Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/2012 - Study SessionCity Council Minutes City Council Study Session March 27, 2012 — 3:00 p.m. I. ROLL CALL - 3:00 p.m. II. Present: Council Member Hill, Mayor Pro Tem Curry, Mayor Gardner, Council Member Selich, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle Excused: Council Member Rosansky Council Member Rosansky arrived at 3:12 p.m. 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In response to Council questions regarding Item 4 (Big Canyon Reservoir Floating Cover Replacement), City Attorney Harp stated that the City is seeking to recover all costs associated with the floating cover which include litigation fees and general design costs. City Manager Kiff added that the funds to replace the cover will be taken from the Water Enterprise Fund. 2. REVIEW OF TELECOM ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 15.70 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES). Council Member Daigle recused herself from participating in this item. Associate Planner Brown provided a PowerPoint presentation that included regulations from other jurisdictions, telecom permit background, issues /concerns, potential solutions, photos, staff recommendations, examples of installations, and benefits of moving to a Zoning Administrator review process. She also provided the next steps in the process. In response to Council Member Hill's questions, Community Development Director Brandt explained that the City receives approximately 15 to 20 telecom applications per year, stated that under the proposed process they will be delegated to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, and reported that they will only come before Council on appeal. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Curry's question, City Attorney Harp stated that the regulatory framework for telecom permits in other cities is typically the same. Jim Mosher urged Council to direct staff to continue to pursue changes to telecom facility permit procedures, expressed support for the Zoning Administrator process, discussed previous telecom permits approved by Council, and indicated that if the proposed permit process is approved, City Council Policy L -23 will need to be revised. Robert Hawkins believed that Council Member Daigle's recusal does not comply with the Volume 60 - Page 409 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session March 27, 2012 Political Reform Act and provided a copy of it to City Manager Kiff for review. In response to Mayor Gardner's question, Community Development Director Brandt stated that public notices are required to be provided 10 days prior to the hearing date. City Attorney Harp stated that he believed that Council Member Daigle's recusal was appropriate, but stated that he will ask her to supplement her basis for recusal when she returns. 3. CONCEPTS FOR (1) THE REUSE OF EXISTING CITY HALL PROPERTY AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD; AND (2) AREA CIRCULATION. Council Member Henn recused himself, stating that he has a business consulting relationship with a tenant of the Via Lido Plaza Shopping Center. He also stated that, although he does not believe this is a conflict, to avoid the possibility or perception of a conflict, he is recusing himself. Community Development Director Brandt and Deputy Public Works Director Webb provided a PowerPoint presentation that included the conceptual plan for the existing City Hall site and Lido Village, key elements, photos, interim use for City Hall, the timeline for completion, and projected costs. Council Member Rosansky expressed opposition to demolishing the existing City Hall buildings, stated that he would like to see funds go toward the redevelopment of the site, and indicated that the concept plan should also work towards revenue opportunities. He discussed the need for a community center and Police Department. Council Member Hill agreed with Council Member Rosansky and stated that he would like to focus on the revitalization of the property with a timeline, goal, and Request for Proposal/Request for Qualification (RFP /RFQ) process. He suggested roles for the developer, discussed priorities, believed that the City should continue with the concepts established in the existing Master Plan, and invited public input. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Curry's question, City Manager Kiff clarified that the Police Department will not utilize the existing City Hall site as an interim facility. In response to Council Member Selich's question, Deputy Public Works Director Webb stated that there has not been an evaluation of possible asbestos and lead removal. Council Member Selich and Mayor Gardner also expressed opposition to demolishing the existing City Hall buildings. City Manager Kiff clarified that the project is in the concept phase and staff is seeking direction. Community Development Director Brandt and Deputy Public Works Director Webb continued with the PowerPoint presentation that included the proposed use of the existing City Hall site, designs, traffic circulation, pedestrian scheme, and community outreach. In response to Council questions, Community Development Director Brandt stated that there is sufficient space for public gatherings, retail shops were recently added, the parking lot will be at surface level with a podium structure built on top, the height is not defined, and the concept includes 200 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed plaza. Deputy Volume 60 - Page 410 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session March 27, 2012 Public Works Director Webb stated that a traffic study has not been performed. Rob Winkle, Fritz Duda Company, expressed opposition to the plan, stating that the concept is problematic for their property, expressed support for the relocation of the fire station to an alternate City site, encouraged Council to make a decision about the property as soon as possible, and suggested that the City continue collaborative efforts to reach an agreed upon plan for the site. Dan Purcell requested that the City make a graceful and respectful transition to the new City Hall and urged Council to monitor the maintenance of the property until it is redeveloped. Jim Mosher expressed concern about the traffic circle and the possible fire station relocation. He believed that the City Charter states that the Planning Commission is required to make recommendation on Public Works proposals. George Schroeder believed that a traffic circle is a great concept, discussed slant parking, questioned the need for 6,000 square feet of office space on the site, expressed confusion that the major landholder does not like the concept, and expressed concern that the parking spaces will be used by beachgoers. Denys Oberman expressed appreciation for the sense of urgency, agreed that the plan is a result of significant public input, expressed concern about the proposed surface parking, urged Council to develop a specific plan, recommended that the City issue an RFP to seek qualified developers, and believed that street reconfiguration should not be addressed at this time. George Birdsong asked about the timing for the proposed parking area. Cindy Koller asked if any traffic studies were conducted relative to an emergency plan. Lee Iverson expressed support for revitalizing the area, expressed concern about adding new commercial space, asked Council to consider adding a hotel on the site, and discussed traffic circulation. Robert Hawkins expressed opposition to the traffic circulation, urged Council to move quickly, suggested that the concept be taken back to the Citizens Advisory Panel, and discussed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Curry agreed that the concept plan is in need of more work. In response to Mayor Gardner's question, Council Member Hill stated that Council needs to determine if they want the fire station and community center on or off the site and provide direction to staff regarding the RFP/RFQ process. In response to City Manager Kiffs question, Council Member Hill stated that the concept plan should be flexible. Mayor Gardner stated that decisions cannot be made without a budget, expressed opposition to adding retail shops to the site, and expressed concern about building heights. Council Member Daigle expressed support for public /private integration for developing the area, stated that she would have preferred that Council be presented with a finished product, and expressed support for the fire station and community center being placed at another location within the City. Volume 60 - Page 411 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session March 27, 2012 Council Member Rosansky stated that he is in support of moving the fire station; however, the new location of the fire station cannot cause a burden on residents. City Manager Kiff stated that the Fire Department respects neighbors and will accommodate accordingly, clarified that Council would like staff to conduct more public meetings to discuss the proposed concept plan and start the RFP/RFQ process. Council Member Daigle explained that she recused herself from participating during Item SS2 (Review of Telecom Ordinance) because she works for So Cal Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. 4. BALBOA MARINA EXPANSION AND OFFICE BUILDING Harbor Resources Manager Miller utilized a PowerPoint presentation and reported that the project is a joint effort between the City and The Irvine Company to address community needs. He discussed issues that residents have dealt with relative to public access slips. Dan Miller, The Irvine Company, discussed issues with public slips. Randy Mason, URS Corporation, presented a PowerPoint presentation that included several maps, a tentative schedule, entitlement costs, and a list of public meetings that were conducted. He also discussed the proposed plan. In response to Council questions, Mr. Miller stated that they have not discussed the proposed changes with Lido Isle residents, stated that residents were concerned with the location of the public slips, noted that parking is adequate for the area, indicated that the overall projected cost is $5 million, and added that the benefit of the groin wall is to protect the private and public slips. Council Members Henn and Selich expressed support for the project. Council Member Rosansky expressed concern about the City paying money for the expansion. Jim Mosher expressed concern about public assistance to The Irvine Company and suggested that the City clarify The Irvine Company's right to expand into public tidelands. In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Harbor Resources Miller clarified that the new docks will be on County tidelands and reported that there will not be additional revenues for the City. Denys Oberman expressed support for the project and encouraged Council to extend a direct invitation to The Irvine Company to submit an RFP for the existing City Hall site. Dan Miller clarified that the City's Harbor Commission required public slips in the area. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher expressed concern that Council has not addressed the Marina Park proposal and that the Girl Scout House is on the Closed Session agenda without providing expanded details. He referenced prior discussion by Council about the projects going before the Coastal Commission, and indicated that neither of the issues are on the Coastal Commission's April meeting agenda. He noted that the Coastal Commission meeting in May will be held in Northern California Volume 60 - Page 412 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session March 27, 2012 which deprives residents the opportunity to participate. IV. ADJOURNMENT - 5:00 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 22, 2012, at 4:00 p.m on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 14V � i6�(;lerk I Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 60 - Page 413