Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1999 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session December 13, 1999 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item No. 11, Amendment to Subdivision Code (Title 19), Council Member Ridgeway questioned why Public Works Director Webb is proposing to hire a consultant when he already wrote an extensive memo explaining the deficiencies with the Code. City Manager Bludau stated that more is needed to be done by someone who is very familiar with State law. Further, that this person will need to meet with Council and the Planning Commission to discuss the existing subdivision ordinance and determine what they want it to say since there are some policy decisions that need to be made. • 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 6.04.090 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (GARBAGE AND REFUSE CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS). General Services Director Niederhaus believed that the current garbage and refuse container requirements affect the efficiency and safety of the refuse workers. He introduced members of the General Services staff and described their qualifications. He reported that this is not a new problem but is one that they have tried to handle through their relationship with the 27,300 customers in the City. He pointed out the refuse collection safety report (Attachment B) and reported that the amendments (Attachments A and C) would reduce the maximum container capacity from 45 to 35 gallons; eliminate metal containers as an approved type, amend the handle design requirement, prohibit containers with attached lids, and establish a 50 pound maximum for trash bags. Mr. Niederhaus explained that the amendment only deals with 7.5 percent of City residences. He reported that more than half the cities in Orange County have changed to an automated collection system which uses a special container that has a hinged lid and is not made for manual pick -up. He stated that the problem that is occurring is that the trash bin manufacturers are coming out with containers that look like automated containers. He reported that about 1,700 homes have the new containers and that the • number is growing. Mr. Niederhaus added that only about 200 homes have the hinged -lid and metal container problems. Mr. Niederhaus emphasized that, if something is not done now, the number of incorrect containers will grow and the problem will become greater. He Volume 53 -Page 101 INDEX Garbage & Refuse Containers (44) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 INDEX • stated that, if this is the direction Council would like to follow, they will begin working on public relations using the current outreach program. He reviewed the timeframe, noting that following adoption sometime in January, the ordinance would not go into affect until 30 days after its adoption. He reported that this is the City's heaviest season and will be approaching 200 to 250 tons of refuse a day until early January. Mayor Pro Tem Adams expressed concern for the elderly residents and for those who have trouble lifting trash cans which do not have attached wheels. Mr. Niederhaus reported that there are acceptable 35 gallon containers that have removable lids, attached handles, and attached wheels. He added that they have even asked residents if they would replace the metal containers with unclaimed containers that have been found after the Santa Ana winds. Mayor Pro Tem Adams believed that this is a good idea and that something should be done before the number of larger containers grows. Mayor Noyes noted that Council did receive a similar presentation about two years ago. Mr. Niederhaus stated that, at that time, they tried to resolve the problem in an informal manner, but now the problem has escalated. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the 1,700 homes are spread throughout the City and presented Council with a sheet that identifies the locations by the trash pickup days. Council Member Ridgeway expressed concern with • amortization of costs, particularly in Central Newport because there are a lot of elderly residents in that area. Mr. Niederhaus reported that reimbursement for containers would be the last resort and resolved on a case -by -case basis. He added that the department budget does not allow for the replacement of 2,000 containers, but indicated that this could be looked at if desired. Council Member Glover believed that residents relate more to the people who pickup the trash rather than to any other arm of the City. She commended the refuse employees and stated that they never leave trash behind. She expressed her support and stated that Council should move forward with the recommendations. She noted that Council did talk about privatizing this function at one time, but it was evident this would not be a possibility as long as the City has money. Council Member Thomson asked if using a larger vehicle to accommodate the larger containers has been considered. Mr. Niederhaus stated that Costa Mesa has trucks that have the automated arms and could also be used for manual collection, but noted that the residents pay extra for this option. He stated that the City did have a truck 12 years ago that used an arm to empty the container once it was wheeled to the back of the truck. He indicated that the mechanism weighs 800 pounds, which takes away 800 pounds of payload that the truck can carry. He noted that the mechanisms are not that heavy now, but the containers for the automated system costs $50 to $75 and is usually provided by the municipality that has the automated system. • Council Member Thomson clarified that he is only talking about a tongue that could help the refuse collector dump the larger containers into the truck. He noted that the City is only picking up trash in each neighborhood once a week and that the City cannot ask residents to store their trash for an Volume 53 - Page 102 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 • entire week along their garages. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that they could look into placing flippers on the back of the trucks; however Council Member Thomson indicated that this is not necessary at this point. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Niederhaus stated that the flippers would speed up the collection process and noted that this would have been the only way to have an automated system on the peninsula. He reiterated that the City would need to provide uniform containers (45, 60, 90, or 110 gallon containers depending on the size of the property) and reiterated the expense involved with the program. He stated that providing an automated system and requiring that the residents pay the City back for the containers over a year, cuts the cost of going into an automated system by 30 percent. Mr. Niederhaus stated that they propose to educate the residents by first utilizing a door- hanger program on about 1,800 homes; they could probably negotiate the metal containers off the street; and they would come back to Council 60 to 90 days after the ordinance goes into affect to give a report on the response. Regarding amortization of costs, Mayor Noyes stated that the City discussed purchasing a mass quantity of the "perfect" containers, providing them to the public, and charging them for it over a three month period. He indicated that he likes this concept because the City would then have uniform • containers. Mr. Niederhaus clarified that this was discussed when Council was considering going to the automated system. If there is a cost concern, Mayor Pro Tem Adams recommended extending the probation period to give people more time to save for new trash cans. Council Member Debay believed that an automated system is a great idea and has seen it work in other areas. She emphasized that this affects every household in the City and is a sensitive issue. She stated that door- hangers do not always work and suggested attaching a letter to the lids of the containers. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that they will also work with the real estate companies. He added that the problem with an automated system container is that they do not make them smaller than 60 gallons, which is a couple of inches too wide to go through a side gate and, therefore, there was no place to store these containers without doing some type of modification to the doors or gates. Noting that she has quite a few older community members in her District, Council Member Glover indicated that her mindset is to change the containers to simpler ones over a period of time and that she is not in favor of the City providing the containers. She asked what it would take to advise people who will be purchasing new containers to get City approved containers and asked what would be the implications of telling people the types of containers to purchase. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that they will try to cycle out the containers, possibly extend the replacement period to six months, and that there should be no implications. He reiterated the • difficulty in reaching everyone because 40 percent of the owners are absentee owners and entails having a continuous program to stay on top of things. He added that the cost would be lowered if the older model containers were purchased. Council Member Glover stated that the City Volume 53 - Page 103 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 should conduct a public relations program to assist residents on what is the proper container for when they purchase new ones. Mr. Niederhaus reported that this issue will be coming back to Council on January 11, 2000. Jeff Lewis, 24091 Castilla Lane, Mission Viejo, 13 year employee in the refuse department, reported that some containers only last about six months because the wheels and handles fall off and the bottom wears out, and that they are also hard to handle since there is no way to hold onto them. He believed that residents probably cannot help purchasing the wrong containers because those are the ones that are constantly on sale. He expressed hope that, after the policy is adopted, the City would be able to contact the local hardware stores to ensure that the approved containers are in stock and noted that he cannot locate them at the local stores. 3. UPDATE OF GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that this is the second time they have come to Council to discuss the Housing Element updates, that the deadline is approaching, and that they have answers to some of the questions that were brought up at the previous meeting. She indicated that they are looking for policy direction from Council. • Ms. Wood indicated that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers are located on page 2 of the staff report. It shows that the City needs 456 new housing units, of which, over half are in the above - moderate income category (market rate) and will probably not need any assistance. However, she pointed out that the City still needs 222 units in the very low, low, and moderate income categories and would need some type of program to facilitate the development of those units. Ms. Wood reported that the City must also report what has been done to implement the policies of the previous element. This is the requirement from The Irvine Company for the market rate units they developed, pursuant to the CIOSA agreement, and the in -lieu housing fee that was collected from Ford for the One Ford Road project. She reported that, if all the units were developed, the City could meet all of the RHNA needs; however, without the satisfaction of those obligations and the use of the Ford money for a certain number of units, the City will need to look elsewhere to satisfy that need. She added that, even if the City is able to satisfy the current requirements, the City will have future affordable housing needs as new developments occur, as jobs increase in the City, and as affordable units lose their affordability restrictions. Ms. Wood stated that the staff report lists possible sites and are looking for Council's input. She indicated that The Irvine Company is interested in developing senior affordable housing on the Bayview Landing site and are asking that their requirement be at 15 percent of the market rate unit level • (similar to Ford), as opposed to 20 percent. She asked if Council still wants to consider housing on the Newport Village site or whether that site should be looked at for other uses. She reported that discussions are being conducted with the Banning Ranch property owner to see what they may be Volume 53 - Page 104 INDEX General Plan Housing Element (68) J City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 willing to do relative to INDEX Council Member Debay stated that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) instructed their lobbyist in Sacramento to look for someone to carry a bill that would extend the deadline to December 2000. She indicated that it is looking very good because HCD supports that. Council Member Glover believed that the City should move forward on this. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Ms. Wood stated that very low, low, or moderate income housing could be built at Bayview Landing but this needs to be negotiated with The Irvine Company. She noted that senior housing is usually in the very low and low income range. Ms. Wood indicated that the City does have sites that could accommodate the 456 units and believed that the 254 above moderate income units could be satisfied within the Banning Ranch development and does not need as much City attention as the lower three income ranges. Regarding Bayview Landing, Council Member Glover noted that 120 to 240 units are being suggested and asked if this would need to go before the electorate if the Greenlight initiative passes. Ms. Wood stated that a General Plan Amendment may be required if there are more than 120 units, but reported that the site is currently zoned to accommodate 120 units. Council Member Ridgeway asked if there was any reason not to pursue just • the 15 percent requirement as opposed to 20 percent. Ms. Wood stated that the implication would be that there would be fewer affordable units, but that this would be a reasonable thing to consider since that was the ratio that was used for the One Ford Road project. City Manager Bludau indicated that Council may also want to consider the 15 percent requirement for the very low, low, or moderate income categories, and the 20 percent for the above moderate income category. Mr. Bludau added that the City is going to look at revising some portions of the Housing Element in the coming calendar year and that one thing that will be looked at is developing a stronger policy about when to accept in -lieu fees. He believed that Council may want to tighten the requirements on a case -by -case basis and added that this would get the developers, rather than the City, to provide housing since the City is not in the development business. Council discussed the questions posed in the conclusion of the staff report: 1. Should the Newport Village site be considered for affordable housing? Council Member Ridgeway believed that Newport Village should be used for affordable housing. In light of the fact that there are conflicting demands on that site, he believed it would be irresponsible not to at least write in some type of consideration on it and noted that the CIOSA agreement allows for affordable housing. Regarding the regular meeting report about the • Cultural Center, he stated that this was not incorporated into the report and that this is an error. Volume 53 - Page 105 P J City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Adams expressed the opinion that the Newport Village site is not a suitable site for housing and that he would not be supportive of affordable housing on the site. 2. Should the City consider both new construction and rehabilitation projects to provide affordable housing? Ms. Wood indicated that the City gets approached regularly by developers who see existing apartment projects or mobile home parks that could benefit from rehabilitation. The developers ask if there is a possibility of using some of the City's Ford in -lieu fee or some of the Community Development Block Grant money to assist and make those projects financially feasible. She noted that rehabilitated units, under current State law, do not count against the RHNA goal even if they are restricted for a certain number of years for lower income people. Council Member Glover stated that she prefers new construction. Council Member Ridgeway encouraged new construction, believing that the City can get more units. He stated that senior affordable housing should be considered at all levels and would be very appropriate in light of the aging population in the City. 3. How much affordable housing should the City require of the Banning Ranch development? Should the requirement apply to the entire project • orjust the City area? Mayor Noyes stated that it sounds like the Banning Ranch development could provide the 254 above moderate income units. Ms. Wood believed that they would automatically do that if their development was approved. She reported that they are willing to meet the City's requirement in the City's portion of the project. The City has talked with them about whether they would be willing to meet the City's General Plan goals in the entire project, including the area that is now in the unincorporated County area. She indicated that there is some willingness on their part and that they will probably be looking for some form of assistance. Council Member Debay believed that the County wants to take the RHNA affordable housing credit from the sites that are not presently in the City and are being processed through the County. She suggested that the City negotiate with the County, during annexation talks, so that the City can count those affordable housing units toward its requirement. She indicated that she talked with Taylor Woodrow about how marketable senior housing is in the City, especially when people are looking for a wonderful place to house their parents that is also close by and managed properly. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Adams' question, Ms. Wood reported that Banning Ranch is proposing 821 units in the City. In response to Mayor Noyes' question regarding the Downcoast's impact if • the City annexes this area, Ms. Wood reported that this has already been determined since an affordable housing implementation plan was made a part of the County's development agreement. Volume 53 - Page 106 • • C City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 4. Should the City accept 15 percent of the 861 market rate units as satisfying the CIOSA affordable housing obligation? Council Member Ridgeway reiterated that he thought 15 percent was appropriate. 5. Is Bayview Landing an appropriate site for senior affordable housing? Mayor Noyes believed that there is some consensus on this. He noted that it is already entitled and that he is in favor of having senior affordable housing at Bayview Landing. In response to Council Member Debay's question, Ms. Wood stated that The Irvine Company has not indicated who a partner for the project would be, but that the partner would be responsible for the construction rather than giving the site to the City and leaving the City with the construction responsibility. Council Member Ridgeway stated that it is not inconceivable that the Irvine Community Properties Apartment Complex for the Elderly might be on that site. (See additional comments regarding senior affordable housing made at the December 13, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting by H. Ross Miller during Public Comments which were incorporated by reference by Council Member Ridgeway.) 4. BALBOA VILLAGE PEDESTRIAN AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Ron Baers, Planning and Urban Design Resources, stated that this process started in May and had three purposes: to coordinate the planning efforts of pier parking, the Village, and the Balboa Boulevard beautification which all affects the Balboa Village; to enhance the pedestrian environment between the beach and the bay and between the pier parking lot and the Balboa Village businesses; and to enhance the business environment by making it more pedestrian - friendly and providing close and convenient parking for residents and visitors. He stated that a group of Council members and staff toured coastal villages between here and Manhattan Beach to look at the different improvement programs and to use those as a reference. Mr. Baers indicated that it was determined that sidewalk widening is a key element. He reported that the sidewalks on Balboa Boulevard (between Adams Street and A Street, with the primary emphasis between Main and Palm Streets) and the sidewalks on Washington Avenue (between the pier lot and Balboa Boulevard) are substandard and vary in width from 3 to 4.5 feet. He pointed out that 51 parking stalls will be eliminated if the sidewalks are widened but that partial replacement of these spaces will occur in the redesign of the pier parking lot. Additionally, he reported that there is an opportunity to increase the number of parking stalls on Bay Avenue (between Main and Palm Streets), and it is suggested that diagonal parking spaces be installed on Balboa Boulevard (from Adams Street to Palm Street, and on Main Street to A Street). Mr. Baers reported that these alternatives were reviewed by various community organizations and City staff, and that the drawings are the result of the studies that led to Alternatives A and B. Volume 53 - Page 107 INDEX Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Plan (68) E • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 Mr. Baers showed the location of the Village and the surrounding area. He stated that Alternative A creates a series of diagonal parking stalls between A Street and Main Street. He indicated that they are also considering introducing a turning lane into the Balboa Pier parking lot and widening a portion of Balboa Boulevard to 14 feet. Mr. Baers also discussed possible turning options out of the Village and the possibility of linking the pier lot and the Village to create attractive pedestrian walkways which would conveniently take people from their vehicles directly into the Village. He explained that this link can be done by widening the sidewalk and carrying the beam into the parking lot on one side of Washington Avenue and Palm Street, and by enhancing the connection on Main Street. This also gives an opportunity to plant more trees and have room for a pedestrian walkway. Regarding Bay Street, Mr. Baers indicated that the idea was to introduce diagonal parking along the north side and maintain a 14 foot through lane. He stated that there is an assumption that the lot behind Balboa Market would eventually be used for public parking and reported that this is also considered in the alternative. He reported that there is a consideration to change Washington Avenue (from Balboa Boulevard to Edgewater) into a pedestrian street with only emergency and delivery vehicle access. Mr. Baers indicated that Alternative B deals with the possibility that no diagonal parking can exist on Balboa Boulevard due to its narrowness. He reported that they looked at changing the parking configuration to parallel parking where feasible between Main Street and Adams Street. He also reported that the difference between the alternatives includes eliminating the skewing that occurs on the street; reconfiguring the parking on the south side of Bay Street, relocating the public toilets, increasing the amount of parking in some areas, and revising the Palm Street parking lot. He stated that, with the elimination of parking on Balboa Boulevard, the City would end up with anywhere from a net loss of two parking spaces to a net gain of about three spaces. He believed that the net loss could be made up in the gains that would be achieved in the pier parking lot. Mr. Baers believed that the entry to the Balboa Pier could be greatly enhanced, noting that it could become a very important gathering space and is a historic spot in the Village. He suggested taking a look at the 8t" Street parking lot exit that is currently closed off, recognize the opportunity for outdoor concerts and upgrade the band shell so it could support that type of activity, and reconfigure the walkways. Mr. Baers discussed alternative paving materials. He stated that interlocking pavers, which are currently used at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Main Street, come in a variety of patterns and colors, and are widely used in commercial retail and street repaving projects. He indicated that enhanced concrete can also be used and varies from a room- finish concrete with an integral color to an enhanced finish in which decorative materials can be embedded into the concrete. He reported that pavers average about $8.50 (installed) and enhanced concrete costs $6 to $11. He noted that the price differences are reflected in the cost estimate. Mr. Baers noted that the City has an approved vendor (TimberForm) for street furniture. He showed and discussed various ideas for benches, Volume 53 - Page 108 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 INDEX planters, trash receptacles, and bike racks, and added that street lighting and public art were also considered. He stated that the Village currently has no theme or consistency, but indicated that achieving a light look by using rounded forms and see - through materials would help. Mr. Baers noted that the Village and the surrounding area has a wide variety of trees but that it was premature to pick species at this time. He indicated that they have worked with staff on a concept to maintain the Palm Tree theme along the edges of the Village and introduce some type of canopy tree within the Village. The decision on which tree to use on Balboa Boulevard will be postponed until tree alternatives can be evaluated. Mr. Baers concluded with a depiction of the Village's improvements if there were 14 foot wide sidewalks aligned with trees. Ms. Wood reported that the staff report includes a cost estimate which totals about $3.2 million. She indicated that they have looked at funding sources (Community Development Block Grant, Off Street Parking Fund, and Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve Fund) and that this is very similar to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study brought before Council a few years ago. She stated that the Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve was instituted by Council shortly after they received the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study and is a way to provide more flexibility on how parking revenues can be used for peninsula improvements. She reported that the City could also conduct • these improvements by getting a Section 108 loan, which is an advance on the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds; however, doing this would limit other activities for a period of time that could be accomplished by using these grants. In response to Mayor Noyes' question, Associate Planner Trimble reported that the City has a portion of the CDBG Funds that is not allocated to other programs. He reassured that the City would have funds available for other programs even if it decides to pay the loan off in 20 years. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Baers clarified that Alternative A is a complete set of recommendations on Village enhancements and Alternative B has four differences. He confirmed that Alternative A has more diagonal parking and Alternative B only has diagonal parking on Bay Street. Council Member Glover stated that she likes the concept of diagonal parking, believing that it totally changes how one feels about an area and it gives an area a more hometown feeling. She indicated that she would like to see Alternative A happen and hopefully negotiate for more diagonal parking. Mr. Baers stated that there were interesting discussions about diagonal parking and that the various ideas came from a number of sources. He indicated that there were concerns about Washington Avenue being converted into a pedestrian - friendly street because of the emergency vehicle access, but that was resolved. Mr. Baers stated that the concept of lining Bal Harbor Liquor Store's sidewalk with trees and moving their entry so it goes into the existing alley is being considered because the store is a primary • entry monument into Balboa Village and would enhance the entry experience. Council Member Glover believed that it is important that, when using a professional, the proposal not steer too far from the professional's ideas and that these ideas remain the strongest element. Volume 53 - Page 109 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 INDEX Council Member Glover stated that she likes the concept of the pedestrian street not having a curb. Mr. Baers stated that he would like to see the same happen on Main Street; however, it would require that the drainage problem be solved. He indicated that a five foot passage for pedestrian movement and about four feet for curbside utility space, which includes all plantings, will be allowed when the sidewalks are widened to 14 feet. Additionally, dining space and space to display merchandise will be made available. He noted that the spacing for the trees is for budgetary purposes and that they used the tree figures given to them by the City. Mr. Baers stated that the concept of a trellis, clock tower, seating area, or planter is being considered at key intersections where space is available in order to beautify the corners. Council Member Glover added that the concept of having a turn - around prior to entering the residential area is also a smart idea. Regarding the funding, Council Member Glover emphasized her opposition to borrowing money, stating that the money should be paid off much earlier than 20 years if the City needs to borrow money to do the project. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what contingency was used for the cost estimate and what assumptions were used for the soft costs. Mr. Baers stated that this was a material takeoff and budget estimate, not a full construction estimate, and does not include the general contractor overheads, any contingencies, or drainage improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Adams took issue and asked why Council is even looking at this since the . estimate gives a radically distorted view of the project. He believed that this would actually be a $4.5 million project and suggested that Council receive a true cost estimate before any discussions about funding take place. Mr. Baers stated that there are overlapping projects in the area which complicates the estimating process. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked Mr. Baers how he got through the storeowners' objections to having canopy trees and that type of density blocking their signs and store windows. Mr. Baers stated that it depends on the selection of tree, insulation, and care during the fist five years of growth. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he is very supportive of the project, but cautioned Council about selecting materials. He indicated that, in his experience, the project will look cheap and be more of a detractor than the existing condition if the project is done using stamp pattern concrete and integral color concrete. He emphasized that this will be an investment that lasts 50 to 75 years and believed that materials that endure should be used. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that Mr. Baers has done a good job to present a quality rehabilitation in a fairly short period of time and concurred with Mr. Baers' comments about the overlapping projects. Regarding the Balboa Pier parking lot, he felt that an inviting, pedestrian element is created since there is currently no pier plaza. He stated that a parking management plan will be coming before Council in January and that tonight's study session is intended to look at unit costs, noting that Mayor • Pro Tem Adams is correct in stating that there are no soft costs incorporated in the cost estimate. He believed that general soft costs do need to be incorporated in the estimate and indicated that he does not mind borrowing money as long as the City can identify a long term revenue source. Volume 53 - Page 110 • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 Council Member Ridgeway stated that he met with Mr. Baers on numerous occasions and did dispute the spacing and type of tree to be used on Balboa Boulevard. He expressed the opinion that the Performing Arts Foundation, the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association, and many others have reviewed this and want to see the project move forward, emphasizing that the area is in dire need of help. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that if staff will be bringing this back, the cost estimate should include a 20 to 30 percent contingency, soft costs which are about 25 to 30 percent of construction, and long term maintenance costs. Virginia Herberts, representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, expressed their support of Mr. Baers and indicated that they like his beautiful plan. She suggested changing the parking limit near the businesses to short term parking since the construction has decreased the streets to two lanes with no available parking. Council Member Ridgeway stated that short term parking is being considered in the parking management plan. Curt Herberts expressed the opinion that this is a great plan and that he cannot think of anything else that would help the Village improve more. He indicated that the sidewalks are falling apart and the streets are not much better. He expressed concern relative to drainage and emphasized that something needs to be done about this. He added that all the water from the ocean front parking lot runs into the bay when there is a big storm. Bob Black, Balboa Pavilion and member of the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association, stated that they have worked with Mr. Baers for quite some time and that Council received correspondence from the Association which expressed their support of the plan. He stated that there are a lot of things they would like to see done because the area needs it, but they are disheartened by the cost. He expressed hope that this can be pulled together to make it happen. Bill Reyn, Balboa Performing Arts Theater, stated that they have supported Mr. Baer's goals and have followed the entire planning process. He expressed the opinion that making a pedestrian-friendly access into the commercial core of Balboa Village is exactly what Mr. Baer accomplished and that either alternative is viable. Council Member Ridgeway believed that Council should be looking at everything south of Balboa Boulevard to the parking lot as a phase to the project. He concurred that there is a number of things that need to be done in that area whether the City moves forward on Mr. Baer's plan or not, and that the City now has an integrated plan with themes. Council Member Glover emphasized that she does not want to support the project if a quality project is not going to be done. She requested a meeting with Mr. Baers to review the products that are being recommended. Council Member Debay expressed her support of the proposal and agreed with Council Member Glover's comments about diagonal parking. In response to her questions regarding funding and phasing the project, Council Volume 53 -Page 111 I0"I • E E City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 13, 1999 Member Ridgeway stated that he in favor of doing the project in phases but noted that maybe a five year timeframe needs to be set. Council Member Ridgeway believed that, if the City will be making this type of investment, the business improvement districts also need to be making an investment into capital improvements and long term maintenance. He emphasized that they cannot expect the City to make this type of investment using City funds and not make some self improvements themselves. Mayor Noyes stated that he would like to see some type of public relations campaign occur that would attract and keep new and upscale businesses. — None. ADJOURNMENT — 6:00 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 8, 1999, at 3:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 1 City Clerk Volume 53 - Page 112 INDEX