HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Park Design Elements for Newport Center ParkCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
May 22, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Recreation & Senior Services Department
Wes Morgan, Director — 949 - 644 -3157 — wmoraan cDcity.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Park Design Elements for Newport Center Park
RECOMMENDATION
The PB &R Commission recommends that City Council designate Newport Center Park
as a passive park and that the park amenities include: benches, picnic tables, turf
areas, parking and a restroom. The Commission approved this recommendation 5 -0.
DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2007, City Council directed the PB &R Commission to consider park
design elements for Newport Center Park. On May 1, 2007 the PB &R Commission
reviewed possible park uses which included active and passive design elements. The
PB &R Commission concluded that passive park uses are best suited for Newport
Center Park. Specifically the Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff
to include the following elements in the Phase 1 park design:
1. Parking
2. Restrooms
3. Benches
4. Picnic Tables
5. Small Passive Grass Areas
The Commission believes that the design goal for this section of the park should be the
creation of a place where individuals or groups can come and stay for a few hours in a
peaceful and comfortable setting,
Prepared & Submitted by:
Wes Morgan, Recreation & enior Services Director
Attachments: 1, December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes
2. January 2, 2007 PB &R Staff Report & Minutes
3. February 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report & Minutes
4. March 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report & Minutes
5. May 1, 2007 PB &R Staff Report & Minutes
i
CD
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 12, 2006 _7:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION - Cancelled
ABI234 ETHICS TRAINING - 4:00 - 6:00 p.m
CLOSED 3SMION - 6:00 p.ni.
A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7.00 P.M. FOl
B. go -CA
LL
Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member Ct
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council
Gardner
C.
D.
M
F
G.
iA
PURGE OF ALLEGLANICE - Council
INVOCATION - Pastor John
Henn
FPro Tern Seiich, Mayor
Daigle, Council Member
Harbor Lutheran Church
Library Foundation Prese tion of Check - Tom Edwards, President of the Library
Foundation, presented the with a check for $121,660.
Member Webb welcomed Troop 746 from the Latter Day Saints Church who are
on their citizenship merit badge.
Council Member Curry noted that contributing to the McFadden Square Project is tax
deductible.
Mayor Pro Tom Selich requested that a future agenda item relative to a phased development
of Newport Center Park come back before Council no later than January 23rd. Council
Member Webb requested that the staff report include the feasibility and cast of a soccer field
in the upper area and that the sports organizations be contacted relative *to the need for
active fields.
Mayor Rosansky announced that the Operation Christmas Toy Drive will be held on
December 14th from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Volume 57 - Page 866
s
V
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Wes Morgan, Director
Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan
Item 7
January 2, 2007
(2)
The following is a 6 -year chronological history of the planning for the Newport Center Park site.
Staff requests that the Commission review this summary. The City Council is considering moving
forward with this project.
The following is excerpted information from a Staff Report to Sharon Wood re: Background
Materials for Joint Meeting with PB£tR dated January 1, 1002
Newport Village Site
On June 2, 2001, the City Council appropriated $35,000 to develop a conceptual plan for the
Newport Village site, and referred the project to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission. After several public forums, the Commission approved, on November 6, 2001, the
following list of components to be included in the design of the passive view park.
• No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or a natural looking material
• This park will not be a destination park (i.e. a 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 use of night lighting
• Security Lighting - only what is required for safety
• Develop parking options
— 25 spaces, 50 spaces and 100 spaces
— consider improvements to existing onsite library parking
= provide cost estimates for grading /parking options
— provide alternative off -site parking solutions
• Develop two concepts -
- with more turf
— with less turf
• Consideration for the environmentally sensitive areas
• Benches, no picnic tables
List /survey potential users
• Parking analysis of library
• 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
• Consultant shall also research funding opportunities
2. PARK DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE (From City Council Report dated July 19, 2006)
Throughout 2001, the PBttR Commission oversaw an extensive community outreach process
where input from the public was sought on this parcel of property and the type of ocean
venue it would be. This outreach led to a concept plan for a passive park to include:
— a meadow area
— some sort of seating area for small gatherings
— an area of native plantings
— additional parking for the library.
3
Review of the Newport Center Park development Plan
Page 2
This plan was well received by the various stakeholders, including SPON, and the
environmental interests, surrounding neighborhoods, Board of Library Trustees and the PBrsR
Commission.
• January 2, 2002 — City Council held a joint study session with PBU discussing potential park
sites. The Jamboree -PCH park site (now named Sack Say View Park) was determined to be
the first priority, with Newport Village the second priority.
• May 14, 2002 — Newport Center site update from Steve Badum during study session, Council
directed staff to develop site plans, take it to the PBrsR for a recommendation and bring
back to Council for approval. —
• May 17, 2003 — Budget review, Steve Badum proposed Newport Center Park conceptual
design with budget of $120,000 from CIP.
February 10, 2004 — Joint Meeting with Council and PBrsR to discuss community -wide park
sites, deed restriction restricting site use for park site only — no action taken.
• June 22, 2004 — Council approved $128,950 contract with Hall rs Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to
begin Newport Center conceptual park plans.
• November 16, 2004 — A preliminary concept plan for the park was approved by the PBrsR
Commission.
January 25, 2005 — Concept plan was presented at study session. The Council's input was
favorable. At this meeting an offer was made by a member of the community to, with the
Council's permission, gather a group of interested citizens to assist in raising funds needed
to move forward on the development of the park. In January 2005 the preliminary cost
estimates for the park were $1.2 M, and these estimates were over a year old and based on
a concept plan. The citizen committee had a goal of raising $1M of what was needed. The
Council accepted their offer to raise the funds.
• June 2005 — A committee of 10 led by volunteer Bernie Svalstadt met a total of 15 times
from February to June to develop a fundraising plan, marketing materials including a web
site and prospect lists in an effort to raise the $1M. This committee was staffed by Marie
Knight and Bob Stein. The committee was ready to roll out their plan and begin the public
fundraising but was put on hold when a potential donor surfaced.
• June 2005 — Staff was contacted by a member of the community interested in assisting with
the funding of the park. After several meetings, he stated his desire to donate the entire
$1.2 M needed.
• June 14, 2005 — Council named the park — Newport Center Park. At that time staff
indicated to Council that a resident had expressed interest in making a donation in exchange
for naming rights. The Council indicated that they would be amenable to this and directed
staff to further pursue the issue.
June - August 2005 — Staff, Hall rs Foreman and Council Member Selich met with the
prospective donor to discuss the park site, concept plans and development of the final
construction documents. In addition, staff worked to obtain more accurate cost estimates
for the completion of the park as well as implementation of the concept plan for the
formally landscaped and meadow portions, the native planting areas and the borders of the
park.
• September 27, 2005 — City Council approved the PSA with Hall rs Foreman, Inc. for the park
design services in the amount of $158,500 to complete the park design plans.
q
������
xi'iry ^tE ��}yy
N � � F�
�r,a fy
$ -��Yr� .' .� _
sew
osr. rwu ],pR qI
YNMMO AG. htll_ t41]4 si.
Coq 7SG �r.
C-
}. r
t
�<
A
O
(D
Z
m
i
a
O
M.
0
CD
m
'0
m
O
m
m
0
3
(D
7
CD
CD
?D.
ul
CD
�.:• �,, n ' i f do ,..:."°�'Yr '`'�- -�c
f r - , � � i�� �,� � .� LU: iz��1 i � -•-. 3 r�� ��Cf ✓ ?f� � (D
V.
CD
1
m
-�....R.�..t y,\
a V
rF't -15' i
NeWooTf `i1L
city Of Newpart
Ciatt�mkNnire Gianlx Garvclx�n :•:�?'
i
Parks, Beaches it Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 2, 2007 - 7pm
Page 3
Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the donation of a 24" Torrey Pine tree by M que
Faure to be planted at CdM State Beach. Motion carried by acclamation.
6. Request by Newport Beach Little League. Recreation Manager Sean Levin ed that staff
recommends that the Commission approve the request by Newport Beach Lit League (NBLL) to
install a batting cage between fields 1 and 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park. a went on to say that
demands for field use continues to rise with increased pressure on th ' ventory of the available
fields and that this will provide increased practice opportunities for ms and provide three teams
to practice at the same time while increasing the use of the fie y 33 %. He went on to say that
Recreation staff met with Parks and Maintenance and NBLL select the best location. Staff has
notified the public that live within 500 feet of the locati y postcard of this meeting and noted
that NBLL will be responsible for all associated costs a hat the two trees in the location would be
replaced with a different type of tree within the par .
Keith Banning, NBLL stated that th ad raised the money a couple of years ago but that this
batting cage would be extreme!yAelpfut with team practice and will free up soccer fields for
their use and urged approval Xthe Commission.
Jan Vandersloot encour4ed staff to transplant those existing trees to another location.
vlsnsued regarding the nets for the batting cages and was assured by NBLL that they
responsible for those.
otion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the installation of a batting cage between fields 1
Et 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park with all costs covered by NBLL. Motion carried by acclamation.
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
5
Parks, Beaches Ft 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 tasked 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 wilt 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.
Lfl
Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 2, 2007 - 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-Citq "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
c rmttee will be actively working on Sunset Ridge, MarinaPark and Newport Coast Park but hopes that
there 'll be money allocated by City Council to move forward on Newport Center Park sooner then
later. Ch ' Garrett asked about MarinaPark. Director Morgan stated that Council has reviewed a concept
plan and incftKled that in the October 3 packet. He noted that it would address a variety of needs in the
community but theproject has its own timeline because of the residents that still live there and such.
He did not that Co K will be scheduling a meeting with the Commission to discuss park priorities
sometime soon.
RSS- Nothing to report.
Budget Director Morgan stat that a committee meeting will be set for the middle of March with a
meeting.
AD - Hoc
—Youth Sports Liaison - Nothingto repo
— Community Services AWarcT - Superinten t McGuire stated that staff had received a submission
from the OASIS Travel Group and a one for nah Dean. Chair Garrett stated that he sees no
problem with awarding two awards on the same ni Superintendent McGuire stated that we have
not done the formal recommendation of these submissr yet - which will be brought forward at the
next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for n inations.
Commission directed staff to agendize the criteria for nomina'tiQns 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 fr that Committee. Chair
Garrett asked to be listed as an alternate.
— Memorial Committee- Director Morgan stated that Council Member Curry is settin p a meeting.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS - \
• Director Morgan -Nothing to report.
• Director Harmon - Thanked the Commission for the Facility Inspections and that it was a bit
to Maintenance Division.
li
• 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?
DATION:
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
11
Newport Center Park
Febnrary 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:
/1
4
4
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.
•
13
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 d6unciVPB &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 Hail & 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).
14
Newport Center Park
Fetxuary 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:
Badum
s Director
0
W:�-z
omer L. Bludau
City Manager
1S
City of Newport Beach .
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
direct the City Clerk to record the Resolution with the Orange County Recorder.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, C ember Daigle, Council Member Gardner
L. ' PUILLI_C C0M4 E-N-TS
_. ..
Charles Griffin pr that.the property located at the northeast corner of Campus and Bristol
+ North wo a suitable location for City Hall and that the property could probably be acquired
eminent domain.
vQN— INUE_D BUSINESS
28. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK [100 - 20071.
Mayor Rosansky.explained the procedures that would be followed for this agenda item.
City Attorney Aaron Harp responded to Bernie Svalstad's point of order concern and Council
Member Webb's response that discussion about where City Hall should be located was not
the focus of tonight's discussion.
City Manager Bludau stated that the issue regarding tonight's public hearing item is
whether the City Council should proceed with the design and eventual construction of the
Newport Center Park Phase I or, whether Council should maintain the Newport Center
Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a firm
'decision on a City Hall location. He provided a PowerPoint presentation in concert with
staffs report that provided a detailed history of the park site planning and included maps,
diagrams and a cost summary of the proposed project.
Public Works Director Badum spoke about how the concept and design has progressed and
changed over time and how the estimated cost has increased from $1.2 million about a year
ago to over $3 million today.
Mayor Rosansky recalled that the cost was $1.4 million at the time the donor brought forth
his offer of $1.2 million to complete the park and that the City would contribute $200,000
toward completion.
Council Member Daigle wanted to know if the donor requested additional improvements for
the $600,000 donation, and if so, the value of the enhancements and how they have affected
the overall budget. Public Works Director Badum moved forward with his presentation to
show the costs of improvements and indicated that the original concept did not have a
parking lot. The difference between the northern area and the revised design for the passive
park account for the difference in estimated costs of enhancements. Public Works Director
Badum confirmed to Council Member Daigle that the additional $600,000 donation is offset
by the design enhancements.
Mayor Pro Tern Selich said he was involved in proposing the enhancements as a direct
result of input and that the donor was not entirely responsible for the enhancement cost
increases. The original cost was not based on a set of plan&
Mayor Rosansky stated that although the original estimate was not based on a set of plans
Council took its action based on the original estimate.
Volume 88 - Page 60
H19
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Public Works Director Badum agreed with Council Member Webb that there could be a cost
savings if the City were to move forward with the entire project rather than phasing the
Project and that the second phase would result in removal of a large amount of landscape
material.
In response to Mayor Rosansky, Public Works Director Badum responded that late last year
and again at the February meeting Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested the proposal be brought
back as a phased project. '
Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the details of the donation have not been worked out
with the donor but believed that he expected his contribution would be based upon the
completion of Phase I within a reasonable period of time. One of the action items on the
agenda this evening is to consummate the agreement.
Council Member Webb recalled that the agreement would allow naming rights so that the
concept under the CIP budget was a $1.7 million contribution for a total project cost of $1.9
million with the City contributing about $200,000. According to current estimates the
$600,000 additional contribution would require the City to contribute 85 percent.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich concurred with Council Member Henn that the fundraising would not
be limited and further stated that the idea for naming rights was to allow other major
contributors to have naming tights as well, although he was not aware of any at this time.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan indicated to Mayor Rosansky that he had
been with the City for four months and had visited about 40 of its 64 parks. Approximately
two- thirds of the acreage is passive and the demand for park programs is very strong. The
City is always trying to enlarge the inventory and there are other needs that could be met,
especially for youth. The City owes approximately $3 million on Sunset Ridge
Park. The potential development design consists of an overlay of two baseball fields and two
soccer fields with estimated construction costs of $6 to $7 million, which is not currently
budgeted for. He felt the athletic organizations would welcome a discussion about
additional active park space. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded
to Council Member Daigle that he would assume the General Plan was responsive to and in
line with community needs and desires. Prior to tonight's meeting he reviewed the
Recreation Element and felt it was very fair and he would keep the Sunset Ridge Park and
Newport Center Park in the first priority positions because there are approximately 6000
kids that need to be accommodated during each season. He indicated that generally cities
do not have enough park space.
Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the current General Plan designation for the
site is Open Space and would require a vote of the people to change the designation. She
stated that the City's standard is to provide 5 acres of parks and open space for every 1000
residents. Currently there are 10.9 acres needed for Area 9 and there are currently 19 acres
available. The West Newport area requires 64.7 acres and the active park acreage plus the
beach area totals 43.1 acres, leaving a deficit of 21 acres, exclusive of Sunset Ridge
Park.
Ubrary Director Katsouleas reported that the library parking problems are legendary and
when the building was originally designed it was intended to be part of a complex that
included a museum that would provide additional shared parking. Programs are limited
due to lack of parking and they lose out on programs because of it.
Volume 58 - Page 61
))
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Webb said he was concerned with whether the Council should" look at
funding a passive park outside of what was authorized in the CIP. He displayed a photo
array of the park inventory and pointed out the views from many of the emsting parka. He
felt that the City's money should not be used for passive parks when there was such a dire
need for active parks and he could not support moving forward with a passive park north of
the library.
Council Member Gardner said this site was deeded in perpetuity as open apace. Three
differer&City Councils have turned away proposals for this site and she felt the City should
stand by its promise to the residents.
Bernie Svalstad supported the park because the public voted to approve the park and not
the soccer field. His committee spent a lot of time fundraising and he felt that in spite of the
fact that half of the value of the donation had been lost there would be sufficient donations
to complete the project.
Allan Beek said the site designated as open space would be a good place for a park and a
very poor place for a city hall.
Tom Collister urged Council to not approve the site for a park eite-because it is a high traffic
area with safety concerns that would render it inconsistent with the surrounding
commercial area.
Lary Tucker said he is here to promote good decision making and urged the Council to not
make a decision tonight and further explore fording the beat possible location for city hall.
He said he believed the Park Plus plan was innovative.
Tom Moulson felt the Council had a moral obligation to support recommendation #1.
Shirley Conger supported a passive park above the library and believed the city hall should
be developed nearby on a different site.
BJ Johnson said that the Corona del Mar Residents Association voted in favor of the park
and felt the City Council should move forward with Phase I tonight. She encouraged the
City to place Council Member Webb's park presentation on Channel 3 to encourage park
usage.
Greg Sullivan supported a park and felt traffic generated by a City Hall on the site would
promote safety concerns and result in additional taxes to the residents.
Jim Robertson thanked Mayor Rosansky for his Park Plus Plan about the most logical site
for city hall and acknowledged that an earlier Council may have adversely acted to preclude
city hall from this site. He urged Council to vote no and to consider other options for the site
based on the best interest of the City and its residents.
Ron Hendrickson felt the Council should postpone this decision and move forward to
consider the site as the new city hall location.
Barry Allen said that 61 individuals signed a petition this evening in favor of saving the
park and felt the Council should move forward with Mayor Pro Tem Selich's proposal.
Wendy Brooks felt the Park Plus proposal was the perfect solution for the site.
Don Udall supported the park and felt the City should keep its word.
Norm Witt supported the Park Plus concept as a win -win solution and urged Council to take
Volume 68 - Page 62
1$
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
no action on the park development tonight.
Joe Garrett supported the park and supported the Park Plus program as a win -win solution
that would provide a crown jewel.£or the community.
Soott Calder said he supported the Park Plus proposal and could not understand why when
a better idea was presented the Council would not give it full consideration.
Mary Barrett Blake asked Council Members to open their minds, listen to the residents and
support the Park Plus Program because it would create an incredible community center site.
Novelle Hendrickson supported the Park Plus program and took exception with portions of
staffs report because there was never a public hearing on the matter during regularly
scheduled City Council meetings.
Val Skoro encouraged approval of Phase I and pursuit of the OCTA as a site for city hall.
Gladys Wolcott said this Council voted for a park and asked Council Members to keep their
word and build the park.
Debbie Stephens said this site has always been designated as a park site.and the Council
should move forward and build the park.
Dick Marowita offered his full support to the Park Plus program that he believed made fiscal
sense. He urged the City Council not to take a vote on this issue until full study of a city
hall and park was completed_
Hugh Logan urged the City Council to vote yes on Phase I-
Jack Croul felt the site was not suitable for a park but that it would work well for a city hall
and the site could include a 9 -acre park.
Dan Guggenheim supported the Park Plus proposal and encouraged everyone to consider
the possibility that the City could have both a new city hall and park because it would fulfill
the needs of past and present Councils and provide value to all residents of Newport Beach.
Craig,Batley urged the Council to delay making a decision, study the matter and continue
the debate.
Gene O'Rourke felt the issue before the City Council was that it should wait four months to
make a decision about whether the site should include a city hall and park.
Marcia Dossey supported the shared use plan proposed through the Park Plus program and
asked the City Council to vote no on tonight's proposal.
Richard Cabin was opposed to considering a city hall on the site and urged Council to vote
yes and proceed with Phase 1.
Larry Porter said the City Council should proceed with construction of the park.
John Moftakhar felt a municipality should be flexible in its decision- making process and
believed it would be wet prohibitive to hold a special election for a city hall at the site.
Jo Vandervort encouraged the Council to delay its decision and not be pushed into making a
decision at this time.
Mike Johnson said be was in favor of moving the current city hall site and lilted the concept
Volume 58 - Page 68
/9
City of Newport Beach .
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
of efficiency of economies proposed via the Park Plus program.
John Heffernan said he was part of the Council who voted in 2006 to remove this site from
consideration for City Hall and he now realizes he made the wrong decision. He spoke in
support of a mixed -use option with the park and city hall at the location and urged the
Council to study it further.
Leonard Lane asked Council to keep its commitment and move forward with the park.
James Turner supported the Park Plus program.
Barbara Birney felt everyone could be satisfied with a mixed -use of the site
Bob Shelton believed it was never a mistake to take time to consider all options. The most
important promise would be to withhold a vote until all sides were fully vetted and
considered.
Debra Allen said she supported speakers who asked the Council to keep their promise to
build a park and the problem with a mixed -use proposal was that the city hall would take a
big chunk out of the middle of the grassy area.
Dr. Jan Vandereloot, speaking on behalf of SPON, said this site was designated open spars
and limited to park use and therefore the City Council should keep the public trust and
develop the park.
Dr. Jack Skinner believed that the proposed duel use has merit and should not be so quickly
dismissed this evening.
Helen McGruder said the City Council has a duty to serve the entire community. The
Council should take no action until it commits to a final location for a city hall.
Nancy Skinner said she would not support a plan to override a promised park unless a far
superior plan were proposed and she would like the opportunity to review a full proposal for
a mixed -use on the site and urged Council to postpone its decision for four months.
John Connelly felt it was reasonable, practical and responsible for the Council to consider all
options and to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Christine Carr felt the Council should move forward with the park.
Steve Brahs, member of the Site Selection Committee, said he felt there was no better site
for a city hall and a vote for Phase I would prohibit further consideration of a city hall on the
site.
Tim Brown said he strongly supported a passive park on the site and believed it was a clear
recommendation of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission.
Bill Ficker presented 260 signatures in support of asking the City Council not to proceed
with the park design and construction until the city hall issue is resolved. He indicated that
his plan includes having a park and city hall on the site and an urban park on the current
city hall site.
Charles Griffin wanted the City Council to move forward with Phase I and said the obvious
location for city hall was the airport industrial area.
Laura McCant said a good architect could design the site to accommodate a city hall and a
Volume SS - Page 64
Ell
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
park and that it was fiscally responsible to build a city hall at that location
Mayor Pro Tern Selich said after listening carefully he came to the conclusion that the easy
way was to continue the matter and the right way to handle this situation was to move
forward with the park. He said one of his first tasks when he joined the City Council was to
build this park and said there are plenty of options in Newport Center for City Hall.
Motion by_Hayor fo- TAmSeliph to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans
and specifications for the bid package for Phase I, of the Newport Center Park as follows: 1)
approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with
the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; 2) acceptance of
the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming
rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be
available; 3) conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding
for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and 4) direct staff
to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and
put them out to bid.
Mayor Pro Tem. Selich clarified that his motion did not include the consideration for a soccer
field.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan noted that neighborhood residents and
library patrons would most likely utilize the passive park and the amenities would dictate
the types of uses. Mayor Rosansky said he has not seen a conceptual plan, therefore it
would he difficult to vote on the issue. Access would include a 234 -foot switchback ramp
that would climb 30 to 40 feet from the library to the top of the hill.
Council Member Webb said that a large area of manicured grass would require a great deal
of maintenance. He asked if a soccer field was located in the area would there be more use
and Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded that there could be four
teams at the same time during practice days and a soccer field would draw more. individuals
than a passive park use.
Public Works Director Badum reminded Council that the conceptual enhanced plan was
shown during staffs report and that about 70 percent of the plan was complete. Public
Works Director Badum responded that the direction to staff was to include benches and not
picnic tables, no lighting, more turf and parking spaces to accommodate the library.
Public Works Director Badum explained that phasing was an idea that was brought up late
in the game and that there was no construction plans for phasing.
In response to questions about redesigning the park, Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he believed
the commitment the Council made previously was in accordance with the proposed
conceptual plan.
Council Member Webb said the reason the Council is taking time to consider this proposal is
because this is a passive park that would require a substantial amount of money that could
be used to construct active parks. He felt the Council should be very concerned about the
cost benefit ratio of a passive use that is by definition not a destination park and for the
Council to approve Phase I it might be wasting considerable capital.
Substitute motion by Council Member Webb to take no action on park development
until such time as the City Council commits to a final location for a new city hall.
Volume 58 - Page 65
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Daigle said she recognized the passion and commitment by park
proponents, however given the uncertainty about the cost and phasing as well as competing
priorities, she recommended this matter be tabled until June when the Council could look at
its budget for the ensuing year.
Council Member Curry spoke in opposition to the substitute motion and said that during his
campaign he clearly stated his position that he would support the park. He said he was
disappointed with the leadership tonight because the community has been needlessly
divided. It comes down to whether the Council would support the park and put the City
Hall at another location. This is a matter of trust going back to 1990 and he is committed to
having a park at this site.
Council Member Henn said he read and considered every email and felt it was his mandate
to consider all issues and input throughout the evening. He stated that it is too early to
conclude what is the beat location for City Hall since it is a complex issue that deserves a
great deal of consideration. No matter where it goes the cost is likely to be $50 million or
more. He rejected the notion that people who live near Newport Center Park are somehow
acting in a selfish and narrow manner and their views are to be discounted and said that
anyone who lives in or near any project that involves intensive land use are entitled to
express their views. After viewing the parks with Council Member Webb it was clear that at
least half were not often visited and `bang for the buck" is not the decision rule. He spoke of
integrity and stated that the Council needs to act with integrity over time and the first point
is that this site has been envisioned as a passive park for 15 years or more. The second
commitment is that the City just completed and endured a hard fought election and the
voters approved a General Plan for the first time in 25. years. The General Plan included a
vision for open space and parks and was a balanced plan that should only be changed for the
highest standard. He indicated he would vote for the original motion and against the
substitute motion.
Mayor Rosansky explained that his questioning of staff was an attempt to elicit information
that has not been before the public. Although he had previously voted to keep City Hall in
its current location, after reviewing his actions he was willing to correct them if they were
not appropriate at the time. The General Plan says that the City has a surplus of passive
parka and if the Council is to consider its limited resources it should look at economies of
scale. He spoke of the Councirs fiscal responsibilities. He indicated that he is a proponent
of parks and a proponent of a park in this location and nothing has been said tonight about
not building a park at this site. Thousands of residents use the Library on a regular basis
and according to the director there is a huge need for additional parking. He reiterated who
the basic users of the park would be and noted that there is no direct connection between the
proposed park and the library except a long upward winding ramp or staircase. In reference
to the time it has taken to build this park, he noted that the land was dedicated in 1992 and
if there was such a great need for this park it would have been built 10 years ago and people
would not be asking to put City Hall, senior apartments, etc. on the land. Mayor Rosansky
said he is Chairman of the Building Committee and the committee has looked at many sites
and the bottom line is that none of those sites panned out. Referencing past promises and
the commitment to keep them, he noted that on May 27, 2003 and again oo February 8,
2005, the City Council voted 6.1 to keep City Hall at its current location. He explained that
the City Council is not keeping that promise because there is new information that has
indicated there might be a better location for City Hall He felt the only promise was that
there would be nothing else on the site. The site review committee looked at more than 20
sites and moat people feel that the site in question is the best site for City Hall However, it
is incumbent upon this Council to not move forward with funding of this park tonight when
there is a clear need for use of these funds in other areas of the City.
Volume 58 - Page 66
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27,2007
Council Member Gardner took exception to Mayor Rosanskys characterization that a
positive decision on this matter was "politically expedient"
Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing
so the parking lot would be built first.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Council
Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member.Webb, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Daigle
The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 12:10 a nL with all
members present.
PUBLIC HEARING
IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF
AND BOB HENRY PARK (100- 80071.
Jan Vanderaloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees and
felt itwas perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the homebuilders.
to continue this item.
The motion carri by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member arm, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem. Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council ber Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
M. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COU L ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES -None
N.
22.
report provided.
[100-20071 - No oral
P. CURRENT BUSINESS
S26. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT, BU"ENDMENT1160-20071.
Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendati t the City invest in
cameras and editing equipment to continue the City's programming eBkrt& Time - Warner
has contributed $400,000; Cox $600,000, and Time- Warner will provide •year ongoing
support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
Volume 58 - Page 67
TO:
FROM:
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED." 3 hyl
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
March 27, 2007
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Robin Ciauson, City Attorney
(949) 644 -3131 or rdauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS
DECISION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007 TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE
PROJECT BACK TO THE PARK, BEACHES AND RECREATION
COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ISSUE:
Should the City Council rescind ifs decision to proceed with the design and eventual
construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the project back to the Park,
Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) for reconsideration?
1, gGOMMENDATION:
If desired, rescind the City Council's decision of February 27, 2007 to proceed with the
design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 including the City
Council's decision to: (1) proceed with the preparation of plans arid. specifications for the
bid package for Phase 1; (2) approve construction of the park per the approved City
Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the
middle phase first; (3) accept the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle
phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park; (4) approve, in concept, the
amendment of the Fiscal Year 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from
$200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and (5) direct staff to complete
the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put
them out to bid.
DISCUSSION:
On February 27, 2007, the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to develop
Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Copies of the staff report and meeting minutes from
the February 27, 2007 meeting are attached hereto.
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 2
Just prior to the February 27, 2007 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp
received an inquiry whether Park, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Deborah
Allen had a possible conflict of interest. City GIS staff prepared a map showing that
Commissioner Allen's residence was located 375 feet from the Newport Center Park.
Mr. Harp informed Commissioner Allen of this in the morning of February 27, 2007. Mr.
Harp was present at the Council meeting on February 27"' in my place as 1 was out of
state on bereavement leave. When I returned, I looked into the impacts a potential
conflict of interest would have on actions already taken by the City Council and the
PB &R Commission and determined that an alleged violation of the Political Reform Act
could subject the PB &R Commission and City Council actions and decisions related to
the park's design and development to a legal challenge.
Specifically, the Political Reform Act (PRA) provides that an official may not make a
decision, participate in the making of a decision or in any way attempt to use his or her
official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has
reason to know he/she has a financial interest. The prohibition from using the official's
position to influence a governmental decision, according to a publication by the Attorney
General, "was intended to ensure that public officials do not act indirectly to affect their
private economic interests by utilizing their official status or activities. It specifically
includes attempting to affect any decision within the official's own agency or any agency
appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency". Conflicts of
Intere st, Office of the Attorney General, page 22.
When a decision involves another's real property located within a 500 foot radius of an
official's real property, the official's real property is presumed to be directly involved in
the decision. Real property directly involved in a decision is presumed to be a material
financial effect on the official unless the decision will have no financial effect, "not even
a penny." Unless the official establishes by a reasonable, objective method that there is
no financial impact on their real property interest they are expected by the regulations to
step down and not participate in the decision, or use their position to influence another
body of the same agency in making a decision.
I have provided the above regulations to inform the Council and the public of the basic
provisions of the PRA and regulations that apply. Given the potential conflict of interest,
the February 27, 2007 and /or decisions and recommendations of the PB &R
Commission could be subject to legal challenge by a resident under the Political Reform
Act.
Environmental Review: This is not a project under CEQA.
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 3
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Prepared & Submitted by:
Robin Clauson,
City Attomey
Attachments: February 27, 2007 Staff Report (Agenda Item No. 23)
February 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes (Agenda Item No. 23)
U/
City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 of ]2
Action Agenda
Planning Director Lepo reported on the following Planning Commission agenda it s for
March 22, 2007: Variance No. 2006.003 for 909 Kings Road; the valeUparking in agement
plan at 1370 Bison Avenue; Use Permit No. 2006 -038 for the Wine Galle , a report on
parking in -lieu fees; and a GIS application update.
The Council recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with all members
XIX- CURRENT BUSINESS
18. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FO COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE OF
THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 20) AND ANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET
AMENDMENT [100- 2007].
Staff Report
Associate Planner Ramirez st d that the purpose of the budget amendment is to acquire
monies for a rewrite of the ning Code and CEQA Review.
Motion by Coun Member Daigle to a) approve the PSA with Hogie- Ireland for the
Zoning Code rite and CEQA Review; and b) approve 'a budget amendment (07BA -061)
transferrin 632,420 from the unappropriated General Fund reserve to a new Planning
Depart it Account, 2710 -82932 Zoning Code Rewrite.
XAyea : tion carried by the following roll call vote:
Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
CONTINUED BUSINESS
17. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS FEBRUARY 27,
2007 DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF
NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARKS,
BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION [100-
2007].
Staff Report
City Attorney Clauson noted that this matter was brought about as a Parks, Beaches and
Recreation (PB &R) Commissioner was discovered to have a potential conflict of interest due
to the proximity of her residence to the subject property and whether the alleged violation
might result in a lawsuit to rescind the Council's previous decision.
Debra Allen, recipient of the alleged charges, said the charges were absolutely false. Upon
advise from Assistant City Attorney Harp she contacted the Fair Political Practices
Commission and was told there would be no conflict of interest as a citizen and PB &R
Commissioner with her speaking on this matter at the February 27 City Council meeting.
She was very disturbed that the City had left the impression via a press release that she
had a conflict of interest and felt that her reputation had been irreparably damaged as a
result. She furnished the City Council with a copy of a certified appraisal that indicated her
property value would suffer no financial impact as a result of the Council's decision.
Barry Allen provided four documents testifying to the fact that this matter would have no
affect on Debra Allen's property. There is no conflict of interest by a PB &R Commissioner
and the threat of a lawsuit is merely to get the City to overturn its decision so that further
consideration can be given to placing city hall on the site. He encouraged the City Council to
vote no on this agenda item.
z7
http: / /newportbeach. granicus .com /MinutesViewer.php? view id =16 &clip id =477 4/24/2007
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 9 of 12
Elaine Linhoff was upset by Tom Johnson's article in The Daily Pilot and asked the Council
to stand by its vote and move forward to develop the park.
Wendy Brooks wanted Council to consider placing a new city hall and park next to the
library because it would better serve the needs of the community and its residents.
Shirley Conger felt the Tom Johnson article was an attempt to divert attention from the
City Council's decision.
Allan Beek thanked the Mayor for clarifying the issue at hand and recommended the
Council remove this item from the agenda or vgLe no.
Tom Moulson found the entire issue laughable.
Karen Twingali said she won't speak about how shabbily the City treats its volunteers or
how little effort it takes to come up with perceived conflicts of interest. As a resident of
Newport Beach she lives 1.8 miles from the park and anyone who speaks in support of
proceeding with the building of the park should be heard and the Council should proceed
accordingly and support its constituents.
Bill Picker asked the Council to put this matter on hold and research alternative options
because the park is one of the lowest priorities in the City's General Plan.
Dick Nichols urged the Council to reconsider this matter and give the City time to consider a
better plan for the property.
Barton Beek felt it would be wise for the Council to reconsider this matter and give the
residents more time to consider this decision by better educating the residents and putting
the matter to a vote of the people.
Mike Johnson said he has been involved with parks for many years and served on the PB &R
Commission in the 197Vs. He felt that the project site should be re- designed as a people -
friendly park similar to the park in West Newport Beach.
Garrett Smith felt that Debra Allen deserved thanks for her years of volunteerism but
should not be singled out because there are many individuals and groups that volunteer
their services to the City. He felt the only fair way to resolve this matter was to let the City
continue to research the area for the best use and finally put it to a vote of the people.
Jack Croul requested the City Council reopen the issue of whether a park should be built on
the 12 -acre site because it is clear the residents are divided on how the property should be
used.
Hugh Logan was confident that Council would fairly review this issue and move forward to
protect the site as a park.
Bob Shelton felt the real issue was whether or not the decision was the right decision and
urged the Council to reconsider the site for joint use.
Evvy Compton asked Council to rescind its decision and reconsider using valuable City
funds on a project that people would use.
Lucille Kuehn urged Council to rescind its motion, refund the donor's money, revisit the
issue and bring forth a better solution for use of the site.
Phil Arst complimented the Council Members who voted to protect public parkland: The
http: / /newport beach .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id=477 4/24/20072$
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 10 of 12
real issue is where to locate City Hall and in his opinion, this site would not be suitable.
Nancy Skinner asked Council to return the matter to PB &R because it would be helpful for
the citizens to better understand the proposed design concept for the park.
George Schroeder felt the only issue was whether the conflict of interest applied and once
determined the Council should move forward accordingly.
Ron Hendrickson believed the City was not short on passive parks but was short on active
parks. Therefore, this 12 -acre park is not needed at this time and this issue has not been
properly analyzed. It would be unfortunate if the City did not consider a small portion of the
property for a city hall.
Jan Vandersloot said that although this decision was not about Debra Allen he asked that
before the Council vote tonight it verify whether she has a conflict of interest and whether
the Council could ultimately uphold its previous vote. -
City Attorney Clauson responded to Council Member Webb that the accuracy of the GIS
maps are to within five feet and reiterated that it is not the Council's responsibility to
determine whether there is a conflict of interest.
Council Member Curry said that based on the Counsel's input he would recommend
rescinding the vote and returning the matter to the PB &R Commission for developmental
review of the park design and careful review of the potential conflict of interest involving
Debra Allen.
Motion_by. Concil-M_e._nib_er Curry to rescind the City Council decision of February 27,
2007 and refer the matter back to the PB &R Commission for 30 days on a de novo basis to
consider the design of the park and to report back to the City Council. After discussion the
motion was amended to direct the PB &R Commission to report back as soon as possible,
however within 60 days.
Substitute motion by Mayar Rosansky to rescind the City Council decision of February
27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park
Phase 1 and refer the matter back to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in
order to conduct a full public outreach effort.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosansky
XIX. SENT BUSINESS (contd).
19.
TO GROUP HOMES [100- 2007).
Staff Report
Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that Senator Harman 9+41 - addresses
by the same owner and that the original intent of the IROC was to increase=
1000 feet and felt the 1000 feet should apply between facilities and did not
http:// newportbeach .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id =477
homes owned
ie distance to
imit i
a.9
4/24/2007
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Wes Morgan, Director
Newport Center Park Phase I Design Elements
Item 9
May 1, 2007
The Newport Beach City Council has directed their Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation
Commission to conduct a public meeting regarding the design plan for Phase I of Newport
Center Park. Active and passive park uses are to be considered by the Commission in this
design. This meeting is to include input from the community followed by recommendations
from the Commission to the City Council specifying which park elements the City Council
should include in Phase I of this park development.
Attached are related public documents which pertain to the history of this park site.
1. December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes
2. January 2, 2007 PBFtR Staff Report Ft Minutes
3. February 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report Ft Minutes
4. March 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report ft Minutes
5. Public Notice Postcard ft City Press Release for May 1, 2007 PBftR Meeting
6. Recent Correspondence concerning Newport Center Park.
30
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 5
9. Newport Center Park Phase 1 - Commissioner Allen stated that she had a brief statement to
make which she noted was essentially the same statement that she made at the April meeting.
She went on to say that there has been a charge or a claim by some that she has a potential
conflict of interest on this property and noted that she has had a survey done and an appraisal of
her property and that she firmly believes that she does n t have a conflict. However in the
interest of the good of the order for the Commission believes that she has become a
distraction and has too much respect -for the Commission ontinue in that position and stated
that she would recuse herself from the discussion.
Commissioner Allen excused herself from the meek an she would return at the
beginning of the next item. ®®
Director Morgan stated that he would be reviewi by the issue was before the commission and
what needed to be done in order to send it to C cit. He went on to say that he has
worked as hard as he could by reviewing the eo rec of the Council meetings of February
and March where different actions were t he ed that he has reviewed the official
minutes and has worked with the City Attorn rmine exactly what it is that the City
Council wants the Commission to do beginning toni stated that at the Council meeting of
March 27`h they considered their action of February 2 't was about the Newport Center
Park and what it should be in terms of it relates to s Commission's recommendation.
Director Morgan stated that it was a rd as a passive park following this
Commission's action. He stated that vari o ons the Council has now asked this
Commission to take a fresh look at what ents this park should include and stated that
it was his understanding looking at the ote of March 27`h that the purview of this
Commission tonight is to look k e[em on that 12 -acre park above the library which
would be phase 1 of Newpo Park. D or Morgan stated that the Commission will
receive a variety of comme and t they are [come. He stated that those would be read
into the record and forwa to th with the recommendation of the Commission
regarding the park desi lemen He stated that the City Attorney has given
clearance that this is w Co t wants from the Commission. He stated that in looking at
the Council's action of Marc at he had been asked where does the Commission begin, he
noted that staff and Cit Attorne etermined that it should begin with the Council meeting
of December 12, 2 d th hat meeting the Council asked the City Manager to
move forward wi ase deve ment of Newport Center Park and that 4 items were
listed in terms o fishing plans getting it out to bid and so forth; and to bring that back to
Council by Janiff 23rd . He note that had been all that was said then this Commission would
not have gott [ved on Janu because the work was all done with years of planning and
input and voting 4tohe it had signed off on a lot of things that are included in the
packet in terms of e been gone on over the years; but there was additional
Council direction to look ses perhaps a soccer field. Director Morgan stated that with
that issue it was returneommission's ar ea to look at to see if the use should be
changed from passive to active. He stated that Commission looked at it on January 2 "d because it
needed to be back to Council by January 23`d. He stated that eventually it was heard by Council
on February 27h and then for a variety of reasons that everyone is familiar with, and that it was
decided on March 27`h to start fresh with what was done on January 2"d at this level and to take
a new look at the park development and whether it should be passive or active. He noted that
there were recommendations that this issue go even farther back then January 2nd but in the end
after going back through the video and reviewing it word by word on several occasions that it is
staff's opinion that the work for the Commission is to look fresh at the action taken on January
2nd
31
Parks, Beaches ii Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 6
Commissioner Brown asked for a point of clarification and stated that going back to the meeting
of January 2nd he noted that the action taken by the Commission was more then just that
Newport Center Park is a passive park. He reread the motion of January 2"d - he stated that the
as possible to develop the Newport Center Park site as a passive park. He stated that he would
like to make that point now that it was more then just almmendati on of a passive park but
moving forward as a passive park as soon possible.
Chair Garrett that if there are people here to talk abo City Hall should be built on the
park site he stated that it should be noted that ' oula no difference on how the
Commission votes because that has no bearing on a action a not part of what the
Commission can consider. He stated that if you w to make a com egarding that issue it
would be listened to but would not become a poi f discussion.
Chair Garrett opened the public discussion
Bill Ficker stated that the directions are pre rn
Commission's time but that most everyone knows
and that there are some wonderful opportunities for yo
would be more discussion on this tsi oes by but
presentations that have to do with t
here on the Peninsula as an urban s ta
Commission.
Jim Warren stated that he li directly
recommends that this remain park, n
has been a park for nine ye _ut th t is one
would recommend that sig be p
everyone sees it as fres d and
should be signed as a pa
that he would not take any of the
about the development of that site
e reference. He stated that there
want to leave some copies of
and the opportunity to use the site
respectfully submits those to the
from the park site and that he strongly
�occer field; no lights on it and noted that it
fe only parks in the City without signage and
it it is a park. He stated that because of that
a new idea and that it is a park and that it
Barry Allen stated he Newport ark is not appropriate for ball fields because there are
two busy streets on nd t is the reason that the Commission has rejected that
suggestion before at Bally i o way to keeps balls off the road since there are not
fences that cou a built high. gh to keep them in not to mention how high a soccer ball
could be kicke a stated that i a real danger and no one wants that. He stated that the
other issue is ading of the is not practical and would be very expensive to build any
kind of a soccer to flatt t out would cause some site line problems and stated that
having any kind of a is practical but suggest that the Commission consider that
additional amenities be a the parks, such as restrooms located near the parking lot that
would be built along with the rary; since it is the only area where permanent lighting would
be and the library people could open the restrooms in the morning and close them at night and
would keep park users from using the restrooms in the library; give consideration to a few more
benches, picnic tables and thing like that in the area to encourage people to come to the area
not only for purposes of sitting, reading, contemplating, looking at the flowers and grass, but
also to sit down at some place other then the amphitheater and be able to have a lunch and if
we scatter these things around the park it would encourage people to use it since this site has
such a spectacular view and it would be shame to harm that view. He thanked the Commission
for doing such a wonderful job in developing the park.
57-
Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 7
Mark Arblaster stated that his family enjoys the passive parks in .the City and noted that there
are an ample number of them; but what the City does not have enough of is active parks
specifically soccer fields and noted that if there were a soccer field at that side it could
alleviate a lot of the pressure that is put on soccer volunte rs trying to schedule places for the
kids to play. He stated that there are many places to enjoy view and why cant you enjoy the
view while watching your child play. He urged that C ission to make it an active park
specifically for soccer.
Karin Tringalli stated that she lives in the Cameo
opportunity for the Commission as well as the City
active parks and passive parks but there is not w
jewel of a park and that the original design p
submitted would really accomplish that. She udW
with additional amenities.
Tom Moulson stated that he does not believe"
subject so he stated that he was here when the
quality of debate, and respect the integrity of the
minds open and that nothing has chan that
City Council to keep it as a passive p
Bernie Svalstad stated that he was the orl
of about 16 members that was approved
Village which is now called Negnart
donor called and so tha
negotiation would be c
consider that and so th
$600,000 and does agree
that amenities should b
they would like to have
suggested that this is the
Wreally cre3111111iLwel and that there are
many great citM9Wve and that is a real
s with some modifications that have been
the CAWmission to keep it as a passive park
new that could be said on this
in was made, impressed by the
d trust that they will keep their
rd the recommendation back to
fr of the fundraising committee that consisted
Council to raise funds of $1.2 M for Newport
c. He stated once the name was approved a
JLpt put up because it was thought that the
Wt did not happen and the Council did not
now hopefully he is still willing to donate
it as a passive park and agrees with Mr. Allen
t he has talked to a couple of Council Members and that
and benches, etc.
Jay Baker stated th en to f these meetings to discuss the park and understood
that the park sh e a e par and urged that the Commission approve Mr. Allen's
recommendatio t additiona nities be added to the park. He stated that the City should
move forward ffbegin work on t site immediately.
Bernie Svalstad ?9IINktbat thereffa 12 -acre park that is just about to start construction up in
Newport Coast that TRII&W Wfpany is building and that the City is not paying a dime for and
that it would be comple 009 and that it would include ball fields, soccer fields, very
active park and is not more th a mile or two from the Newport Center site and that the City is
not very involved in it and construction should begin soon and should allay some of the problems
of not having a active park in this area.
Caroline Logan stated that the most beautiful cities have central parks very similar to the one
that is being proposed for Newport Center Park and that these parks are not for sweat and tears
in competition but rather for serenity, quiet and the personal experience of sharing a peaceful
and quiet place near the center of town and please preserve our Newport Center Park as a
passive park, a non - competitive park for our citizens.
Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 8
Novel Hendrickson stated that she was here that she believes that we are here today to redo
your meeting of January 2nd and that she received some handouts other then what was given out
originally and wondered if these new plans had been discussed or it they had been discussed at a
meeting because she, had been able find any evidence of thal in any of the minutes and that this
handout was different then the one that was shown in 200 a Council Study Session and then
shown again in 2006.
Chair Garrett stated that this has been an evolving AIFIIIWd that many of the plans are
conceptual and probably what will be sent to Councim"IMPeO.111haw the vote goes will change
from what they are today.
Ms. Hendrickson
planning.
Chair Garrett stated that this is up to the Cc
these plans that are recommended to them.
Ms. Hendrickson stated that they really never did
1999 on this piece of land and has
during Study Sessions and really ne
park to the public to have a public
2002. She stated that this never ha
this could be under the radar all th
that was ever approved at a pu '
stated that she read in the
Policy B 17 for the Council that
that this park does not ha it hs
any input since 2005 in a f this.
Chair Garrett stated that
publicly noticed meeting
Ms. Hendrickson
of those meetim
Chair Garrett
about 90% finished with
will either approve or disapprove
:a hing that she had studied since
Jy the y Council has only discussed this
!arty on in the development of this
,-dSR 4for by Council Member Heffernan in
iot know who or what staff member or how
on to say that the only thing she could see
ty Council was the naming of the park. She
ous amount of time was spent on Council
park and the possible donation. She stated
change so that the Commission has not had
rily true since the Park Development Committee is a
discussions took place there.
reviewing them that there are not minutes
Ms. Hendricks state s d review them then because it is very disappointing to the
public since they trust th ommission knows and reports what is going on and when it is
found that the City Council n r really approved this or brought it for public comment then it
has been developed by the Park Development Committee and that the last time it was voted on
was November 16, 2004 on the Newport Center conceptual plan and that is was set in motion to
have the CIP to grant them $128,000 and then later in September another $58,000 for the plans
that have been development and only a peak was given in 2006 and that it is amazing how this
comes out and report that the point of the whole thing is that the Library is supposed to get the
parking first and under phase 1 they don't.
39'
Parks, Beaches 13 Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 9
Director Morgan stated that he would not debate on whether parking for the library is supposed
to be first of what is second or third. He stated that he does know what the direction is for
tonight. He stated that when it comes to the fine points of Newport Center Park phase 1, that
what is going on tonight is very important and will influence the outcome of what the concept
will become once a final plan is approved. The things that a e being discussed tonight such as a
restroom or a place where it is more for a destination for ics rather than for individual use
will be extremely valuable and will be Itnsidered by th until when they direct staff on the
next steps to take place. He stated that Public Works t put plans out for bid until Council
has signed off.
Commissioner Brown stated that his recollection
questioned whether minutes are kept.
Director Morgan stated that these meetings
eventually they are in the minutes of the Com
Commissioner Brown stated that he knows th
least three different times while he served on the
that official minutes were not being done but that he
were reported at the Commission He st
accurate regarding the last time it
that it issues have not really been disc since
Director Morgan stated that on September
review of the costs was discussgdand tl
course no vote was taken at tbilffiEftte
Jim Warren stated that he
in the Fire Conference R
were advertised and the
that
are noticed and
every Commission meeting and
been discussed for this park at
He stated that he was not aware
the discussion of the Committee
he believes Ms. Hendrickson is
concept in November 2004 and
Park Development Committee meeting that a
council members were in attendance. But of
>ast three separate public meetings that were
in the Council Chambers. He stated that they
Jan Vandersloot stated that he W1111OLking for himself as well as SPON. He went on to say that
SPON is a city -wide rep g 350 families and that SPON has been instrumental
and very involve t lopme of this park going back to 1992 when the CIOSA
Agreement call r this site t dedicated as open space by The Irvine Company. Which did
happen and th ty accepted it pen space and the concept of a passive park was actually
first broache ouncil Memb om Tompson in 1997 and since then SPON developed a
concept plan w presentAFto the City and the current plan is largely developed on
SPON's plan which is -wi organization and at the annual meetings over the years has
been discussed and sever tation have been made on the park and what else could have
been put on the park such as for housing; the cultural arts center and all this time there have
been fights and now we are fighting about putting City Hall going there. He stated that there
has been a lot of activity related to this park and recalled that there have been several
presentations made at Commission meetings on this park site regarding eh design and several the
committee level. He stated that he personally sent out notices to have people come and express
their opinions. He stated that the public has been aware and that now certain members of the
public are coming down lately because they don't like what is happening here and want to see a
City Hall at the site and so are going back and trying to find or poke holes in the process and
that is what is happening now. Mr. Vandersloot stated that it is not because they are interested
35,
Parks, Beaches 8 Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 10
in what kind of park is there but they don't want to see a park period they want to see a City
Hall and that is not the mission of the Commission, but the mission is to decide whether it should
be passive or active park and encourage that the Commission stay by previous commitments and
that the Commission has done a good job in analyzing the site and come up with a very good
plan and noted that he is not opposed to additional ameni ies but that in the natural areas it
should be natural with trails and signage. He urged the Cossion to stand by their convictions
and move forward with the same recommendation.
Hugh Logan stated that there are two basic thorot
panoramas. He noted that one of them is New
Boulevard as you come over the hill and suddenly
is breathtaking and brings visitors, money and is a
park. He.stated that if it goes active and that y
City that it does not seem to be worth it con
time a soccer balls flies out into MacArthur B
that it remain a passive park.
Chair Garrett closed the public discussion
Commissioner Trapp stated that she
needed and would answer come cor
park very long and believes that the
Commissioner Lugar stated that he also
have facilities for people tog th
support it as a passive park bqdIFIft
Commissioner Brown s
appropriate site for an
established within neig
he views that area as a
have a shorta
site could onl
now. He state
he does not
there is a ne
how much mi
used to build
fact that we
park
FRIftLen up the City and the glorious
ast nd the other is MacArthur
ie harborSWIEWd out. He noted that it
e thing and a t place for a passive
one field to the ones already within the
a rading and cannot imagine the first
rged the Commission to recommend
Barry'AW's suggestion that restrooms are
ould do if they plan to stay at the
i c tables is a good idea.
Mr. Allen and architecturally that unless you
not gather and so it makes sense that we
ities be added so people will visit the park.
ry strongly that Newport Center is not an
es that. He stated that active parks should be
are easily accessible for families. He went on to say that
area and that if we create a active park there that since we
it is important the land have multiple use and that this
Id and would not answer any shortages that we have
d abo safety if it were an active park there. He stated that
active site however he noted that everyone realizes that
kbelieves that since we are in a climate where we look at
nd that he has some trouble agreeing that funds should be
which we have a dearth of those already and ignoring the
d the notion that we have an active park in Newport Coast
already being built but n t it would not serve the interest of the west side where there
are no active parks at all. Co issioner Brown stated that his concern is not whether this should
be an active park but rather that our motion that was passed in January was that the City begin
construction on the site as soon as possible and noted that he no longer feels that way, He
stated that is why he would like to have a unanimous vote on this of having is as a passive park
but does not believe he could support a motion that would include recommending that Newport
Center be constructed as a passive park with an inference that would probably come as full bore
ahead. He stated that he would point to the General Plan and that the park is a low priority in
the update and that this park has been discussed for years and now we are talking about ways to
encourage use of the park. He stated that what he is asking the Commission to consider is that
0
Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 11
we recommend that Newport Center Park is an appropriate site for a passive park but that it not
be a priority and that other priorities would serve the interest of many more residents of
Newport Beach then this particular site at this particular time.
Commissioner Lugar stated that priority is not an issAthere the Commission to discuss.
Chair Garrett stated he, personally agrees that ame added and could mitigate
some concerns of those of the park not being used. is a shortage of soccer
fields within the City but that this site would not anserns.
Motion by Chair Garrett to recommend to City Cou ter Park be designated
as a passive park and that additional user ameniti to include bend icnic tables, parking,
additional turf areas and a restroom. Motion cardW by the following vote:
AW
Ayes: Brown, Garrett, Lugar, Trapp, Mars
Absent: Ruzicka
Recuse: Allen
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
COUNCIL AGEND
N0. 7 5 as 07
Council Member Gardner took exception to Mayor Rosansky's characterization that a
positive decision on this matter was "politically expedient"
Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing
so the parking lot would be built first.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
CD �Ci p� (\ Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosaasky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle
•
The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 12:10 a.m. with all
members present.
K. PUBLIC_HEA._HING
21. IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF
AND BOB HENRY PARK 1100- 20071.
Dr. Jan Vandersloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees and
felt it was perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the homebuilders.
Motion by Council Member Webb to continue this item.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
M. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES - None
N. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND-.ORAL STATUS REPORT
22. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007 1100-20071 - No oral
report provided.
P. CURRENT-B USINESS
S26. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT; BUDGET AMENDMENT 1100 -20071
Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendation that the City invest in
cameras and editing equipment to continue the City's programming efforts. Time -Warner
has contributed $400,000; Cox $600,000, and Time- Warner will provide 10 -year ongoing
support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
Volume 58 - Page 67
Prepared Statement read by Mayor Pro Tem Selich 5 -22 -07 (Item No. 17)
The Parks Commission has re affirmed its previous recommendation that Newport Center Park should be
a passive park. There is no need for the City Council to take any action on this since it has already
designated Newport Center Park a passive park. The Parks Commission has additionally made some
recommendations that new elements be added to the Park design and it is appropriate for the City
Council to direct staff to include these in the design if we see fit. I concur with the Parks Commission
suggestions and would only suggest that we add a tot lot to their recommendations. These suggestions
would provide additional elements in the park design that would increase its attractiveness and potential
use. Newport Center Park has been characterized as a passive park which implies it will have no active
use. It should be pointed out that the absence of a sports field does not mean there will be no activity in
the park. With the additional suggestions of the Parks Commission there will be many opportunities for
activities to occur here.
I would like to address the need and use of this park since it has come under some criticism as a park
that will not be used. I have made my statements in support of this park based upon the need for the City
Council to live up to its commitments. I continue to stand by those statements but my support is much
deeper than that.
The City Council needs to look to our future park needs as well as the present and not be shortsighted.
We need to consider our recently approved General Plan and the mixed use residential neighborhood we
are creating in Newport Center. With the addition of 450 additional residential units in our new General
Plan we will now have a total of 1201 residential units in the 518 acres that make up Newport Center.
This includes the Santa Barbara Condominiums, Colony Apartments, Granville, Sea Island, and Villa
Point. Using our 2.09 persons per household criteria this creates a population base of 2510 people. Using
our standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1000 population this generates a park need of 12.5 acres for
Newport Center. Newport Center Park is 12.85 acres of which roughly 50% is traditional park and the
remainder environmentally sensitive habitat. The 450 new units approved in the General Plan will
generate $11,756,000 in Park Fees under our recently updated Park Fee schedule. The 79 unit Santa
Barbara Condominiums will generate a little over $2,063,000 in park fees. That's almost $14,000,000.
That's $14,000,000 that the future purchasers of these units are paying for parks. Spending $3.5 million
out of that for a neighborhood park in Newport Center for Newport Center residents is only 25% of those
fees and is in line with commonly accepted parks development standards. It provides for a balance of
25% Neighborhood Parks to 75% Community and Active Parks needs. The balance will go to meeting
other park needs of these future Newport Center residents. This is an additional $11,500,000 for active
sports parks in other areas of the city, such as Sunset Ridge to serve these residents as well as other
residents of the city.
It should be noted that the unbuilt residential units in the General Plan for Newport Center by themselves
generate a parks need of 5.5 acres
It has been stated that this park should not move ahead because our priority should be on active parks.
This park is not a threat to any active parks under consideration in the city. Sunset Ridge Park, our next
active park, is probably two budget cycles away from being ready for construction. This park with some
finalization to the construction documents is ready to go now.
It has been suggested that if we build a city hall on the Newport Center Park site we can make up the lost
park acreage by using the current city hall site as a park instead. Putting a park on the current city hall
site needs to stand on its own merits; it is no substitute for needed parkland in Newport Center. It's value
as a future park will have to stand up against its value to be sold to help pay for the relocation and
construction of a new City Hall.
By the way, to bring our 5 acres of park land per 1000 population standard into some perspective that
comes down to 218 sq feet per person; a little bigger than a shopping center parking space.
The City needs to provide for the park needs of current and future Newport Center residents. While I
admit this park is not ideally located, there is no other realistic opportunity to provide a park in Newport
Center. The only other vacant land in Newport Center is the 3 acre parcel north of San Miguel on
Avocado. Its size and shape limit it's usability as a neighborhood park. We have a responsibility to take a
long term view here. The existing and future residential population in Newport Center needs a
neighborhood park in Newport Center. We have been critical of the City of Irvine, to the point of initiating
litigation, for not providing parks in their mixed use development areas. Should we do no less? We have
made providing parks a major requirement of the mixed use residential development that will occur in the
airport area. Should do no less in Newport Center? Other commercial- residential mixed use urban areas
in Southern California have shown that parks are important community elements and are used by the
residents. The City of Irvine and some developers make claims that the people that live in mixed use
areas don't need or use parks because they are empty nesters or single professionals. This has been
proven wrong in other mixed use areas time and time again and it is now generally accepted that mixed
use areas need parks and the residents use them.
It has been suggested that myself and others on this City Council who support the park do so for the
wrong reasons. It has been suggested things have changed since the park was approved 5 years ago
and we need to take that into consideration. I agree. Things have changed. Most significantly we have
added an additional 1,000 residents to Newport Center in our new General Plan and have increased the
need for this park even more. I have supported a park on this site based on sound land use planning
principles. I have supported it based on our newly adopted General Plan. Absent any other sound and
logical proposal to create 12.5 acres of parkland elsewhere in Newport Center I will continue to so.
A proposal to put the city hall on Newport Center Park is close to being eligible to circulate a petition to
place the issue on the ballot. One of the major claims is that putting City Hall on the park site is a less
expensive solution because the land is free since the city already owns it. That is not true. The city
incurred a substantial initial cost in acquiring the land for open space use through concessions to the
Irvine Co in the CIOSA agreement. A substantial portion of the existing residential development in
Newport Center was given park credit for this land in lieu of paying park fees and it should not be taken
from them. In addition to this, there is a major cost to creating a building pad on the Newport Center Park
site. This cost translates into effective additional land cost. I believe that one of the things we need to do
to rebut this characterization of the site being "free" is to analyze the cost of creating a buildable site
there, including grading, retaining walls and surface and subsurface drainage.
Although I am not in support of building a city hall on this site I feel we should have DMJM, our contract
Architect who is evaluating the OCTA site, provide us with an estimated cost to create a building pad on
the site.
No one should infer from this that I am in favor of a City Hall here. Cost is only one factor of many in
making these decisions.
The over riding factor here is that Newport Center, for now and its future, needs a park. This is the most
logical place, given existing constraints and history, and absent any other sound and logical proposal, to
place a park.
I believe we need to proceed ahead with this park. Some may question the wisdom of doing so with the
threat of the initiative. Our practice since I have been on the City Council has not been to conduct our
business based upon the threat of an initiative. We did not do that with Greenlight 11 nor the Public
Facilities Financing Initiative. We should not do that here. If and when the proposed initiative qualifies we
can assess where we are and make adjustments at that time If necessary.
Thus I make the following motion which is a reaffirmation of our February 27`" action modified by our
Parks Commission's recommendation:
Direct staff to bring back at the June 12 City Council an action for Council consideration to proceed with
the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid package for Phase I of the Newport Center Park as
follows:
1. Approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council Concept Plan,
incorporating the suggestions of the parks commission with the addition of a tot lot, and the
addition of the upper parking lot. Construction to be done in Phases with the middle phase first.
2. Acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards the construction of the middle phase in exchange
for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming rights will be available,
and direct staff to negotiate an agreement..
3. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2007 -2007 Budget to increase funding from $200,000 to
$400,000, subject to final construction bids. And
4. Direct staff to complete construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible
and put them out to bid.
In addition, I further move that we authorize the City Council Building Committee and the City
Manager to expand the scope of the DMJM contract, within the City Manager's authority, to include a
cost analysis to construct a building pad immediately north of the Central Library capable of
supporting a two story 72,000 sq ft City Hall with a 42,000 first floor and a 400 space parking facility
with 300 spaces for city hall and 100 spaces for the library.