Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS - Selection Process and List o L4 0 t s Huntington leach Design Review Board and 0 Recreation and Parks Comission ' K n • � C r; 0 LtuNDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S "REPORT AND REC t TION" Interview Cittee Ron Bauer, Recreation and Parks Cormission Tom Cooper, . Recreat.ion and Parks Camimsion Howard Warner, Design Review Board "rank White, Design Review lrc Non-Voting Chairman Dave Wilson, Chairman of the Deeign Review board Staff Toes Severns, Recreation and Parke Department Too. Bushard, Recreation and Parks Department Barbara Debler, Planning Dapartnent Mike Broteaerkle, 'HannIng Mpartment ROport and Rmc6wndation Landscape A=hitects In order to an awe the -City of Ehntington Beach and all its residents that neighborhood and community parks and the Central Park are the very best parks that can currently to achieved and are developed for perpetuity, the following report and recocmudation La submitted for public review. On August 13, 1969, a. joint meeting was held between the City's Recreation and Parks Commission and the Design Review Board. A comittee to interview landscape architec- tural candidates to supply services on the Central Park project and fcr a recommended master list of firms to be utilized on future neighborhood and community park projects was ford at this joint meeting. Thus the interviews would serve a dual purpose for the City. At a meeting of the interview committee ambers on Monday, August 18th, it waa decided that ally twenty-one firms on the list of landscape architects known to be inter- ested and qualified should be interviewed to fulfill the purposes of the interview procedure. Resums and statements of interest had been solicit-ad frda all these firms which were primarily Los Angeles and &arge -County based landscape architects. It was decided to interview these firms from August 21st through August 27th inclusive. The interviews were one hour in length with a fifteen minute break between interviews:, The first twenty minutes of the. interview ®�O were completely at the diegosa.l of the fires to present their capabilities, personnel, philosophy, and so forth. This was followed by a forty minute question and answer perio;l. The interviews were all con&cted on week-day evenings and during the day an the week-end. Of the twenty-one firms contested, only two were unable to attend dace to administrative reorganizations of their firma. Another firm was ad&d to the lint prior to estab- lishing the interviews scheduLb dud to their expression of interest and at the request of the Recreation and Parks staff. No (Arms were considered for addition once: intord views had cc nced. A total of twenty firs were interviewed. All a*mbers of the interview committee and representatives from the s t+if f s of the Recreation and Parks Department and Planning D:partcriatat were in attendance at all of the inter- views. . In t1te process of interviewing, qwationirq, and analyzing the landecaps architects, the following questions and critei-ia wvre utilized extensively. Tl es& included, but were rot limited to: 1. 11he firm°a philosophy on park design. 2 . Potential creativity displayed. 3. Experience with park projects and municipal bodiso. 4. Quality of past projects. 5. Wsearch ability of figs not only with regard to di sign but studies on the wits, needs, and value of potential park users. i 6. Ab4l.ity to work in conju=ti.on with architect ch.ei sera for the central library. f i 7. Capabilities of firm to produce solutions within strict time and budget limitations, size of in- house staff. 8. The closeness of liaison with the City during the entire process. 9. Experience of .firm with HUD projects. 10. Experience with projects involving problems of native water. 11 . Scope of former projects with regard to needs of Huntington Beach's parks. 12. Levels of discipline and follow through displayed. 13. The level of enthusiasm and desire to work with this City. 14. Level of cooperation with clients and amount of repeat work. 15. Reaction to proposed Central Park site or neighbor- hood and cormwnity park sites. 16 . Indication of interest in park projects from other points of view than design such as social needs, population pressures, community values, economics, conservation, etc. 17 . Understanding of park maintenance and policing problems. 18. Would there be any problem if the City reserved to itself final approval of firms consulting with the landscape architect? -3- 19. Experience with designing of park equipment such as playground apparatus. 20. What is the firms record on received bids as com- pared to the budget and what is the spread of bids on the average? 21 . The quality of graphics and preciseness of speci- fications. 22. Was the firm primarily interested in the Central Park, neighborhood and community parks, or both? Were the firm' s capabilities commensurate with their expressed interests? 23. For what reasons, other than monetary, did a firm wish to design parks for HUTItington Beach? The result of the intensive interview process was a deciEion to forward to City Council for final selection two S'.irms for consideration on the Central Park project and ,i proposed master list of five additional firms for neig,-Lborhood and corm.unity parks. Included are accessory reco.-imendat-ions concerning utilization of the master list. -4- il�ond�ti®n 1. Following is the reconmendation of the interview committee of landscape ardhttcctural firms for consider- ation by the City Council to supply services on Central Park. In order of preferance of the interview committee they are: 1. Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams 2. Richard Bigler Associates In unanimously recommending these two firms the following comments were made by the interview committee °9f'ckbo, Dean, Austin, and Williams are leaders in t he field of park development. They have broad experience, scope and an overall picture of parks and recreational problems cn a state and rational as well as a local scale. They cxh:ibi.t excellent research capabilities towards all aspects affecting park developmest. They have performed on a 'sigh level of quality in past projects, are `cell disciplined, work with the total a vitro nt and show a great/ potential for creative design. They are a large firm, sensitive tc the needs of prnvKing required plans sniKin the time limitations. m .�j m "Richard Bider Associatea .demonstrate an emerging firm of outstanding potential with some untried capa- cities. They have wide experience in perk design and development but -are just emergirig into the realm of large scale park projects. They seam very strong. on creative potential and desire to work on the Central ]Park. They have excellent follow through and liaison on their projects. 'Yheri philosophy and view of park development is quite similar to that of Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams." "The primary factors differentiating the two firms could be called technical capabilities. Where Eckbo has proven capability, experience, discipline, and any past projects of a similar scale to ours; the Bigler firm shows the potential but not the reality of such technical quali- fications for the Central Park: project." IY. Following, In alphabetical order, are firms recommended for inclusion on a master list to be utilized for other park projects. Cornell, Bridgers and 'Troller Courtland Paul. and Associates Don Brinkerhoff and Associates Eriksson, Peters axed Thomas lL;nesch and Reynolds -6- Included with this list are certain assmptions which underlie the creation of such a list. 1. The firm not chosen for the Central Park would thereafter be incorporated into the master list. 2. The firm chosen for Central Park would be added to the master list sometime after the pressure of the large project was past. 3. Adoption of this list by the City Council would remove the necessity of returning for approval of these fims for specific park projects. 4. These firms would be utilized for or assigned specific park projects at the discretion of the Recreation and Parks Commission to allow the com- plementing of a park's location or needs with the firm having the proper capabilities or orientation. -7- APPENDICES I. List of land landwApe amhitecta for consideration to supply services to the City of Huntington leach. II. Solicitor► letter sent to firms on list. III. Intorview schedule IV. Letter of confirmation of interview. I Hcf P. BoX 190 Beach Planning Commission CALIFORNIA 5��4� August 21 , 1969 LIST OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR CONSIDERATION TO SUPPLY SERVICES TO THE CITY OF 1 UNTINGTON BEACH Richard A. Engler Hahn, Hoffmann & Schmidt 323 El Paseo 348 W. Sierra Madre Boulevard Laguna f>-ach, California Sierra Madre, California 494-787" 213 355-0703 Don Eriikerhoff Harold Thomas Teague & Asso. 2064 Bush Street 611B E. Glenoaks Boulevard Santa Ana, California Glendale, California 835-()8 :6 213 247-4956 Cornel'_ , Bridgers , & Troller Jean Hamilton & Peter Dil.allo Asso. 5 336 l'ounta in Avenue 2229 E. Lincoln Boulevard Los Angeles , California Anaheim, California 213 469-2145 774-6165 Courtland Paul & Associates Jones & Peterson 359 So. Rosemead Boulevard 218 E. .Broadway Pasadena, Califorrmia Anaheim, California 213 793-7181. 772-3110 Eck' o, Dean, Austin & Williams Lang & Wood 74ZO N. Figueroa 31547 First arcet Lo ; Angeles , California South Laguna Beach, Californiz:. 213 25--9?57 499-3106 Friksson, Peters & Thoms Linesch & Reynolds 696 E. Colorado Boulevard 320 E. Bixby Road Pasadena, Calzforn.ia Long Beach, California 213 795-2008 213 636-2219 William G�-iL M. Purkiss associates 512 2901 Street 733 E. Chapran Avenue New—Fort Beach, California fullerLon, California 675-1717 871-3638 Peterson & Befu 35 S m Raymond Avenue Pasadena, California 213 681-2020 Process Oriented Design 34 Plaza Square Orange, California: 639-5521 Raymond E. Page 168 N. Cannon Drive Beverly Hills, Ca.liforraia 213 878-0498 Recreation Land Planners 5992 Ridgeway Yorba Linda, California 524-3000 Laurence A. Shaf ind The Design Combine 450 No. Beverly Boulevard Suite 204 Beverly Hills, California 213 272-7794 _ %JTN 2301 Campus Drive Irvine, California. 833-2450 I , i uity of Huntingtoneach Pram C. AQ;96 P.O. ®Ott 9S CALIFORNIA 62M wAe�ae G.` 0sti WALL '� i��CaSOaA August 8, 1969 COME�W4 ." A6.%W t11 COM UAYOR evoa;as No Jftx V.V.GaEEw. BRAq �. CABTLZ Alpl07'4ro 7 i T'9Sb�.OARTLBTT A8ee/a:1i,40mT�p OM WdMftY L(SA+UPWAN JSAW A.WATHEY WOOM C.McCRAC►cEN Oft bOUALD R 016PLQV 1 i Gentlemen: The City of Huntington Beach Design Review Board has been requested to suit its reccazwndation comerning landscape architects to supply services for our Central paatk -projecto At the same lime the Board will be considering the estahliohb ment of a master list of a limited mmber of firms which will be utilized to select landscape architects for future uric projects The Board would appreciate receiving as resume of your f irm r s background, projects, and qualifications, so that you may . be justly evaluated for park development projects. The Board has a rather accelerated time s-hadule on this evaluation period and therefore rusts as prompt of a response as possible. Data should be mailed to: Huntington Beach Design Review Board c/o City of Huntington Beach Planning Department pa0, Box 190 Huntington Beachv Caalifomia 92648 I JADUS R. WNteLLEA JWW SQ4.7VIA O,LIN C CLIVffLAFM !tV4199TOO A. RIM"" Ma or •v6L+C ahbal's vOLICa aMlar IWILpLNG ®-WeCYGe oLAAW644)01086vOw FRANK 9 ARGUELLO AAYaAONO PIC MOD VSNCR.N'T 6.1400011t"OU8II WAL lfgm ft i0k,480M NOR" 3'"TIM V.%A01C4 neaaCTOA Fir(( CNIQ7 gG1o0a3aaBawCraeftaeCTa61 Li*ft.Q1 M1&G:Ct6A WaMS&Tla® 6 DAM*SWISewa A statament of your firm°s philosophy and/or reason for interest in baing employdd on Huntington Beach park projects would be appreciated by the Board. The ward will promptly relate the results of their revaluation steady to you as soon as cmpletedd Very truly yours, - Michael. W. Brotenorkle Secretary to the Design Review Board na/j INTERVIEW SCHEDULE OF L4NDSCAPE ARCHITECTS August 21, 1969 THURSDAY, AUGUST 21 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. Jones and Paterson 8:15 9:15 P.M. Lang and Wbod 9:30 -10:30 P.M. William t FRIDAY R AUGUST 22 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. Erickason. Peters and vww 8:15 - 9:15 P.N. Linescch and Raywlds 9:30 - 10:30 P.M. Don Brinkerhoff SATURDAd q AUGUST 3 8;00 - 9:00 A.M. Dick Bigler e:15 - 10:15 A.M. Process Oriented Design 10:30 - 11:30 A.M. Cornell, Bridgers, and filler 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. Peterson and Befu 2:15 - 3:15 P.M. Raymond Page 3:30 - 4030 P.M. H. Purkiss 4+:45 - 5:45 P.M. Recreation Lind Planners NDAY p AUGUS'T 24 2:15 - 3:15 P.M. Harold Thmas Teague and Ave®. 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. Hahn, Hoffumm and Schmidt MONDAY,_ AUGUST 25 �1 A tl :00 " :8:00 P.M. W N 8:15 - 9:15 P.M. Eck. , a Austin, and Willims 9:30 - 10:30 P.M. Court and `Paul �1JESDAY, AUGUST 26 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. Joan Hamilton and Peter Di Lallo Assn. 8:15 - 9:15 P.M. Riga. and Sane Huntington each Planning Commission P.o. BoX 490 CALIFORNIA 926e9 August 19, 1969 Gentlemen: This letter 13. t6 confirm the date and hour of your interview as per our telephone conversation. These interviews will lead to a recommendation concerning landscape architectural firms to supply services for the Central Park project. In addition, these interviews will be the basis for the establishment of a master list of a limited number of firms which will be utilized to select landscape architects for future park projects. The interview will be on August 1969, at > in the Huntington Beach. The interview will be of a one hour duration consisting of a twenty minute presentation by your firm concerning projects, experience, and philosophy (a screen will be available for showing slides) and a forty minute question and answer period. Any questions concerning the interview should be directed to Michael W. Brotemarkle, Secretary to the Design Review Board in the City Planning ' epartment, (714) 536-6551. Very truly yours, Michael W. iirotemarkle Assistant Planner K4B a b d OFFICE MEMORA*M To -uan P. Bonfa, Date August 20, 1969 From Tom Severns, Coordinator, In Re Proposed Architectural/ Parks & Recreational Development Engineering Contract Huntington Central Park Please review and approve .as to form and content. the attached contract and scope of work for the subject park. Th Design Review Board and Recreation and Parks Commission are jointly interviewing twenty-two firms as to their profes- sional capacity this week and next. Two firms will be recom- mended for Council review at the September 15, 1969 regular meeting. With selection of a single firm by September 29th, negotiations for contract price would occur the beginning of October. Your review and approval would be required by October 1, 1969 in order to coincide with the design schedule on page 3 of the proposed scope. Should there be questions as to our draft, we will be most happy to meet with you at your convenience. Copies of the draft have been forwarded to the City Administra- tor and Jim Wheeler, Director of Public Works for their comments and review. T. Severns, Coordinator TS:ar Enclosures HUNT/N of c�. 02 // - A&6 2� Igo 2 440RNV / i ORIGINAL COPY ADDENDUM for Ma '_a He 'MUST BF- �. TO CITY CLEF - _ - �Y C1- LL12i ' I,"-DSCAPE ARCHITECTS "REPORT AND RECaOlENDATION" Huntington Beach Design. Review Board and Recreation and Parks Commission MASTER LIST OF IANDSCAIYE ARCH.rTECTS Following is a brief account of the landscape architects whicb have been placed on the Faster Liat of Landscape Architects as approved by the Huntington Bea,%h City Council on September 15, 1969 Landscape Architects* p f� In order of preference. . . 1. Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams 2 2. Richard Bigler Associates 3 In alphabetical order. . . Cornell ,- Bridgers and Troller 4 Courtland Paul and Associates 5 Don Brinkerhoff and Associates 6 Eriksson, Peters and Thorns 7 Liaesch and Reynolds F! The landscape architect selected to design the .ventral City Park will be placed on the. Faster List ronly after pressure from this project has subsided, wherea.t,, the runner-up will automaticali•y be placed o..z this list. ECKBO, DEAN, AUSTIN AND WI LLI AMS 7440 K. Figueroa Los Angeles, California 213 254-9257 , Interview Date : August 25, 1969 Represented By: Francis Dean Ray Lamb Rod Barrett COST CONTROL: ThP bids come in within 10% of the budget on their proJect.s, and they feel their specification drawings are very clear and precise. WORKING WITH OTHER ARCHITECTS Txiey see no problem L-rorking with Neutra but reel the landscape should be designed before the structure. CITY APPROVAL OF CO.ISUI,TA1`aTS A.ND ENGINEERS There would be no problem in the City appr(- wing their choice of engi:.eers and/or consultants. WORKING 'WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS To arrive at needed and granted facilities wt';hin a park, they would work with City departments, the California Recreational program, study the populated areas, people mkke--up. and would conduct studies or surveys. AREA OF i:q'"CEREST Th,� firm is interested in the Central Park as well as the rieip;11iborhood and community parks. ADDITTONAT L'i Mr. Dean advised the Board that their firm hat been involved in :evpral regional parks recently. 'Prey have seen they selected sire for Central Park and feel Huntington Beads could form an ia,�ntity through their park system, Ray Lwmb would be the project manager, Francis -,can ;could head the pr,.,limirary drawing phase and any critical points. There is mucl- c;mpha: is or_ maintenance. They could have preliminary drawings within thk 150 day time limit. Tr.e firm feels they 1,ave the capabilities to d.e:,ign play equipment. TiV-: firm has made surveys by sending questicnnai:res out to the public but .feel they have better results from wc.rking with communi Ly groups to learn the needed and wanted facilities for a p-3rx. `i ,e firm.' s personnel feel they have made a coma._tment to live in Orange County and want to help the coastal coiac.ies develop. They are concerned with the people in all comMuniti.: 3 as to how they- can develop; th«.refore , are interested in the -fir.tington Beach park program. RICHARD A. BIGLER 323 El Paseo Laguna Beach California 714 444-7878 Interview Date : August 23, 1969 Represented by: , Richard A. Bigler Rudy Woodward COST CONTROL The bids come in very close to budget on their projects. WORKTNG WITH OTHER ARCHITECTS CITY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS WORKING WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS Mr. Bigler advised that he has worked with several municipalities. Mr. Bigirr stated that for the last 4 to 5 years he has been very involved with this Central Park project, trying to make known the reed for a central park, with site selection, etc. AREA OF INTEREST Mr. Bigler advised they aze interested in the Central Park as well as the smaller parks. ADDITIONALLY Mr. Bigler feels that Central Park can be the most unique park in Southern California, and there should be major tree planting for relief from asphalt and paving of neighborhoods surrounding the park. They should think in terms of 80 to 100 years from today when designing this park and should design a park to satisfy everyone including all ages and types of people. They try not to segregate groups of people but rather to blend so all groups are together. They work very closely with the Police Departments with the structures and walkways within a park. The firm could have preliminary drawings of Central Park within the 150 day tim:: limit. Mr. bigler has spent most of his 'lifetime acquiring the special skills r,P ted for good park architecture. He has done several projects involving water, uses infra red photography to study plant life and soil conditions, and can locate plant life and pollution areas under water . He feels an architect should design to the natural contour of th.e land.. CORNELL, BRIDGERS, AND TROLLER 5336 Fountain Avenue Los Angeles, California. 213 469-2145 Interview Date: August 23, 1969 . RepreseLted By: Howard Troller Bill Bridgers COST CO2vTROL The firm recommends development of several parks at one time to be more• economic . They report to be 95% on budget, with a 1 to 5% change order. WORKING WITTY OTI-M ARCHITECTS CITY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS WORKING WIT?1 CITY DEPARTMENTS AREA OF TITTERE:ST They arr- interested in the Central Park as well as tY.� smaller Pas'k� ADDITIONALT Y The firm feels that today is important as we have a ?.;hanged society bur we must also keep in mind needs for the nE:xL 20 to 3c yeas : . They are interested in our park program since they have '[;e it in Southern California most of their lives and hope to have- ari understanding of ghat people in this area want and need. The firm i:� intE.:rested in our park program as recreation planning is thF•ir major interest. %ey Like to work with cl.ier.ts that are movir:g ahead it, this area, and feel they have the background needed. is a staffof 12 to 20 including 4 licensed landscape. arc tP- -. Their experience includes a master plan a1:d study of a :)().`• acre recreation area in Iowa including a r.1it..ur:1l lake. They fF•F•1 f.i nhing has great value in recreation today and they Lave mu:: n emphasis on boatiag, fishing, and lakes. "b!e are recrea ;.lon specialists". They fe ( 1 Ce.:tral :Park should conform to the master plan of the Calitor,.ia Park Plan and also feel quiet passive areas are necessary as well as organized recreational areas. The fire, Las done city side recreational studies wi"h emphasis on school and park land adjoining for maximum use cf land. Wiiea.. designing a park, they consider who is going to use the spark, easy access to the area, and is it attractive. They have used sculpture:; in passive park areas as they feel it is important to fi.ne arts and people together. COURTLAND PAUL AND ASSOCIATES 359 So. Rosemead Boulevard Pasadena, California ' 213 795-7181 Represented by: Courtland Paul Interview Date : August 25, 1969 COST CONTROL Mr. Paul uses the C.C.L.A. fee schedule basically but fees could vary to the complexity of the project. He guaranteed to be within 5% on budget on any public work. WORKING WTTIl OTIIER ARCHITECTS CITY APPROVAL CAP CONSULTANTS A.ND ENGTNEERS Mr. Paul is willing to have the City approve his choice of engineers and/or consultants. WORKING WITII CITY DEPARTMENTS AREA OF 7 N ER S`I' Mr. Pau C .s i-iteres ted in the Central Park as well as the smali �r neigi_:-orhood and community park program. ADDITIONALLY The: firm ' s staff consists of 23 employees, 5 being landscape architects. Mr, Paul feels they could get a broad spectrum by survey for ne _gaborl- ood parks, but a regional park must meet the needs of pe-)pl.e iii -the entire region,. Play equipment is a duplication of Disr yI ur.d ;.,r:d background play equipment, and is a waste of public la..d. 1'e also feels a. cultural center should not be within .the Central Park Uut should be a separate 5 to 10 acres. Mr. Paul has bad. experience designing with water and filtering f o.-r swimming purposes. Ml-. Paul ' s philosophy in park design is .open, free, having no shrubs or ground cover. A park should consist basically of trees ar.d turf. "A return to nature". Parking areas are a waste of 1 and. Mr. Paul status he is interested in our park program as he wants t,.: do park work everywhere for the betterment of people. He feels a park is the one place an architect can provide a tangible £SSet;. DON BRINKERHOFF 2064 Bush Street Santa Ana, California • 714 835-0886 Interview Date: August 22, 1969 Represented By: Don Brinkerhoff Ralph Sherman Lee Newman Keith Novac Chuck Shard - irrigation consultant Dori Roof - Boyle Engineer Consultant (would be the civil engineer) COST CONTROL The firm has their own cost control system and have set up for IBM, however, the IBM system is not in use yet. The firm is very serious about budget, schedules, etc. They do not follow a certain fee schedule but cherge according to what is necessary. WORKING WITH OTHER ARCHITECTS Mr. Brinkerhoff has worked with Neutra and feels he can work with a strong architect. e CITY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS The firm expects the City to review any consultants brought in. WORKING WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS AREA OF -INTEREST The firm is interested in the Central Parke as well as the smaller park program. ADDITIONALLY They advised that North American Rockwell were their principal clerat. They have 8 employees on their staff. Thee have worked with municipalities and on projects which include lake water and pollution problems. Maintenance is seriously considered in the design oa: the park. The firm would like to design for Huntington Beach a:, they feel t'_,is is an opportunity to develop an environment where a great many people can get out and enjoy themselves. They :,re nearby and familiar with local conditions. They like to do gardens. FMISSO$I, PETZRS ARD THOiKS 696 E. Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, California 213 795-2008 Interview Date: August 22, 1969 Represented by: Bob Erikeson David Thoms COST CONTROL: The firm has a cost control system and come within 10% of budget. WORKING WIT?I OTHER ARCHITECTS Have work,:d with Neutra and feel they can work with a strong architect. CITY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS The f.Lrm would expect the City to review any engineers or consultants brought in by their firm. WORKING WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS The firm has worked jointly with schools. AREA OF IPlTERE:ST The .firm is interested 1n Central Park as well as the community and nea.ghborrood park programs ADDITTONALLY The firm master planned the complete Woodland Hills Park, arxi t,zey 4.a•,c desig::ed play equipment as well as small building, beLches., street furniture, etc. , within a park. They feel a park sho,ild be flexible as the needs of the neighborhood change trrouirh the years. The most important part of a park is the park program, which is arrived at through studies and surveys of the people ana their wants and needs. They Are interested in the Huntington Beach park program as they feel Huntington Beach interested and progressive with their parr program and they would like to be a part of it. 0 LINESCH AND R,EYNOLDS 320 E. Bixby Road Long Beach, California .213 636-2239 Interview Date: : August 22, 1969 Represented by: Horace E. (Erase) Reynolds . Chuck Dalk architectural firm merger (Walnut Creek) Bill Cobb associate (would be project manager) COST CONTROL: The firm stresses economics, suggest three parks to be designed at oT.Y time. They have very precise plans, 15% to 20% fluctua- tion on bids. They come within 3% on budget. The firm does not have a fee program, but a fixed fee when the wants are known of the client. WORKING WITH OTHER ARCHITECTS Have worked with Neutra and feel they can work with a strong architect. CITY APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS The firm has no objection to the City reviewing any engineers or consuitants used. WORKING WITH CITY DEPARTMENTS AREA OF INTEREST The film is interested in the Central Park as well as the smaller park :rogram. ADDITIONALLY It was stated they like to use as vandal resistant materials as possibl€�. Bill Cobb wou-1d be working directly with Mr. Reynolds on any project for Hl-mtington Beach. When considering what facilities should be contained within a park , a study should be grade of all the people in the areato find what they aunt, if it is being provided and could trill park handle it. They would do the surveying if statistics were not available. The firm feels a park should be flexible to change with. the neighborhood, Mr. Reynolds stated he is interested in our park program as he lives here and feels the firm has a great deal to offer in the reci_aerition field that has not been supplied.. To Doyle'. Miller Date.' 9-5-69 Brander Castle: Request the following be -placed on. the Council Agenda for September 15, 1969: "Landscape, .Architect Recommendation" S..A. ..Select one .firm .and authorize--.Adminis'-- terms `of proposed agreement and scope, b: Master list of firms for .other park projects &A. 'Approve recommended list for -use over a three year period, subject to revision,on recommendation of Recreation d Parks; 'Commi s s ion. . PLE asE P.Eny TO•-- Signed Ns T0: City Clerk.'. These `.items should be placed. onthe` .' agenda -as requesae , wit sugges-te action. Doyle.. Mi11er. City -Administrator,:';.- es cc Pate Signed; SEND PARTS,I AND 3 WITH CARBONS INT�, 4S 465 PART-3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH.REPLY.... PE 40 - - D R A F T 1 C O N T R A C T 2 — — — FOR 3 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 4 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into day of 5 , by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation 6 of the State of California, a hereinafter referred to .as "CITY", and 7 hereinafter referred to as "ARCHITECT", 8 W I T N E S S E T H: 9 WHEREAS, ARCHITECT is a Landscape Architectural firm, the principal 10 members of which are duly registered under the .laws of the State of California, 11 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED between the parties hereto that: 12 1. ARCHITECT shall prepare and furnish to the CITY complete and ready 13 for use, all necessary studies, preliminary sketches, elevations, estimates, 14 working drawings, and specifications; shall check shop drawings, catalog cuts, 15 material lists as submitted by the construction contractor; shall furnish con- 16 sultation and advice as requested, by the CITY during construction, including 17 supervision and evaluation of specified tests (but not including the day to 18 day supervision of the construction work) and shall furnish all other archi- 19 tectural and engineering services, including without limitations those speci- 20 fied hereinafter and required in connection with the accomplishment of 21 General Development Plan and Construction Drawings and Specifications. , 22 having an estimated construction cost of $1,275,000 , and more specifically 23 set forth in Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Work to be Accomplished", attached 24 hereto and made a part hereof, ARCHITECT agrees to design a facility which 25 can be. constructed within the amount hereinabove set firth. The project design, 26 including landscape outlay and materials, structural, plumbing, electrical, ! 27 heating, ventilation and air conditioning shall conform to all applicable CITY 28 Code. requirements. ARCHITECT shall also conform to the technical instructions i 29 as issued by the Director of Public Works. 30 If, after receipt of competitive bids, it is found that a construction 31 contract cannot be awarded within the aforementioned estimated construction 32 cost, ARCHITECT will, as a part of this Agreementand, at no additional cost . to CITY, perform such re-design, re-estimating, and other services as may, in -1- 3 a` S Gv.X+- 5�..4..�.�a-J41...tit�...1 t_a...._- - .»....•2.?ai...:Yi44-.-.-.snras4!A�./.���ve1Sr...�' S�i',.���.-t..=ty1 ' :� _1_... ... ��.-vi.c_ 'a...�. .. ..'...- - _ .■ �� M 1 the opinion of the Director of Public Works, be required to produce a usable 2 facility within the estimated construction costs. In connection with the 3 foregoing, ARCHITECT shall be obligated to perform such, additional services 4 at no increase in contract price only when CITY has received.competitive bids 5 within six (6) months from .the date of final approval of the plans and 6 specifications. 7 2. All drawings, designs, specifications, and other incidental archi 8 tectural and engineering work or materials furnished hereunder shall be and 9 remain the property of CITY, and may be used by CITY as it may require, . 10 without any additional cost to CITY. 11 3. ARCHITECT shall, if necessary, visit the site and shall. hold such 12 conferences with City representatives, including the City Administrator's 13 Office, City Council, Recreation and Park Department ,(Commission, Planning 14 Commission and take such other reasonable action as may be necessary to 15 obtain the data upon which to develop the design and preliminary sketches 16 showing the contemplated project. 17 4. The preliminary sketches shall include plans, elevations, and sec- 18 tions developed in such detail and with such descriptive specifications as .will 19 clearly indicate the size and character of the entire project, scope of work, 20 and make possible a resonable estimate of the cost. 21 5. Preliminary sketches together with the ARCHITECT'S estimate of the 22 cost of the project shall be submitted 'to the Director of Public Works for 23 approval within 150 calendar days from the date of this Agreement 24 6. ARCHITECT shall change the preliminary sketches for the project to 25 the extent necessary to meet the requirements of CITY and, after approval by 26 the Director of Public Works, ARCHITECT shall furnish necessary prints of the 27 approved preliminary sketches to said Director. `I 28 7. After the preliminary sketches and estimates have been approved by I 29 CITY as indicated thereon by the signature of the Director of Public Works, P 30 ARCHITECT shall proceed with the preparation of complete working drawings and 31 specifications as required by the Director of Public Works in connection with 32 the construction of said project. An original and five (5) copies of .the -2- a -r- i 1 working drawings, specificatons, and estimates shall be delivered to the 2 Director of Public Works within 120 calendar days after CITY approves 3 the preliminary plans and specifications. Working drawings and specifications 4 shall be revised as necessary and as required by said Director. After working 5 drawings and specifications have been approved by CITY, as indicated by the 6 signature thereon of the Director of Public Works, ARCHITECT shall furnish 7 such number of sets of the approved specifications as may be required by the 8 Director of Public Works, but not to exceed twenty (20). 9 8. Upon approval of final plans ARCHITECT shall deliver to the CITY 10 one set of tracings, in such medium and on such materials, as may be required 11 by the Director of Public Works, suitable for blueprinting, showing complete 12 approved construction requirements. Such tracings as. are delivered shall be 13 signed by the Director of Public Works as an indication of approval thereof 14 and shall become and remain the property of CITY. 15 9. ARCHITECT shall perform and provide all necessary architectural and 16 engineering services of every kind in connection with the studies, designs and 17 the preparation of drawings and specifications, but said services shall not, 18 unless otherwise stipulated, include borings, test piles and pits, or super- 19 vision of construction work executed from the drawings and specifications, 20 provided, however that ARCHITECT shall furnish upon request and without addi- 21 tional compensation, such amplifications and explanations and attend such 22 conferences as may, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works be necessary 23 to clarify the intent of the drawings and specifications and shall afford the 24 benefit of his advice on questions that may arise in connection with the 25 construction of the project. 26 10. ARCHITECT shall without additional fee correct or revise the draw- 27 ings and specifications if the Director of Public Works finds that such revi- 28 sion is necessary to correct errors or deficiencies for which ARCHITECT is 29 ' responsible. 30 11. All services to be rendered hereunder shall be subject to the direc- 31 tion and approval of the Director of Public Works. Approval by said Director 32 or CITY of drawings, designs, specifications and other incidental architectural -3- f .m 1 and engineering work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way i 2 relisve ARCHITECT of responsibility for the technical adequacy of the work. 3 12. The cost to CITY for the aforementioned architectural and engineer- 4 ing services shall not exceed the following: 5 (a) For architectural and engineering services, the fee shall be 6 $ 7 (b) As-built drawings,$ Included in (a) 8 (c) Soil 8 Foundation Studies (Reimbursable) $ Photogrammetry d Topographic 9 (d) Other Maps (Reimbursable) $ 10 13. The cost for the work, including the fees and reimbursement items 11 will be billed by ARCHITECT to CITY monthly in proportion to the work accomp- 12 lished and to the extent that the reimburseable items are incurred: .said bills 13 to be submitted to the Director of Public Works for his approval before payment 14 may be authorized by City Finance Director. Such bills will be payable upon 15 receipt and approval, provided that payment of the basic fee shall not exceed 16 the following percentages of the total at the following indicated stages of 17 the work: 18 (a) Preliminary plans and specifications submitted, 25%. 19 .; (b) Final plans and specifications approved, 80%. 20 ' (c) Construction contract awarded, or not more than 180 days 21 after (b), whichever occurs first, 90%. 22 (d) Upon completion of construction, 100%. 23 If this Agreement is terminated by CITY prior to the commencement 24 of construction the fee for architectural and engineering services provided 25 under clause 12 of this Agreement shall be reduced by the sum of $ r 26 and the difference between such reduced fee and the amount previously paid 27 to ARCHITECT will then be due and payable to ARCHITECT. 28 14. ARCHITECT will keep accurate accounting records of time and expendi- 29 tures, which records will be -available for inspection by CITY at reasonable 30 times. 31 15. CITY may, at any time, by written order of the Director of Public 32 Works, make any changes in the services to be performed hereunder. If such -4- a. ]''a-:}: l ku, .% '.3`ut. _,Ei ,..��2�.v'9�f F Y.:.k•T�- _ ,.....! ^'`�!4"-� �tr pia... i6:c r. ..: _ _ ._ .c r, .3.,.o:.,. µ �- -ate . 1 changes cause an increase in the cost of doing the work under this Agreement 2 or in the time required for its performance an adjustment shall be made based 3 on the direct cost to ARCHITECT plus reasonable overhead costs and the contract 4 shall be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim for adjustment under this 5 Article must be made in writing to the Director of Public Works within thirty 6 (30) days from the date the change is ordered; provided, however, said 7 Director, if he determines the facts justify such action, may receive and 8 consider, and adjust any such claim asserted at any time prior to the date of 9 final settlement of the contract. 10 16. Wherever herein the action of the Director of Public Works is 11 required, a representative of said Director, designated in writing, may act 12 on his behalf. 13 17. CITY may cancel this Agreement upon written notice to ARCHITECT 14 and shall thereafter be liable for fees and costs accrued to date of. the 15 receipt of notice by ARCHITECT but not to exceed the maximum set forth in 16 paragraph 13 hereinabove and for no other fees or costs. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to 18 be executed on the date first above written. 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a 20 Municipal Corporation 21 22 By MAYOR 23 ATTEST: 24 25 26 CITY CLERK, Paul C. Jones 2 By 7 "ARCHITECT" _ 28 i 29 30 31 APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE 32 By DON E. BONFA, City Attorney i -5- f D R A.F T 1 SCOPE OF WORK 2 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 3 4 5 I. Cost limitations 6 Cost of ultimate development exclusive of a golf course shall be 7 limited to $1,880,000. Cost of Stage I construction shall be $ limited to $1,275,000. 9 II. Criteria 10 A. General development plan shall conform to the U.S. Department 11 of Housing and Urban Development, Open Space Land Program, 12 Title VII, Housing Act of 1961 as amended. 13 B. General construction features shall conform to requirements 14 of the City Department of Public Works and applicable building 15 codes. 16 III. Scope 17 A. General Land Use Plan 18 1. Land use study. This study will consider park theme and 19 character related to uses described in OS 103, HTJD Project 20 No.0%—V*;including: 21 a. Spatial relationships and grouped activity areas. 22 b. Vehicular access, circulation, parking, pedestrian 23 system. 24 c. Operational planning to accommodate ease of maintenance. 25 2. Recommended engineering solutions, to grading, flood control, 26 utilities, topography incorporation and other problem areas. 1 , . 27 3. Accepted land use and design plans with specifications, j 28 horticultural vocabulary and budget projections. 29 4. Economic analysis with revenue potential. 30 B. Construction Plans and Specifications for work estimated at 31 $1,275,000 will include: 32 1. Layout plan -1- r - ... -.,+_.. ..._}�:- -._ -. ..- ... ..,: __ a�•:..;.,_. emu._•- w...i x!:,� _.r.e:S.. - _..:. -.__ ... 4 1 2. Site clearance plan 2 3. Grading and drainage plan 3 4. Utilities plans and details 4 5. Planting plan and irrigation plan 5 6. Architectural plan and details including hardware and 6 finish schedule 7 7. Specifications 8 8. Cost estimate and time schedules 9 9. Park graphics and street furniture 10 10: Color chart 11 IV. General Information 12 A. Construction will be performed under supervision of the 13 Director of Public Works or his representative. 14 B. Design fee will include the reviews of shop drawings, color 15 coordination, preparation of as-built drawings, and inspection 16 and approval of plant materials. 17 C. General Documents which together with the contract specifications 18 and drawing make up the Contract Documents package include the 19 following: 20 1. Bid documents 21 2. Invitation to Bid 22 3. Instructions to Bidders I 23 4. List of Sub-contractors Form 24 5. Bid Proposal Form 25 6. Contract Documents 26 7. Construction Contract , 27 8. General Conditions 28 9. Special Conditions 29 D. Bidding items It is intended that the basic bid item will 30 provide for the maximum usable facility for the funds available. s 31 In order to insure an award being made within funds available 32 it may be necessary to set up deductive bid items. The number ,1 -2-, .i .L.: .ten ,_.. _.,q .,,_ _...•�,M- �. �._r-.• , ,......T -,_>.o ;..._ .^.t.,;e. t- -"-'•"•. ,',.. -.'�4�- -` b°. 9selm:a a 7 1 1 of bid items will be limited to. a maximum.of four and be so 2 composed that an award on any of the items will provide for 3 a usable facility. 4 V. Surveys - Architects proposal shall include an item for the 5 preparation of a photogrammetric survey at 1" = 200' and 1" = 50' 6 scales for the total park site. Vt. 4 in 8 1. Preliminary land use plan to be submitted on or before 9 Feb. 28, 1970, 10 2. Final land use plan by March 34, 1970. 11 3. Preliminary construction drawings by Aril 30, 1970. 12 4, Final construction drawings by May 30, 1970. 13 14 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I i 26 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 -3- s.