PFQ for their consideration on Wednesday, January 27 . 19S2 . Councilman Pgttinson and 1 were present Burin; the PLC de. L.ibcrnt i-on . The PPC was unable to reach a majority consensus to provide funding for the City Coubsil - requestY upgrade , and referred it hack to the City Council . The primary concern of the PFC; was that. the City Council Was looking at them as a deep pocket- . it: was indicated in the meeting that the City Council is simply looking to them as a funding source . The PFC believes that i.f the upgrade of the equipment is needed , the City should pay the hall. . RB : ja cc : Paul. Crook , Direct-.or of Public Works Ron Patt _nson , City Councilman ,r"-r _ MAYOR Ruth Finley c tp ty of 111111tirig toll "Bacl-I MAYOR PRO TEMPORE SL � Ron Pattinson COUNCILMEMBERS P. O. BOX 190 ! 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 to �:� Ruth S.Bailey Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Man•clic John Thomas December 9 , 1981 Mr . Don Kiser , Secretary Public Facilities Corporation 17371. Gothard Huntington Beach, California RE : Upgrade of Civic Center Elevators ` Dear Don: The City Council, at the December 7 , 1981 meeting , took action to request the Board of Directors of the Public 1~aci.li.ties Corporation to t.;ke under consideration funding the upgrade of the two elevators in the Administrative building at City Hall . The upgrade is pro- pose(I in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the \ovem- ber 3 , 1981 letter from Advance Elevator , Inc . I would request that this matter be placed on the Public Facilities Corporation ' s January agenda for the Board ' s consideration . T have attached the backup material that was provided the City Council for distribution to the Public facilities Corporation Board Members . Also , Vice Mayor Ron Pattinson, will be present along with Public Works Director , Paul Cook , to present the City ' s request and to dis - cuss the matter with the Board . On bc]>al .f of the City -Council. , I would mope that talc Public faci.liti..;s ' Board Members seriously consider this request , since it goes well beyond the normal maintenance of the equipment . SinccCrcly you =s , 'Ruth l: . 1�i.nley Mayor RE.f : 1b cc : Ron Patt-inson , Vice Mayor Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Paul Cook , Director of Public Works Attachment TV.: rPHC1NF 1714) s1r-555'4 �C�t� °T FOR C[ FY COUNC� ACTION �:CA Date November 23 , 1981 Submitted to: Flonorable Mayor and City .Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrate- _(l.`� .Prepared by: Paul Cook, Public Works Director Subject: UPGRADE OF CIVIC CENTER ELEVATORS i Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Oi Statement of Issue : The City has received correspondence from Advance Elevator., Inc . (company that currently maintains City elevators) that indicates that replacement of . pertain components to the two Civic Center elevators would increase the ion- ►!evity of the equipment and reduce the frequency of failure . I:ccominondat ion Direct staff to submit a request to the Public Facilities Corporation to prk. . :de funding for the upgrade of the two Civic Center elevators in complian::c WLth the recommendations outlined in the November 3 , 1981 lett from Advanc . i' Ievator, Inc . , in the estimated dollar amount of $48 , 295 . Analysis : Early in the year , the City ' s Public Works Department employed the serviceti or Leon F. Palasik, Jr. f, Associates , an elevator consultant , to examine t,.. condition of the two existing elevators in the C-i-vic Center Administrative building . The primary findings of the report was that there was a need foi an effective preventive maintenance schedule and a general improvement in housekeeping procedures . Public Works , Building Maintenance Division , has provided the necessary corrections as well as met with Advance Elevator , to ensure that adequate preventive maintenance program be maintained . Also the consultant indicated that the present elevator equipment condition may not meet manufacture code or industrial standard and suggested that we discuss the overall condition of the elevators with representatives of Advance Elevator , Inc. In a letter dated April 2, 1981 , the President of Advance Elevator , Inc . indicated the following : "The overall condition of the equipment is good with the performance of both elevators in accordance with manufacturer ' s specifications . We have madc- recommendations to representatives to the City that certain individual components of the system could be replaced and/or upgraded , which in o.ur opinion would improve the longevity of the equipment and curtail the possibility of failure . " . On August 2S , 1981 , the City corresponded with Advance Elevator , Inc . and ru .qucste.d that they place in writing the upgrades that would improve the long evity and curtail the possibility of . failure . On November 3 , 1981 , a letter wri.s received which outlined specific recommendations for the overall improve monts of the Civic Center elevator equipment . 1 aio slot � � November. 23 , 1981 [hose improvements are listed in priority as follows : 1 . iwpI ace the existing photo, (electronic) . levelling. devices with llec:d switches . cast . $800 . per car $ 1 , 600 . 00 total Reason : The existing method of levelling , door zone and stepping i_. accomplished with light beams , cells and solid state board on the car top. The total lack of reliability with this system can cause incorrect levelling , doofs not opening , and the elevators getting- out of step . We have experienced many troubles of this nature which are directly related to the photo. levelling devices . 2 . Replace both controllers which would include the duplex unit . Cost : $23 ,000 . 00 per car $46 ,000 . 00 total Reason : The deficiency of the controllers are twofold . . a . 113NI relays which are a constant maintenance headache , especially if there is dust and or sand in the air (both ingredients find . their way into the equipment room) . It would be preferable for the new controller relays to have "dust covers" b . The black box which is the method of control has its own in- herent problems ; we therefore suggest a possible "self excited" or "damping motor" method of control . As the price indicated the change over or conversion of controllers would create in- convenience for the tenants and would have to be very carefully planned and scheduled by the City and Advance Elevator . 3 . Replace all car and hall push buttons with black halo ' s instead of�„�, the present clear type . ` Cost : $695 . 00 Reason : The original manufacturer put out two types (colors) of halo ' s or bezels , clear and black. We presently have the clear type . " They chip and break very easily and once broken fall into the plate making it impossible for people to activate the elevstor� " Also causing a definite risk of electric shock to the intended user . Stiff is recommending the City Council request the PFC to fund the recom- mended upgrades . The proposed improvements involve upgrading the two elevators to provide state-of- the -art configuration and would extend the life of the elevators as well as reduce the number of elevator failures due to outdated hardware . The. staff believes that this is well within the realm of the PFC ' s responsibility. FunG. ing Source : Vends are available in the reserve accounts of the Public Facilities Corporation . Alternative Action : I . The City Council could authorize staff to proceed with the elevator improvements and use the City ' s contingency account to pay for those improvements . 2 . The City Council could incrementally authorize the upgrade of the ele- vators as funds become available . ,i . The City Council could delay action to determine if the new preventative maintenance program will reduce problems sufficiently. 1 i RCA 81 32 - 3- November 23 , 1981 Attachments ; 1 . Letter dated February 20 , 1981 , from. Leon F . Palisik , Jr . Associates to Paul Cook , Director of Public Works , 2 . Letter dated March 4 , 1981 , to Advance Elevator Inc . from Don Kiser , Division Engineer . 3 . better dated April 2 , 1981 , from Patrick C. Welsh , President, Advance Elevator, Inc . to Don Kiser , Division Engineer . 4 . _Letter dated August 2S , , 1981 , to Advance Elevator, Inc.. from Don Kiser , Division Engineer . 5 . Letter dated November 3 , 1981 , from Advance Elevator, Inc . to Don Kiser , Division Engineer. � 1 CITY OF H!U94TINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HIINIINC16N 8EAC17 To Charles W. Thompson From F. B. Arguello City Administrator Chief of Administrative Services Subject Upgrade of Civic Center . Date February 1 , 1982 Elevators FIR # 82-2 In response to the request "of the Public Works Department, I am hereby submitting a Financial Impact Report relative to the upgrade of the two Civic Center elevators as recommended by the company that currently performs their maintenance. It has been estimated that an appropriation in the amount of $48,295 should be adequate to finance this project . Sufficient funding is available in the Contingency Fund for this purpose. An affirmative response by the City Council will reduce the balance in 0 e Contingency Fund to $1 ,424,581 . 31 . F. B. Arguello Chief of Administrative Services FBA/AR/cg CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT Project Name Upgrade of Civic Center Elevators Description Request for funding to provide replacement of certain components to the two Civic Center elevators. 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1 . 1 One-Time Costs Land urn. , aci i- Acquisition Construction ties, Equi meet. Other Total Cost 48,295 48,295 1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs Additional Materials & Outside Pa roll Personnel Supplies Services ERevenues Total Cost 1 . 3 Replacement/Renewal Costs N/A 2. INDIRECT COSTS Loss of earning potential due to expenditure of these funds. REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL -ACTIOW RCA 81-32 Date November 23 1981 ti(, Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council U Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Prepared by: Paul Cook, Public Works Director r , Subject: UPGRADE OF CIVIC CENTER ELEVATORS r. • CITY CLER Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: t / Statement of Issue: The City has received correspondence from. Advance Elevator, Inc. (company that currently maintains City elevators) that indicates that replacement of certain components to the two Civic Center elevators would increase the lon- geVity of the equipment and reduce the frequency of failure . Recommendation: Direct staff to submit- a request to the Public Facilities Corporation to pro- vide funding for the upgrade of the two Civic Center elevators in compliance with ,the recommendations outlined in the November 3 , 198.1 letter from Advance Elevator, Inc. , in the estimated dollar amount of $48 , 295 . Analysis : Early in the year , the City ' s Public Works Department employed the services of Leon F. Palasik, Jr. & Associates , an elevator consultant , to examine the condition of. .the two existing elevators in the Civic Center Administrative building. The primary findings of the report was that there was a need for an effective preventive maintenance schedule and a general improvement in housekeeping procedures . Public Works , Building Maintenance Division, has provided the necessary corrections as well as met with Advance Elevator , Inc. to ensure that adequate preventive maintenance program be maintained. Also the consultant indicated that the present elevator equipment condition may not meet manufacture code or industrial standard and suggested that we discuss the overall condition of the elevators with representatives of Advance Elevator, Inc. In a letter dated April 2 , 1981 , the President of .Advance Elevator, Inc. indicated the following: "The overall condition of the equipment is good with the performance of both elevators in accordance with manufacturer ' s specifications . We have made recommendations to representatives to the City that certain individual components of the system could be replaced and/or upgraded, which in our opinion would improve the longevity of the equipment and curtail the possibility of failure . " On August -.25-1- . 1981 ," the City corresponded with Advance Elevator, Inc. and re- quested that they place in writing the upgrades that would improve the long- evity and curtail the possibility of failure. On November 3 , 1981 , a letter was received which outlined specific recommendations for the overall improve- ments of the Civic Center elevator equipment . ' I PIO 4/81 � RCA 81- 32 -2- November 23 , 1981 These improvements are listed in priority as follows : 1 . Replace the existing photo (electronic) levelling devices with Reed switches . Cost : $800 . per car $1 ,600. 00 total Reason: The existing method of levelling, door zone and stepping is accomplished with light beams , cells and solid state board on the car top . The total lack of reliability with this system can cause incorrect levelling , doors not opening , and the elevators getting out of step. We have experienced many troubles of this nature which are directly related to the photo levelling devices . 2 . Replace both controllers which would include the duplex unit. Cost: $23 ,000 . 00 per car•. $46 ,000 . 00 total Reason: The deficiency of the controllers are twofold. a. IBM relays which are a constant -.maintenance headache , especially if there is dust and or sand in the air (both ingredients find their way into the equipment room) . It would be preferable for the new controller relays to have "dust covers . " b . The black box which is the method of control has its own in- herent problems ; we therefore suggest a possible "self excited" or "damping motor" method of control . As the price indicated the change over or conversion of controllers would create in- convenience for the tenants and would have to be very carefully planned and scheduled by the City and Advance Elevator. 3. Replace all car and hall push buttons with black halo ' s instead of the present clear type. Cost : $695 . 00 Reason : The original manufacturer put out two types (colors) of halo ' s or bezels , clear and black. We presently have the clear type . They chip and break very easily and once broken fall into the plate making it impossible for people to activate the elevators . Also causing a definite risk of electric shock to the intended user. Staff is recommending the City Council request the PFC to fund the recom- mended upgrades . The proposed improvements involve upgrading the two elevators to provide state-of-the -art configuration and would extend the life of the elevators as well as reduce the number of elevator failures due to outdated hardware . The staff believes that this is well within the realm of the PFC ' s responsibility. Funding Source : Funds are available in the reserve accounts of the Public Facilities Corporation. i Alternative Action: � 1 . The City Council could authorize staff to proceed with the elevator improvements and use the City' s contingency account to pay for those improvements . 2 . The City Council could incrementally authorize the upgrade of the ele- vators as funds become available. 3 . The City Council could delay action to determine if the new preventative maintenance program will reduce problems sufficiently. RCA 81-32 -3- November 23 , 1981 Attachments : I . Letter dated February 20 , 1981 , from Leon F. Palisik, Jr. & Associates to Paul Cook, Director of Public Works . 2 . Letter dated March 4, 1981 , to Advance Elevator Inc. from Don Kiser, Division Engineer . 3 . Letter dated April 2 , 1981 , from Patrick C. Welsh, President, Advance Elevator, Inc. to Don Kiser , Division Engineer. 4 . Letter dated August 25 , 1981 , to Advance Elevator, Inc. from Don Kiser, Division Engineer. S . Letter dated November 3 , 1981 , from Advance Elevator, Inc. to Don Kiser , Division Engineer. Le-on F. Polosik Jrz_ Associates Elevator Consulting February 20., 1981 Paul E. Cook Lirector of Pub1_4Lc Works Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. Re : Huntington Beach City Hall P .O. 'IT33419 LFPA- 72334 Dear Mr. Cook: Herewith is our Elevator Survey ReIDOr t for the Depart:iient of Public Works , City of Huntington Beach City :Hall . This detailed, unbiased report covers the t,::o (2) United States Elevator Company elevators referred to . The examination is completed, photographs are attached and identifying the equipment as described. Suggestions made in our report are based on guidelines and rules established by : I-iistoric and systematic elevator industry practices . 2 . the American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators , Du,b%,7aiters , Escalators an'd '.',ovir.g Walks . ANSI - A17 . 1 1978 , 79 & 80 . 3 . The American 'National Standard Practice for the Tnspection of Elevators, Escalators , D:?rtb;;aiters and iioving al} - Inspector ' s Manual . ':NSI - A17 . 2 - 1979 w/revisions . 4 . State of California Administrative Code Title 8 IndustrialRelations Chapter t Division of Undustrial Safety Subchapter 6 - Elevator Safety Orders . After_ reviewing cur report you may dotermine that present elevator equipment conditons may not meet manu'Eacturers , code or industry standards . Our report should be. discussed lith. your present elevator service contractor. The contractor si7ould be " given a reasonable opportunity and time to correct the .conditions referred to. Any items beyond full r•,aintenance service obligation can be put out to bid. 11113 La Mirada Blvd. Whittier, CA 90604 (213) 944-5647 ;< Paul E. Cook Di,,-ecto.r of Publ_ orks February 20 , 1981 . Page . -2- (� Re : Huntington Beach City Hall P .O. `33419 LFPA 72334 Obviously breakdo.ms , trouble calls and repairs (other than mis-use or vandalism) . can be controlled by the elevator service contractor with a. comprehensive P.M. schedule. Should you require further assistance , please call upon us . Very truly yours , LEON F. PALASIK JR. & ASSOCIATES Lefbn F. alasik Jr. LFP/nch encs . /For distribution ( 3) P"� E 12 ADVANCE ELEVATOR, Inc. Contractor's Uc. :278490 600 E.Ocean Blvd.,Suite 410 Long Beach,California 90802 Telephone (213) 436.4231 3420 Kenyon St., Suite 131 San Diego, California 92110 Telephone (714) 225.0884 April 2, 1981 City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 17371 Gothard St. PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. Donald W. Kiser Division Engineer Dear Mr. Kiser: Pursuant to our meeting of April 1, 1981 and the evaluation of the two geared elevators in the Administration Building at the Civic Center Complex. In the most recent survey conducted by us it was noted the dust problem should be eighty or ninety percent controlled with the installation of window filters by your staff. The maintenance has been performed on a regular systematic basis with adjustments being made as needed. The overhaul condition of the equipment is good with the performance of both elevators in accordance with manufacturers specifications. We have made recommendations to reoresentives of the City at certain individual components of the system could be replaced and or upgr which in our_o *nion would improve the longevity of the equipment an curtail the possibility of failure. We sincerely appreciate being given the opportunity to service the City of Huntington Beach and look forward to a continuing mutual relationship. Verty truly yours, ADVANCE ELEVATOR, INC. A�4—�e9 . �� Patrick C. Welsh President L , ._CITY 'OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 March .4, 1981 Advance Elevator, Inc. 60U E. Ocean Blvd. Suite 410 Long .Beach, CA 90802 Gentlemen: Subject: Civic Center Elevators Please be advised that the City has recently ` retained an elevator consultant to perform an evaluation study and report on the two geared elevators in the Administration Building at the Civic Center Complex. I am attaching a copy of the report which outlines certain deficiencies found and recommendations for corrective action. I will appreciate your review .of the report and prompt responsive action to the suggestions and recommendations; and written notifi- cation as to the date the work is accomplished. Please note a substantial number of the items are related to cleaning, lubricat- ing, and adjusting, ie. housekeeping items that should be on regular P.M. schedules. City forces will install the window filters. Please call," if you have any questions. Sincerely, Donald W. Kiser Division Engineer DWK:mr CC., P. E. Cook C. Stafford R. Martin i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Paul E. Cook Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 August 25, 1981 Advance Elevator, Inc. 500 E. Ocean Blvd. , Suite 410 Long Beach, California 90802 Attn: Patrick C. Welsh President Gear Mr. Welsh: Subject: Civic Center Elevators continue to receive expressions of concern over the operation of the two geared elevators at the Civic Center, even though your personnel completed the suggestions of the housekeeping items. In review of past correspondence, I note in your letter of April 2, 1981 reference is made to former recommenda- tions for replacements or upgrading of various components, which as I recall have been made verbally to the City Maintenance Technician. I would appreciate it if you could write me specific recommendations with a safe budgeting type estimate, along with a brief description of the better- ment each suggestion would provide. Pleade call , if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Donald W. Kiser Division Engineer DWK:mj cc: P. E. Cook 0 a I ADVANCE ELEVATOR, Inc. Contractor's Llc. 4:278490 600 E.Ocean Blvd.,Suite 410 Long Beach,California 90802 November 3, 1981 Telephone (213) 436-4231 3420 Kenyon St., Suite 131 San Diego, California 92110 Telephone (714) 225.0884 Mr. Donald W. Kiser, Division Engineer City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Elevator Recommendati-ons Dear Mr. Kiser: With reference to the two geared elevators, at the Civic Center, and also as a follow up to our letter of April 2, 1981, when we suggested the re- placement of certain components to improve the longevity of the equipment and curtail the frequency of failures, we submit the following. We have put these recommendations into three categories and would suggest this sequence be retained if the city decides to act on these: 1. Replace the existing photo (electronic) levelling devices with Reed switches. Cost: $800.00 per car $1,600.00 total Reason: The existing method of levelling, door zone and stepp- ing is accomplished with light beams, cells and solid state board on the car top. The total lack of reliability with this system can cause incorrect levelling, doors not opening, and the elevators getting out of step. We have experienced many troubles of this nature which are directly related to the photo levelling devices. 2. Replace both controllers which would include the duplex unit. Cost: $23,000.00 per car . $46,000.00 total Reason: The deficiency of the controllers are two fold. a. IBM relays which are a constant maintenance headache; especially if there is dust and or sand in the air (both ingredients find their way into the equipment room) . It would be preferable for the new controller relays to have "dust covers" . b. The black box which is the method of control has its own inherent problems, we therefore suggest a possible "self excited" or "damp- ing' motor" method of control . As the price indicated the change over or conversion of controllers would create inconvenience for the tenants and would have to be very carefully planned and sched- uled by the City and Advance Elevator. cont'd. Mr. Donald W. Kiser, Division Engineer City of Huntington Beach November 3 , 1981 page two 3. Replace all car and hall push buttons with black halo's instead of the present clear type. Cost: $695.00 Reason: The original manufacturer put out two types (colors) of halo's or bezels, clear and black. . You presently have the clear type. They chip and break very easily and once broken fall into the plate making it impossible for people to activate the elevators. Also causing a definite risk of electric shock to the intended user. Summary: These three recommendations are also listed by priority. It is- our feeling the first ,item should be attended to� as soon as possible. The second suggestion has already been researched by Advance Elevator. We have been in contact with the controller manufacturers. There will obviously be a lot of lead time needed with this and an indepth meeting, with the City, should be held to discuss this proposal . If we get approval for item three, we would install the black bezels during service visits. The quote on this item is our cost for the buttons only with no larbor charge to you. We have worked with the City of Huntington Beach since 1978, and sincerely appreciate being given this opportunity. We also look forward to a continu- ing mutual relationship. Sincerely, ADVAN ELEVATOR, INC. Patrick C. Welsh President PCW:sl enclosures p.s.If you decide to act on any of these proposals please sign the appropriate enclosed Work Order and return to Advance Elevator. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION W � Date October 9, 1981 �Lh Submitted to: Honorabla Mayor and City Counci1 040A a / 14 Submitted by: Charles. W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Department of Development Services/HCD Division Subject: FIFTH FLOOR REMODELING TO ACCOMMODATE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT STAFF AND FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPANSION Backup Material Attached: [X]Yes [ ]No Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: �✓ STATEMENT OF ISSUE: There is a need to provide adequate space to accommodate the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement staff and expand the floor area being utilized by the Fire Department. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Appropriate $23,000 in HCD Administrative funds and $7,000 from the Capital Outlay Fund to pay for the improvements, and 2. Authorize Public Works to retain a contractor on a time and material basis to undertake the required work. ANALYSIS: The HCD staff and Rehabilitation Loan consultant currently lack adequate space to accommodate their needs. As we move fo:rward .with the implementation of the overall Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program, additional area will be requi-red to. provide sufficient office space and filing room as well as meet , general meeting and work space needs.. In addition, the Fire Department has a need for additional space to accommodate the consolidation of several positions and the transfer of three persons from the Training Center to the fifth floor of City Hall . The persons involved include one from the Arson Unit and. two from Public Education. By locating these people on the fifth floor there will not only .be increased supervision and control but also the Department will be . able to provide the necessary secretarial and administrative support at a mini- Mal -cost. The. proposed floor layout also takes advantage of the opportunity for the Fire Department 'Clerk and HCD Clerk to share a common reception area and thus cover for one another when each is away from her desk. The common area is shown as 1 on the attached floor. plan. A description of the use anticipated for each room follows: P103/01 (A - /�• i, Two 1. Joint Reception Area 2. Conference and Work Room 3. Director of Business & Industrial Enterprise 4. Rehabilitation Loan Specialist 5. Senior Community Development Specialist 6. Redevelopment and Relocation Consultants 7. Community Development Assistant 8. Fire Department Plan Check The proposed improvements include the construction of several 6' partitions and full walls, carpeting throughout the area, lighting and other electrical and telephone outlets. The cost estimates were prepared by Don Kiser, Division Engineer, and his findings are reflected in the attached memo. FUNDING SOURCE: $23,000 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Fund 7,000 Capital Outlay Fund 30,000 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Attempt to accommodate both the Fire Department and Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program space needs within existing improved areas of City Hall . CWT:TT:jb attachments i L=jL . F�c[!✓At[ "We _ i OME© F cgrE)wPat Tmf AMC WWL, TO RE 7ECE FWA IPE/+Io p Ft/LC i✓AC C O Afo D Fv« o wA� � o it 7�pBcE `''1 , O ° hl CITY ' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION. � Aduiinistrction From . Donald W. Kiser Attn: Rich Barnard Division Engineer Su►,ject Fifth. Floor Remodeling Date September 23, 1981 Please be advised Chat I have completed the estimate for the remodeling o'l the fifth floor unoccupied space for the purpose of expanding the Fire Department arid creating offices for the HCD staff. I estimate the Viork, .as requested to date, will cost a total of $27,194.00 of which p4,900.00 is for carpet making a construction estimate of $22,294.00. ;he assignable breakdown of assignable costs would be $6,672100 for the Fire Department and $20,522.00 for HCD offices. If funding is allocated, suggest it be in. the amount of $30,000.00 which will provide about 10% contingency for unforeseens. As I stated previously, .I would prefer to bring in a contractor on.a time and material basis, thus alleviating cne need for formal plans, specifications. and advertising. . You might also cunsider. doing the work, previously discussed, of remodeling the fourth floor conference room. Please advise if I should continue with the plans. I am attaching a layout fur your information. Donald W. .Kiser Division Engineer DWK:.mj . cc- P.E. Cook ORIGINAL Copy for Master File � MUST BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK 1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AR-C-HITECTURAL SELECTION 1 1 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1 ' Huntington Beach Design Review Board ' Architectural Selection Process (Recommendation of architectural ' firms to supply services to the City of Huntington Beach for a new city hall and police facility) 1 ' "Report and Recommendation to the CITY COUNCIL" 1 1 Design Review Boa:,d Members David W. Wilson, Chairman Ken Beideman ' Carole Ann Wall Howard Warner Frank J. White ' Staff ' Michael Brotemarkle Barbara Debler 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . 1 ' CHRONOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CRITERIA UTILIZED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS. . . 5 ' RECOMMENDATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ' APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 1 1 t t . INTRODUCTION 1 The City of Huntington Beach is approaching the ' culmination of over a decade of discussion and contro- versy concerning a new civic center. Some points still ' need to be resolved, but the selection of the architect will be the major step in producing a viable solution. The Design Review Board was assigned and gladly accepted the task of recommending to the City Council a limited number of architects from which a final selection would ' be made. The Board has spent much time in reviewing, interviewing, discussing, and analyzing numerous archi- tectural firms under a very accelerated schedule. The Board has taken a very positive attitude toward this ' endeavor and has done all within its capabilities and scope to assure the City of the best architect possible for its civic structures. Now that the full impact of Huntington Beach's present and future urbanization has been impressed upon the City, the time for finding ' solutions to problems accompanying this urbanization has arrived. The following is an in-depth report of the activities of the Board with regard to the architectural selection process. Included are the final recommendations of architects to be considered by the City Council. 1 -1- 1 ' CHRONOLOGY[ ' On January 84 1969, Doyle Miller met with the Design Review Board to discuss a method by which an architect or ' architects would be chosen for designing the proposed civic center (city hall and police facility) and the central ' city library. After lengthy discussion, the consensus was that for the civic center the comparative method as dis- cussed in the AIA- ARCHITECTS HANDBOOK OF PROFESSIONAL ' PRACTICE should be employed. This would include the screening of a long list of architects by the Board through ' review of each firm°s brochure and prospectus. Certain architects would be selected to be interviewed by the Board. ' The Design Review Board would then forward a limited number of architects (three to five) with their recommendations to the City Council for final interview and selection. It ' was suggested that the library architect could be selected through a design competition because of the uniqueness of ' the site. ' On January 20, the City Council approved the compara- tive method for selecting a civic center architect as ' outlined in the City Administrator's memo by minute action. It was decided that the selection of the library architect tshould be determined by the City Administrator and Design ' Review Board in consultation with the Library Board. A list of firms expressing interest in performing ' architectural services for the City was presented to the Design Review Board February 13, 1969. The Board directed -2- ' the list to be expanded based on .staff recommendations and Board suggestions. Staff was directed to prepare a letter to all the firms on the list requesting submittal of ' brochures. On February 26, a joint meeting with the Library Board was held. It was decided that the selection of an architect for the library site would be a joint function of both Boards using the comparative selection method. The primary responsibility for narrowing the field of architectural candidates to a reasonable number would rest with the ' Library Board. On March 6, the solicitory letter was mailed to all the firms on the expanded list of architects with a deadline ' date of March 20. On March 12, the Board approved a timing schedule leading to the final recommendation to City Council ' but left it as a flexible rather than rigid guide. At the above meeting, Mr. Ken Beideman disqualified himself from ' further participation in the selection process since the ' firm of Varner-Beideman had submitted a prospectus. On March 26, the brochures of architects responding to the letter or to publicity concerning the project were distributed to the Board. Firms on the list which had not ' responded to the letter were removed from further consider- ation unless material which had formerly been submitted was of recent enough publication to be utilized for review. ' Individual firm brochures were reviewed from March 26 to April 9 by each Board member except Mr. Beideman. ' -3 ' On April 9, the selection of firms to be interviewed was conducted by a majority vote selection and elimination process. The staff was directed to establish interviews ' during the week of April 19 to April 27. Letters were to be sent to all firms considered on the preliminary list informing them of the results of the review process. The schedule and structuring of interviews was approved April 16. The interviews were to be of a two hour duration ' with the first thirty minutes an uninterrupted presentation by the architect and the last hour and one-half a question ' and answer period. Interviews were started Saturday, April 19, and completed Sunday, April 27, of the eleven ' firms selected for interview. ' On Wednesday, April 30, the Design Review Board met and formulated the recommendations contained within this ' report. The staff was directed to inform all interview participants of the results and start preparation of the ' report and recommendation to the City Council. 1 1 -4- ' SS CRITERIA UTILIZED IN THE SELECTION PROCE During the first phase of the selection process, the Board established general factors of consideration in forming the preliminary list of architectural firms to be considered. These criteria included: ' le A of the firm be licensed to principal ' practice architecture in California. 20 That firms considered be experienced in the design of civic centers or other public buildings of a similar nature. 3. That the firm has a major office in the Southern California area including Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego,. San. Barnardino and Riverside countiese ' 4, That the firm shows a definite interest in the civic center project specifically. Additional -criteria utilized during the review of the ' brochures of architectural firms included, but were not limited to, the following: 1. Design, creative and innovative concepts in past projects. ' 2. Personnel and "in house" capabilities. ' 3. Diversity and variety in background experience. Other factors carried over and emphasized in the inter- view process included the following, which are not all the factors taken into consideration but are representative: ' 1. Experience with fall-out shelter and emergency operating center design. ' -5- ' 2. The closeness of liaison with the city during the entire process. 3. The responsibility of the firm for the structure following completion. ' 4. Cost control procedures and the ability to meet budgets. 5. Indication of interest in the civic center project from other points of view than design such as ' the effect on the community of such a structure, the effect on adjacent land uses, on traffic, as a catalytic agent for other development, etc. 6. The incorporation of plans for expansion into the development. 7. The ability -to complete the job in a reasonable length of time. ' 8. Is the firm°s fee competitive and following AIA guidelines. 9. Ability of firm to carry projects to completion. 10. Strength of the firm in public relations and ' an -education process required by such a project. 11. Cooperation with clients, amount of repeat work for the same client. ' 12. relationship with consultants and contractors. 13. The research orientation and technological ' achievements of the firm. 14. Organization.]. ability. ' 15. Reaction to proposed site, ability to come into project after site selection has been made and ' work effectively. 16. Orientation to the general public in connectioil with such a project. 17. Identification and imagery elements of a civic center. ' 18. Pride in past works. 19. Avoidance of fads or current popular styles in ' architecture in favor of a timeless quality or perma- nence in the design concept for a civic center. ' -6- 1 ' 20. For what reasons did each firm desire to be the architect for the Huntington B-ach civic center. The result of the exhaustive examination of architect- ural brochures and the interview and precise questioning of each architectural firm by the Board concerning the foregoing criteria was a decision to forward four firms to the City Council for the final decision on a firm to 1 supply architectural services for the Huntington Beach city hall and police facility. 1 1 1 -7- RECOM=ATION ' Following is the recommendation of the Design Review Board of architectural firms to be considered by the C4,ty ' Council: I. In a unanimous vote the Board chose the following ' two firms with only a slight nod being given to the first firm as above the number two firm: ' 1. John B. Parkin Associates 2. Kurt Meyer Associates in association with t Honnold and Rex, Architects In unanimously choosing these two firms above all ' others, the following comments were made by the Board as to what qualities separated them from the other firms. ' "Both firms exhibited a quality of uniqueness for providing services for this city. Both exhibited past accomplishments of exquisite buildings of timeless ' architecture. Both were strong firms able to lead, guide and educate; but able to maintain excellent rela- tionships with their clients. Both showed excellence in formulating a program and design for a civic center. ' The leading principals are dynamic artists capable and willing to lead the city to a unique solution. There w.re evident relationships between principal and asso- ciates and staff of these firms for free interchange of ideas. The major principals of both firms would be closely involved with the project. " In discussing John B. Parkin Associates the following comments were made: ' "Parkin is a well organized, internationally recognized firm composed of highly talented personnel that have created exciting structures that are Functional yet contain a ' quality of design that is especially appealing and timeless. Parkin would get a slight nod because of staff and in-house organization. It would be an all out effort by a large ' firm to create a major work in the Southern California area because of their relative newness to this region. They possess both master planning and artistic capabilities beyond normal design expectations. " In comments r¢ ng on Kurt Meyer and Associates the following statements were made: -8® Kurt Meyer stands as an individual of genius heading a moderately large firm with extraordinary abilities to ' research solutions to our program. Mr. Meurer has the personality to present findings and guidelines to lead oUr city to a unique solution of world standing. His attention to detail is beyond comparison.:. " ' 11. In fulfilling the requirement of transmitting three to fire firms to the City Council, the Board was ' unable to unanimously designate a. number three firm. The votesfor the third and fourth firms were equally divided ' between only two .firms. Therefore the following two firms are transmitted without ranking,, being of essentially ' equal stature in the Board's evaluation. ' Charles Luckman Associates Victor Gruen Associates tBoth are excellent firms. Their past works lack the unique character that separated. ]'a.rki.n. and Meyer from all ' others, but they stand above all the remaining firms. In ' commenting on Victor Gruen Associates the Board felt they "displayed a smooth organization. incorporating talented ' architects, designers and staff to produce an outstanding solution". Tb.e Board appreciated their "no pre-conce=iwed ' idea to a solution" attitude. ' Charles Luckman is a highly effective farm and the Board was i mpreSsed. by their research staff which develops ' new ideas through experimentation in form, techniques and materials in an attempt to stem rising prices in the ' building trade. Both are rather large firms with records ' of doing contemporary, quality work with a high level of 1 ' repeat work for the same client. The Board was unable ' to determine any significant difference between the firms such as to justify a difference in ranking. ' -10- APPENDICES t 1, City Administrator's Memorandum Approved by Council January 20 2. Preliminary List of Firms Expressing Interest liii L'!A� i•r�V�QV 1{IP t3. List of Firms to be Considered by the Design Review Board ' 4. Copy of Letter Mailed to All Firms on List (item no. 3) 5. Timing Schedule ' 6. List of Firms and Their Response to Letter (item no. 4) .' 7. List of Firms--Brochures to be Reviewed 8. List of Firms to be Interviewed 9. Letter--Notification of Interview ' 10. Letter--Notification of Elimination 11. Memo to the City Administrator--Firms to be ' Interviewed 12. Interview Schedule 13. Letter--Notification of Recommendation to ' City Council 14. Letter--Notification of Elimination ' 15. Memo to the City Administrator--Preliminary Statement of Recommendation and Request for a Joint Meeting with the City Council 1 1 1 1 1 , us NOE A YE, U M ' TO: City COW011 City AdtiniGt8*GV ' J&WAWT 24d l - 1. Of UUMM 8 WO Aduln1strator not with WO VOGQP R,mlev qq=M to p"pese a method of seUmblan of wehitect® that might be recomended to to City In view of the urgency conasetod altb the civic center alto, it was felt by all In &ttOWMMWQ that a v@qpwmtIve method for select Par the civic center site should be - It VW ' ed " unanimously approved that tba Des Aeview Board should screen a long list of amMUMP the Southern California area and reftee the ' ember to tots. After reviewlr4 the IstdIvIdial prospectus and field trips to view projeetw .tbat bow boon conpletad, the Design RevIew Board MUM rMaRaWd a lilted number of names 0 to 5) to the City 11 for fines Interview sW ealeotion> It was further felt that perhaps the only limitation that ehcuM be placed upon this architect would be the final ft11W amount and the design of a structure that waulA prope+rIV Identity the fastest moving COMMMItY 10 Southern Callfornta. ' Inasmuch as the now library situ presents a challenges to 1rimwate and do something ImMaIMS Va It was felt that the selection of the lib architect should be haMled through a competitive process with the Llbrwry board and the Design Nowiew Boaa^d having their respective inputs into the ' prelininaa7 pro . It is the Administrator's recomendation that the Council, by n1nut® action, approve ttiese reacamenfttions and Instruct the AftInletrator to proceed In ration ' with the Design Review Board, the Libran Board, asd the ; City Council. ' It Is father rsa ed that in view of the poesiblo effort of ame, amhiteetural firms to lobby their Interesta, all inquiries to Individual CouneilsMa ' should be referred to the City mdalniatmtor. ' 2 Februarr 7. 1969 ' ARCRITECTtBAL AND ENC G ?IRKS EURESSING ITT IN CITY P2DIECTMO ' Brochures and booklets available: ' Victor Gruen Associates (Arch. , Eng. & Planning) Willson and Williams (A rah. and Planning) E.i.stner, Wkight and Wright (Arch. and Eng. ) Helton Becket and Associates (Arch. and Rag. ) Johan B. Parkin & Associates (Arch. , & gr. and Planning) ' William Blurock and Partners (Arch. and Plaaaaing) Burke, Kober & Ricolaais (Arch. and Eng. ) Lee F. Wilcox and Associates (Arch. ) Adrian Nilson .Associates (Arch. , Rag. , and P3ann.ng) ' Frank L. Hope and Associates (Arch. and Eng. ) Ruhmay, Evaaei, and Steinmann (Arch. ) Ramberg and Lowrey (Arch. ) Pacific Architects & Ragineers Parker, Kensler and Parker (.Arch. and Eng.) ' Tom and Trctskier (Arch. ) Davis, Burrows, Allen & Associates (Arch. ) ' Holladay, Eggett & Horn (Arch. and Eng. ) Engineering Service Corporation (Civil Bug. ) ' Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. (Bag. ) Moran Builders (Eng. and Gen. Contractors) ' Neptune & Thomas and Associates (Arch. and Rag. ) Adams, Latham, Kripp and Wright (Arch. and Bug. ) Marion j. Varner and Associates (.Arch. and Eng. ) Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams (Landscape arch.. ) Unesch and Reynolds (Landscape Arch. ) Ribera and Sue (Landscape Arch. ) POD (Landscape Arch. ) T. Y. Lin & Associates (Eng.-Parking structaxes) I7 Letter couftot only: ran-lac (Arch.,, Sag. , and PlanniM) 2hazas J. &WWO11 (ohs) tthwager, lasatofts and Henderson (Arch. and ]P3 ) Mason, Netts and Aswociates (Arch. and 7 m) ' M (ftC.,0 Arch, and Planners) AnthorW and faMford (Arch.) Some of terse fints contacted the City in 1966 or before Others have expressed their interest as recently as 1969. Due to the resent publiaity on proposed aitr projects,, thin list might be al"07 thaozplete. In most cases a cover letter accompanied all resumes and borchures. This list is extrawly basic since it contains only those firms who have contacted the. cilty. fe city will have to contact other ' firms and request their background information. An expansion of this list will require recommendations from the Design Review Board of potential f1ras to be considered. The Staff recommends the inclusion of the following: Charles Lmakwm William Pierera & Associates George Vernon Russel EOM H A°f%ows: Jones and bons Robert Clements & Associates Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall Robert Alexander and Associates Hugh Gibbs and Donald Gibbs Killingsworth Brady & Associates ' Richard and Dion Rewtra Architects Thomas and Richardson Architects • Pe;i:�: :�;;� ,z „o ,cy 3 ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS BEING CON31MM BY TI DESIGN HEdIEW BOARD ' 1 . Victor Gruen Associates 6330 W. San Vicente, L.A. 2. . William L. Pereira and Associates 5657 Wilshire Blvd. , L.A. 3. Adrian Wilson Associates ' 621 S. Westmoreland, L.A. 4. Anthony and Langford ' 12422 E. Whittier Blvd. , Whittier 5. Welton Becket Associates 10000 Santa Monica Bled. , L.A. 6. Burke, Kober, Nicolais & Archuleta { 2405 W. Third St. , L.A. 7. Robert Clements & Associates 830 Wilshire Blvd.. , L.A. ' 8. Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall 3325 Wilshire Blvd. , L.A. � 9. Robert Alexander and Associates � 612 S. Plover, L.A. ' 10. Hugh Gibbs and Donald Gibbs 3575 Long Beach Blvd. , Long Beach 11 . Jones and Emmons , ' 12248 Santa Monica Blvd. , W.L.A. 1 12. Killingsworth Brady & Associates ' 3833 Long Beach Blvd. , Long Beach 13. Kistner Wright & Wright ' 1125 W. Sixth St. , L.A. 14. Charles Luckman Associates ' 9220 Sunset Blvd. , L:A. 15. Neptune and Thomas Associates 1560 Colorado Blvd. , W. Pasadena 16. Richard and Dion Neutra Architects and Associatee + 2379 Glendale Blvd . , L.A, ' 17. Parker, Kensler and Parker Architects and Engineers 1227 W. Temple, L.A. 18. ,ohn B. Parkin and Associates 3 1601 Avenue of the stars, L.A. 19.s Ramberg and Lowrey ' 2127 N. Hain St. , Santa Ar ' 20. George Vernon Russell and Associates F .A. Teachers Credit Union Bldg. ' 410 Rosenell. Terrace, L.A. 21. Schwager Henderson and Associates 1500 W. Adame Ave. , Costa Mesa 2. Thomas and Richardson architects 230 E. 1.7 th St. , Costa Mesa ' 23. Willard T. Jordan—Architect 1500 W. Adams Ale. , Costa Mesa 24. VTN 2301 Campus Der. , Irvine 25. Willson and Williame 2855 E. Coast ilighway, Corona Del Mar 26. William Blurock and Partners 1550 Bayside Dr. , Corona Del Mar ' 27. Lee F. Wilcox 12344 Harbor Blvd. , Barden Grove 28. Frank L. Hope and Associates 401 W. Eighth .;to , Santa Ana 29. Burrows and Allen ' 1606 Bush St. , Santa Ana 30. Thomas J. Russell -Architect 2292 Long Beach Blvd. , Long Beach ' 31 . Mason, Muntz and Associates 1823 E. Seventeenth St. , Suits 307, Santa Ana ' 32. Barmakian—Norman 325 North Second Ave. , Suite J. Upland. ' 33. Pacific Architects and Engineers 3540 Wilshire Blvd. , L.A. 34. 7Com1 7T so u nBu ui tAon Harbgur Boajdwalk ,, 9 ng.on each 35. Holladay, Eggett and Horn 800 Colorado Blvd . , L.A. ' 3 36. Engineering Service Corporation 1127 W. Washington Blvd. , L.A. 37. Ralph Stone and Company Inc. 10954 Santa Monica Blvd. , L.A. 38. William J. Moran Co, 1 1011 S. Fremont, Alhambra 39. Quinton Engineers Ltd. 812 W. Eighth St. , L.A. 40. Mackinen Tinnaro Du Bourdieu 8031 Twentieth St. , Westminster ' Other firms having just submitted brochures ' %. Ellerbroek, Kotele®, Fox and Associates 2. Varner-Beideman March 6, 1969 ' Gentlemen: The City of Huntington Beach is currently conducting preliminary investigations which will produce a list of architectural firms to be considered for interviews. Some firms have submitted resumes of their background, projects and qualifications, others have submitted letters expressing their interest and there are ' firms the City's Design Review Boai)d wants to consider for interview with which we have had no contact. We would appreciate ' receiving any new or additional data for consideration by the Board. In order to facilitate the Board's review process the final date for submittal of such data is midnight, March 1969. The city is proposing a six million dollar city hall and police facility complex and a two million dollar library. rWe are specifically interested in your experience with public building design. We are utilizing the AIA procedures for the ' "Comparative Selection" method. Mail data to: Huntington Beach Design Review Board % City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ' P.C. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 ' Very truly s, ' Kenneth A. Reynolds, Planning Director 5 82LBOTION OF AN ARMITECT ' TMING The following is a schedule of events lea3dia� to selection of an architect to provift services to the City of Huntington Beach by the Design Review Board. March 12: Approval of schedule, Review of letter to firms Larch 26: Distribution of new or additional materials received as a result of the solicitory letter. Discussion of criteria and elimination of firms the Board does not wish to consider flier. ' April 9: Selection of not more than ten firms with which the Board will conduct interviews. Establishment of interview ' date, hours, and order. Discussions of projects which the Board will analyze throw .field trips and setting of aai specific date for such a trip. ' Prior to the May 14 meeting: Conduction of interviews and field trip. ' Pfty 14: Discussion of three firmer which. the Board will recommend to the City Council and a joint meeting with the Library Board concerning the architect for the city library. Maq 28: Final recommendation of architects for the city hall and police facility. Recommendation on architects for the Central City Library to be made jointly with the Library Board. �6Ce�S�Y�C.��w.3'c3 Y.'. �"c.S:Ytf �r.�-�'r'+•.d f.d.Y�rs`e4 b °h�-S-�Ay�S��,� ' t W sigXTJ ��pp{��qq�i t py�gq � t (#w' r �p + y�.q�� y �XR .uy a "a�ON,Max �74::�.lC'�a iy 0 V e4R sa�.F.�Q,1-TgvxrJF 1f��.Y..4ug,lYa UOTIVI. �AxM P•F'trur"o-r-"L ' �^�,��e��q, '� �i•�rCd&'end g o���u�,°,.i•�R t -Eva maque �uv uouumof . gig IS t ' UeOT009 � . f. yp�7�rmggy q��yp4�00�Fygp/� S veaq4vT 4 ,I 1 1 6 Firms to vftom l.etttrs were sent, no new response being; roceived, and the last date of .letter or material submittal . Voorb.ei.s - TrindlO & Nelson 1/69 (letter ova ' William JBIurock and Partners 2/69 Tom and Truskier (in association V69 ' ri-th Adrian Wilson Aseociates) ` Bad; ak lan No r/68 (letter only Rubaau - Evans & Ste ?/68 ' Hol.l edV, E ett 4 and Horn 3/67 Mason Kuntz & Assooiates 5/66 ' Vill son and Williams 11/65 Wi l .ian j. Morau Coo 4/64 ' Engineering Service Corp., date unknovm Ra 1 Pb Stone and Oo a , Inc. 9t „ ' Quiaton Insera Ltd. ,t ► ' No response to ;3nlici.itor7 let ter: t Wi Lli&u Pereira and Associates HvSh Gibbs and Donald Gibbs JCnes and Emmon 1 Ti.omas and Rioirardson Architects 1 1 -2- ' ARCi.ITEC'IURAL FIRIAS REVIEW Or" 3 j27/69 Anthony and Langford ' Victor Gruen Associates Welton Becket Associates ' Charles Luckmatn OBsociates Burke, Sober, Nicolais & .Archuleta ' Robert Clements & Associates Daniel , Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall ' Robert Alexander and Associate8 Killingsworth Brady and Associates Sistaer 1'riFht & Wright ' Neptune and Thomas Associates Richard .and Dion Neutra Architects & Associates Parkes, gcnsler & Parker - Architects & Engineers John B. Parkin and Associates ' Ramberg and Lowrey George Vernon RuSBell and Associates ' Schwager Henderson and Associates (in asoociati.on with Willard T. Jordan) Frank L. Mope and Associates ' Pacific Architects and Engineers Thomas J. Russell ' Mackinen Ti nsaPar:o DuBourdieu Davis Burrown Allen Associates Wilde q Wilcox &- Yeo JEllerbroek, Sotelos, Fox and Associates Varner - Beideman Kurt Meyer & Associates Leason E. Pomeroy III - Architect r `d'oorhsis - ni7indle & Nelson W-Illiam Blurock and. Pazrti,,ars Tom and Truskier (in association with Adrian !Wilson Associates) Barmaki,an - :5ormi-n Ruhsau -- Evms & Steinmann 8 ' DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO BE IIdTERVIENED 1 . Gruen Associates, 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Los. Angeles, ' California, 90048 (21 3) 937-4270 Ki Sub Park 2. Welton Becket and Associates, 10000 Santa-Monica Boulevard, V)s Angeles, California, 90025 (213) 274-7431 William A. Feathers ' 3 , Charles Lgckman Associatear 9220 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90069 (213) CR4-7755 John R. Campbell 1 4. Burke, Kober, flicolain g Archuleta 2601 Wilshire Boulevard, los Angeles, California, 90057 (2131 386-7534 Minton Frost ' .5. Killingsworth, Brady and Associates, 3a33 Long Beach Boulevard, .Long Beach, California, 90807 (213) 427-7939 Donald .DeJerf ' 636-7436 6. Jahn B. Parkin Associates, 1601 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California, 90067 (213) 879-1977 Lloyd Laity - -- -- 1 7. Ramberg and Lowrey, 2127 North Rain Street, Santa Ana, California, (714 ) 547-6131 Robert Lowrey or Donald Ramberg S. Aurt Royer and Associates, 1.32 S. Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90004 (213) 381-3865 Kurt Meyer ' 9. Tom .and Truskier, 16897 Algonquin Street, auite ,A, Huntington Beech, California, 92647 (714 ) 846-0671 hichard Tom and Adrian Nilson Associates, 621 S. Westmoreland Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90005 (213) 386-7070 M. Lee Higley 10. Ruhnau, Evans & Steinmann, 4200 Orange, Riverside, California, (714) 684-4664 Arthur Krause 11 . Varner-Beide,man, 524 S. Rosemead Blvd. , Pasadena, (213) 681-2441 Ken Beideman or Marion J. Varner 1 . i APrU lla 1969 II I Dear ' ftle letter Is to confirm the date and how of YOW ia$erwiew with the 01ty m s Deems Reftew Dom. ese ' inter iewe wM lead to a reconmendation to the City Council of three flxsm to be oonsidered to supply architectural services for a now city hall and police fsolllty* As per war telephone conversation the i - terview wM be on A=12 o 19699 at In the AdzWstraldve Amwx Duadinsat- 523 man stmet, amtington Deam . 2he interview will be of a two hour duration am elating of a thirty mute presentation by yow tim and a One ' to one zA a hour question and answer period® 2he Board will be interested In your °s wphll"opt"v ex® pea-ienoe and potential in fte design of public buildingso Any questions comes the Interarlem should be diree ed to Michael W. Brotem e, Secretary to the D9@14gn Resew Board in the City Planalng Depertaentg (714) 1.0 551v ' out. 248. Very truly yourev ' � �-* Njohael Wm ftatesuLftle ' Assistant Mauer ' 10 I I 1 1 E�c�ntl � T):.o City of Emat old like to fir ®ur into; �t do®®1® p:10 o Yom;r 91ft UW awafaw Ganside"d by the Dl,\14P Review Board In their Oompamftve 1081 i p-mosiv® to ®o fl=s ftey-wished to IntervIew relor to maMtig a fInal recomendetion to the Olty ' Cowell* Udw was a Tex7 dIffloult tank due to fte ' Your r1= mm not am of those selected for intervIews, but tie city vM pUea yaw f1m on our referenss 11et with regard tc any faswe dav®lopsent by the city. If ' you desire the. retm= of my material submittedg, plows ocatuat the PkamIng Deparftmt office prior to the end � of April,, ' MMmk you for help the of S®® a ®®1®oti MCce®a of 1h or&i Der a you for the ti and erest takem by yaw lime Ted truly YMM g a . Michael We 2witamwkle Design Rmdew Board Beer ,a. 1 � Alprix 119 1969 ' MM8 111chael t 1eq ftelge lmdew Board Secretary VJSTWT: Selection of arohitects for civic. cantor and police faaili ' At the roVAar Des4p Review Board ao@tUW of April 9,0 ton arcUteatural firms were selected for interview xith a ' vossibi.lity on one additional g1ra boins added (Tamer- ldeman material to be reviewed April 6)a the tea P irms ' are as follow@ with no earAasis an ordor8 Grwn Aasociate® ?Belton Booket Associates gillingsworthq Brady and As fates Jobn Bo Parkin Associates borrg and LovmW Meyer end Associates er (in association with Adrian 'Filson mates) Charlos Lvokwn Associates ' Dufteg Zaber, Wicolals eta Ruhnaug Ivans and Stelunann o Board Intends to hold its first intervieve Saturdayl, ' April 19,p aid be fluished the fa2loving weekoad® The luterview will consist of a thIrty aimate nresentatioa by the arabiteaftral tim followed by a one to one and one-hm1f hour question an4 answer flerlod. 2he interview will center on the rime philasoobyd their oxner lence and potential In the development of paablia buildings. After am plating the intervie $ the Bea ear Board will take field trips to nles of nublio b�ai dwNloyments by those f1me In ftuthern ftlifolvialb i t Ate. 1.60 1969 ARCUTWIMUL PM RIMOMOMUTION The rollowing firm shall be Inta i !by tea Review boa rd is order to i�iU1 fto t k o� a�ca aa�i� to Afty Cowell tie firm for their consideratioa � provide architectural ®ems ees In oomootlon wIth a jum city hall and police faOility. WINo.e®A2111 si�e•oe�.4 a 9 A.K. -m 11 A.Y. Charles Luddman Associates I P.M. - 3 P.m. Welton fteket and Aeeo®i.atom 300 P.Y. - 5130 P.M. Ltd Mayor and Associates SvmdSZs April 20 1 P.M. - 3 P.M. Victor Green Associates 300 P.M* ® 5830 P.M. Jobn Parkla Associates ' WondW. April 21 v_ 700 30 P.Y. - 900 30 P.Y. KIIIIAgeworths, Draaa dy and AssoolaUs Prldgy.m April 25 , aws+senom®mwm as.soes �o 7130 P®Y. - 9230 P.Y. Tam and Tmaklerg Adrian Wilson Asso latse Saturday April 26 9 A.Y. - 11 A.Y. eke 9 Kober, Nloolaaaale and Archuleta 1 P.Y. - 3 P.Y. Rubn=9 Rvans and Steinman 3830 P.Y. - 5830 P.m* Ramberg md Lowrey Sunday. ALKi2 27 ' 1 P.M.- 3 P.M. Varner and Beideman All meet 11 be held in the Administrative Annex at 523 Pai nwsre:etiv Huntington Beach* 1 13 Hentingtnn Beach Planning Commission . P.O. SOX !N CALIFORNIA W46 ' The 'Iuntin ton Beach Design Review Board has completed g � P interviewing of architectural firms being considered to ' pro,vjide services for a new city hall and police facility. Aft E.r careful evaluation and analysis of the brochures and interview results, • the Board has selected four firms that ' wi:Jl be recommended to the City Council for final architect selection. I am ploased to inform you that your firm has bean selected as one of those to be forwarded to the City Ccun.cil. The names of the firms selected will be officially transmitted to the Council at one of their regular meetings e .ther the first or ;.hind week in June. ' 'L'he Design Review Board is now irx the process of preparing the written statement and reco endatior:.s in connection with this selection process. This will be available in final ' form by the end of M-Ay. The timing schedule and interview dates, times, and length have not been established for the City Council at this. time. Ve twill maintain cs ;%A,se contact with your firm to give ade uate notification of further ' I)rocedura.l requirements. 2f you have arm questions or P:esire further information contact Michael. W. B-ctemarkle, ,ecretary to the De€_ig:k Review Board in the City Planning ' iepartment, (i14) 5,16--6551, ext. 248. Congratulations on teing selected. ' Very truly yours, Michael W. Brotemarkle Secretary to the Design Review Board. WB/bd 14 H IA olESHuntington BeachPI81110 Commission ' P.O. SOX too CALIFORNIA � 1 The Huntington Beach Design Review Board has completed inter- viewing of architectural firms being considered to provide services for a new city hall and police facility. After careful evaluation- and analysis* of the brochures and interview results, the Board has selected four firms that will be ' recommended to the City Council for final architect selection. Although your firm was not selected as- one of those to be forwarded to the City Council, we must state that all the ' firms interviewed showed excellent qualifications and will defiTLitely be considered for future city projects. We would like to thank each firm and their representatives ' for t;°heir contribution to this selection process. The Design Review Board was aided in this very difficult task by the high level of involvement ann participation displayed by all ' the firms interviewed. if you desire the return of any material submitted for the Board's review, please contact us at the City planning Department office prior to the end of 1 May. Once again., thank you for your time and interest in this proiect. ' Leery truly yours, k � Michael W. Brotemarkle Secretary to the Design Review Board MWB1bd 1 THE CITY 4F I- OWINGTON BEACH. b y i is G y T Y:tii.4n• .. Map on File with City Clerk 15 May 19 1969 MEMO TO: Doyle Miller, City Administrator FROM: Michael Brotemarkle, Secretary to the Design Review Board IN RE: Architects to be recommended to the City Council for the city hall and police facility. : 1 j` -- On April 27 the Design Review completed their interviews ' " with eleven ar..hitectural firms. On A-�ril 30 the Board chose four firms which will be recommended to Council. They have not fully determined what rank will be assigned to each firm and intend to prepare a report and recommendation l; fully discussing the selection process, their findings and conclusions, and recommendations. The four firms designated are: Parkin Architects, Engineers, and Planners Kurt Meyer Associates (Honnold and Rex) Charles Luckman Associates I� l� Victor Gruen Associates Ij The Board desires to hold ajoint meeting with the City Council approximately May 14th (their regular meeting) or as soon thereafter as possible to discuss a rough draft of their study and recommendations. 'they request that such a meeting be scheduled at the Councils convenience so that all may attend. The Board would like to officially transmit 1 , their completed retort for one of the regular Council meetings in June. _j LN PUBL/c �P ,c4 4? Huntington Beach Public Facilities Corporation C7 INCONPOAAT[O R, 17371 Gothard Street y NOVEMYEp 7/.I970 "' Huntington Beach, California 92647 iy Dao CQC IF OR01" l September 1, 1976 TO: Floyd G. Belsito - City Administrator FROM: D. W. Kiser - Assistant Secretary - HBPFC SUBJECT: Civic Center Phase III In. response to your request for specific items -comprising that original reference to $300.,000 for. the. Civic Center modification pro dram, I am listing below the various items known' at this time and their preliminary individual estimates. This same list was also ver- bally reported to the PF'C at their meeting of August 25, 1976 , at which time , as you know, any decision on the status of the construction fund monies was tabled pending further review by both. the City Council and the 11PC Board. The items consist of: 1. Seven City Council offices and a Council conference room. Estimated cost: $ 26 ,000.00 2. Relocate Personnel Department to the 5th floor, in- cluding additional space for the newly hired Insur- ance Coordinator, and a small combination interview and testing room. Estimated cost: 34 ,000 . 00 3. Construction of an office for . the As'.sistant .City Ad- ministrator, including relocation of the Budget Team from the 5th floor to the 4th floor. Estimated cost: 4, 000. 00 4 . Construction of approximately five enclosed offices within the Public Works area for noise control, pri- vacy, and more effective division arrangements. 30,000 . 00 5 . Construction of space for the photography and art section of Public Informatioh .in a yet to be deter- mined location for the purpose of freeing two rooms in the basement area. Estimated cost: 8,000 .00 -2- �J+ 6 . Reconstruction of two rooms in the basement now occupied by the above listed photo and art sec- l-J.on lor the purpose oC creatinq a Traffic Con- trol. computer room. Estimated cost: $ 20,000. 00 (Costs of the machines and portions of other nec- essary work to be funded by Federal funds. ) 7. Construction of a separation wall in the Public Works Department basement room for the purpose .of separating the office work area from instru- ment repair and storage area. Estimated cost; 2,000 .00 B. Construction of modifications to the drainage sys- tem at the base of the ramps to the basement area for the purpose of stopping excess rainfall from entering. Estimated cost: 5,000.00 9 . Furnishing and installation of adding entry and exit building security system. Estimated cost: 100,000 .00 10 . Architect and Consultant Fees. Estimated cost: 30,000. 00 11 . Miscellaneous and other contingency items that will probably surface during considerations of the total project: These later items are grant- ed to appear to be a loose end, however all De- partment Heads have yet to make known any modi- fications they wish to be placed into considera- tion. This is immediately obvious by the recent decision to relocate Economic Development to the nth floor. Estimated cost: 41,000.00 $300,000. 00 It should be pointed out that furnishings are not included in the above listing due to having. to be funded by the City. However, this may only include purchasing of furniture for the City Council area. One further item of information acquired at my request should be noted to the Council and that is the survey of ten cities of our relative size, five of which have offices for each Councilmember. I trust this information will be of assistance to you in your memorandum to the Council. Very truly yours, Donald W. Kiser, Assistant Secretary - HBPFC DWK:ajo SURVEY CITIES REPORT ON COUNCIL OFFICES CITY * POPULATION FULL -TIME MAYOR NUNIBER OF COUNCIL NUMBER OF OFFICES Riverside . 150 ,000 yes - 7 including Mayor 7-one for each Santa Ana 179,000 7 ' including Mayor 1 Mayor ' s office l 6 Council share 3 offices Anaheim 196,000 S including Mayor Mayor ' s office Glendale 137 ,000 5 including Mayor Mayor ' s office Torrance 134,000 7 including Mayor Mayor ' s office 6 Council offices .Lakewood 84 ,000 .5 including Mayor Mayor ' s office 4 Council offices Garden Grove 123 ,000 - S including Mayor No offices. Pasadena 113,000 7 including Mayor Mayor ' s office 1 office (uses City Manager ' s offices San Bernardino 108 ,000 yes 7 including Mayor Mayor ' s office 6 Council offices Inglewood 90 , 000 yes S including yavor Mayor ' s office 4 Council offices * Not exact - rounded off figure e, r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76-26 LJJJ0 LAjCOUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Members Subject RESOLUTION NO. 4204 Date March 9 , 1976 FEES $ DEPOSITS FOR USE OF MEETING ROOMS Attached is a copy of Resolution No . 4204 setting fees and deposits for the use of meeting rooms in the Civic Center for private rental when not in use for public purposes . The deposit will be applied toward any extra clean-up costs or damage which may occur. The responsible person renting the room must agree to indemnify the City against damage to any fragile , special equipment or furnishings. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No . 4204 setting fees and deposits for use of Civic Center meeting rooms. Respectfully submitted, '00a�- 'O� ecr.�P��� David D. Rowlands.. City Administrator DDR/JC :p Attachment ,C WHITE,-CITY ATTORNEY �� 4•J BLUE-CITY CLERK - CITY' OF HUNTWGiUN BEACH' No. GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department • v 2/•5/'76 Administration m INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at' which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance.In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request=of,Couneil-Aciibn=Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to CiG Administrator's Office. ,. J Preparation.bf an Ordinance o Resolution is hereby request x ' ":P.leaee Prepare a resolution establishing the attached rates . `,cor :pity ;Ha11 meeting room rentals: a d acS� 1 y V. - - - - - - - _4 A 'Desired effective date 'Signed:- = Approved as,t' availability of funds•'`° 2/17%76 *• Director of Finance S City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by:--.. City Administrator M E M 0 R A N D U M TO : Honorable Mayor and City Council �''•�•.. � 6 t�- FROM: Doyle Miller, City Administrator y i DATE : October 1 , 1970 SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER PROJECT LIMITS AND FINANCIAL PLAN The Administrative Action Committee has attempted to provide phasing alternatives for portions of the administration and development buildings , the council chamber and police facility, as well as on-site and off-site improvements . Discussion has centered upon five year deferment (phasing) of these elements of the project as opposed to higher costs inherent in later construction and funding . Police representatives presented substantial justification as to increased operational costs should the detention facilities be deleted, i . e . , man hours required for investigation and transport , etc. , should Orange County facilities be used. The figures used by the Police Department in presenting their case amounted to a cost of $1 ,866 , 000 for the years 1973 to 1980 . . Priorities presented in the final analysis included those listed in the Meyer Project Records 21 and 22 with the following receiving unanimous agreement from the committee : Amount of Reduction 1 . Defer Mansion Avenue and 17th Street realignment . (This defers land- scaping and parking in this area. ) $ 70 , 000 2 . Defer landscaping and parking . (Triangular area sough of detention facility. ) 40 , 000 3 . Defer one-half of development wing 481 , 000 4 . Defer 3rd floor of police building 336 , 000 S . Modification of detention facility. (Value $900 , 000 . ) 79 , 500 6 . Build 5th floor administrative tower, but omit finishes . 130 , 000 G- 2 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 1 , 1970 Page 2 Amount of Reduction 7 . Reduction in off-site improvements $ 246, 000 8 . Reduction in furnishings and fixtures 75 , 000 Total amount of reductions $ 1 ,457 , 500 The bonding proposal of ll . 5 million dollars is apportioned 8 . 5 million for the civic- center complex and 3 million dollars for the central library, anticipating that library operational items would be phased.. EVALUATION The Committee has considered the following alternative proposals : 1 . Adopt the 11 . 5 million dollar project limit as enumerated above and construct deferred items as required when increased revenue is available . 2 . Construct the full complex without any deferments . Include the fire stations and corporation yard within the non-profit corporation bonding for an approximate total of 15 million dollars . Funds currently ear- marked for use on a pay-as-you-go basis for fire stations and the corporation yard would be used to defray the increased bond costs until projected future revenue will cover the full cost of bond interest and redemption. RECOMMENDATION The Administrator recommends the Council adopt Alternate No . 1 limiting the city hall and police complex to 8 . 5 million dollars and the library to 3 million dollars with the fire stations and city yard to be built now and paid for in cash. This recommendation above is predicated on an estimated construction cost increase of 6 per cent per year and 7 per cent increase in financing cost which must be considered in Alternate No . 2 . It is felt that the Alternate No . 1 approach is the more economical of the two alternatives and affords the city greater flexibility within our present cash flow. r Doy1 Miller Cit Administrator DM:bwo !CF AME�p� �•�/���'� J. A. WNEIL COMPANY, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORB 3115 WEST MISSION ROAD ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803 AREA CODE 213 283-3756 February 15, 1967 City of Huntington Beach 6th and Orange Streets Huntington Beach, California Attention : Paul C. Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen : We understand that you are preparing drawings for the Municipal Library Building in Huntington Beach. By this letter we request that this firm be considered for your prospective bidder list for this project and for future work out of your office . We are able to provide bid bonds when required. The J. A. McNeil Company, Inc. has been well represented in the construction industry for over 20 years. Over these years we have been able to maintain a staff that is well equipped to handle a project efficiently from its inception to completion. Our background is quite diversified in that our scope of work includes commercial , industrial and institutional facilities. Below is a brief list of work in progress or recently completed: Humanities Building, Mount St. Mary's College, Los Angeles Corvallis High School Auditorium, Studio City Marymount- College, Palos Verdes Mount St. Mary's College Downtown Campus, Los Angeles Glendale Federal Savings & Loan, Glendale Chaix & Johnson, Brandow & Johnston Office Building, Los Angeles f any further information is required for prequa l i f i cation, please do not hesitate to call . We shall anticipate hearing from you . Yours very truly, J. A . McNEIL COMPANY, INC. Robert L. Thurber RLT:hjo February 27, 1967 J A. McNeil Company, Inc 3115 West Mission Road Alhambra, California 91803 Attnetion Robert L. Thurber Gentlemen In reply to your letter of February 15 concerning a proposed municipal library building in Huntington Beach, please be advised that, as of this date, no authorization for such building has been made lie do not know where D your firm obtained its information, but in any case it appears to be extremely premature The City has engaged a firm of Financial Consul- tants to assist in making a survey of the City's needs for Capital Improvements, particularly from a bonding standpoint No determination has been made at this time regarding which items or departments may be affected by such study At such time as somgthing concrete has been established in regard to the foregoing, we will be happy to notify your firm Sincerely yours, Paul C Jones City Clerk PCJ/st Enc 770 SEVUENTEEN7H nrs:f:F' r.. 0 BOX 7, SiU�dY2�tG;%Jai OFLAC •1 . CAi IFOWAA J2646 C. WALMER RJrMiCT liU?'[Y21NTEb}Q8^;'f �= P i NFS"i . UE 7Y FUN. ROUSER DIRV-1OR 4F C- OUCULUM September 20 , 1905 Members of the City Council Civic Center- Huntington Beech , Califdrnia . RC . Sc1, : Uy;;;nas i urn 3u i 1 di.n,t Gentlemen : , During th6 past two years the School District and the City have informally beer working toward the aay --,hen : t might be feasible for the City Recreation Department' `— _--Vp over the operation and maintenance of the Schooi Gymnasiun ;_.ai1ding . The school District has been r•pera£ ing -under the assumption that when. this District went on . a "State Aid" program due to square footage lim•itaiion per stu,cent , the District could no longer justify this type of facility ; therefore ; Fveryone had the desire to see that this building was maintained for the benefit o , .the .taxpayers +rho paid for it. At the rec'en*. Legislative session , the CegjslatIure made car- twin changes in the "Field Act" (Education Code Secs . 15531 - 15516 ) . Basically the Chan es were•; ( 1 ) , making "It manditory to have pre- 1933 ( Field Ac,t� buildings inspected by a licensed structural engineer to see if the 6,; ildin s in question did meet the. State minimum requirements , ?2 ) . . if the buildings did not meet these minimum requirements, the School Trustees then assumed a personal liability if any person was injured as a result of the cbntinued occupancy of such build- ing . A special meeting was held on September 14 , to consider the Pre- Field Act Buildings . After. a _long discussion ty the Dis- trict Architect , Structural Engineer , Representative of the County Counsel ' s office and a Representative of the State School House Planning Department , the Board Members voted unanimously to abandon these buildings as they do no: meet the Field Att regiiirements and are therefore , conskdered to be unsafe . Thedistrict architect , M.r. Arthur Frick , has tentatively estimated the rehabili.tat6dn of the Gymnasium Building to be , at the very minimum , $75 ,000 ,- or approximately $4 .•00 per square foot . o s Members of the City Council Page 2 . Septemb'er - 20,' 1966 We quote :firom Opinion ho. •65j324 , dated Ray 4 , 1966, page 59' paragraph 2 , from the Office of the Attorney General : "When a public 'entity is liable for 'an injury •caused by a dangerous condition , a public employee is- also lia4le for injury caused by a dangerous dondition if . the employee had the actual authority and it was his responsibility to take adequate measures 'to protect against the dangerous condition . at the expense of the public entity and the funds and the other mxans 'for doing s-o were immediately available to him. / Gov. ' Code 840 . 2 ( b) . " In light of the foregoing information , would the City be interested in working out an Arrangement whereby the .City would take over the .Gymnasium Building ? The School District would only be interested in disposing of the building , not the land. The City would have to. bear all of the costs of maintenapce, ' repairs and./or rehabilitation of the building . The City would have to assume' all liability involved in the operation of the Building and hold the School District free of any potential liability . Sincerely , ' District Superintendent , Secretary , Board of Trustees SAM: nd Encl : County Counsel Opinion Office/Attorney General Opinion' . Legitlative Counsel Opinion Estiaated Space Requirements (Total of all Administrative Depts.) Offices (Space required) 180 sq. ft. Administrator • 12► x 15► . • . Ass►t. Administrator . . . . . . 101 x 12' e . e • . . • . • 120 0 '► Noyor aid Gounai.lswa . • . . • . . e 10►x 121 . . . . . • . 120 « CityClerk . • . . . . . . . . 10' x 12► 9 . . e • . • • 120 a » • City Treasurer & 0 . . • . • e • . l0' x 12' . . . e . . 120 a « Finance Officer . . . . . . • . • . 101 x 121 . . e . • . . . 120 a 6 Personnel Officer . . . . . . . . . 10► x 12' • . e . . e o . . 120 » « #aultst City Clerk . 12► x 16► . • • • . • . . . 192 " a City Treasurer 12► x 16► . . . . . . o . 192 » » City General (Storage v Records) a 15' x 20► e . . . 0 . . e . 300 • w Conference Root General a i�� 151 x 201 . . . • . e • . 300 « Departaental a 12' x 14' • e e . . . . 168 a » Lobby Telephone operator) e . . . . . . 10► x 121 . . . . . . . . . 120 « « (Ceitadl cashier ) (mail handl.im ) Accounting Machine Room . . . . . . • 12' x 16► • • a 9 • . 192 " « Ordinance Code Section Storage Roots . 15' x 20, 0 0 . . . 300 • '► Duplicating & Reproduction Roan . . 22 ' x 20► . . . 240 a '^ 2904 a s Spacae requirements — other personals Adiiiintrator 4 x 75' • 300 sq. ft. Finance 12 x 75' 9w a » Clark b x 75' 3000 " » Treasurer 2 x 75' • • • • o • • • • 150 " it Purchasing 4 x 75' 300 it « Personnel 2 x 75' a o a 150 « « Duplicating and reproduction 2 . . x= Telephone and Information 1 • o • xx: 31 Clerks 2100 sq. ft. Grand Total area required (estimated) 5000 sq. ft. 1 February 27, 1963 MHO To: Doyle Miller Administrativo Officer Brander Caste, Purchasing Agent ./Paul Jones, City Clem Betty Dickoff, Treasurer Howard Robadoux, Police Chief Jim Meeler, Director of Public Works Jack Cleveland, Superintendent of Building Jerry Plunkett: City Attorney FROM: V. C. Harner, Planning Director The Manning Department is making a comprehensive study of Civic Center needs for the city and your help is needed. 1 tie are still in the process of gathering data and basic information as to your future needs is essential. Will you work out your best guesstimation on your future personnel needs, space needs, etc. based on a city of 30 square miles in area and two population figures of 1005000 and 250,000? This could apply to your personnel and space weeds in a city hall, parking spaces for city vehicles and employee parking storage space for records and supplies, space for the pubic, sppace for equipment (IBM, teletype, etc.) etc. , etc. In otiior cords, how many square feet will be needed for efficient ope rat ion of your department when we reach the size and population indicated above? This project has top riority and I could appreciate your reply in the next tee or so. C (I � r Q � q oil A MESSAGE ON THE STATE OF THE CITY by Donald D.. Shipley, Mayor r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, , CALIFORNIA October 1, 1964 This message and these recommendations are given in the spirit of what may be best for the City of Huntington Beach in its future development. None of the comments or suggestions are intended to imply criticism of the City or of any individuals who have, in the past, been involved in the development of Huntington Beach. There comes a time, however, when in the life of a city or an individual, certain things must be done . The City of Huntington Beach is now at this crossroad. This city now encompasses some 26 square miles and eventually will probably be over 30 square miles in area. In the last ten years the population has gone from 7, 000 or 8, 000 to some 65, 000 as of today. It is estimated that the population next year will. approach 80, 000, and by 1970, a possible 148, 000 . There is no reason not to believe that ultimately the population of this city will reach one quarter of a million. The pattern of growth in this city and many other areas of Southern California is not what we would call, in the historic sense, a "normal" growth. We do not have the decades or several centuries which many of the cities in this country have had. We must set our course and get under way to accomplish many necessary things in a period of a few years. Growth and population increase we have had. . .the number of building permits are almost of an astronomical nature, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these are not the only things that must concern us. As citizens of this community we must appreciate the fact that it is a single city and we should not think of our- selves as being inhabitants of "downtown" Huntington Beach, or "Goldenwest, " or "Westmont, " or any other specific locale. For we are one city and we must have a single aim and purpose and work together. 1 t s One of the critical needs of this city is the physical plant of the city government itself. We desperately need a new civic center, regardless of its eventual location. The temporary construction of municipal facilities on the floor of Memorial Hall is by no means a solution to our municipal housing problem. Such temporary, .make- shift steps are of no more practical value to us than the Moscow Subway. The Police Department especially needs new facilities. An enlarged police facility in the old city hall, again, is only a stop-gap measure. It is ridiculous that we should have to continue any longer to convey prisoners about the city to obtain their meals. The Municipal Court situation is a serious one. The old, downtown area of Huntington Beach is still, and will prob- ably continue to be the most valuable section or area of this city. . All that is needed there is the erection of new buildings with adequate parking and business establishments that would cater to the traffic and trade now in this area, and the depressed situation would become a thing of the past immediately. . The problem in the old section of the city is not the problem of the angle of parking, but rather, where can one park in an adjustment to new conditions. New and old cities in this country are all faced today with the problem of badly depressed shopping centers within their corporate limits. It is a trend of the times which we must accept and remedy. We possibly have in the City of Huntington Beach at the present time, some 40, 000 young people. The Recreation Department and its program for these future citizens must be stepped up greatly. .. It is obvious that a capital improvement program for this city is essential at this time. The Planning Commission is now making a study of our capital needs. It is logical that in the immediate future an outside agency should also be involved in the study of the capital needs of the city to help us make wise decisions to determine the right course of action. The Fourth of. July Parade, the Christmas Parade, and the recent United States Surfing Championship have done much to bring this city to the attention of the people in this State and elsewhere. We must be in a position to bring other worthy things to their attention and to the attention of our own residents; for example: Certain historic landmarks, specifically the Newland ranch house. 2 The newspapers have been most cooperative in giving their assist= ance in an effort to preserve this building on its present site which would be most desirable, or possibly moving it elsewhere, should this become necessary. I have had only three communications expressing an interest in this situation; a telephone call, a post- card and a letter . One of these per&Qns was a resident of another city. This city, the Mayor, and the City Council and all department heads and municipal employees are working to do all they can to make this a better city. I have been greatly impressed by the caliber and cooperation of the employees of Huntington Beach as I have gotten to know them better during the last five months. During this period, the City Council has authorized or given backing to proposals and actions such as the following: 1. The reactivation of the City Charter Revision Committee. (In addition to the original members of this committee, four members of the associated homeowner groups and also a representative from the Junior Chamber of Commerce will be added to the Committee. ) . 2 . Authorized the placing on the ballot for this fall ' s general election, two local items : A. For the people of Huntington Beach to decide if the Police Chief should be an appointed or an elected official. B. For the people of Huntington Beach to decide if the City Attorney should be an appointed or an elected official. 3. A study has been made :by the Planning Commission, Planning Department and other concerned city officials of condominium requirements and associated problems. 4. A meeting with the Planning Commission, Planning Depart- ment, and Public. Works Department, to consider the capital improvement program of the city, zoning, private streets, recommended alignment. for the Huntington Beach and Pacific Coast Freeways. 5 . The enforcement of ordinances to clean up the oil rig cluttered areas of the older portion of the city. 3 6. The passage of ordinances requiring minimum garage space and set backs for buildings. 7 . . Authorizing the City Administrator to proceed with all due speed to complete details of a transaction for presentation to the State Lands Commission which will make possible the annexation of the Bolsa Chica State Beach Park and the Huntington Beach State Park to the City of Huntington Beach. 8. Continue the purchase of city park sites with accumulated lot fees paid by subdividers. 9 . Authorizing the construction of city offices and temporary Council chambers in the Memorial Hall building. 10 . Sanction and increase the city' s participation in the United States Surfing Championship. (Does any- one doubt the good will and publicity that will accrue to the city from the recent surfing event held here?) ll. Continued cooperation with the City of Newport Beach and other cities in opposing the Coast Freeway route. 12 . Appointment of a new Police Chief after the holding of State Personnel Board examinations. 13 . Authorized the State Personnel Board to conduct an examination to fill the vacant position of City Planning Director. 14 . Completion and dedication of a new fire station. is . Completion and dedication of a new lifeguard headquarters, second to none. 16. Authorized the establishment of a pistol and rifle range for the use of the Police Department and other interested parties. 17 . Authorized a very successful Junior Lifeguard program. 4 In order to help speed the future growth and development of our city in the most orderly and efficient manner, I recommend to the Council the consideration of the following items: (From time to time these items will be presented to the City Council in a more specific form. ) 1. Authorize a study by an outside agency selected by the City Council to advise the Council on the capital needs of this city for the next ten years, specifically in areas concerned with a new Civic Center site and its buildings, and the purchase and development of much needed park land for our rapidly expanding population. 2 . The authorization by the City Council of the establish- ment of a Recreation and Parks Commission and a Recreation and Parks Department so the development of the park and recreation program will have a specific body concerned with its development and implementation. 3. The establishment .of a Cultural Commission in the City of Huntington.' Beach, to be made up of citizens representing the arts and sciences. 4. A stepped up program for the Recreation Department, specifically the following items: A. A new and modern Recreation Department Center in the north-central section of Huntington Beach. B. An expanded recreational program for senior citizens. 5 . The creation of a large park in the north-central part of Huntington Beach and another large park on the east side of the city. 6. The activation of a Municipal Parking Assessment District in downtown Huntington Beach to help the merchants solve one of their most pressing problems. 7 . The establishment of a city tree farm on land offered for use by the Orange County Sanitation District. 5 8. . Retention of those areas now zoned for industry. Additional light industry and research laboratories are bound to move into our city as the freeways are completed within our corporate limits. 9. Do all possible to encourage the location in this city of a nuclear powered generating plant which would convert salt water to fresh water. Such a plant, managed by private capital, would be a great tax revenue source for the city. Such plants are a part of the world in which we now live and do not constitute a hazard to the public safety, nor is there a problem of air polution from such a facility. 10. Recommend that the Charter Revision Committee seriously consider the election of the Mayor directly by the people. . 11. Enlarge the membership of the City Council to seven members, each member elected to represent the district in which he resides. 12. Continue to fight to keep a coastal freeway out of this city and off our beaches. 13. Do all we can to have new municipal courts located in this city and such other facilities as a new central post office and other state and federal buildings on a new civic center site. 14. Enact ordinances controlling the number and types of oil drilling islands that may be erected on our coast so that the beauty of our shoreline will not be further impaired. 15 . Continue to closely watch, and consider carefully, the effect on our beach that may result from the construc- tion of any proposed offshore breakwater or harbor jetties . 16. Diligently pursue the annexation of the Huntington Beach. State Park and the Bolsa Chica Beach State Park to this city. 17 . Approve an ordinance that would forbid the use of firearms in this city except by special permit and for specific purposes. 6 18. Consider the passage of an ordinance that would require that elevated utilities be placed under- ground in future developments. The cost of this method is now approaching that of overhead construction. 19. Take an official stand as soon as possible on a recommended location in this city of the so-called E "Huntington Beach" Freeway. 20. Urge the State Division of Beaches and Parks to establish a parking area north of the highway be- hind Bolsa Chica State Beach Park. Overhead foot bridges should be constructed from such parking lots to the beach. This is an unbelievably dangerous area and should be eliminated before more people are killed and injured. 21: .. Additional overhead foot bridges need to be built over the Coast Highway in downtown Huntington Beach, and also in the resort area developing near the ocean in the eastern part of the city. We cannot wait forever for the State Highway Division to decide what it is going to do. 22 . The City of Huntington Beach should not participate in any so called "Orange County" or "Southern California" World° s Fair unless the financial arrangements are air tight. No city should be obligated to assume the possible debt of such a fair if it should not prosper financially. The City of Long Beach, with all its oil revenue and four years of trying to develop such a fair, have dropped out of the negotiations. It is not logical that we in Orange County should take up where they left off. This city has too many local needs to warrant assuming the risk of a financial loss in this proposed fair . 23. Establish a new Civic Center where, over a period of years, such buildings as the following might be located: A. City Hall B. A new Central Library C. Police Department D. Community Recreation and Cultural Buildings 7 E. County Buildings F. Court House G. Post Office and other Federal buildings 24. Implement the planting of trees in the old, downtown area of Huntington Beach and in many newly developed sections of the city. We must start planting trees and no longer discuss the philosophy. 25 . Commence the beautification of city beaches. 26. Complete the development of Brunswick Park. This is the only land ever given to the city by a sub- divider in lieu of park fees. 27 . Start the development and beautification of the central 'strip on Main Street which has been deeded to the city by the Huntington Beach Company for beautification purposes. This project should start in front of the Five Points Shopping Center and continue over a period of years till completed. 28. Urge Orange County to establish a County Regional Park .in the area of the artillery bunkers on the Bolsa Chica Gun Club property. 29 . The City Council should authorize, late this winter or next spring, a special election to make a .decision on the following items: A. A general capital obligation bond issue for the purchase and development of park sites and a civic center . B. A vote by the people to determine the location of the civic center, either; (1) in the downtown area of Huntington Beach, or (2) in the geographical and future population center of the city. 8 C. Enlargement of the City Council to seven members and the creation of seven councilmanic districts. D. Such other measures as the Council might authorize or that might be placed on the ballot. by petition. 30. The publication by the city of an annual report so that interested citizens can be better informed concerning their city government. The above mentioned suggestions and recommendations may seem a large order, however, we must keep in mind that our city, to attain its true stature must accomplish in a few years what most cities have been able to implement over a period of decades or even centuries. As mentioned earlier, these proposals will be presented to the Council from time to time, in more specific form. These recommend- ations are not designed to eliminate the position of any municipal employee, or to take over or terminate any existing department. The time has now come when the City of Huntington Beach must in- vest in its future. All these things cannot be completed in a month or a year, but over a period of years they can and must be accomplished. We must, figuratively speaking, forget the paste and look to the future . Now is the time to start. We can no longer delay or procrastinate. The future development and potential of this city can no longer be held back by indecision and failure to act. Those of us now living in this city have the opportunity to set the course and direction for our community for years to come. It is a rare opportunity that will not come again. We must not cast aside this challenge . We can build one of the finest cities in the United States. Together, all citizens and interests in this city must cooperate and pull together so that we may move forward in the years ahead. Most Americans now live in cities and the pr-oper development of those cities is one of the major concerns of our time. The late President Kennedy once said that one of the great obligations we now face is to create beautiful and well balanced cities. The city and citizens of Huntington Beach now have the opportunity to build such a city. Let it not be said of us that we did not have the vision -to act. Your Mayor and your City Council solicit the support of our fellow citizens so that we may accomplish many of the things that will make our city truly great. 9 A w ���SINGTpH Huntington Beach Planning Commission �= P. O. Box 100 u• � p z'rR' 2 City Hall Huntington Beach, California COUNTY cps' December 2, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall Huntington Beach., California Re: Civic Center Location Gentlemen: Herewith. is a copy of Planning Commission Resolution recommending relocation of the Huntington Beach. Civic Center. The Planning Commission carefully considered the many facets involved in the need for a civic center, expansion of the present site and relocation to a new site. The matter has been fully explored after lengthy discussion at two Commission meetings. On November 26, 1963, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution citing six reasons for the need of a new civic center and 22 reasons favoring its relocation to a site within one mile of the geographic center of the City. The Commission further recommends that you reach. a decision on the civic center location as soon as possible and then proceed promptly on the selection of a specific site, its acquisition and construction. The Commission also wishes to advise you that their recommendation is based on the best information available and suggests that the Council may wish. to have an independent study made on the costs involved of expanding the present site. Sincerely, W. C. Warner, A.I .P. Planning Director and Secretary WCW: lb Encl: Resolution Huntington Beach, California, November 299 1963. The Honorable Robert M. Lambert, Mayor and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. Gentlemen: As a committee appointed by the Downtown Businessmen's Association of Huntington Beach at their meeting of November 279 19639 we, on their behalf, are .requesting your thoughtful and further consideration con- cerning the location of the Civic Center for our City. The Association feels that a complete and unbiased investigation should be made with a view toward retaining the Civic Center at its present lo- cation. We are a beach city and even greater growth and progress will continue in the already well established downtown area. All of us are vitally interested in the City of Huntington Beach rebuild- ing and developing its Civic Center where it now stands. It is recommend- ed that every consideration be given to all the merits of retaining the center at its present location before any action is taken. Respectfully yours, Warren L._Wak6:ti'eldt/Chairmhn Thomas Van Talbert, Member W. D. "J O'Brien, Member .�5! '-n: _ THE CITY OF I- UNTINGTON BEACH . c Map on File ® m