Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Newport Center Park"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" .XIZ1101 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 17 March 27, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney (949) 644 -3131 or rclauson @city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS DECISION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007 TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARK, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION ISSUE: Should the City Council rescind its decision to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the project back to the Park, Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) for reconsideration? If desired, rescind the City Council's decision of February 27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 including the City Council's decision to: (1) proceed with the preparation of plans and. specifications for the bid package for Phase !; (2) approve construction of the park per the approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; (3) accept the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park; (4) approve, in concept, the amendment of the Fiscal Year 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and (5) direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. DISCUSSION: On February 27, 2007, the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to develop Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Copies of the staff report and meeting minutes from the February 27, 2007 meeting are attached hereto. Newport Center Park March 27, 2007 Page 2 Just prior to the February 27, 2007 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp received an inquiry whether Park, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Deborah Allen had a possible conflict of interest. City GIS staff prepared a map showing that Commissioner Allen's residence was located 375 feet from the Newport Center Park. Mr. Harp informed Commissioner Allen of this in the morning of February 27, 2007. Mr. Harp was present at the Council meeting on February 27"' in my place as I was out of state on bereavement leave. When I returned, I looked into the impacts a potential conflict of interest would have on actions already taken by the City Council and the PB &R Commission and determined that an alleged violation of the Political Reform Act could subject the PB &R Commission and City Council actions and decisions related to the park's design and development to a legal challenge. Specifically, the Political Reform Act (PRA) provides that an official may not make a decision, participate in the making of a decision or in any way attempt to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he /she knows or has reason to know he/she has a financial interest. The prohibition from using the official's position to influence a governmental decision, according to a publication by the Attorney General, "was intended to ensure that public officials do not act indirectly to affect their private economic interests by utilizing their official status or activities. It specifically includes attempting to affect any decision within the official's own agency or any agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency". Conflicts of Interest, Office of the Attorney General, page 22. When a decision involves another's real property located within a 500 foot radius of an official's real property, the official's real property is presumed to be directly involved in the decision. Real property directly involved in a decision is presumed to be a material financial effect on the official unless the decision will have no financial effect, "not even a penny." Unless the official establishes by a reasonable, objective method that there is no financial impact on their real property interest they are expected by the regulations to step down and not participate in the decision, or use their position to influence another body of the same agency in making a decision. 1 have provided the above regulations to inform the Council and the public of the basic provisions of the PRA and regulations that apply. Given the potential conflict of interest, the February 27, 2007 and/or decisions and recommendations of the PB &R Commission could be subject to legal challenge by a resident under the Political Reform Act. Environmental Review: This is not a project under CEQA. Newport Center Park March 27, 2007 Page 3 Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Prepared & Submitted by: Robin Clauson, City Attorney Attachments: February 27, 2007 Staff Report (Agenda Item No. 23) February 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes (Agenda Item No. 23) • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 23 February 27, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum 949-W-331 1 or sbadum @cky.newport- beach.ca.us Office of the City Manager Homer L. Bludau 949-644 -3000 or hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK ISSUE: •Should the City Council proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 or should the Council maintain the Newport Center Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a fine decision on a City Hall location? TION: 1) Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase 1 of the Newport Center Park, (See Selich items for proposed action) and determine whether a soccer field will be a component of the park plan or 2) Take no action on park development until such time as the City Council determines a final location for City Hall. DISCUSSION: Park Development History: The concept of having a park in the general vicinity of what is now the Central Library site has its origins as early as 1990, when a 4 -acre park was publicly discussed. Since 2000, the most recent park concept envisioned a parking area behind the Library, passive park area just to the north of this parking lot with low water ornamental landscaping, turf, a small amphitheater area, and a. very modest native vegetation refurbishment at the north end of the site adjacent to San Miguel Newport Center Park February 27. 2007 Page 2 Drive. A cost estimate was prepared in November 2004 based on preliminary drawings t with costs estimated at $1.1 million. Since that time, various amenities have been added to the design concept including an enhanced circular arbor area, landscaping enhancements along the perimeter of the park on Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, and an enhanced vegetation area was proposed for the north area of the park. In September 2006, a new construction phasing was proposed. The proposed revised phasing was based on a sketch and follow -up conversations with Councilmember Ed Selich and an unnamed donor. The first phase (Phase 1) would construct the passive park area (including the Circular Arbor area and landscaping edge treatment along Avocado Avenue) in the center of the site. Two new elements would be added to Phase 1: • a 30 -space, on -site parking lot with access near the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive, and • an extension of the park area to the south to the existing top of slope. This portion of the park would be sacrificed when grading for the library parking lot (Phase 2) commenced. The second phase (Phase 2), would construct the parking lot behind the library as well as the stairway and ADA ramp to the circular arbor structure. Grading for the parking lot would demolish about 65,000 square feet of park constructed under Phase 1. The third phase (Phase 3), would construct the enhanced vegetation area and adjacent landscaping edge treatment as originally proposed in November 2005. In September 2006, a revised cost estimate was prepared to address the current design concept. A conceptual plan with proposed phases and a detailed cost estimate is attached for more information. Phase 1, Passive Park Central Area $1,420,000 Phase 2, Library Parking Lot $1,569,000 Phase 3. North Park Area $ 764,000 Total estimated cost = $3,753,000 Approximately $200,000 is currently budgeted for the final design and preparation of Plans, Specification and bid documents. Additionally, an unidentified donor has committed to providing the City $600,000 towards the park construction in exchange for naming rights. All work on this project is currently suspended and awaiting direction from City Council as to the park funding priorities regarding this park, Sunset Ridge Park and Marina Park. At the February 13, 2007 meeting, Councilmember Webb requested that staff investigate the possibly of adding an active soccer field element into the park. The addition of a soccer field would require the following: r L Newport Center Park February 27, 2007 Page 3 1) Additional grading would be required to provide a level playing field that would be recessed in an effort to provide natural barriers and separate it from the adjacent roadways. 2) A small restroom will be needed because of the extended presence of event participants versus the short term passive use. 3) A larger parking lot (from 30 to 60 spaces) will be required to accommodate event participants and the changeover/ overlap of successive games. The additional cost to add an active element to the park is estimated at $476,000. The attached exhibits show one potential configuration for a soccer field. Recent Avocado Site Park Planning History June 2, 2001 — City Council appropriates $35,000 to develop conceptual plan for site, referring project to PB &R. November 6, 2001 — PB &R approves/recommends following components to park site: No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or natural looking material Park not to be a "destination" park where groups meet for all day events, such as picnics, reunions, etc. Natural look, but user friendly Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential night lighting Security lighting — only what is required for safety Develop parking options for 25, 50 and 100 parking spaces Develop two concepts — one with more turf, one with less turf Consideration for environmentally sensitive areas Benches, no picnic tables Small amphitheater /outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people Landscaping should consider flowers/trees, location and size for view protection Drinking fountains Garden -like area 2001 — PB &R does extensive public outreach meetings seeking and obtaining input on what elements the park should contain. January, 2002 — City Council/PB &R joint meeting discussion of park priorities; Back Bay View Park was determined to be first priority, with Newport Village (Center) second • priority. Newport Center Park February 27.2007 Page 4 May 14, 2002 — Study session update from staff on park site. Council directed staff to develop site plans, take it to PB &R for recommendation, and bring back for Council review. May 17, 2003 — In budget review, Public Works Director proposes Newport Center Park conceptual design budget CIP project of $120,000. CIP approved with budget adoption in June. February 10, 2004 — Joint CounciVPB &R meeting, discussion of park sites June 22, 2004 — Council approves $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to begin Newport Center conceptual park plans. November 16, 2004 — Preliminary concept plan for park approved by PB &R January 25, 2005 — Concept plan presented at Study Session, with favorable response from Council. Council accepts citizen group offer to raise $1M of estimated $1.2M needed (estimate already one year old). June 2005 — Volunteer fund raising committee meets 15 times from February through June to develop fundraising plan; when potential donor surfaces, plan is put on hold. June 2005 — Potential donor contacts City staff. After preliminary meetings, donor ' states his desire to donate $1.2M needed for project. June 14, 2005 — Council names park site "Newport Center Park" and expresses interest in donor obtaining naming right to the park. June - August, 2005 — Councilmember Selich, staff and Hall & Foreman staff meet with prospective donor to discuss concept and plans. September 27, 2005 — Council approves contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for $158,500 to complete park design plans. December 13, 2005 — City Council forms City Hall Site Review Committee, votes to exclude the Newport Village site from Committee considerations. May 23, 2006 — City Hall Site Review Committee reports findings to Council July 25, 2006 — Bill Ficker gives proposal for City Hall at Newport Center Park site; Council reaffirms previous vote to exclude park site from consideration. September, 2006 — New three -part phasing plan for park proposed by Councilmember Selich; latest park development estimate of all three phases is $3,753,000 (without soccer field). Newport Center Park February 27, 2007 Page 6 • February 13, 2007 — Councilmember Selich asks staff to place Newport Center Park authorization on agenda for appropriation authorization to proceed with development; Councilmember Webb asked that staff include the option of a soccer field component. Councilmember Selich asked the following actions be presented to City Council for their determination: 1. Approval of construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first. 2. Acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be available. 3. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids. 4. Direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. ZONING DESIGNATION The site is currently zoned as "Planned Community" in our General Plan. This • designation's permitted uses are limited to open space, including a public park. City projects must be consistent with the General Plan. Submitted by: • + s� omer L. Bludau City Manager City of Newport Beach . City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 direct the City Clerk to record the Resolution with the Orange County Recorder. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner L. PIIBLI_C. COMMENTS Charles Griffin proposed that the property located at the northeast corner of Campus and Bristol North would be a suitable location for City Hall and that the property could probably be acquired through eminent domain. O. CQNTINVFJR BUSINESS 23. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK 1100 88471. Mayor Rosansky.explained the procedures that would be followed for this agenda item. City Attorney Aaron Harp responded to Bernie Svalstad's point of order concern and Council Member Webb's response that discussion about where City Hall should be located was not the focus of tonight's discussion. City Manager Bludau stated that the issue regarding tonight's public hearing item is whether the City Council should proceed with the design and eventual construction of the Newport Center Park Phase I or, whether Council should maintain the Newport Center Park site as an option for a City Hall location 'until such time as Council makes a firm decision on a City Hall location. He provided a PowerPoint presentation in concert with staffs report that provided a detailed history of the park site planning and included maps, diagrams and a cast summary of the proposed project. Public Works Director Badum spoke about how the concept and design has progressed and changed over time and how the estimated cost has increased from $1.2 million about a year ago to over $3 million today. Mayor Rosansky recalled that the cost was $1.4 million at the time the donor brought forth his offer of $1.2 million to complete the park and that the City would contribute $200,000 toward' completion. Council Member Daigle wanted to know if the donor requested additional improvements for the $600,000 donation, and if so, the value of the enhancements and how they have affected the overall budget. Public Works Director Badum moved forward with his presentation to show the costs of improvements and indicated that the original concept did not have a parking lot. The difference between the northern area and the revised design for the passive park account for the difference in estimated costs of enhancements. Public Works Director Badum confirmed to Council Member Daigle that the additional $600,000 donation is offset by the design enhancemente. Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he was involved in proposing the enhancements as a direct result of input and that the donor was not entirely responsible for the enhancement cost increases. The original cost was not based on a set of plans. Mayor Rosansky stated that although the original estimate was not based on a set of plans Council took its action based on the original estimate. Volume 58 - Page 60 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27,2007 Public Works Director Badum agreed with Council Member Webb that there could be a cost savings if the City were to move forward with the entire project rather than phasing the project and that the second phase would result in removal of a large amount of landscape material. In response to Mayor Rosansky, Public Works Director Badum responded that late last year and again at the February meeting Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested the proposal be brought back as a phased project. Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the details of the donation have not been worked out with the donor but believed that. he expected his contribution would be based upon the completion of Phase I within a reasonable period of time. One of the action items on the agenda this evening is to consummate the agreement. Council Member Webb recalled that the agreement would allow naming rights so that the concept under the CIP budget was a $1.7 million contribution for a total project cost of $1.9 million with the City contributing about $ 200,000. According to current estimates the $600,000 additional contribution would require the City to contribute 85 percent. Mayor Pro Tem Selich concurred with Council Member Henn that the fundraising would not be limited and further stated that the idea for naming rights was to allow other major contributors to have naming rights as well, although he was not aware of any at this time. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan indicated to Mayor Rosansky that he had been with the City for four months and had visited about 40 of its 64 parks. Approximately two - thirds of the acreage is passive and the demand for park programs is very strong. The City is always trying to enlarge the inventory and there are other needs that could be met, especially for youth. The City owes approximately $3 million on Sunset Ridge Park. The potential development design consists of an overlay of two baseball fields and two soccer fields with estimated construction costs of $6 to $7 million, which is not currently budgeted for. He felt the athletic organizations would welcome a discussion about additional active park space. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded to Council Member Daigle that he would assume the General Plan was responsive to and in line with community needs and desires. Prior to tonight's meeting he reviewed the Recreation Element and felt it was very fair and he would keep the Sunset Ridge Park and Newport Center Park m the first priority positions because there are approximately 6000 kids that need to be accommodated during each season. He indicated that generally cities do not have enough park space. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the current General Plan designation for the site is Open Space and would require a vote of the people to change the designation. She stated that the City's standard is to provide 5 acres of parks and open space for every 1000 residents. Currently there are 10.9 acres needed for Area 9 and there are currently 19 acres available. The West Newport area requires 64.7 acres and the active park acreage plus the beach area totals 43.1 acres, leaving a deficit of 21 acres, exclusive of Sunset Ridge Park. I lrary Director Katsouleas reported that the library parking problems are legendary and when the building was originally designed it was intended to be part of a complex that included a museum that would provide additional shared parking. Programs are limited due to lack of parking and they lose out on programs because of it. Volume 58 - Page 61 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Council Member Webb said he was concerned with whether the Council should look at funding a passive park outside of what was authorized in the CIP. He displayed a photo array of the park inventory and pointed out the views from many of the existing parks. He felt that the City's money should not be used for passive parks when there was such a dire need for active parks and he could not support moving forward with a passive park north of the library. Council Member Gardner said this site was deeded in perpetuity as open space. Three different City Councils have turned away proposals for this site and she felt the City should stand by its promise to the residents. Bernie Svalstad supported the park because the public voted to approve the park and not the soccer field. His committee spent a lot of time fundraising and he felt that in spite of the fact that half of the value of the donation had been lost there would be sufficient donations to complete the project. Allan Beek said the site designated as open space would be a good place for a park and a very poor place for a city hall. Tom Collister urged Council to not approve the site for a park site because it is a high traffic area with safety concerns that would render it inconsistent with the surrounding commercial area. Larry Tucker said he is here to promote good decision making and urged the Council to not make a decision tonight and further explore finding the best possible location for city hall. He said he believed the Park Plus plan was innovative. Tom Moulson felt the Council had a moral obligation to support recommendation #1. Shirley Conger supported a passive park above the library and believed the city hall should be developed nearby on a different site. BJ Johnson said that the Corona del Mar Residents Association voted in favor of the park and felt the City Council should move forward with Phase I tonight. She encouraged the City to place Council Member Webb's park presentation on Channel 3 to encourage park usage. Greg Sullivan supported a park and felt traffic generated by a City Hall on the site would Promote safety concerns and result in additional taxes to the residents. Jim Robertson thanked Mayor Rosansky for his Park Plus Plan about the most logical site for city hall and acknowledged that an earlier Council may have adversely acted to preclude city hall from this site. He urged Council to vote no and to consider other options for the site based on the best interest of the City and its residents. Ron Hendrickson felt the Council should postpone this decision and move forward to consider the site as the new city hall location. Barry Allen said that 61 individuals signed a petition this evening in favor of saving the park and felt the Council should move forward with Mayor Pro Tem Selich's proposal. Wendy Brooks felt the Park Plus proposal was the perfect solution for the site. Don Udall supported the park and felt the City should keep its word. Norm Witt supported the Park Plus concept as a win -win solution and urged Council to take Volume 58 - Page 62 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 no action on the park development tonight. Joe Garrett supported the park and supported the Park Plus program as a win -win solution that would provide a crown jewel -for the community. Scott Calder said he supported the Park Plus proposal and could not understand why when a better idea was presented the Council would not give it fill consideration. Mary Barrett Blake asked Council Members to open their minds, listen to the residents and support the Park Plus Program because it would create an incredible community center site. Novelle Hendrickson supported the Park Plus program and took exception with portions of staffs report because there was never a public hearing on the matter during regularly scheduled City Council meetings. Val Skoro encouraged approval of Phase I and pursuit of the OCTA as a site for city hall. Gladys Wolcott said this Council voted for a park and asked Council Members to keep their word and build the park. Debbie Stephens said this site has always been designated as a park site,and the Council should move forward and build the park. Dick Marowitz offered his full support to the Park Plus program that he believed made fiscal sense. He urged the City Council not to take a vote on this issue until full study of a city hall and park was completed. Hugh Logan urged the City Council to vote yes on Phase I. Jack Croul felt the site was not suitable for a park but that it would work well for a city hall and the site could include a 9 -acre park. Dan Guggenheim supported the Park Plus proposal and encouraged everyone to consider the possibility that the City could have both a new city hall and park because it would fulfill the needs of past and present Councils and provide value to all residents of Newport Beach. Craig.Batley urged the Council to delay making a decision, study the matter and continue the debate. Gene O'Rourke felt the issue before the City Council was that it should wait four months to make a decision about whether the site should include a city hall and park. Marcia Dossey supported the shared use plan proposed through the Park Plus program and asked the City Council to vote no on tonight's proposal. Richard Cabin was opposed to considering a city hall on the site and urged Council to vote yes and proceed with Phase I. Larry Porter said the City Council should proceed with construction of the park. John Moftakhar felt a municipality should be flexible in its decision- making process and believed it would be cost prohibitive to hold a special election for a city hall at the site. Jo Vandervort encouraged the Council to delay its decision and not be pushed into making a decision at this time. Mike Johnson said he was in favor of moving the current city hall site and liked the concept Volume 8g - Page 68 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 of efficiency of economies proposed via the Park Plus program. John Heffernan said he was part of the Council who voted in 2005 to remove this site from consideration for City Hall and he now realizes he made the wrong decision. He spoke in support of a mixed -use option with the park and city hall at the location and urged the Council to study it further. Leonard Lane asked Council to keep its commitment and move forward with the park. James Turner supported the Park Plus program. Barbara Birney felt everyone could be satisfied with a mixed -use of the site. Bob Shelton believed it was never a mistake to take time to consider all options. The most important promise would be to withhold a vote until all sides were fully vetted and considered. Debra Allen said she supported speakers who asked the Council to keep their promise to build a park and the problem with a mixed -use proposal was that the city hall would take a big chunk out of the middle of the grassy area. Dr. Jan Vandereloot, speaking on behalf of SPON, said this site was designated open space and limited to park use and therefore the City Council should keep the public trust and develop the park. Dr. Jack Skinner believed that the proposed dual use has merit and should not be so quickly dismissed this evening. Helen McGruder said the City Council has a duty to serve the entire community. The Council should take no action until it commits to a final location for a city hall. Nancy Skinner said she would not support a plan to override a promised park unless a far superior plan were proposed and she would like the opportunity to review a full proposal for a mixed -use on the site and urged Council to postpone its decision for four months. John Connelly felt it was reasonable, practical and responsible for the Council to consider all options and to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents. Christine Carr felt the Council should move forward with the park. Steve Brahs, member of the Site Selection Committee, said he felt there was no better site for a city hall and a vote for Phase I would prohibit further consideration of a city hall on the site. Tim Brown said he strongly supported a passive park on the site and believed it was a clear recommendation of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. Bill Ficker presented 250 signatures in support of asking the City Council not to proceed with the park design and construction until the city hall issue is resolved. He indicated that his plan includes having a park and city hall on the site and an urban park on the current city hall site. Charles Griffin wanted the City Council to move froward with Phase I and said the obvious location for city hall was the airport industrial area. Laura McCant said a good architect could design the site to accommodate a city hall and a Volume 58 - Page 64 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 park and that it was fiscally responsible to build a city hall at that location Mayor Pro Tem Selich said after listening carefully he came to the conclusion that the easy way was to continue the matter and the right way to handle this situation was to move forward with the park. He said one of his first tasks when he joined the City Council was to build this park and said there are plenty of options in Newport Center for City Hall. Motion by.blayor Pro Tem Selich to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase I of the Newport Center Park as follows: 1) approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; 2) acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be available; 3) conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and 4) direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. Mayor Pro Tem Selich clarified that his motion did not include the consideration for a soccer field. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan noted that neighborhood residents and library patrons would most likely utilize the passive park and the amenities would dictate the types of uses. Mayor Rosansky said he has not seen a conceptual plan, therefore it would be difficult to vote on the issue. Access would include a 234 -foot switchback ramp that would climb 30 to 40 feet from the library to the top of the hill. Council Member Webb said that a large area of manicured grass would require a great deal of maintenance. He asked if a soccer field was located in the area would there be more use and Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded that there could be four teams at the same time during practice days and a soccer field would draw more individuals than a passive park use. Public Works Director Badum reminded Council that the conceptual enhanced plan was shown during staffs report and that about 70 percent of the plan was complete. Public Works Director Badum responded that the direction to staff was to include benches and not picnic tables, no lighting, more turf and parking spaces to accommodate the library. Public Works Director Badum explained that phasing was an idea that was brought up late in the game and that there was no construction plans for phasing. In response to questions about redesigning the park, Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he believed the commitment the Council made previously was in accordance with the proposed conceptual plan. Council Member Webb said the reason the Council is taking time to consider this proposal is because this is a passive park that would require a substantial amount of money that could be used to construct active parks. He felt the Council should be very concerned about the coat benefit ratio of a passive use that is by definition not a destination park and for the Council to approve Phase 1 it might be wasting considerable capital. $..0 ituto motion by Council Member Webb to take no action on park development until such time as the City Council commits to a final location for a new city hall. Volume 58 - Page 65 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2007 Council Member Daigle said she recognized the passion and commitment by park proponents, however given the uncertainty about the cost and phasing as well as competing Priorities, she recommended this matter be tabled until June when the Council could look at its budget for the ensuing year. Council Member Curry spoke in opposition to the substitute motion and said that during his campaign he clearly stated his position that he would support the park. He said he was disappointed with the leadership tonight because the community has been needlessly divided. It comes down to whether the Council would support the park and put the City Hall at another location. This is a matter of trust going back to 1990 and he is committed to having a park at this site. Council Member Henn said he read and considered every email and felt it was his mandate to consider all issues and input throughout the evening. He stated that it is too early to conclude what is the best location for City Hall since it is a complex issue that deserves a great deal of consideration. No matter where it goes the cost is likely to be $50 million or more. He rejected the notion that people who live near Newport Center Park are somehow acting in a selfish and narrow manner and their views are to be discounted and said that anyone who lives in or near any project that involves intensive land use are entitled to express their views. After viewing the parks with Council Member Webb it was clear that at least half were not often visited and "bang for the buck" is not the decision rule. He spoke of integrity and stated that the Council needs to act with integrity over time and the first point is that this site has been envisioned as a passive park for 15 years or more. The second commitment is that the City just completed and endured a hard fought election and the voters approved a General Plan for the first time in 25, years. The General Plan included a vision for open space and parks and was a balanced plan that should only be changed for the highest standard. He indicated he would vote for the original motion and against the substitute motion. Mayor Rosansky explained that his questioning of staff was an attempt to elicit information that has not been before the public Although he had previously voted to keep City Hall in its current location, after reviewing his actions he was willing to correct them if they were not appropriate at the time. The General Plan says that the City has a surplus of passive Parks and if the Council is to consider its limited resources it should look at economies of scale. He spoke of the Council's fiscal responsibilities. He indicated that he is a proponent of parks and a proponent of a park in this location and nothing has been said tonight about not building a park at this sits. Thousands of residents use the Library on a regular basis and according to the director there is a huge need for additional parking. He reiterated who the basic users of the park would be and noted that there is no direct connection between the proposed park and the library except a long upward winding ramp or staircase. In reference to the time it has taken to build this park, he noted that the land was dedicated in 1992 and if there was such a great need for this park it would have been built 10 years ago and people would not be asking to put City Hall, senior apartments, etc. on the land. Mayor Rosensky said he is Cluurman of the Building Committee and the committee has looked at many sites and the bottom line is that none of those sites panned out Referencing past promises and the commitment to keep them, he noted that on May 27, 2003 and again on February 8, 2006, the City Council voted 6.1 to keep City:Hall at its current location. He explained that the City Council is not keeping that promise because there is new information that has indicated there might be a better location for City Hall. He felt the only promise was that there would be nothing else on the sits. The site review committee looked at more than 20 sites and most people feel that the site in question is the best site for City Hall- However, it is incumbent upon this Council to not move forward with funding of this park tonight when there is a clear need for use of these funds in other areas of the City. Volume 58 - Page 66 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27,2007 Council Member. Gardner took exception to Mayor Rasanskys characterisation that a positive decision on this matter was "politically expedient." Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing so the parking lot would be built first. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor R,osansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Council Member Gardner The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Council Member Webb, Council Member Gardner Noes: Mayor R.osansky, Council Member Daigle The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 12:10 a m. with all members present. K. PUBLIC HEARING 21. IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF AND BOB HENRY PARK 1100 - 80071. Dr. Jan Vanderaloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees and felt it was perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the homebuilders. Motion by Council Member `Yebb to continue this item. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tom Selich, Mayor Rosanslq, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner M. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY CQUNCIL_ONN CQMMITTF:Ia AfTDMTIES - None N. PLANNING COMMIS.SION.AGENDANDRAL STATUS REPORT 22. PLANNING COMMISSIOTT AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 2_P E007_ f100 -80071 - No oral report provided. P. CURRENT BUSINESS S26. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT; BUDGET AMENDMENT [100- 8007]. Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendation that the City invest in cameras and editing equipment to continue the City's programming efforts. Time - Warner has contributed $400,000; Cox $600,000, and Time - Warner will provide 10 -year ongoing support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year. Volume 58 - Page 67