Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2000 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 25, 2000 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Glover, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Absent: Adams (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were discussed. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. Planning Commissioners in attendance included Thomas Ashley, Anne Gifford, Larry Tucker, Michael Kranzley (arrived late), and Chairman Selich. Commissioner Richard Fuller was absent. Chairman Selich reported that the Planning Commission brought forward • recommendations to Council on March 22, 1999, relative to the General Plan and various projects. He indicated that tonight's meeting is to report on the Commission's progress and receive feedback from Council. Chairman Selich reported that the Commission has been conducting study sessions to become more involved in the projects. He stated that the study sessions enable them to get an early look at the environmental impact reports and other aspects of the projects so that they were not receiving a ton of reports at the last minute. Regarding the Newport Dunes project, Chairman Selich reported that the Commission held two study sessions and reviewed two agenda items. Regarding the Banning Ranch project, he stated that two study sessions and presentations were held. Planning Director Temple noted that about 50 acres of Banning Ranch is in the City's boundary. Chairman Selich added that the only access to the Banning Ranch project is within the City's portion on Pacific Coast Highway. Assistant City Manager Wood recommended that the City continue reviewing the entire Banning Ranch project and not just the City's portion since it may be annexed into the City at some point. Regarding Conexant, Chairman Selich stated that the Planning Commission held two study sessions that went into some detail about the project description and traffic studies. He reported that no study sessions have been conducted on the Koll Center project but are scheduled for next month. Regarding Newport Center, the Commission held at least two study sessions and formed a subcommittee (consisting of Chairman Selich and • Commissioners Gifford and Kranzley) that has been working with project representatives and developers. Volume 53 - Page 154 INDEX Planning Commission Joint Meeting (24) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 INDEX • Regarding the Newport Center General Plan Amendment, Chairman Selich indicated that, last year, the Commission wanted to pull all the project applications together rather than process them individually so that a comprehensive plan would be developed which addresses all of Newport Center and involves all the property owners. He reported that the current applicants are O'Hill Development, Pacific Life, the Teachers Union, and The Irvine Company. Additionally, the Commission wanted to take the lead in long range planning and develop alternate visions for Newport Center. He reported that the four corners of Newport Center are considered to be at MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, Coast Highway, and San Joaquin Hills Road. He noted that the Commission has a standing Newport Center item on the agenda so that they are brought up to date on the progress of the project and on any issues. Regarding the planned community, Chairman Selich confirmed that Newport Center will be one planned community but will have divisions that are a balance of existing planned community regulations and new regulations if necessary. Regarding the ability to transfer rights between office and retail use, Chairman Selich noted that the concept has only been discussed with the property owners, subcommittee, and consultant at this point, but will be discussed with the rest of the Commission at a future date. Chairman Selich explained that the idea is to be more flexible since the General Plan is so specific. He indicated that they wanted a way to deal with development intensity but not lock themselves into a rigid square footage formula. He is emphasized that the thing that needed to be dealt with was traffic. He stated that they are entertaining a concept of regulating land use intensity through traffic generation/trip budget (number of trips that can be generated from certain areas). Instead of being broken down into blocks, he reported that the blocks would now be combined so that they were concurrent with the City's traffic assignment zones. Additionally, within each zone, a trip budget will be developed to deal with peak hour impacts on the surrounding streets. He indicated that, within the trip budget, there will be an ability to transfer density between different traffic area zones. He emphasized that the total impact on the surrounding streets remains the same and there will still be flexibility to allow for unforeseen changes without having to amend the General Plan. In response to Council Member Thomson's questions, Commissioner Selich indicated that a map of the nine traffic assignment zones (TAZ) does exist but he did not have one with him. Chairman Selich stated that part of the process includes developing and finding funding for a Master Newport Center EIR. He indicated that staff worked hard with the property owners to come up with a financial plan in which the property owners, who are filing the General Plan Amendments, are covering the cost of doing the overall General Plan for Newport Center. Chairman Selich stated that one of their assignments from last year was to try to develop an approach for studying interrelationships between the Newport Center General Plan Amendment, the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) update and the Airport Area Specific Plan. However, he reported that the • City and the Coastal Commission could not work out an acceptable arrangement for the LCP. Regarding the Airport Area Specific Plan, he reported that the City allocated 50 percent and the remainder will come from the property owners. He pointed out that the property owners in the Volume 53 - Page 155 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 • airport area are reticent about providing funding in light of the Greenlight initiative. Council Member Glover emphasized the impact the City will feel if El Toro is not built and pointed out that the City will need to find the money if property owners are not willing to proceed due to the initiative. Council Member Ridgeway emphasized how the Circulation Element plays an important role in everything the City does, noting that Irvine already has 18 million square feet built and are allowed a total of 25 million square feet. Chairman Selich reported that there is additional square footage in the airport area but it is out of balance with the circulation system. Chairman Selich indicated that they have not made any headway on developing interrelationships for a General Plan update because it was once believed that the City would have, by de facto, some type of General Plan update if Newport Center, the airport area, and the LCP were developed. In response to Council Member Debay's questions, Ms. Wood indicated that the City would need to contract out in order to generate an updated General Plan because there is currently not enough resources and there are different areas of expertise that need addressing. Mr. Bludau indicated that updating the General Plan is a long term commitment that would take at least two years. Council Member O'Neil stated that, at Council's goal setting meeting, it was initially believed that some of the problems with the General Plan would be fixed through the LCP. However, since the LCP fell through, he believed that it may be time to look at the General Plan again. Council • Member Glover indicated that she informed the Mayor that she would like the initial survey that would start the General Plan amendment process to be done, even if it does take two years. Ms. Wood indicated that one of the first steps would be to request Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a survey or community visioning that is similar to the Newport Tomorrow effort. Mayor Noyes indicated that he has been passing out an informal survey at his store to get an idea of what residents like and dislike about the City, but believed that the General Plan survey should be professionally done. Mr. Bludau indicated that he has used these types of survey firms before and that they initially sit down with Council to find out the City's current issues. He believed that the value of having the survey done professionally is that they look at the community profile, formulate the data, and develop scientific results based on who they have talked with. Chairman Selich believed that a lot of the same concerns still exist that existed in the Newport Tomorrow survey from 30 years ago. Noting that the General Plan was last updated in 1988, Council Member Ridgeway believed that the update should not take two years. Discussion ensued relative to City visioning and beginning what it takes to update the General Plan. Regarding Newport Center, Ms. Temple pointed out that GPA 85 -1(B) underwent the referendum process and was approved in 1986. She noted that, prior to 1986, Council approved an amendment in 1980 (GPA 80 -3), but rescinded its approval because there was the threat of a referendum. • Chairman Selich cautioned that there is a tendency to try to stop all planning when starting any type of General Plan process, especially in a city that is as developed as Newport Beach. Commissioner Gifford stated that the City should work toward creating a template for larger General Plan Volume 53 - Page 156 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 • amendments. Chairman Selich pointed out that the Conexant's impact fees would be a little over $6 million if it were built in Irvine, compared to a little over $1 million in Newport Beach. He emphasized that a General Plan should get a sense of the total community and what they want for the City. Regarding property owners' reluctance to put money into a project due to the initiative, Chairman Selich stated that he believed they are more concerned that their plan will not be implemented after substantial amounts of money have been put into it. Mayor Noyes recessed the meeting at 5:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 5:25 p.m. 3. AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES AND CITY ARTS COMMISSION; INFORMATION ON RELATED FOUNDATIONS. City Manager Bludau reported that Council Member Glover requested that a report be generated relative to the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Library Trustees (Board) and the Library Foundation (Foundation), and the City Arts Commission and Arts Foundation. Council Member Glover noted that citizens work very hard and have a lot of pride vested in the library. • She indicated that she is just trying to determine the roles of Council, the Foundation, and the Board. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, City Attorney Burnham clarified that Council has final approval over the budget, gifts, and contracts, even though the Board makes recommendations to Council relative to the budget, and accepts gifts and enters into contracts. He noted that Council could accept monetary gifts for the library. Mr. Burnham stated that the Board has no authority over the Foundation's activities, except that the Foundation uses library facilities. He believed that, since the Board has the power to "administer the library ", they would have the ability to factor or influence the Foundation's presence in the library. He confirmed that Council is completely unrelated to the Foundation and that the Foundation has to get the Board's permission to use library facilities. Mr. Burnham explained that it would be up to the courts to decide whether Council has any authority over the library, noting that the City Manager has the power to administer City buildings and facilities. The City has not yet been asked to decide how a court would rule if there was a dispute over whether the Board, City Manager, or Council had the ultimate authority over the library. He reported that the Board does have independent authority under the charter to control the administration of the library, which does include what activities occur in the library. Council Member Glover summarized that Council has very little authority; and the Board basically has no authority over the Foundation. She stated that everyone needs to understand their role as interpreted by the City Attorney. She noted that there is no • authority in the working documents. In response to Council Member Glover's question, Mr. Bludau indicated that he does not believe the Foundation has done an audit every year, even Volume 53 - Page 157 INDEX Board of Library Trustees and City Arts Commission (24/50) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 • though they have committed to doing an annual audit which can be made public. Council Member Glover believed that there are really three separate organizations that function in parallel. Council Member O'Neil stated that he has talked with members of the Board and the Foundation over the past months about this unfortunate disagreement. He reported that the City Manager met with both sides to see if they could come up with a reasonable settlement; however, a settlement could not be reached. He stated that the roles that were pointed out earlier are understood by both parties, but wondered how tonight could be productive since Council has no authority over either entities. Council Member Debay stated that she meets with a six county government group, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), that deals with planning and transportation issues. She reported that they occasionally receive grants to assist with alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) in which a counselor, mediator, or dispute resolution specialist comes into communities to work on issues at no charge to the parties. She indicated that ADR has been working with Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena on the Burbank airport issue, but will also meet with citizen groups over issues as small as the neighbor's barking dog. She indicated that she will make a request for an ADR if all parties are agreeable. Noting that he did not know that ADR existed, Council Member Ridgeway • stated that he was going to suggest that the parties agree to some type of binding arbitration and sign an agreement. He indicated that he likes ADR better but questioned if there were any rules prior to discussions. He believed that ground rules and mutual respect need to be set before going into ADR so that both parties agree to the final result. He stated that this issue deals with well - meaning people who have created separate entities and want to be respected for being members of those separate entities. Council Member Ridgeway reiterated that Council has no jurisdiction but can only offer a tool to bring the Board and Foundation to the table. He believed that ADR is useful and productive, but emphasized that everyone needs to clear the air of egos, power plays, and jurisdictional rights so that they do what is best for the City. He stated that nobody is right and asked David Carmichael and Jim Wood if ADR is acceptable. Council Member Glover stated that ADR is not needed since the roles are clear and that it is now up to the Council, the Board, and the Foundation to fulfill its role and think about what is best for Newport Beach. Additionally, no memorandum of understanding or letter of agreement is needed. David Carmichael, 1525 Serenade Terrace, President of the Library Foundation, indicated that the problem with everyone walking out tonight and performing their roles is that the Foundation received an "eviction notice" at the library. He reported that he is unsure if the Foundation can submit to a binding form of arbitration, as opposed to another form of ADR, even though he believes there is a lot to be gained by continuing to talk. • Speaking on his behalf, he stated that he will schedule a special meeting of the Foundation Board if the ideas or alternative ideas are flushed out through ADR. He stated that the thing that holds the Foundation together is its love of the library and the City. Mr. Carmichael added that the Volume 53 - Page 158 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 • Foundation members are civic pillars of the community. Don Adkinson, 1516 East Ocean Front, Vice President of the Library Foundation, stated that the Foundation's policy statement almost mirrors the requirements put forth by the Board. He reported that the Foundation prefers a policy statement over an agreement because they do not have the right to turn the money over to another body. He indicated that they were asked to sign the agreement or be evicted, and that they did not want to sign it because that would be admission to the Board's allegations of misconduct. Mr. Adkinson noted that many of the large donors were made aware that the architect's plans included office space for the Foundation, but the eviction would be in contrary to the intent of the people who built it. Frank Lynch, 2015 Bayadere Terrace, former member on the Board of Library Trustees and the Library Foundation, stated that this type of conflict did not exist when Ben Jackson was the Board chair, but only existed when there was a shift in the Board's leadership. He believed that Council should look into this. Mr. Lynch noted that the interest of the donors has not been discussed. He believed that the Board has the right to not accept donations if it were going to be used for improper purposes; however, they do not have the right to accept it for one reason and use it for another, i.e. arches in the parking lot. Jim Wood, Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees, stated that there • have been things that concerned the Board over the years so the current members unanimously wanted to look into them. He indicated that, if the names were not so similar and the Foundation was not located in the same building, the Board probably would not have a problem right now. However, the public does not differentiate between the library and the Foundation, and so the Board felt they should look into the Foundation's operations. He stated that they were not comforted by what they found. He stated that the Foundation has not had an audit in five years, so they requested that one be done despite the fact that over $1 million has been accumulated. He added that there are a number of other concerns and, as they looked more into it, the Foundation demanded more independence. Mr. Wood stated that they could accept the independence, but it did not feel right that the Foundation wanted to occupy rent -free space and use the name of an established organization if they also wanted independence. He believed that they were "joined at the hip" and that, if something were to go wrong, both entities would be held responsible and both images would be tarnished. He emphasized that he is not saying they are headed in that direction; however, he reiterated the concerns relative to the way the money is being handled and the lack of communication. Mr. Wood reported that, according to the charter, the Board is charged with determining how that library is going to operate. He stated that they told the Foundation that they could either sign the reasonable cooperating agreement or vacate the library and no longer use the "Newport Beach Public Library" name in their solicitation. Council Member Glover believed it is Mr. Wood's opinion that the Board and • Foundation are joined at the hip. She reiterated and Mr. Burnham confirmed that the Board does not have legal authority over the Foundation. Mr. Wood clarified that they are joined at the hip because their names are so similar and they occupy space in the library. Regarding arbitration, Volume 53 - Page 159 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 INDEX • Mr. Wood stated that they have already arbitrated and, on January 18, the Board agreed to be firm in their resolve. He reported that the situation has had a devastating affect on the library staff and taken an enormous amount of the Board's time. He stated that the Foundation members are a wonderful group of people but only contribute about 2.7 percent of the library budget. Council Member Debay stated that ADR is trained and has been successful in bringing situations to a compromise. She asked if finding another location for the Foundation office and instructing them to direct the money to Council would solve the problem. Mr. Wood stated that finding the Foundation another location by January 31 and limiting the Foundation's use of their name for a period of time would considerably alleviate the pressure. He noted that the Foundation's gifts do not come through the Board and that the Board has not received any gifts from the Foundation for some time. This is one thing that has concerned the Board. Council Member Glover believed that the City could find office space for the Foundation. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Burnham believed that the Foundation would not need to change their policy and Council can accept donations directly from the Foundation. Mr. Bludau stated that a report can be generated for the next meeting regarding office options for the Foundation. • Mr. Wood stated that he appreciated Council Member Debay's ADR recommendation. He indicated that there is the possibility of arbitration once the pressure and conflict are out of the library by removing the Foundation's operation. He reiterated that the Board is charged with setting the rules and will not arbitrate their responsibilities away. Mr. Burnham reported that the charter states that the Board has the authority to administer the library and make rules and regulations as may be necessary for the administration of the library, but their authority does not extend to controlling the name "Newport Beach" or "Newport Beach Public Library." Mr. Wood stated that they could ask that the Foundation not use the name. Mr. Burnham pointed out that a request like that would come from Council, not the Board. Mr. Carmichael stated that the Foundation looked into the Board's accusations and emphasized that they are untrue and unfounded. He reported that the audit has given them a clean bill of health; and that they contribute more than 2.7 percent toward the budget. He emphasized that there are no irregularities and that the Foundation objects to the characterization. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the IRS looks at 501 -C3 corporations very closely. He indicated that many of the things that the Board is requesting must be complied with in order for the Foundation to maintain their legitimacy. He believed that the Board needs a cooling off period, maybe 30 days. He encouraged ADR, but noted that it did not sound like • there would be any attempts at reconciliation by one of the parties. He expressed the opinion that accommodating the Foundation at a City facility is a terrific compromise at this point. He questioned why the library staff has become so upset over this dispute and requested that the City Manager Volume 53 - Page 160 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 25, 2000 • look into this. He believed that the direction Council should be submitting is to have a short cooling -off period and request that the people come together with a disinterested third party. Noting that January 31 is around the corner, Council Member Glover stated that a location needs to be found soon. She indicated that this situation is embarrassing because there is a lot of space dedicated to administration at the library. Jacquelyn Dillman, 1200 Polaris Drive, Library Foundation member, believed that the big picture is sometimes not seen by Mr. Wood and the Board. She reported that the Foundation has wonderful programs, such as the Distinguished Lecture Series, Manuscripts Lecture Series, Book Club, and Poetry Festival. Further, the Foundation has brought the library to an award winning status. She stated that there is no conflict with staff, as the Foundation is well- respected and works well with staff. Despite the conflicts with the Board, she indicated that the Foundation managed to still have the Spring Series. She pointed out that their fundraising efforts have already been diminished because of the conflict and, if the City loses the Foundation and the money that is generated, the burden to have the programs then falls on the citizens and taxpayers if they want the programs to continue. She asked why the Board would seek to eliminate the Foundation who is a wonderful fundraising arm for the library and asked what it would take for the City to try to put on the programs without the Foundation. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to request that the • Foundation's occupancy at the library be extended for 30 days and directed the City Manager to research office space in a City facility for the Foundation. • PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 6:15 p.m. � *,t�rr +♦xx� :ts + * ** *tit + + + + + + + *� The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 19, 2000, at 2:35 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. �11av�kk& *j Recording Secretary U11j'son-t4polMay City Clerk Volume 53 - Page 161 INDEX