Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Newport Center Park0 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 -644 -3311 or sbadum @city.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 firm decision on a City Hall location? RECOMMENDATION: 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 • 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: • a 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. • a 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 Council /PB &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). is Y Newport Center Park February 27. 2007 Page 5 • 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: 3' Badum rks Director 0 Omer L. Bludau City Manager 5 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 13, 2005 • Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public Moto._ by _ Council _Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2005 -61 con firmin he levy of the BID assessment for the 2006 shortened fiscal year since protests rep ent less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount. The motion carri y the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Memb Heffernan, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor bb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nich 25. 2005 UPDATE TO THE CI OF NEWPORT BEACH URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. /100 -20 Acting Utilities Director Antista utili a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the Urban Water Management Plan throu 2030 and highlighted the required components of the Plan. He reported on the water conservation efforts, explained how the City gets its water, and emphasized t the City is one of the only cities with an emergency supply. Administrative Ma er Deutsch discussed efforts taking place in Buck Gully and the Smartllmer Reb a Program. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the rebate program ends January 2006. Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Hearing no testim \No-62, the public • hearing. Mo..tio_.n.by.Mayor Pro_Tem_Rosansky to adopt Resolutio which adopts the updated 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: N Ayes: Council Member Heffernan, Council Member Selicb, Mayor Pro Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member 1 Council Member Nichols 26. COUNCIL ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND A FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, ESTABLISHMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR BOTH COMMITTEES, INCLUDING THE NEWPORT VILLAGE SITE AS A POTENTIAL CITY HALL SITE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROCESS TO ACCEPT COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS. [351100 -20051 City Manager Bludau provided the staff report and utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the proposed makeup and duties of the City Hall Site Review Committee and the Finance Review Committee. He noted that, if the City Hall were located elsewhere, the fire station will remain at its current location. He believed that, due to the timeline, the committees will need to meet weekly. He indicated that Council should see how many applications are received and then decide the process for selecting committee members. It was the consensus of Council to amend the number of members for both committees to be no less than 7, but no more than • 11 public members. Volume 57 - Page 497 • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 13, 2005 In response to Council questions, City Manager Bludau confirmed that the Facilities Finance Committee will prioritize the capital improvement needs and provide cost ranges. He reported that staff will provide information relative to whether the City can finance the facilities and provide the budget outlook. He believed that the list will be provided by the time the committee members are appointed. It was the consensus of Council to have the committee reports completed by May 1, 2006, so they can be reviewed by Council during the first meeting in May. Further, it was determined that each committee should have two non - voting Council Members on them. Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Motion, by_Council Member._Ridgeway to 1) establish the two committees and the guidelines for the committees to function, making changes to the recommendations as Council sees fit; and 2) advertise that City Council is accepting applications for these committees until noon, January 6, 2006, with the intention of appointments being made at the January 24th regular City Council meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Heffernan, Council Member Selich, Mayor Webb, Council • Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols Noes: Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky Public Works Director Badum reported on the constraints of the Newport Village site relative to the height limitations, view plains, topography, excavation, drainage course, and groundwater. He indicated that moving 3,000 truckloads of dirt could cost $2 million to $5 million. Planning Director Temple highlighted the non - codified Newport Center sight plane ordinance which protects view planes and landscaping. City Attorney Clauson confirmed that Council can modify the ordinance. Mayor Webb opened the public hearing_ Bernie Svalsted emphasized that this site is no longer called "Newport Village" since Council already voted to name it "Newport Center Park ". He expressed his reasons why Council should eliminate the park for consideration and discussed the site's history. He also expressed concern about losing the potential donor and the park. Debra Allen, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner, reiterated that Council named the site Newport Center Park on June 28 and that they have been working for years to develop it as a park. She reviewed the history of the site and added that the drawings are almost complete. Val Skoro asked why the City would risk losing a donor when the park is ready to move forward. Karen Tringali, Corona del Mar Residents Association, reported that they support • preserving the site as a park site and shared some of the email responses. Elaine Linhoff believed that this cannot be a potential site for City Hall since it's already a park. Volume 57 - Page 498 P City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 18, 2005 0 Jan Vandersloot urged Council to eliminate this site for the new City Hall and reviewed the 1992 CIOSA agreement. He discussed the delays that could occur due to zoning changes and the required EIR, and the potential for losing the park donor money. He indicated that he likes the current site for City Hall. BJ Johnson hoped that the City doesn t take away the CIOSA agreement from the public and expressed concern with the potential traffic if the site was selected for the City Hall. Ben Schmitt believed that the current City Hall should be remodeled and stated that he would like to be on City Hall Site Review Committee. He suggested leaving the park as a park due to traffic. Mayor Webb closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Selieh to exclude the Newport Village site as a potential City Hall site. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Heffernan, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle Noes: Council Member Nichols r1 LJ 27. 1jkYSIDE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY - 919 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PNL04-072). [100 -80051 • Mayor opened the public hearing. Motion r Pro Tem Rosan� to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2006. The motion carried by th owing roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member HeffeeNn, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Co Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 28. SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS 00 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2004 -169) (LENNAR HOMES) (contd. fr 11122/05). 1100 -20051 Mayor Webb opened the public hearing. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rosamky to continue the p c hearing to January .10, 2006. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Heffernan, Council Member Selich, Mayor Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member D e, Council Member Nichols 29. COASTAL LAND USE PLAN. [100 -20051 • Volume 57 - Page 499 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes • June 27, 2006 properties compliant. Ed Vandenbossche pointed out that it is the property owners that can the police on the renters. He stated that he lives there and relies on this source of income. Mayor Webb closed the public hearing. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols 37. COUNCIL BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY HALL PROJECT PLANNING ISSUES. [361100 -20061 Motion by Mayor Webb to consider Item 37 (City Hall Project Planning Issues) out of order and continue this item in order for a study session to be held so Council can hear opinions and presentations relative to using a park site for the City Hall site. Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky to reconvene the City Hall Site Review Committee and have the Committee review the proposed site and plan prior to further action by the City Council. • Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky stated that the Committee should operate under the same guidelines when it reviewed the other sites, therefore, a presentation by Mr. Ficker to the Committee and providing them with the proposal is not necessary. He added that the Committee would not be critiquing the existing building at the proposed site and that the site should never have been taken off the table for evaulation. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that the Committee would recommend the site. He pointed out that construction costs are rising and Council has a fiduciary duty to its citizens to move forward. He believed that the site plan and location should be analyzed by the Building Ad Hoc Committee. He believed that this should be done during the regular meeting, not study session. He added that the social and economic impacts to the Peninsula need to analyzed by staff if City Hall is moved. He believed that the City would be going back on its word to the community if it did this. Council Member Curry believed that, even though he is skeptical of the site, Council needs to look at the proposal, compare it to the existing City Hall, and receive answers to many questions about the proposed site. He explained why the Daily Pilot's term "free site" is inaccurate. Council Member Nichols expressed support for having Mr. Ficker present his proposal to Council. He noted that the site can be rezoned. Council Member Selich agreed that the site doesnt need to be sent back to the Committee because they would conclude that the site is valid. However, he emphasized that this is a policy matter of whether the City wants to trade Parkland for a central location for City Hall. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky withdrew his motion, but recommended not limiting the Volume 57 -Page 713 R City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 27, 2006 presentation to only Mr. Ficker's proposal. • Substitute motion by Council Member_Curry to direct staff to provide a staff report at the July 25 meeting that evaluates the impact of the loss of parkland, the access and traffic issues, and the efficacy of the proposed design; discusses the history behind how the land became a park; and evaulates the property value of the existing site. Council Member Daigle noted that this is now a different process than what has been followed and emphasized that the parties of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) need to also be consulted since this is dedicated open space. Mayor Webb agreed that Mr. Ficker should be allowed to explain his proposal, but suggested that this be done during the study session. He also agreed that anyone should be allowed to make a presentation to Council. Debra Allen, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner, provided Council with a .handout of the plans for the park and reviewed the result of a survey of the Corona del Mar Residents Association. She believed that the decision should be made during a regular meeting and that this is a policy issue. She provided a history of the site and discussed the issues associated with the donor and the concern for losing the current donor money. She believed that, if Council decides to keep it as a park, the City should provide funding to develop it. John Nelson, City Hall Site Review Committee, believed that the Committee shouldn't • review the site because the choice is ultimately Council's. He stated that the City needs a new City Hall and expressed concern about the rising costs. He urged Council to move forward. Bernie Svalsted urged Council to stop procrastinating. He noted that the park issue has been going on since 1996 and provided a history of the parksite and the CIOSA agreement. He believed that staff should be directed to look at the costs and environmental concerns on the proposed site and look into leasing the Corporate Plaza West site for 99 years with the option to buy. George Jeffries stated that he contacted a Cal Tech graduate and discussed the environmental problems that may occur at the existing City Hall site. He believed that Council should disqualify the existing site pending an independent geotechnical study. Lucille Kuehn noted that she was an advocate for making the site above the Central Library a park; however, she could make a different choice. She agreed that a new City Hall is needed. Barry Allen reminded Council that the proposed site was already approved to become a park and that this is being considered because the Daily Pilot created a controversy. He asked why Council would consider taking away parkland rather than condemn The Irvine Company s office building for the new City Hall. Nancy Gardner emphasized that the proposed site has already been declared a park and noted that the General Plan states that open space needs to be replaced if it is taken away_ is Bruce Naught stated that this area is being discussed because it's the center of the City and suggested having a third party conduct a feasibility study on the proposed site. He Volume 67 - Page 714 to City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes • June 27, 2006 believed that the existing City Hall site is a good location for a park. Bill Ficker recommended that Council allow him to do a presentation at a Council meeting. He discussed some of the advantages of his proposal, noted that his plan tries to preserve as much of the parkland as possible for a natural park, and suggested converting the current site to an urban area with open space. Allan Beek noted that the proposed building plan is not relevant to site selection, the City has the power of eminent domain, Mr. Ficker's remarks about the efficiencies of City Hall have been neglected, and no city has made a policy to sell parkland to make money. He believed that the City shouldn't sell the existing property to build residential units, but should build the park on it instead. Jan Vandersloot noted that he has been involved with the park issue since 1992 and asked that Council abide by the CIOSA agreement. He stated that development agreements are immune from challenges and referendums, and believed that the City needs to provide a comparative view property if the park is taken away. He believed that a geotechnical study needs to be conducted on the proposed site. Mayor Webb asked that Council consider having Mr. Ficker make a presentation at the July 11 study session. Amended substitute motion by Council Memher Curry to include allowing Mr. Ficker to make a presentation at the July 11 study session. Council Member Selich believed that the policy issue of trading a central location for a dedicated park site needs to be answered first. He believed that the location was not considered for a reason and pointed out that the park already has plans and funding. He reviewed his point system which concluded that the current site is a superior location over the park site. Substitute motion by Council Member Selich to 1) based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site; and 2) approve $25,000 for entering into a contract with a new architectural firm to provide three (3) alternative exterior design concepts based on the existing floor plan. Council Member Curry stated that he shares Council Member Selich's concern about trading parkland, but believed that Council should take the extra 30 days and allow the proposal to be aired so people can judge for themselves and Council can make a decision. Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky pointed out that there has been no discussion on the second part of the motion. Substitute to the substitute motion by Council Member Selich to 1) based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site. • The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky, Council Member Ridgeway Volume 57 - Page 715 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 27, 2006 Noes: Council Member Curry, Mayor Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member • Nichols City Attorney Clauson suggest that a study session be conducted on July 11 to discuss the alternative site and receive presentations from Mr. Ficker and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. She indicated that staff can provide preliminary information on what would be required to build the City Hall on the site. Further, on July 25, Council can decide whether to accept the site with a policy decision to trade the park site for the City Hall site. City Manager Bludau expressed concern about the timeline to get the next agenda out and that having a month would be more realistic. He reported that Council directed the City Hall Site Review Committee to not look at any site that would involve condemnation and that the proposed site was the only one they were not permitted to review. He received confirmation that staff can work with the Building Ad Hoc Committee to generate the report. Amendment to the amended-motion by Council Member Curry to continue this issue to the July 25 Council meeting, with staff bringing back a report that discusses the park structure, the history of its designation as a park, the legal history of it becoming a park, the access and traffic issues, the parking issues, the efficacy of using the park as a City Hall, the value and fiscal analysis of the existing site, and the limitations of selling the current site; and, at the July 11 study session, have open discussion about the alternative site and have it include presentations by Mr. Ficker relative to his proposal and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission relative to • the proposed park. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols IL PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) MQion by Council Member Curry to consider the Business Improvement District items (Items 29, 30, 31 & 32) at the same time. 29. CORONA DEL MAR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006- 2007. [100 -20061 30. MARINE AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT-DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006- 2007. [100 -20061 31. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION OF CONFIRMATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007. [100 -20061 • Volume 67 - Page 716 Q_ City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 25, 2006 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRENT CITY HALL SITE, AND WHETHER TO MAKE THE AVOCADO SITE THE SUBJECT OF A NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURE. 1351100 -20061 City Manager Bludau provided a staff report and noted that the City Hall Site Review Committee recommended that Council consider the Corporate Plaza West site and the current site for the new City Hall, but The Irvine Company indicated that their site was not for sale. He stated that staff concluded that, at this point, there doesn't appear to be any single fatal flaw that prohibits Council from putting a City Hall on the Avocado site. He reported that the two methods of placing this item on the ballot are to have an advisory vote or a charter amendment. He stated that his conclusion is that there are two viable sites for the City Hall but it is hard to compare the projects. He pointed out that the City already spent four years and a lot of money studying the current site. He noted that it would take about a year and $150,000 to $250,000 to bring the Ficker plan into the same level of detail as the current site project. He emphasized that, with construction costs rising 10% to 15% a year, waiting another year could add $4 million to $6 million to the City Hall and parking structure components. City Attorney Clauson clarified that an advisory vote would not be binding and does not require an environmental analysis or design work. However, in order for Council to place City Hall on the Avocado site, a general plan amendment vote is required pursuant to Measure S. She explained that the reason for having a charter amendment vote is so, if Council processed a general plan amendment and it was - approved by the electorate, a future Charter Section 423 vote would not be required In response to Council questions, City Attorney Clauson clarified that, depending on how Council directs the Charter amendment to be written, it does not have to bind Council to build City Hall on the Avocado site. However, if Council wanted to put City Hall there after following the general plan amendment procedure, the electorate had already voted and there would not be a need for an additional vote under Charter Section 423. She reported that the charter amendment could be written to be a binding vote and state that City Hall shall be at that location, but she doesn't recommend writing it this way, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky indicated that he is not a fan of votes to decide matters like this, that Council needs to do its homework about placing City Hall on the Avocado site, and that he doesn't see the point of putting this to a vote. Council Member Ridgeway noted that Council has already voted on this issue a number of times, created two committees to review finance issues and potential City Hall sites, and indicated that it would make a decision on May 1, 2006. He believed that this is a park site and recommended that Council make a decision tonight about the site. He expressed his disappointment with the traffic analysis in the staff report. He emphasized that the cost to build the City Hall on the Avocado site would be the same as at the current location, but construction costs are rising. He added that, if the City proceeds with a City Hail on the site, the City will probably be in some type of lawsuit and the site will be tied up for years. Council Member Curry stated that he was not on Council when the action was taken to keep the site a park, but agreed with Council Member Ridgeway. k1lan Beek believed that the Avocado site and the current location are not suitable Volume 57 - Page 756 i3 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 25, 2006 sites for a City Hall so there shouldn't be an election on this issue. He stated that an impartial outside analysis should be conducted on City processes and procedures. He noted that the City could lease the Corporate Plaza West site with the option to buy or use its power of eminent domain in order to build City Hall on that site. Tom Moulson expressed his support for maintaining the Avocado site as a park and keeping City Hall at its current location. Bill Ficker stated that his interest in this started with wanting to improve City operations. He indicated that maybe the City should look at other sites, believing that the current City Hall site is the wrong site. He suggested that Council take its time and place City Hall in a location that doesn't require Coastal Commission approval. Ron Winship suggested moving City Hall to the back of the Police Department and fire station. He opposed building on the park site since it could destroy the view down Jamboree Road. Jan Vandersloot requested that Council honor past agreements and take the Avocado site out of consideration. Christine Carr expressed support for maintaining the Avocado site as a park. Debbie Stevens noted that, with the approval of the General Plan, Council has already approved the site as a park. She believed that changing the site from a park to a City Tull is more costly. • Jim Warren expressed support for maintaining the Avocado site as a park and noted that not everyone feels a new City Hall is needed. He suggested replacing buildings over time at the current location. Barry Allen displayed a site plan for a four story City Hall on the Police Department site and photos of buildings along Santa Barbara. Mary Barrett Blake expressed support for Mr. Ficker's plan and encouraged Council to study this plan further. She believed that the Avocado site isn't a prime park site. Tom Courtney noted that Corona del Mar does not have enough park land and expressed support for maintaining the Avocado site as a park. Bernie Svalsted noted that Council voted six months ago to take this site off the list of potential City Hall sites and Council did it again by approving the General Plan. He emphasized that people are mainly wanting a centralized City Hall, but recommended taking the Avocado site off the list again_ Debbie Allen noted that a resident committee raised $1.2 million last year. She read a letter from Suzy Ficker that indicated that with the expansion of Newport Center in 1976, The Irvine Company was required to dedicate the Avocado site as open space in perpetuity by the Coastal Commission. She presented a petition signed by all EQAC members and indicated that she would provide the City Clerk with the names of the supporters of the park in attendance tonight. Elaine Linhoff noted that she hasn't had problems getting off the Peninsula and City • Hall doesn't cause traffic problems. She expressed support for maintaining the Volume 57 - Page 757 14 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 25,, 2006 Avocado site as a park. Hugh Logan expressed support for maintaining the Avocado site as a park Larry Porter agreed that Council shouldn't consider this site. Ron Hendrickson expressed support for Mr. Ficker's plan and suggested dealing with the park site separate from where City Hall should be. He believed that City Hall should be in a central location and that the City should look at the Santa Barbara site. John Nelson, City Hall Site Review Committee member, reported that the Committee reviewed feasible sites and narrowed the list to the Corporate Plaza West site and the current location_ He expressed concern about the costs due to the delays and expressed opposition to putting this on the ballot. Karen Tringali noted that this decision has already been decided and that there are legal, binding agreements associated with the Avocado site. Council Member Curry stated that he is willing to consider a City Hall at Newport Center, but explained why he is not willing to support using Newport Center Park for City Hall. He discussed the merits of placing City Hall with the Police Department and fire station and indicated that Council needs to ask staff to develop an alternative so Council can review this option. • Uptio_n_by_Council Member Ridgeway to not consider the Newport Center Park site for a new City Hall and have it remain a park site. Council Member Ridgeway asked Council to consider the economic, cultural, and social impacts moving City Hall off of the Peninsula would have on the community. Council Member Nichols believed that Council should consider Newport Center Park for City Hall because of costs, existing zoning, and the large acreage of land. He took issue about having another natural park. He believed that the new City Hall could be paid for by selling the current City Hall site. Further, a City Hall on the park site won't create traffic problem, the site has better access, and it is below the view plane. Council Member Daigle suggested conducting an unbiased comparison of the Police Department site, Avocado site, and current City Hall site, and believed that it is premature to put this to a vote or to remove the park site from consideration. She suggested reconvening the City Hall Site Review Committee to review costs, safety, impacts on neighborhoods, access, traffic, and transitional issues during the move. She recommended doing a public facilities study. .Mayor Webb noted that the staff report indicated that the site had no fatal flaws and that the Ficker proposal was feasible. He suggested keeping the park site on the list for evaluation, noting that the CIOSA agreement has already been modified once. He expressed concern about the Police Department site because there are too many issues. • The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Volume 57 - Page 768 iS City of Newport Beacl City Council Minutes July 2b, 2006 Council Member Ridgeway Noes: Mayor Webb, Council Member Daigle Abstain: Council Member Nichols Motion by Council Member Selich to evaluate alternative sites in Newport Center. Council Member Selich recommended referring this to the Building Committee so they can work with staff on how to proceed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols Noes: Council Member Ridgeway P. CURRENT BUSINESS 21. OPOSED BALLOT MEASURE - AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL P (39/100 -2006] City \LU13 less provided the staff report. Assistant City Manager Wood indicae change in peak hour trips and the addition of two tables was revieItem 18 (General Plan Update) discussions. She also noted that Figurbeen revised. In response to Cou il's questions about writing the arguments and who can sign the arguments, City rk Harkless read a section from the Elections Code relative to setting priorities. y Attorney Clauson believed that only those Council Members assigned can si the argument. She indicated that this doesn't preclude others from submitting an ar ment, but Council will have priority over anyone else or entity. Dana Reed, legal Counsel, Rutan d Tucker, indicated that other jurisdictions have interpreted the Elections Code Ne able to assign one Council Member to be the primary author of the argument in or of the ballot measure and one Council Member to be the primary author of th argument m opposition to the ballot measure, and allow those Council Members get the remaining argument signers whether they are Council Members or not. He nfirmed that, if you assign all five authors for the argument in favor of the ballot sore, then Council has limited the ability to add non - Council Members to the ar ent. City Attorney Clausen added that, if Council gives themselves authority to the arguments but doesn't write one and another party does, that party's argumen will be published if they were next in priority. Motion by Council_.Member Ttidggway to a) adopt Reso 'on No. 2006.77 ordering the submission of a proposed measure to the voters t the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; b) adopt Resoluti No. 2006.78 requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to solidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 10061 ith the Statewide General Municipal Election to be held on the same date purl nt to Section 10403 of the Elections Code; and c) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -79 ae 'ng • priorities for filing (a) written argument(s) regarding a City measure, with May Webb being the lead author for the argument in favor of the ballot measure and Volume 57 - Page 759 16 . NEY(PoRTVNAVEPARIt ' NDRTX CS TNEtklYP0RT9EACN �� 9FG•e'rATV'PILXAN•i�e4lrrA1 fn = _ e w CFNiPA1 LIBPARY .. �� CIIYCF NEYRQM BEAN — my xovaL®Amexr J Y\ V / � \ _ \ �: � 1.• � •�y� 1 tlt l��t I V �Y I\ / y 503.. X!b3.6 i QUANTITIES fl ADA RAMPS: (3) = SF. ! OW. PMMi: 3.390 S.F. PARKING AREA PYMT WSW S.F, f f CVRB SAG L.F. 30 PARKING STALLS + 1 ADA % J 1 I 0 lu FlRALLpN DR. ----------- -AVOCADO AVE. .......... 0 lu 0 0 • M __ .. ... ... F .... ...__4 .' p w .0 u sn w CROSS SECTION i NEWiOPi GEMIEAP�PPfgNCEPi PL4N S q�+ M NEWPORT CENTER PARK - Option 1: Passive Park Prepared by: Hall and Foreman, Inc. Date: September 7, 2006 PHASE Al - Passive Park Central Area DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL A. SITEWORK 3 EA $700.00 $2,100.00 WATER METER 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 MAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE 1 EA $20,000.00 _ $20,000.00 GRADING (CUT) 27,500 CY $1.50 $41,250.00 GRADING (EXPORT) 16,000 CY $10.00 $160,000.00 CLEAR AND GRUB 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 2.000A $25,000.00 BONDING 1 LS 2.00 ° /a $25,000.00 DRIVEWAY APPROACH 320 SF $10.00 $3,200.00 2' WIDE EARTHEN SWALE 780 SF $7.50 $5,850.00 EROSION CONTROL - SANDBAC 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 BERM 780 LF $6.00 $4,680.00 REMOVE EX. GUNITE DITCH 550 LF $10.00 $5,500.00 PROP. PARK LOT PAVING 10,130 SF $2.60 $26,338.00 PROP. PARK LOT CURB & GUTT 505 LF $12.00 $6,060.00 SUBTOTAL $362,878.00 B. HARDSCAPE CONCRETE PAVING 17,000 SF $6.00 $102,000.00 LOW CONC. WALLS 230 LF $95.00 $21,850.00 CONC. MOWSTRIP 1,300 LF $9.00 $11,700.00 SUBTOTAL $135,550.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS TRASH RECEPTACLES 3 EA $700.00 $2,100.00 BENCHES 8 EA $1,200.00 $9,600.00 LIGHTINGICONDUIT 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 AMPHITHEATER OVERHEAD 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 SUBTOTAL $236,700.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION 220,000 SF $1.25 $275,000.00 SOIL PREPIFINE GRADE 220,000 SF $0.25 $55,060.00 HYDROSEEDED TURFGRASS 170,000 SF $0.07 $11,900.00 GROUND COVER - FLATS 50,000 SF $0.60 $30,000.00 SHRUBS - 1 GAL. 700 EA $8.50 $5,950.00 SHRUBS -5 GAL. 2,500 EA $18.00 $45,000.00 90 -DAY MAINTENANCE 220,000 SF $0.12 $26,400.00 AVOCADO EDGE TREATMENT 800 LF $27.00 $21,600.00 SUBTOTAL $470,850.00 E. CSS MITIGATION FEE I AC $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL $0.00 PHASE I SUMMARY u • A. SITEWORK $362,878.00 B. HARDSCAPE $135,550.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS $236,700.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION $470,850.00 E. CSS MITIGATION FEE $0.00 TOTAL $1,205,978.00 • Page 1 of 5 %) Page 2 of 6 ;� 1 DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST • PHASE Bt -Library PARKING LOT AREA AND SLOPE A. SITEWORK GRADING (CUE) 45,000 CY $1.50 $67,500.00 GRADING (EXPORT) 45,000 CY $10.00 $450,000.00 FINE GRADING- PARKING LOT 50,000 SF $025 $12,500.00 CLEAR AND GRUB 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 MOBILIZATION 1 LS 2.00% $30,000.00 BONDING 1 LS 2.00% $30,000.00 4" AC OVER 12" AB PAVEMENT 28,420 SF $2.60 $73,892.00 3" AC OVER 6" AB PAVEMENT 14,520 SF $2.20 $31,944.00 TYPE "A" (6 ") PCC CURB & GUT 225 LF $12.00 $2,700.00 TYPE "B" (6 ") PCC CURB 1,790 LF $8.00 $14,320.00 SIDEWALK 1,425 SF $6.00 $8,550.00 ADA ACCESS RAMP 215 SF $10.00 $2,150.00 T WIDE EARTHEN SWALE 320 LF $8.00 $2,560.00 6' WIDE EARTHEN SWALE 206 LF $10.00 $2,060.00 SAWCUf EX. CURB AND GUTTI 18 LF $30.00 $540.00 SAWCUT EX. PAVEMENT 58 LF $30.00 $1,740.00 EROSION CONTROL - SANDBAC 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 DEMO EX. PAVING 4,676 SF $2.00 $9,400.00 CONCRETE SWALE 155 LF $18.00 $2,790.00 TERRACED RETAINING WALL 205 LF $30.00 $6,150.00 REMOVE EX. STORM DRAIN SY: 1,000 LF $7.50 $7,500.00 6" ADS STORM DRAIN PIPE 89 LF $40.00 $3,560.00 8" ADS STORM DRAIN PIPE 296 LF $44.00 $13,024.00 10" ADS STORM DRAIN PIPE 202 LF $48.00 $9,696.00 12" ADS STORM DRAIN PIPE 805 LF $54.00 $43,470.00 • 15" ADS STORM DRAIN PIPE 210 LF $60.00 $12,600.00 - U21 CATCH BASIN 211 W/ 4" WA 8 EA $1,200.00 $9,600.00 V12 DRAIN BOX 6 EA $900.00 $5,400.00 CONCRETE COLLAR 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 CONCRETE PIPE SLOPE ANCH( 11 EA $350.00 $3,850.00 REMOVE EX. CMP RISER INLET 1 EA $750.00 $750.00 CORE DRILL AND INSTALL SD P 1 EA $300.00 $300.00 U21 CATCH BASIN 2x2 W/ GRAT 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 PARKING LOT STRIPING 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 SUBTOTAL $893,046.00 $893,046.00 B. HARDSCAPE CONC. STAIRS (WEST) - 7' WIDE 350 LF $75.00 $26,250.00 CONC. CHEEKWALLS (WEST) 240 LF $75.00 $18,000.00 CONC. PADS (WEST) 60 LF $35.00 $2,100.00 HANDRAILS FOR STAIRS (WESI 480 LF $20.00 $9,600.00 CONC. STAIRS (EAST) - 7' WIDE 220 LF $75.00 $16,500.00 CONC. CHEEKWALLS (EAST) 80 LF $75.00 $6,000.00 CONC. PADS (EAST) 7 LF $35.00 $245.00 HANDRAILS FOR STAIRS (EAST 80 LF $20.00 $1,600.00 HANDICAP RAMPS 440 LF $40.00 $17,600.00 HANDRAILS FOR RAMPS 880- LF $20.00 $17,600.00 CONC. MOWSTRIP 700 LF $9.00 $6,300.00 SUBTOTAL $121,795.00 C. ELECTRICAL PARKING LOT LIGHTS 21 EA $3,500.00 $73,500.00 BOLLARD LIGHTS 12 EA $2,200.00 $26,400.00 • ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 ELECTRICAL PANEUENCLOSUF 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 MISC. ELECTRICAL 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 SUBTOTAL $142,900.00 $142,900.00 Page 2 of 6 ;� 1 DESCRIPTION CITY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION $5,000.00 $5,000.00 BONDING 1 LS AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION 60,000 SF $2.00 $120,000.00 SOIL PREP /FINE GRADE -SLOPE 60,000 SF -$0.25 $15,000.00 HYDROSEEDED TURFGRASS 18,000 SF $0.07 $1,260.00 GROUND COVER - FLATS 42,000 SF $0.60 $25,200.00 SHRUBS -1 GAL 1,000 EA $8.50 $8,500.00 SHRUBS -5GAL- 2,500 EA $18.00 $45,000.00 TREES -24 "BOX 60 EA $275.00 $16,500.00 TREES - 36" BOX 10 EA $600.00 $6,000.00 TREES -48 "BOX 4 EA _ $1,300.00 $5,200.00 90 -DAY MAINTENANCE 60,000 SF $0.12 $7,200.00 BENCHES SUBTOTAL $1,200.00 $3,600.00 $249,860.00 PHASE 2 SUMMARY: 1 $5,700.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 A. SITEWORK WOODLANDS PROJECT SUMMARY: $893,046.00 B. HARDSCAPE A. SITEWORK $121,795.00 C. ELECTRICAL $21,000.00 $142,900.00 D. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION $249,860.00 TOTAL $1,407,601.00 PHASE 3 - NORTH NATIVE GARDEN PARK AREA 1. WOODLAND AREA A. SITEWORK 53,000 SF $1.75 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 BONDING 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 CLEAR AND GRUB 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 FINE GRADING 2,000 CY $1.50 $3,000.00 CONSTRUCTION WATER/POWE 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $10,530.00 - SUBTOTAL TREES -15 GAL. $21,000.00 B. HARDSCAPE $150.00 $2,400.00 STONE RETAINING /SEAT WALL: 200 LF $90.00 $18,000.00 STABILIZED D.G. WALK 1,750 SF $3.50 $6,125.00 INFO INTERPRETIVE KIOSK 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000.00 AVAOCADO EDGE TREATMENT SUBTOTAL LF $29,125.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS SUBTOTAL TRASH RECEPTACLES 3 EA $700.00 $2,100.00 BENCHES 3 EA $1,200.00 $3,600.00 SUBTOTAL 1 $5,700.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION • • AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION 53,000 SF $1.75 $92,750.00 SOIL PREP /FINE GRADE 53,000 SF $0.25 $13,250.00 GROUND COVER - FLATS 20,000 SF $0.35 $7,000.00 SHRUBS - 1 GAL. 800 EA $15.00 $12,000.00 SHRUBS - 5 GAL. 390 EA $27.00 $10,530.00 - TREES -15 GAL. 16 EA $150.00 $2,400.00 TREES -24 "BOX 14 EA $400.00 $5,600.00 90 -DAY MAINTENANCE 53,000 SF $0.12 $6,360.00 AVAOCADO EDGE TREATMENT 570 LF $27.00 $15,390.00 SUBTOTAL $165,260.00 E. EXISTING PLANTING ENHANCEMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000.00 $15,000.00 • F. CSS MITIGATION FEE 1 AC. $50,000.00 $50,000.00 WOODLANDS PROJECT SUMMARY: A. SITEWORK $21,000.00 Page 3 of 5 DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST B. HARDSCAPE $29,125.00 • C. SITE FURNISHINGS $5,700.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION $165,280.00 E. EXISTING PLANTING ENHANCEMENT $15,000.00 F. CSS MITIGATION FEE $50,000.00 $3,000.00 SUBTOTAL $286,105.00 2. GRASSLANDS for ChamaraB A. SITEWORK 1r1, u GRASSLAND /CHAPPARAL PROJECT SUMMARY: A. SITEWORK $10,000.00 B. HARDSCAPE $13,050.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS $3,100.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION $81,750.00 E. EXISTING PLANTING ENHANCEMENT $30,000.00 F. CSS MITIGATION FEE' $25,000.00 SUBTOTAL $162,900.00 G. BRIDGE 100' BRIDGE, PAINTED, FOOTIN 1 LS $85,000.00 $85,000.00 Page 4 of 5 �_.... . MOBILIZATION 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 BONDING 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 CLEAR AND GRUB 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 ROUGH GRADING 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 CONSTRUCTION WATER/POWE 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 SUBTOTAL $10,000.00 B. HARDSCAPE STONE RETAINING /SEAT WALL: 75 LF $90.00 $6,750.00 STABILIZED D.G. WALK 1,800 SF $3.50 $6,300.00 SUBTOTAL $13,050.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS TRASH RECEPTACLES 1 EA $700.00 $700.00 BENCHES 2 EA $1,200.00 $2,400.00 SUBTOTAL $3,100.00 • D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION 36,000 SF $1.25 $45,000.00 SOIL PREPIFINE GRADE 36,000 SF $0.25 $9,000.00 GROUND COVER - FLATS 10,000 SF $0.35 $3,500.00 SHRUBS - 1 GAL. 600 EA $15.00 $9,000.00 SHRUBS - 5 GAL. 390 EA $27.00 $10,530.00 TREES - 15 GAL. 0 EA $150.00 $0.00 TREES - 24" BOX 1 EA $400.00 $400.00 90-DAY MAINTENANCE 36,000 SF $0.12 $4,320.00 SUBTOTAL $81,750.00 E. EXISTING PLANTING ENHANCEMENT ALLOWANCE $30,000.00 $30,000.00 F. CSS MITIGATION FEE' 0.5 AC $50,000.00 $25,000.00 1r1, u GRASSLAND /CHAPPARAL PROJECT SUMMARY: A. SITEWORK $10,000.00 B. HARDSCAPE $13,050.00 C. SITE FURNISHINGS $3,100.00 D. PLANTING & IRRIGATION $81,750.00 E. EXISTING PLANTING ENHANCEMENT $30,000.00 F. CSS MITIGATION FEE' $25,000.00 SUBTOTAL $162,900.00 G. BRIDGE 100' BRIDGE, PAINTED, FOOTIN 1 LS $85,000.00 $85,000.00 Page 4 of 5 �_.... . 0 9 DESCRIPTION CITY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST PHASE 3 - NORTH AREA PROJECT SUMMARY: WOODLANDS TOTAL $286,105.00 GRASSLAND /CHAPPARAL $162,900.00 BRIDGE $85,000.00 CREDIT (FROM ORIGINAL ESTIMATE FOR RESTORATION) - $25,000.00 PHASE 3 TOTAL $509,005.00 (Includes $100,000 For Mitigation I Said 75k "NOTE: THE ABOVE OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS IS BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN DATED 11/2/05 AND MAY CHANGE SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN. `THE MITIGATION FEE AREA IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION THAT AN UPDATED STUDY WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS LESS CSS IN THIS AREA, TOTALING APPROX. 112 ACRE TOTAL PROJECT SUMMARY: PHASE Al - PASSIVE PARK CENTRAL AREA PHASE Bl - LIBRARY PARKING LOT AREA PHASE Cl - NORTH PARK AREA CONTINGENCY Al CONTINGENCY B1 CONTINGENCY Cl GRAND TOTAL TOTALS $1,205,978.00 $1,407,601.00 $509,005.00 $3,122,584.00 $3,122,584.00 $214,326.00 $161,251.70 $254,502.50 GRAND TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY is • is Page 5 of 5 q4 Stop Polluting Our Newpo% IVED • P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California``zZ 20 FEB 14 M it- 21 IE F-HIE LE February 10, 2007 R ii �c %! Y CLERK Mayor Steven Rosansky City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Support for Newport Center Park Dear Mayor Rosansky and City Council "Members: Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) would like to reaffirm its support for maintaining Newport Center Park as a passive park, and not building a soccer field on the park site, as has been recently suggested. We understand that this issue will be discussed at an upcoming Council meeting, and would like to have this letter become part of the record. SPON has been involved with creation and design of the park since 1992, when the land above the library was dedicated to the City as open space by the Irvine Company as part of the CIOSA Agreement. SPON contributed a concept plan for the park that was the basis for the current design of the park as a • passive park, complete with a view park as well as an environmentally sensitive natural area containing coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat that has. had endangered species, such as the gnatcatcher documented on the site. • One of the great attributes of the park site above the library is the outstanding views of the ocean and coastline, extending all the way to the halos Verdes Peninsula and, the Santa Monica Mountains. The park site is a sloping landform that would need to have significant grading to" support a soccer field. Such grading would.possibly.disrupt.the public.views of the ocean and coastline from the site,.as well as potentially causing hazardous eonditions.with soccer balls on the adjacent major highways. Moreover, the grading and filling would increase the costs of the park substantially. . SPON therefoie.urges the City Council to stay the course and proceed with timely development of the park as already planned as a passive view park with natural amenities. Major private donations have . already been substantially curtailed due to delays in the development of the park. Let's not incur further delays, but proceed with final design and implementation of the.Newport Center Park as a passive. park as soon as possible.. Sincerely, A. �v _ 11 Marko Popovicb and Brent Cooper %r Date Copies Sent To: Mayor SPON Presiding Officers cc: City Manager Bludau Assistant. City Managers Kiff and Wood Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission Regular Meeting • January 2, 2007 - 7pm Page 3 otion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the donation of a 24" Torrey Pine tree by Monique Fa to be planted at CdM State Beach. Motion carried by acclamation. 6. Request Newport Beach Little League. Recreation Manager Sean Levin stated that staff recommends at the Commission approve the request by Newport Beach Little League (NBLL) to install a batting a between fields 1 and 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. He went on to say that demands for field continues to rise with increased pressure on the inventory of the available fields and that this wil ovide increased practice opportunities for teams and provide three teams to practice at the same ti while increasing the use of the field by 33 %. He went on to say that Recreation staff met with Pa and Maintenance and NBLL to select the best location. Staff has notified the public that live with 00 feet of the location by postcard of this meeting and noted that NBLL will be responsible for all a ciated costs and that the two trees in the location would be replaced with a different type of tree wi ' the park. Chair Garret opened the public discussion. Keith Banning, NBLL stated that they had raised the oney a couple of years ago but that this batting cage would be extremely helpful with team pr ce and will free up soccer fields for their use and urged approval by the Commission. Jan Vandersloot encouraged staff to transplant those existing tree another location. Chair Garret closed the public discussion. • Discussion ensued regarding the nets for the batting cages and was assured b BLL that they would be responsible for those. Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the installation of a batting cage between s 1 Et 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park with all costs covered by NBLL. Motion carried by acclamati 8. Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan. Director Morgan stated that at the December 12 City Council meeting to bring back the Newport Center project and would be discussed again that the January 23 meeting. He went on to say that at that meeting they would review the complete plan and specifications would be seeking approval to go on as planned. He stated that as the discussion moved forward the Council asked for some consideration for soccer fields. He noted that staff has moved forward and has provided information to all with a 6 year plan of the development of the site. He stated that it is up to the Commission as to a motion of how to advise the City Council. He stated that staff are the facilitators and in fairness to all, that it is staff's intention to study the soccer field component as requested by City Council. He went on to say that that these minutes would be provided as part of the Public Works staff report to Council. Commissioner Allen stated that she had walked the site and reviewed the pictures but noted that if this site were to be a soccer field that it would require a lot of grading off the top and a lot of fill at the bottom to flatten the site out because it now has a 70 -80 feet grade from the library to the crest of the hill and would lose the view if it was to be flattened. Director Morgan agreed. Commissioner Brown agreed that there does seem to be enough room if it were to graded to place a • soccer field but was concerned that the Commission has tried to use active parks as multiple use nIf_ Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission • Regular Meeting January 2, 2007 - 7pm Page 4 facilities and does not believe that there would be room enough for a soccer field and three Little League fields and does that address the shortage of fields within the City. Director Morgan agreed. Director Morgan stated that he does not want to get into design of the park or ruling out specific activities but that screening and fencing would be required to have a multiple use field. He stated that City Council has specifically asked staff to look at a soccer field. Recreation Manager Levin stated that the site is a parcel of land located north of the Newport Beach Library and south of San Miguel. He reviewed the pictures of the site with the Commission. Chair Garret opened the public discussion. Tom Moulson noted that those were great photographs and that the Commission should get a sense of what a lovely passive park it could be and always imagined that this location would be that. He stated that the City has a Teflon City Council that has trouble sticking to its decision and was concerned that he had to keep coming back to discuss the issue over and over again when he believed that it had been decided. He noted that there are many other people that could not make it tonight that believe that Newport Center Park should only be used as a passive park not a sports field. He urged the Commission to convey to City Council that many people do object to this change in direction. • Jan Vandersloot stated that this location has always been categorized as a passive park. He stated that the community has been working on this park for over 10 years with that assumption and that it is time to have closure and recommended that the Commission urge the Council to approve Newport Center Park as a passive park. Bernie Svalstad stated that in March 2005 he was the chair of a committee to raise $1.2 M for this park site with at least 16 people on the committee and City staff and no one ever mentioned anything about this site being used as an active park. He stated that since then because of procrastinations and problems that a $600,000 donation was lost and noted that if something does not happen soon that he believes that will be lost also. He stated that the park estimates have risen from $1.2 M to $2.2M and possibly more and that costs continue to go up as procrastination continues. He went on to say that the City has spent a lot of money on plans as they changed and so urged the Commission to recommend to City Council that Newport Center Park be used as a passive park. MaryAnn Soden stated that this park should only be a passive park and that there is no synergy between the library and the possibility of a soccer field and would undermine what is a jewel in the community. She went on to say that a soccer field would not be very useful to the Newport Center community and that the money should be raised to make it a beautiful passive park. Hugh Logan from Seaview Community and stated that when this item came before the City Council it was between a City Hall and a park and the Council spoke unequivocally that it would be a park site and the sense of that meeting was that it would be a passive park. He stated that there should be a balance between natural, active and passive parks. He stated that because of the unique view and vista from this location is perfect as a passive park. It would be nice to • have more active parks but this location would be difficult to make it a multi sports site. He stated that since 2000 this park has always been a passive park. He urged the Commission to convey to the Council that it remain a passive park. n -a Parks, Beaches Et Recreation Commission Regular Meeting January 2, 20.07 - 7pm Page 5 Chair Garret closed the public discussion Commissioner Trapp stated that traffic and parking is an issue now and noted that anything such as an active park would make that even worse. Commissioner Lugar stated that after reading the City Council minutes he was astounded that there would be such a plan to make it an active park after all this time. Commissioner Brown added that whenever possible that active parks should be located in neighborhoods. He noted that he is still excited about the amphitheater to be used by the library as a readers' theater which is part of the plan for that location. Motion by Commissioner Allen to urge approval by City Council to move forward as soon as possible to develop the Newport Center Park site as a passive park. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Chair Garrett thanked staff for bringing this to the Commission in such a short time span. COMMITTEE REPORTS - Parks- Will look forward to meeting to get the Newport Center Park going and following that the committee will be actively working on Sunset Ridge, MarinaPark and Newport Coast Park but hopes that there will be money allocated by City Council to move forward on Newport Center Park sooner then later. Chair Garrett asked about MarinaPark. Director Morgan stated that Council has reviewed a concept plan and included that in the October 3 packet. He noted that it would address a variety of needs in the community but the project has its own timeline because of the residents that still live there and such. He did not that Council will be scheduling a meeting with the Commission to discuss park priorities sometime soon. RSS- Nothing to report. Budget- Director Morgan stated that a committee meeting will be set for the middle of March with a meeting. AD - Hoc —Youth Sports Liaison - Nothing to report — Community Services Award - Superintendent McGuire stated that staff had received a submission from the OASIS Travel Group and a one for Hannah Dean. Chair Garrett stated that he sees no problem with awarding two awards on the same night. Superintendent McGuire stated that we have not done the formal recommendation of these submissions yet - which will be brought forward at the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for nominations. Commission directed staff to agendize the criteria for nominations of a Community Service Award and the nominations for approval at the next meeting. Other —Santa Ana River Vision Plan- Commissioner Lugar asked to be removed from that Committee. Chair Garrett asked to be listed as an alternate. — Memorial Committee- Director Morgan stated that Council Member Curry is setting up a meeting. r1 LJ • DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS - • Director Morgan - Nothing to report. • • Director Harmon - Thanked the Commission for the Facility Inspections and that it was a bit help to Maintenance Division. V THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING a PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12,2W7 To: City of Newport Such City Council cc: Homer Siudeau - City Manager From: Hill Picker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Pr,.)Wy North of the Cantral Library We, the Undersigned, request that the Council take no acCon to implement construction on the parcel nW.h of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hail program has been finalized. The alto belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within trio city. This 17 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hal while retaining a major portion of the site for development as it park. Including a native planting area. The area e; the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentiaJy save the City many Millions of do lers. Trio City, I this concept is pursued, wind provide part( space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no not We in open space or park area. We have decided to present this Issue to you in this trief form with supportirg signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) GRESS 9AVrD �t.`,y, /ALL E nSIIGNATURE .✓rs ��'t-"- 3oS ��P RiFtuZA L (SCR G. i S� 04-40L. G t it'll j/ 11 sfA G M PK DoYvfi. 4,84Ad_ i !¢eo Yx c 417 T7ilk -iET n STREET . N6vV PORT BEACH CA 92663. PHONE(949)975-9628 • FAX !049)676-9638 Deco S utt 10! 94$675$636 p,j THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. PICKER, AIA a NCARB ARCHITECTURE Date: .laru;ary 12, 2007 MEMORANDUM To: City of Newport Beach City Counctl cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re' Selieh Proposal for Park Construction on Propeny North of the Central Library We, the undersiGned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city, This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly ;ovate the City Hall while retaining a major ponion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to `.he Library. This development could potentially save the Clty many millions of dollars. Tie City, If this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present th`S Issue to you In this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable erne of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGN TU E ? ADDRESS ! y 1 i ✓�' t✓ iiZ J� /.Z SrQ/Y1 -• f7Kb) L�(�L.' .fly VIA rte.- Qi r�ai 14 1 1 417 1 Hl =k7iEj m STREET . NEWPORT 6EACH• CA 92663 . PH.ONE (949) 676 -9626. FAX ,9491676.9636 r� Sint A ; - -- — — NAME APRINT) S rr-e�✓ a /t SIGNATURE ADDRESS /�A j 47 �I AA • j 4:: 64, i Y Its I I I t I ya. THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. PICKER, AIA • NCARB MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library ARCHITECTURE We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. ME(PRINT) IGNATU RE- . AD /DRESS CU zZ S rsnr (Vv c - ��.herl h ►1 j 91— YC- 6A +ca..rn' I /C -- 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 I SUB JECT- "LlieAl PAR& CAOSWAICZ19W NAME (PRINT) MATURE ADD7RE5�,,,, Ff, I c q'if Ile J/i A AMP op X/il 71�1 Z3 /Z "'Y4 /I letA 7 .fie .Z P;e 0 .e 6--� '4.- gg WILN LA, o -3 Lo (3 'JA a I va- THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB MEMORANDUM URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE . Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS 202 — w, 94113a%V �z./ ✓� P61s 3� ssr.,� d v oue Lywy,e,q )0radWrh& S tang i1 ,v3, 1J B, Ll 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 6�14 THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING a PLANNING ��5'+rfrlllfFSadSL+�� *I��Je'�TJr�71nS� URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA . NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Flcker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Properly North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program ties been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locale the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site to development as a park, including a native planfing area. The area at the south end of the.site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the Clty many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pwsued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss In open apace or park area. We have decided to present this Issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS x a r At, v- G. G a. t .... n? : rx_Dr., Ccl �o i .e-' a.a . pd > r p,,1,&, 1 v L. 4AI (j,. Carr s% ar.� �(� Hue r✓r3�G� ..�c« �lf� rU QP..jC�sw. r°�_ Lie �zaGv '92 c`3 .4 417 THIRTIETH STREET . NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 "9638 1q R Id Wdp0:20 Zow LZ 'qaj 'ON =HCHd XFiAIQtlt 33LOseued : WWA THE FICKER GROUP WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS K L RE I LL r 1+2t S i u. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA . NCARB MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS /�"�'�'f =`!!fir � ��" _ ✓ ; li� a�- �°1.,�� � % /�= " , ,r..� ` 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 I/I THE i R GROUP WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA . NCARB Date: January 12, 2007 CONSULTING • PLANNING MEMORANDUM URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library ARCHITECTURE We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS i 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 THE FICKER GROUP_ CONSULTING • PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA . NCARB MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the.site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. k C SUBJEC NAM (PRI T SIGNATURE ��11ADDRESS f4 1� I v 3 2.# [ .0- Cm 7, 8, Feb 22 07 05.26p Architect's Office 9496759639 p.l •qr. r =. ... r / U THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE t-_... MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2DO7 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Serich Proposal for Park Construction on Property Nardi of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Cound lake no action to implement construction on the parcel north orthe Central Library unto a complete study of the City Hall program has been SnadEed. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to beneflt any particular neighborhood OT community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall While retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area The area al the south and of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, If this concept is pursued. could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting Signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. 417 THIRTIETH STREET. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663. PHONE (949) 675 -9e28 • FAX (949) 675-9638 Z,d /.j 3 (q4 d£1:40 LO 9Z q9A FEB -22 -2007 09 :32 GEORGE H SOLES INC. 4P . THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. PICKER, AIA • NCARB MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From, Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library I:1: %37 ® :rft" We, the undersigned, request that the Council tape no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the Clty Hall program has been flnalited. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12-acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather then take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNARME ADDRESS (jitb�ujC Oiy.a3 ,� oy0o vay nti w/p5 y Vts7* 417 THIRTIETH STREET - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 - PHONE (944) 675 -9628 - FAX (949) 675.9638 TOTAL P.02 THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING . PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council MEMORANDUM cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the,site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide,park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would he no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. *03 �2b1� �z&2w-- 3 I 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT EACH, CA 2663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 ADDRESS �If X0110 �/I5MA r ► /ir *03 �2b1� �z&2w-- 3 I 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT EACH, CA 2663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 1 1. SUBJECT; • NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS S;e /S 64. Pn Avl�s C2ei3 qq4 � rr A� XAV v"m lslrdf� V1 (7raG F 1h �B �. Mru L /v zfo 5iA 44 X M In I� t 02/83/2887 19:51 9497608090 THE FK:KER GROUP WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB MEMORANDUM Date, January 12, 2007 To: CRY C Basch cc: Homer Bludsau - City Manager From: Btu Finar Re: U10h Proposal for park Carokuc8pn on Property North of me Control Library We, me undersigned, request theft the Counch We no action to Implement o9"#irucdon on the parcel north of the Central I Bracy until a mnptMe study of the City Had program ham been linelised. The ske bMciro to all of Newport Beech and N not InterMed to berietR any penlcular nelpilbortWOd or community within the qty. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to property locate the Cdy H85 while retaktktg a MOW portion of the ado for development sa a park, taduding a native plendng area. The are M the with end of the sits also wild provide service to the Library. This development Could poten%Uy save rite CRY many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept Is pUrsueo, Could provide park spew et the extadng City Hall site, and there would be no net We In open space or perk area. We have derided to present this Issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures sorer than take the valuable sme of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinion. 4 17 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 62583 • PHONE (949) 075.9626 • FAX (049) 875 -10138 hz P;wo r{P�� gtcz� 1► ......�'/ �Yl���i11,�.f ►�:�it.� �V ' r • — a � . McLI � . 'F •_�� ��.:�:...w� "' r �%LI� /ate.. 4 17 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 62583 • PHONE (949) 075.9626 • FAX (049) 875 -10138 hz P;wo r{P�� gtcz� rR.]G .1 02/03/2007 19:51 9497600090 a SUBJECT: A3 0 g" __! r s rr !��� � /� �f/ -_ �/• ' /�� iii . ' � l/ I � A3 0 g" __! r s THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council MEMORANDUM cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIG ADDRESS 0 - v f,7 k/no A&AQ eA itlr�- ey2 T-sc h _. r.-6 z 1 I .� 1 '7 Y iy10Nh50� 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675.9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 l2s�c(rN r s,N 1446 e >= - -' 4 66k(—(� /3.,rzaQ SUBJECT: • Fr-oy r 11, NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS D&—on al of Hcntbo►ryery V (3. 2& r r k a Lyh q� M� cy a GA v h e�+ w- vcrrw r -r- u.* zoo ;Ile S M 6ka 0 0 Feb 15 07 07e22p Architect's Office 9496759838 P.2 THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Biudeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Perk Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no anion to implement Construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been frrlallmd. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south and of the site also will provide Service to the Library. This development Could Potentially save the dry many millions of doves. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Han ells, and there would be no net loss in open space or park arm. We have decided to present this Issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) _ r � 1 taC.LG a 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 87549828 • FAX (949) 875.9838 ! 6 L0:01 1.00Z.61,93i 100/100 *Z L869# 9 0 �- �4 . THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library The attached are more signatures to be added to those presented to you at your meeting of January 22, 2007. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675-95215- FAX (949) 675 -9638 • THE FICKER'bROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING rxr �� a�+n� resrswse URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludsau - City Manager From: Bill Fk*or Re: Selich Proposal for Pahl Construction on Properly North of the Central Library We. the underelgned, request that the Council take no action to bnptament construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been flnailsed, The site belongs to sit of Newport Beach and is trot Intended to bw*M any partk:Wer neghborhood or community within the city. This 12 -ere parcel offers a un" opportunity to prop" loub UN City Halt While retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park. kiciuding a no" p*ftg area. The area at the anwth and of the site also will provide aervice to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City. N this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existlnq City Hall alto, and there would be no net toes in open space or perk area. We have decided to present this Issue to you in this brief form with supportMp signatures rather than take the valuable tlme of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS V ^ �£/1�N ._ .. f 4?; ra F- r G I.4(7s 1 r9Ge-K. jj*f / L t PyA -K/( con: 9'16 RMT CWeioce pL N ft FC I SIN / %7Z far C'��er"�4t— �a 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92683 • PHONE (949) (175.9626 • FAX 1949) 675.9638 THE FiCKER GROUP CONSULTING . PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA a NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Sludeau - City Mons" From; Bbl Ficker Re: Bellan Proposal for Park Cautruglon on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request gnat dw Council take no action to implement cortshuctbn on Me parcel north of aw Central Librwy until a comptate study of the City Hap program has been finalized. The @He belongs to all of Newport Beech and is not attended to benefit any parthAw neighborhood or community within the city. This 12•scre parcel offers a unique opportunity to property bcsto the City Hall while retaining a mefor portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide sefvloe to Ifts Library, This development could potentially two the City many millions of dollars. The City. it this concept is pursued, could provide park epace at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net lose In open space or perk area. We have d"ad to present this Issue to you In this brief form wfth supporting signatures rather then take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. i✓ !" 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92863 . PHONE (949) 678 -9628 • FAX (949) e75.9638 6"'"'�� i�iis_ ` 1-11AMUM, 'i /ally •f ,��► �1J."IJ�� "rte•— ! =�r'� ► � //,��'i" 1 / C i✓ !" 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92863 . PHONE (949) 678 -9628 • FAX (949) e75.9638 6"'"'�� npY MAUP lowimyl �-j 0 SICKATURE ADDREN Q� All P. cyac4w CL rs mitt 4arme.jaA"". Yd- 7 kK x P\ ilk R rgv/`o y RIJ DA--CJ J. Q� rte rs 7 kK x THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SI NATURE ADDRESS Dons E, Bawds 3�s ��ar.�.�Ewada T s I.s., G Al ewe ®Y'��ftw�e —' G3 %l�av�Q OEM mNt Rfi cosu (� bk 6/ 7 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 9266 z 3C. 60 ,/ 2S IC? 1Z. THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING a PLANNING WILLIAM P, FICKER, AIA . NCARB MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Council take no action to implement construction on the parcel north of the Central Library until a complete study of the City Hall program has been finalized. The site belongs to all of Newport Beach and is not intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locate the City Hall while retaining a major portion of the site for development as a park, including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, if this concept is pursued, could provide park space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area.. We have decided to present this issue to you in this brief form with supporting signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS IU I(, MC,Inl1l u �� r94 �E4� etz Wu t L LQ� /I// '�rtp4 1 tA( NV ,w�r rarox& V61-1 r�rn- I(U r! ;; V.A i��vA �y4�11 GD j 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 6/'1;ecuL- IE�LVa ( tit C7 "� (- L d G SUBJECT: NAME (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS lb Al AODN Csav ,L��— /s /G C> oce7y+w r- a—� �4l3rQC'F(G� > �7li171(5e, X0.4 RU,,:, C-0 +-o 37 1 % 17a Y- '�rr_te:Yl OY/ .PA Vi G E c� ) OAIZTo Z16 WAY WA: , C'b M NAM (PRINT) ____QIGKlATURE ADDRESS ADDRESS Vw4A L_ Yti ft- e �vrr�%Q,1,e7 . 3�e i�4 c P, NAME (PRINT) _ SIGNATUmm ADDRESS ADDRESS Vw4A L_ Yti ft- e 3�e i�4 c NAME (PRINT) IGNA;T-URE ADDRESS L mac( THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2007 To: City of Newport Beach City Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From: Bill Ficker Re: Selich Proposal for Park Construction on Property North of the Central Library The attached are more signatures to be added to those presented to you at your meeting of January 22, 2007. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9636 i THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P, FICKER, AIA s NCARB ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2007 To; City of Newport Beach CRY Council cc: Homer Bludeau - City Manager From; BIN Fick r Re: 9slich Proposal for Perk Construction on Property North of the Central Library We, the undersigned, request that the Cound take no action to impiarnotst conehucllon on the parcel north of cis Central Library until a complalo study of the City Nall program has Dow fkroilzed. The 8116 belongs to all of Newport Beech and is not Intended to benefit any particular neighborhood or community within the city. This 12 -Sore parcel offers a unique opportunity to property locate the City Hail whits retaining a major portion of the Site for development as a park. Including a native planting area. The area at the south end of the sits also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the City many millions of dollars. The City, N this concept Is pursued, could provide perk space at the existing City Hall site, and there would be no net loss in open space or park area. We have derided to present this bits to you It tnis erlef form with supporting signatures rather then take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. .I f✓ 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 . PHONE (949) 676 -Mil • FAX (949) 878 -9638 s� ,, l Kra .I f✓ 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 . PHONE (949) 676 -Mil • FAX (949) 878 -9638 THt FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING UR9AN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARS ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM Dalai January 12. 2W To: City of Newport Beach CRY Couhal cc: Homer Bivdeau - Coy Manager From, Bit Fioker Re: Selich Proposal far Pane Construction on Property North of the Central library We, the urldenlgned, request that the Council take no action to Implement construction on the parcel north of Me Central I-lbrsry until a complete study of Ns City Had program has been finalised, The site belongs to sit of Newport Beach and Is not Intended to ber»tit any particular neighborhood or community Within the city. This 12 -acre parcel offers a unique opportunity to properly locste the City Hag while retaining a major Portion of"she for development as a park. Including a new* planting area. The woo at the south end of the site also will provide service to the Library. This development could potentially save the Coy many mUgone of dollars. The City. 9 this concept is pursued, could provide park space of the "stilng Cgy Hall site, and there would be no net toes in open space or perk area. We hove decided to present this Issue to you In INS brief form with supportktg signatures rather than take the valuable time of the Council for each of us to stand up and voice our opinions. NAIVE (PRINT) SIGNATURE ADDRESS �� V. + u,vca C►m+e 1V d ,.�o � � aa,� �£ia' —M c'< 41.2 lot?, <A.27b. �o i[Fy /I<C��A� Cc.o nil o-c �c Tllrt>v L l PY�FNt �n�t I V S ANtr COR1W pl- PV4 r i r fC e.r. J. 417 THIRTIETH STREET . NEWPORT BEACH. CA 22603 9 PHONE (849) 679 -9628 • FAX (949) 675.8638 �iDAPa4-u It o v'K—o WAiiP (PRINT) ADDRESS 66-" P'Z4�1 Gas zcco fly C-6?0-s�zw PgpP 04V KSFh c r I Al,4 A 67; —get 13L� ZTe-acle,,-116 I 66-" P'Z4�1 Gas zcco I,�j9 �✓",•I �' Y 35711Li1' �✓ ": {� f't !1{.dFn� "� a�am -t 3 .� a ,'s; � 7 S 7 Harkless, LaVonne From: McManus [mcmanuscdm @c6Xr:6et1" rr. Sent: Saturday, February 2'4 2007 1145 AM^ To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: New City Hall To the Council members: We strongly urge that the new City Hall be located at Avocado and MacArthur in combination with a park It would be centrally located, less congested and a beautiful addition to Newport Beach surrounded by a park. City government would not be disrupted if the location is different from the current site, and most importantly, the City would not have to purchase the land. Jack and Shirley McManus 02/26/2007 1,117 7,70 ?/) p T 57 . ! - ... I Harkless, LaVonne From: missr-al75@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 "1'0'32 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: sunset ridge park Good Evening: Here in Newport Shores, we are concerned that there is money being spent on a passive park on the 'other' side of the bay, when this side of the bay really needs the money for the sunset ridge park above the intersection of Superior and PCH. Please consider this. Thank you very much, Sincerely yours, Janet Terrell 255 Colton St. NB 92663 949-280-9260 ...... ... .. Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 02/26/2007 Harkless, LaVonne From: Ted Mumm [3mumms @brats.com] Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:41 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne; Henn, Michael; don2webb @earthlink.net; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Gardner, Nancy Subject: DELAY DEVELOPMENT OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK Dear City Council: I am adding my voice to those who think it would be wise to delay starting phase one of the development of Newport Center Park. I do this for several reasons: 1. Steve Rosansky proposed at the Mayor's Dinner that City Hall be relocated to a joint park /city hall project at the Newport Center Park site. We should delay allocating funds until Steve's proposal is reviewed and the disposition is clear. 2. The West side of the Newport Bay has not had any significant park development in the past. Bob Henry and Mariners Park are the closest two. We don't need another passive park on the East side of the bay. We need an active park at Superior and Coast Highway! If the city has $2 million to $4 million available for park construction (as has been reported), I feel it is more appropriate to spend the money on Sunset Ridge Park! 3. The Newport Center Park site is a poor place for a park in the first place - inconvenient for residential access. Folks from the office towers might use it for lunch, but any resident would probably be forced to use a car to get there. In short, I can't think of any good pro- resident reasons to proceed with the development of Newport Center Park first. West Newport needs a park. It should be the higher priority. Plus, our Mayor's idea of using the Newport Center site as a combined City Hall and park deserves further review. Please delay development of Newport Center Park. Sincerely, Carl W. Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach (949) 642 -0031 N .`J �a V 1 -17 6 All 7: 7 Harkless, LaVonne From: Gene Kermin [gkermin@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:14'PUl To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: New City Hall at Newport Center Park location Newport Beach City Council: We enthusiastically agree with those who feel that the proposed & needed City Hall should be located on the 12 acres north of the library. Mayor Steve Rosansky's letter in the Sunday Daily Pilot succinctly spelled it out. Dolores & Gene Kermin 78 Ocean Vista Sea Island Newport Beach,CA 92660 949-644-5363 949-644-6832 Fax gkermin(&,cox.net 02/26/2007 Harkless, LaVonne From: margitloveschocolate [margitloveschocolate @cox.net] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:18 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Feed back from the Agendas, Minutes Your site only shows 2006 PLEASE DO NOT BUILD A CITY COMPLEX IN FASHION ISLAND!!!!!!!! LEAVE US SOME VIEW OF THE OCEAN -RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT RARE VISTA & TONS OF WE WILL MOVE, AND TAKE OUT RETAIL - PLURAL -WITH US IF THIS PASSES. We'RE sick of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ BEING THE ONLY VALUE SYSTEM YOU HONOR!!! Cti QC 1 MA I L Print - Close Window From: EDMARROMEO @aol.com Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:05:05 EST Subject: City Hall site To: nbcityhall @yahoo.com CC: LucyCDM @Cox.net, bbludau @city.newport- beach.ca To: Mayor Rosansky and City Council Members We believe that the best site for the Newport Beach city hall is on the park site on Avocado. Lucille Kuehn, in her letter in the Daily Pilot, Thursday, Feb. 22, states the case quite clearly for that selection. Ed and Mary Romeo, Corona Del Mar residents for 38 years. » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »» AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http: / /www.aol.com. Harkless, LaVonne From: Ted Mumm [3mumms @brats.com] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:40 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne; Henn, Michael; don2webb @earthlink.net; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Gardner, Nancy Subject: Daily Pilot Park /City Hall Poll Dear City Council: Caution! Be careful when considering the outcome of the current Daily Pilot Poll concerning the use of the site adjacent to the main library. The results will be badly skewed. Jan Vandersloot has sent an email to his support group, soliciting them to vote "park." As no such solicitation has been sent to groups who might feel differently, the poll results cannot be considered definitive. Just thought you ought to know. FYI, I support the dual -use plan - park plus city hall as envisioned by Bill Ficker and Mayor Rosansky. Sincerely, Carl W. (Ted) Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach (949) 642 -0031 1 February 23, 2007 Dear Mayor Rosansky: ZFL1 . F E P 26 °11 11: 15 Denis (DiigAier 27 Versailles Newport Coast, CA 92657 Pi one: 949 -72 -9767 -Fax: 949 -721 -9708 I am happy to read that the location of the new City Hall on the land by the library is still a viable option. I have followed the issue of the location of the new City Hall very closely for the last year or two. I have listened to Mr. Ficker's make his presentation to the council twice. I have read numerous articles in the paper in favor and against. I have heard council members express their concerns. I have tried to be as conscientious and objective as possible before coming to my conclusion. With all things considered, I believe the location of the new City Hall on a portion of the property near the library is the best for the City as a whole. I also believe the plan would provide interesting possibilities for the enhancement of the Peninsula by the addition of either a park or a mixed -use development at the present City Hall site. I believe the City has rare opportunity to make a "model city center" with this "park plus' concept. Integrating a new City Hall with the present library and a view /nature park would be a great opportunity that should not be passed up. I see no other location that could provide this opportunity. I can envision a City center that would enhance participation in city government by making it an attractive and convenient place to visit. It would be a wonderful opportunity for school children to combine field trips to the City Hall, library, and the View /nature Park. I am fully aware of statements made by previous councils. However, with new information now available about the lack of better alternatives for the location of the City Hall, the savings to the taxpayers by using existing City owned property, and still have significant land available for "view /nature park" I believe that it is reasonable to look seriously at this option. I hope you can support the plan to place the new City Hall and View /nature Park in the open space behind the library. Thank you for your consideration. VC I1.1 ;VI MU' ICI i . (Facilities Finance Committee; 2006) 2' ,`1 It- I [I :i February 25, 2006 City of Newport Beach City Council Steven Rosansky, Mayor Dear Mayor: Thank You for bringing this matter back to public view. We the Newport Beach citizens are grateful for your leadership. Please let's settle this matter Tuesday. The location next to the Library is perfect for locating our new city complex also for a Library and yes, also a park. Thank You. James and Helga Birmingham 1249 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar. Ca 92625 e -mail: helgab39gyahoo.com Also if I may suggest the "Old" city hall property could be leased. This cash flow will be a big help on paying the mortgage. The citizens also would keep the ownership of the land. Harkless, LaVonne ............................. ............................... From: Carrie [olsoncarrie @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:03 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Sunset Ridge Park On behalf of several families living in the Shores we want to go on record in complete support of the proposed park on Sunset Ridge. I am co chair for a Moms Club in the Shores and many of us have pre schoolers so we are unable to attend a City Council meeting but want to make sure our viewpoint in known. We are counting on the Sunset Ridge Park because this side of Newport lacks a big park similar to Mariners Park. Here are the families John and Carrie Olson .... 435 Canal St Eric and Beth Aust .... 218 Walnut St John and Amy Freyder ... 223 Walnut St Barry and Cherie Rolapp Kahn..... 424 62nd St Chandler and Sandi Bulgin ...... 483 62n11 St Todd and Rosemary Carson .... 331 Canal St Wade and Jodie Womack ..... 337 Canal St David and Melissa Chong.... 408 Lugonia Bob and Joanne Blanchard.... 449 Prospect St ; Jeff and Beau Boals...... 448 Prospect St I i Sean and Julie Pence........ 477 Prospect St -- Murphy and Bernardette McCann .... 305 Lugonia St —J Parker and Drian McNaughton .... 242 Orange St Dan and Gina Reich...... 415 Canal St Neal and Lamia Shehab ....225 Canal St Chris and Geni Walton .... 235 Canal St Marvin and Marilyn Nordby ...431 Canal St Ron and Ann Krueger.... 439 Canal St Pat and Marilyn Cleary ..... 434 Canal St Richard and Eileen Deteresa ...427 Canal St If you require a written format of our support of Sunset Ridge Park we would be pleased to provide. Just let me know. THANK YOU. Carrie Olson 435 Canal St 949- 722 -8163 02/27/2007 donald e. olson rr:3 ? 1221 w.coast hwy.,#214 • newpcxt beach, ca 92663 • (949) 6469481 Fax: (949) 631-9036 Bona Id e. olson 10 -11 -05 Dear Mayor Pro Tem Webb: Ever since you did so much to help those of us with property interests on Mariner's Mile, I find myself wanting to reciprocate in someway. The only thing I can think of at the moment (other than treat you and your wife to some libations at Duke's Bar) is to show you how ingeniously Inglewood replaced a superannuated city hall with a ten story, monument type constructed city hall. Since you all are so involved these days in building a city hall, 1 thought you'd be interested in the Inglewood experience. Since I'm a lazy typist, I'm just photocopying a page from an album about my city govt . experiences and, of course, other things that came along in my life as well as being the f sll time city attorney /prosecutor —of Culver City 9 years and of Inglewood 10 years. I am now all of 83 years old and still thankful to this day to have survived 18 months overseas in WW2 and especially (gulpl) the Normandy Invasion. The rest of my life (in and out of city halls) has been like a daily "walk in the park" by contrast. Just a footnote to the album page: Inglewood's city hall, library, police and fire station and parking structure cost a total of 35 million. There were, of course, bonds in those days. Our entire debt servicingfor over the 30 years on the bonds was paid for by the rent we received from leasing out two of the city hall to well established reputable private business ten nts. (A mystic palm reader. I don't think would have made it). yours, 1221 w.coast hwy., #214 • newport beach, ca 92663 • (949) 646.9481 • Fax: (949( 631 -9036 0 INGLEWOOD'S NEW CITY HALL dinary things had to be accomplished to build Inglewood's new, 19734. First of all, for want of space it was built smack dab in .c street. That necessitated a street vacation proceeding and proof o longer needed by the public. We held the necessary hearing and red the street in question. That, however, didn't end the matter, :itizen, who would file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat, filed an prevent the city from going forward with its plan. Although we won the lawsuit handily, we still had to get approval from all of the heirs of the original street donors going back to the early 1900s. My office sent letters to every conceivable heir, asking each one to execute a quit claim deed as to his or her interest. In exchange we offered 100 bucks. Believe it or not, most, but not all, of the known heirs signed and got their $100. The bonding company accepted that situation, or rather I should say, O'Melvany and Meyers, its lawyers, agreed that we could go ahead with our project even though all heirs didn't sign. The second problem was even harder to overcome. We hire Charles Luckman to design the building and went out for bids. Since city law requires that award must go to the lowest bidder, we were flummoxed when the lowest bid came from a "paper contractor" —that is, one who has no one in his organization to do any of the work, and no experience in building a concrete building of any size, not to speak of a ten story poured concrete structure of the kind designed by Luckman. ( "Paper contractors" bid public projects and only when they get the award do they lure subs and staffing to do the project). The law required us to award the contract to the "paper contractor" notwithstanding all that, and reject the next highest bid, even though that builder was fiilly capable in all respects to do our project. Upon my recommendation, we decided to take the bull by the horns and reject the lowest monetary bid and grant it to the next highest bidder - -- resulting in the lowest bidder filing a lawsuit, using a veritable legal "tiger" as counsel. I won in the trial court. They appealed and I won with all three judges in the appellate court. They appealed to the Supreme Court. I lost four to three. At that point I recommended that the city still not award the lowest bidder, and rather build out the project as `owner builder," hiring staff from the world -class builder as temporary city employees. We did that and the city hall was built, even though we had to deal with still more litigation —in which we prevailed. Harkless, LaVonne From: Ted Mumm [militecwest @brats.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:38 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne; don2webb @earthlink.net; Selich, Edward; Daigle, Leslie; Rosansky, Steven; Henn, Michael; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Nancy Subject: Agenda Item 23 - Newport Center Park Dear Mayor Rosansky and City Council Members: Please DO NOT approve funding of Phase 1 of the Newport Center Park plan. 1. Bill Ficker's new plan deserves to be explored to its fullest extent. Please give it the time it needs and deserves to play out. 2. Councilman Selich's Daily Pilot article stated, "For the City Council to change its mind now will be detrimental to the faith citizens have in the integrity of the City Council." This is nonsense. My faith in the city council is based on your ability to recognize when a mistake has been made and to do your best to make it right. Pledging the Avocado site as a park was a mistake. Now you have the opportunity to do the right thing. 3. West Newport needs a park much more than Newport Center. Funding for Sunset Ridge Park should be a higher priority than Newport Center Park. 4. The Daily Pilot poll concerning use of the Avocado site is extremely telling. Even though Jan Vandersloot has lobbied heavily to get people to vote for a park, the results are still running about even with no such effort from the opposition. Don't rush into this. Leave the options open. Please delay funding for Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Sincerely, Carl W. (Ted) Mumm 319 Cedar Street Newport Beach (949) 642 -0031 1 _.I a - fV _ V DO t i FE2.27.2007 15:40 9497172885 PRUDENTIAL CA REALTY #7785 P.002 /002 " RACEPILL' ER AGENDA 9? IRI7ED" j� %4'i�t.iJ. 1 4. February 27, 2007 To: All Newport Beach City Council Members Re: Location for NEW City Hall Dear Council member: I am in total support of our new City Ball to be built on land we already own. _.. ...the space near our Main Library off Avacado Avenue on Fashion Island. HERE ARE SOME OF THE REASONTS FOR YOU TO VOTE FOR TRIS TONIGHT. Convenient location for all to find. Access available from several streets in the Fashion Island area_ Area is worthy of respect from our community. Adequate parking available for all uses and necessities seven days per week: Our staff of City employees could continue to work from our current location until building completion saving costs of temporary relocation. Our property tax income base revenue is at a high level to afford this new structure. Please let us all get behind this opportunity to DO IT RIGHT! The VIEW from all around will be appealing to everyone. Thank you for your support, Diane Coh me 233 Poppy Ave e Corona del Mar, Calif. 92625 (949) 8363730 cell d C qewport Center Parl r to Initiate the Process to Develop Phase 1 32mm qr -�/a?/0-7 - -4fa3 Aewport Center Park r to Initiate the Process to Develop Phase 1 MuNmul 0A ■ 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 firm decision on a City Hall location? ■ 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 900 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 Park Planning History Continued ■ 2001 — Extensive public outreach by PB &R ® January, 2002 — Discussion on park priorities by City Council /PB &R ; Back Bay View Park was determined to be first priority, with Newport Village ® (Center) second priority. ■ 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 — Newport Center Park conceptual design budget proposed. Council approves $120,000 for project with CIP budget adoption in June. ■ February 10, 2004 — Council /PB &R joint 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 $1 M 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; plan is put on hold after potential donor surfaces. Park Planning History Continued • 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). Park Planning History Continued • 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. • February 13, 2007 — Councilmember Selich asked the following actions be presented to City Council for their determination: 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. 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. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding ® for the park from $200, 000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids. > Direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid. lu Original Passive Concept (as approved N� 9. 2004 f7�J N-wj�--a I Passive Park with Enhanced Northern Area (Most recent concept withoaat additional central parking lot) 4�{ Lnnd:caped Edge Treatment ' 1 i Pep cr> ,saf/ ,,o-ir6.!' >aryx. kr 3-}s `ems R.. --'� ,+i >�c"U' r�i'-� p' r [ `.�""_ j t-"✓/uv .r• Grrn t e �✓ - t':� wy ' &„, ,,ty�y�'y+i i' .4 I '' �B'� ,,.. -„� � � _' o <j �"' r� f4sarirt•R�.: ^oh!•+c,�•: _..) ; a �Y k J 1 .i131S5 I$ � • y � iY�!•�`� XI � YY 4 j JX � • -:. \ '• � z p,�.' �t�i � ,'� � r?� r 't +k't a.E Y ". -AW .r '�' ^i � - ) a y {� , . -1- s�3r 1` r � t+,�'�. t^ ant +rd `a.�� ...-� �,.. �i f i ��r 5' 3+1,1 �li�i z H ""� illf. rl�� r.�a� v Ht ""H "�� ' • � 4 a � f in-!. {,- ,'�i.�fY�f 3t t M '" r.0 p;x s Ff":. II�F�tzty �a � ' ♦,� i1 Li ^. �` �4 - xa ..✓� -z+� � 1� � a;Y.��r ; h t t^i� '�• \'3r�+� ,�t � f d;,� a � %ir vj ' r i G �°° ^ ° =' ,• ..... ,, °'.e.���a - .•_�.. ;`�i,o.a.,r.,�„ '' � . _ r,+ ,L�,z. 1�-4a i'r'�'�.h�':s�''���ir�; 5�,�., L.&.ped Edge. fffM Kt7r^7 -, F'Yt^ /eNn:.. e u r ]£} L'K'fT✓C r % .. Treatment ..• . NenTort Centel' Park City of Neia-port Beach A A Passive Central Park Parking Lot (31 spaces) jet If r fr Y i 47, i ,•ti i; 1 rf i NMI PT h 4 f r1 r CCCSnF.ESfiE E FLE Ij V' :i rs�71r I /, J � , ✓ I r r -. L i fir, t! jet ir Y NMI • ]": CISipi . TP'g4'1%3 TiB.Y,fk.1 I ! r1 r CCCSnF.ESfiE E FLE Ij Ir /, r. F ir mu xcer Field Alternative Concept Adult Size Field - - - - - - - - - - 60-Space-Parking.- Lot ------- -------- 600sf Restroom - - L -xe 2Y r xe %,ost Summary (a) Includes 30 space parking lot with access from Avocado Avenue. (b) Includes landscaping along periphery of park, refurbishing one acre of native plants, irrigation, site furniture and foot bridge across center gully. (c) Central grass area of park is replaced with soccer field, retaining walls and 60 space parking lot and 600 sf restroom. Original Passive Passive Park with Soccer Field Park Enhanced Alternative Northern Area Central Park (a) (c) Phase 1 $1,345,000 $1,420,000 $1,896,000 Library Parking Phase 2 $1,569,000 $1,569,000 $1,569,000 Northern Area (b) (b) Phase 3 $125,000 $764,000 $764,000 Total $3,039,000 $39753,000 $4,2297000 (a) Includes 30 space parking lot with access from Avocado Avenue. (b) Includes landscaping along periphery of park, refurbishing one acre of native plants, irrigation, site furniture and foot bridge across center gully. (c) Central grass area of park is replaced with soccer field, retaining walls and 60 space parking lot and 600 sf restroom. • • E CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure R2 PROPOSED PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES aNewport Cahler Patk Sunset Ridge Pak Ridge Pak Rood Park Santo Ma Heights Pocket Park' n Mmandna Pm mmu far Newow Coast a community Center" H�0a511 Senior canter" iJ Sarvk» k. Bamaary 0%� city Boundary Highway Co urN Boundary ' ErOGr I%ptlm dpixYU:l A A ¢ie eon io a eere•m.�ec .. snwwew,dd.<r,��ecsn a o r rwa Ea�ce aN Oilbw:vrAmc�vGFNNabb �� EIP 1 February 2007 Newport Beach • Maior Active Parks and Passive View Parks Active Passive View Service Area 1- West Newport Sunset Ridge (Proposed) Park 14 Ac Sunset View Park 0.8 Ac, 1800' Bluff top Service Area 2 - Peninsula Peninsula Park 2Ac. Marina Park (Proposed) 3 Ac. Tennis/ Basketball 4 Ac Marina/Small Boats West Jetty View Park 0.8 Ac Service Area 3 — Newport HeiAts/Harbor Highlands Mariners Park 6 Ac. • Bob Henry Park 4.4 Ac. Castaways View Park 17.4 Ac w/0.5 Mi. Bluff Cliff Drive View Park 4.2 Ac. Ensign View Park 1,8 Ac. Galaxy View Park 1.0 Ac. Kings Road View Park 0.4 Ac. Westcliff View Park 2.8 Ac. Mariner Drive View Point 0.1 Ac. Service Area 4 — Santa Ana Heights Bay view Park 1.0 Ac. 1.0 Ac. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park 140 Ac. w /1.2Mi. Bluffs Service Area 5 — Lido Isle & Lower Bay • Promontory Point View Park .02 Ac. 1 February 2007 Active Passive View . Service Area 6 — Balboa Island None Service Area 7 — Eastbluff/Newoort North Bonita Creek Park 13.1 Ac. Eastbluff Park 10.2 Ac. Back Bay Overlook (Eastbluff @ Backbay Dr.) .05 Ac. Service Area 8 — Big _Canyon/Belcourt None Service Area 9 — Newport Center Back View Park 7 Ac Harbor Cove (Newporter North) View Park 4 Ac. • Service Area 10 — Corona del Mar Irvine Terrace Park 6.5 Ac. .05 Ac Okasaki View Begonia View Park 1.2 Ac. Inspiration Point View Park 1.4 Ac. Little Corona View Point .01 Ac. Lookout Point View Park 1,0 Ac. Service Area 11 — Harbor View Arroyo Park 5.7 Ac. Bonita Canyon Sports Park 32 Ac. Buffalo Hills Park 10 Ac. Grant Howell Park 4.3 Ac. • 2 February 2007 Active Passive View • Lincoln Athletic Center 12.4 Ac. San Miguel Park 5.2 Ac. Spyglass Reservoir View Park 1.0 Ac. Jasmine Creek View Park 0.2 Ac. El Capitan View Park 2 Ac. Newport Coast Service Area Newport Ridge Park 6.0 Ac. Coastal Peak Park (Under Constr.) 12 Ac. Vista Ridge View Parks 1.4 Ac. (3) Los Trancos Canyon View Parks (Newport Coast Dr.) 3 Ac. Canyon & Harbor Watch View Parks (San Joaquin Hills Rd.) 2.5 Ac. • Ridge Park Road View Point, CCSP Trail Head 0.5 Ac. Crystal Cove State Park Beach 2.3 Mi. View Trail (Oceanward of Coast Highway) 240 + /- Ac 147.8 Ac. 439.63 Ac. ** ** Passive View Park Acreage is 59.63 Acres w/o Crystal Cove and Upper Newport Bay Regional Parks. Note: Major active parks are ones that have at least one playing field and/or basketball and tennis courts. There are at least 16 acres of minor active parks not listed. Also not included is the active ocean beach acreage which is about 120 acres (including Crystal Cove State Beach). School playgrounds are also not included. The 100 Acre Dunes Aquatic Park has also not been included. The areas listed as Passive View Parks and Points, are ones that provide significant views of the Ocean, Newport Bay (Upper and Lower) and/or inland vistas. There are about 95 acres of passive parks that were not considered view parks. There is well over 2,000 acres of Open Space when the • Newport Bay and Newport Coast Canyon areas are included. 3 February 2007 • 0 parks and View packs Y O Q � ••rnxio. v aY•y.RN -kA.fA 0 Ea1V �lYl i A NyANfM - GTIO•IVJ'lIM pem rnuh.�..+ CArRO/1•M Os..t\a M CO b.VIhfIM1'Ow.CMY � r.,,..,www•.s.Yr. luta.t Iw �1 v.plNr- xi, �am..swwv GAxa'ry ANI `OV+144eM f M © m O p 0 Q u v 1 xn MfV I- W M.0 Iv -11 wA O IYCU' .t.MN 4r.'YIG OY _YxnN hl1 O •h.,�aams c«.Y I- •a/ArQ.Yy Irj -vll d.. 01Y.Val VOet M 0 •MF Ma1tw. o d Q Rwc�w.t+ � nat 1 0 JAI h.. om OL c 6 -m -irJ Lull W\ �YY�MLYYx.IYUY�A Yr. uy.Y ca �4n0'1`.�Vm NNU'. YYrmx NA 0 Nrl wt+.VYn NA - IN.t M+vACwn4nl.M1. y.. op. p m ,l it .r A Flgwe R I EXISTING RECKATIGNAl FACILIIIES Legend uwvw h1oNC1+0IUfu �CydYYCL .l1V S' d Rwc�w.t+ � nat 1 View: San Joaquin Hills, Harbor, Dana Pt., Catalina Island and Palos Verdes Peninsula • View: Dana Pt., the Harbor Entsance, & the jetties -• ti m t (r Yy �_�CUlFr �riI' lV E _PARY t . Y r l a .err � r •Y.__.. 1 - t, J 1 1 4 AA6 0 - 11 Ir.-T--:T • l 0 � 11 1 I g �► i o Y y i `l. _. 7 K, •r ': View: Saddleback to Cata na Island, NC and the say i e �Ei E Upper say do Saddleback Mariners Der. view point View: N the Bluffs, do E 8ayview pack Views. Upper Dap Basis, Saddleback, East & West Bluffs View: Catalina I., NAC, Dunes, Westcliff Sluff, Marbor Cove View and Upper Newpor sap 0 View: Dirt, the Dunes, Upper Day do NC ShyHne Ll WrTr-olsw 77 n . rqq M! 0 View: Catalina Island, Balboa L, do pavilion Vier: East End of Catalina Island & e Peninsula Lookout poiaa! Views. Dana Pt., the Harbor, Catalina I., and Palos Verdes pen. s View: Dana Pt., Harbor Entrance, Catalina, Reaches, Z Piers, do Palos Verdes View: Oceans Catalina Island, CdM, do Palos Verdes jasndne Creek View Polu! Views. Santa Ana valley, Tustin, Saddlebaclk Goleta Pt. n:. - _.tea, - '= '�M'"'� - �.... „+. - -�-:- - • 0 0 J 1J� �IJ J ".JSJJ.�JJJJJ� , J.I I I JJ J mullp Los Trancos view: Canyon,, Golf Course, uaknyon v.p. Crystal Cove, do Ocean View: Ruck Gulley, Catalina Island, Palos Verdes,, the Harbor, and Newport Coast Hills View: Los T:ancos, Catalina to Palos Verdes, do Long Beach to Santa Asia Ridge Park Road view points View: Catalina to Mt. Saldp to Saddleback to Laguna Hills do CCSP Trail Head • • view: Dana Pt., Catanna, Palos Verdes and Beaches proposed Newport Center passive Park • v'lew: Catalina, Palos Verdes do Harbor over Corporate Plaza