HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Newport Center Park Concept PlanCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 21
July 24, 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
SUBJECT: NEWPORT CENTER PARK CONCEPT PLAN
ISSUE: Does City Council want to authorize the following actions:
Approve the revised Newport Center Park Phase 1 Concept Plan
2. Direct staff to negotiate a professional services agreement with Hall & Foreman
for the design of Newport Center Park (Phase 1 only or all phases).
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
DISCUSSION:
At the June 12, 2007 Meeting, City Council directed staff to have our consultant, Hall &
Foreman, prepare a conceptual plan for the revised Phase 1 park which includes the
PB &R Commission's recommended additional amenties (parking, restroom, benches,
picnic tables, small passive turf areas) along with a tot lot. The completed concept
plan, cost considerations, and potential next steps will be presented in a powerpoint
presentation.
Environmental Review:
City Council's approval of this agenda item does not require environmental approval.
Submitted by:
Director
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 12, 2007
Mayor Rosansky reported that the annual 4th of July committee met recently and indicated
there would not be any changes this year as far as street closures. etc.
XVII. TLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT
28. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JUNE 7, 2007 (100- 2007].
Planning Director Lepo reported on the following, three items: 1) 3 Thirty 3
Waterfront (PA2007.004) • 333 Bayside Drive; 2) the review of the preliminary
Capital Improvement Program; and 3) the update on compliance with Use Permit
conditions of approval for Albertson's Market.
ONTINURD BUSINES
29. COUNCIL DECISION TO PROCEED WITH THE PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEWPORT CENTER PARK'S MIDDLE PHASE
WITH TOT LOT, RESTROOM AND PARKING LOT COMPONENTS,
INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR SUCH PLANNING' -AND FINALIZING
PARK NAMING RIGHTS 1100 - 2'0071.
City Manager Bludau stated that this item comes back to the City Council at the
request of Mayor Pig Tem Selich seeking approval of four independent items as
follows: 1) approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council
concept plan, incorporating the suggestions of the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission with the addition of a tot lot, and the addition of the upper
parking lot, with 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 l'or naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other park
oo}npouent :;naming rights . will be available, and direct staff to negotiate an
agieemenq conceptual approval to amend the FY 2007 -2008 budget to increase
funding. frd j the_ park budget from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final
construction • .: : :4) direct staff to complete construction documents for the
,o
ni"e section phase as soon as possible and put them out to bid.
CounA.Member Daigle wanted to clarify that although this park is an alternative it
would not appear to be the only alternative for the residents.
Mayor Pro Selich said because the Council was concerned about Item #2 he would
suggest continuing Item #2 and Item #3 because the budget amendment is tied into
the amount of the donation.
Motion by Mayor Pr_a_Tem Selich to approve Items 1 and 4 as outlined by City
Manager Bludau and to delay Items 2 and 3 to come back to the Council when plans
are closer to being completed.
Council Member Webb outlined the reasons he felt there was insufficient
information for this Council to vote on this matter this evening and could not
support either recommendation 1 or 4.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the construction documents were substantially
complete in accordance with conceptual plans approved by the Council.
Volume 58 - Page 184
City of Newport Reach
City Council Minutes
June 12, 2007
Council Member Curry stated that new residents would generate more than $12
million in par in -lieu fees and it seemed to him that the City should provide a first
class park for those residents.
Council Member Daigle said the Council has not seen the developers' plans and may
unfold ideas that should be given consideration.
Mayor Pro Tam Selich and City Attorney Clausen explained that unless the contract
extension with DMJM exceeded the City Manager's.,approval authority it would not
have to come back to the Council for consideration..
Dolores Otting felt people should have a right- to. vote on this issue and that the City
should not move forward until the study w8s completed.
Barry Allen believed the Council should vote on this matter tonight.
John Heffernan felt the Council should proceed carefully and noted that someone
will be held accountable for the. expenditure of funds for the current location, as well
as the proposed location.
Tom Moulson said the people want the park and the City should build it as
promised.
Marcia Dossey felt it was a foregone conclusion.that the City needed a state-of-the-
an city hall and the Council did not hay enough information to render a decision
this evening.
Ron Hendrickson said he was' not in favor of moving ahead with this park -
Dr. Jan Vandersloot stated that SPON had worked for over 12 years to have a park
at this !:s to and'; phould not be delayed.
John,Nelson said the Council should reconsider its decisions based on current need.
Bernie! asked the Council to move forward in compliance with the City's
General'151an and change `naming rights" to sponsorship.
Anne Balderston wanted the Council to build the park as approved.
Dick NiJchols said that in the beginning people were in agreement with a multi-
purpose use of this site.
Novelle Hendrickson hoped the City Council would reject the motion because there
was insufficient information regarding a proposed plan.
At the request of Council Member Webb, Public Works Director Badum provided
background on this matter and Council discussion ensued.
Substitute motion by Council Member Gardner to add that a conceptual plan
to be Completed while the Council was waiting for the redesign phase to be
completed. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Volume 58 - Page 185•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 12, 2007
so.
Mayor Rosansky supported Council Member Gardner's motion and offered a
substitute motion.
Substitute motion by Mayor Rosanskv to direct staff to have the consultant
prepare conceptual plans for the entire park, that include the additional amenities
recommended by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, the tot lot, the
parking lot, restrooms and taking into consideration the phasing, to be brought back
to the full Council for consideration at a later date.
Council discussion ensued about the financing capabilities of the City to complete
three parks.
The substitute motion carried by the following' mll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council
Member Gardner
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich
POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING POLYSTYRENE USE IN NEWPORT
BEACH 1.100 - 20071.
Assistant City Manager KitT presented a brief report and asked Council for further
direction.
Council Member Daigle wanted to know it the Council would agree to exempt the
OASIS.
Mayor, Rosansky said he could support some of Tier 1 and 2 ideas but it would be
diffietilt for the City to lean on others if the City failed to address the problem.
Mdtiorn by Mayor Pro Tem Selich to approve the Tier 1 approach.
Council Memii .:Curry said he supported the motion but would like to go beyond
that to include some of the,Tier 2 strategies and would support including Council
Member Daigle's exemption for OASIS.
Stephanie Barger, Earth Resources Foundation, thanked Council for its
consideration and expressed that the students that proposed this ordinance would be
disappointed that the Council did not include Tier 3.
Amend d motion by Mayor Pro Tem Selich to approve Tier 1 and 2 with the
<= ,exemption £or OASIS not included at this time, however staff to come back if there
ake,cost issues that will impact OASIS.
The amended 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
XVrX. CURRENT BUSINESS
31. AWARD OF CONCESSION AT CORONA DEL MAR STATE BEACH [.00-
2007].
Volume 58 - Page 186
al- 7IDg10-7
THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING 9 PLANNING
URBAN PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
WILLIAM P. FICKER. AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 24, 2007
To: City Council, City of Newport Beach
From: William P. Fdcer, AIA, City Hall in the Park Committee
Re: Agenda Item #21,-Newport Center Park Concept Plan
1. There has been a sudden rush to produce an ill- conceived plan merely for the
purpose of building something on the site to divert the, pursuit of the *City Hall in
the Park," and for no other reason. The Council has been willing to spend funds
without logical direction or purpose. When the SPON plan or the park plan was
presented at study session approximately a year ago, the passive park was
pursued. It was stated that parking was not needed on the upper part of the park
and all the parking was at the library ground level. There were no tables, tot lots,
toilets, or anything but trails and I believe some benches.
There were no gazebos and, of course, the Greek theater at an elevation of
approximately 160 to 170 was an absurdity. The site had only trails, trails which
have been maintained in the proposed "City Hall in the Park" plan.
2. There has also been a sudden pursuit of beautifying parks. This again has only
been in response to the criticism that has been heaped on the 'Weed parks" by the
community, who would rather see some appropriate use of park open space rather
than the large expanses of neglected open space and native plants..
3. 1 have attached to this.memo two pages from the General Plan, which should not
be ignored, and they refer to the excess of park area in the Newport Center
Service Area and the statement that "there are no identified park or recreation
needs in this Service Area.' The chart indicates that there are 8.1 excess park
acres in this area.
3.1 For the "City Hall in the Park' Plan, the land coverage, including the paved areas,
access road, library parking, etc., is only approximately 2.5 acres.
417 "1 HIRTIE IH S'IREEI • NEWPORT HEAC`i.. CA 92M3. PHONE (M)d76-9628, FAX (949) 875 -9838
Agenda Rom #21, Newport Center Park Concept Plan
July 24, 20Q7
Page 2of2
3.2 For those who continue to be concerned about the construction of the "City Hall in
the Park" site, there are more than adequate safeguards with regard to
construction height and every other concern that has been voiced.
3.3 1 hope that the Council will not take precipitous action to further pursue any
improvements on this site because the opportunity to make true improvements and
use of this park site would be greatly enhanced by the synergism of the park and
beautification surrounding the city hall and its association, both culturally and
physically, with the library and other art groups, etc., who could participate in such
things as sculpture gardens in coordination with the city hall and library.
4117'f HIRI IE IF! ST'REET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA £3250^3 • PHONE(9419)M-9628- FAX (840) "75 -8838
Recreation Element
CITYWIDE ISSUES AND NEEDS
Parks and Recreational Facilities
In June 2005, it is estimated that a total of 415.6 acres of parklands are needed within the City to
accommodate the current population of 83,120 residents (utilizing the City standard of 5, acres per
1,000 population). As shown in Table 1, below, there are an existing total of 286.4 acres of parks and
90.4 acres of active beach recreation within Newport Beach with a combined total of 376.8 acres.
Thus, this represents a total deficit of 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide. Seven
of the twelve service areas are experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. Three
planned parks in West Newport, New Center, and Newport Coast would help alleviate the
citywide park deficit. In addition to a deficit in combined park and beach recreation acreage, there is
also an overall shortage in active playfields throughout Newport Beach, Many of the service areas
within the City, as discussed in greater detail below, may have a park surplus but are still experiencing
a deficit in active playfields. Also, it is difficult to provide playfields because of the large amount cif
land required for sports fields, the lack of suitable vacant land, and the high cost of such land within
the City.
The citywide parks and recreation facilities needs.described below have been identified through the
following; (1) community surveys (administered from December 1996 to February 1997), (2) data
shown in Table R1 (parkland Acreage Needs), and (3) monitoring of the use of recreation pro&rams
and facilities.
f..LY G L Y --�. t.- nAAC
11. Harbor View 72.2 99.5 0 99.5 +27.3
12. Newport Coast' 50 I 58.1- 0 )7
Totals T 415.6 a 286.4 90.4 b 376.8 - 38.8"
' Newport Coast includes . public and private parks, including 14 . acres of Newport Ridge. Park dedicated for public use upon City acceptance.
*'Private Park Area is 58.1 ac. Newport Coast parks use and maintenance are subject to the terms of the Pre - Annexation Agreement.
"De6dtlexcess acreage it no additional parks are built.
83,120 x 5 ac. per thousand = 415.6 ac.
Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feel of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach .
open space, 136 acres of open space Land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined . amount of water open space in the Upper Bay
and Newport. Harbor.
Park Acres
Park Acres i ~. Active Beach
Combined Park/
OeRcit ( -)
Service Area
Needed I
ExlsHng j Recreafion Acreage
Beach Acreage I
Excess ( +1
1. West Newport
64.7
9.1 L 34
43.1 I
=21_6 ,
2. Balboa Peninsula
25.5
6.5 j 44
50.5
+25.0
3. Newport Heig4ts/Upper Bay
64.3
50.2 0
50.2
j -14.1
4. Santa Ana Heights 3.2 6.8 I 0
6.8 +.3.6-----
_....._....
5. lower Bay I 17.3 0.1 i 0
0.1 17.2
6. Balboa Island 17.9 0.3 1
1.3 16.6 _....
7. Easlbluff j 31.3 I 71.0 0
71.0 +39.7
8, Big Canyon. 13.9 .0 0
0 13.9
9. Newport Center, 10.9 19 • 0 19 +8.1
10. Corona del Mar
44.4
23.9 11.4 35.3 I .9.1
11. Harbor View 72.2 99.5 0 99.5 +27.3
12. Newport Coast' 50 I 58.1- 0 )7
Totals T 415.6 a 286.4 90.4 b 376.8 - 38.8"
' Newport Coast includes . public and private parks, including 14 . acres of Newport Ridge. Park dedicated for public use upon City acceptance.
*'Private Park Area is 58.1 ac. Newport Coast parks use and maintenance are subject to the terms of the Pre - Annexation Agreement.
"De6dtlexcess acreage it no additional parks are built.
83,120 x 5 ac. per thousand = 415.6 ac.
Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feel of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach .
open space, 136 acres of open space Land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined . amount of water open space in the Upper Bay
and Newport. Harbor.
Recreation Element
Identified Issues and Needs
Boating Facilities— Although not as great as the need for sports fields, there is a substantial demand
for public boat launching facilities, sailing facilities, marine sanitation facilities, and guest slips. In
addition, there is a continuing, high level of
interest in crew rowing and outrigger paddling
activities and facilities.
Shoreline Access — Throughout Southern
California, access to the shoreline is restricted to
the public due to private residential communities:
Although most of the shoreline in Newport
Beach is publicly owned and- accessible, there are
a few private residential communities that
impede public access to and along the shoreline. -
Temporary Events — Newport Beach's coastal
areas have long been the venue for temporary '
events, including film production, surfing Additional Loafing Iadlifies are an identified need in Newport Beach.
contests, volleyball tournaments, runs, races, concerts, boat shows, and other such competitions,
exhibitions, and events. Also, a number of view parks have become popular locations for large private
gatherings. The nature and frequency of such events can impact access to the shoreline and other
coastal resources.
SERVICE AREAS
The Citv has been divided into service areas_ as shown in Figure R2. for the ourooses of
to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. Two
to 12 service areas within the Cirv_ Newnnrt Center and Harbor View_ have no identified Dark and
as
Service Area 9— Newport Center. There is park surplus within this service area. The Back Bay View
Park was completed in the summer of 2005, and a new passive park, Newport Center Park, is planned
for development sometime after 2006.
Service Area 11— Harbor View. There is a surplus in park area, and the Harbor View Service Area
contains substantial active and passive recreation facilities. The City's efforts should be focused on
maintaining and /or upgrading existing facilities, such as Grant Howald Park, Arroyo Park, and Bonita
Canyon Sports Park.
Parks and Recreational Facilities
Service area parks.and recreational facilities needs described below have been identified through
community surveys (administered from December 1996 to February 1997), through the data in
Table Rl (Parkland Acreage Needs), and through monitoring of the use of recreation programs and
facilities.
■
k
�/r 1
I- b
! I Il '/I
Proposed
Newport Center Park
Phase 1 Concept
k
xKt
/� °aw 5
'.
f
I //�
r
I.I
0.YMC
!WE M'O
i(I {
•�' ��
4 .i
R!P�r
� /.
� rP�
yWmR
�Inr l ! ��i
r. tc•yv..,.v —+f- _ _cam . � — 1
_ ..a fa+ ZWA^Cwm.:_
...
..
`• '. / \.�1 IMElw
�/r 1
I- b
! I Il '/I
I 1 MNY / Pt r �uvPJ2uLrv] N a!'
I% ��I pLno,vx %�Pw.syx LKaeM
i
l
r tv�ti
s l
ia�roromn xtrivwlas _ J
/
® co'
•.
xKt
/� °aw 5
'.
f
I //�
r
I.I
0.YMC
!WE M'O
i(I {
•�' ��
4 .i
R!P�r
� /.
� rP�
��
/
r
I 1 MNY / Pt r �uvPJ2uLrv] N a!'
I% ��I pLno,vx %�Pw.syx LKaeM
i
l
r tv�ti
s l
ia�roromn xtrivwlas _ J
/
® co'
■
Proposed Newport Center Park Phase 2 Concept
—_ -—--
.•ass I / � ..
-
f exam .e.
1 c )f' � � ♦ 1� I � :- i � � ncrrssmy I �'e
S
ax erm %cmD1\
seaus�
,Lfl r
4 �� � 1 'D.�FA �'K�R'wR''puL - ft lCw � IAEff'/YLM19a
��` �/ , sunvc rnunsro cw.
� PI I'll �� � .n (zreenamJ -- -_ - =--
e
■
Cross Section - Newport Center Park Phase 1
0
Cost Summary
Newport Center
Park Phases
Estimated Cost
Central Park Phase 1
$2,300,000 (a)
Library Parking Phase 2
$1,760,000 (b)
Northern Area Phase 3
$764,000 (c)
Total
$4,8247000
(a) Includes restroom, benches, picnic tables, small turf grass areas, tot lot
and 30 space parking lot and signal modification @ Avocado /Farallon.
(b) Includes 100 space parking lot, accessible walkways, and landscaping.
(c) Includes landscaping along periphery of park, refurbishing one acre of
native plants, irrigation, site furniture and foot bridge across center gully.
F
0
to �1�" i �`� .*✓' '+Y,�^�_. -yam' � "a g.e....:i<....s....�m:�Lss ed u - .5. .3','cclq
:
I T
.•i' � �� t� Y p r 1}'S ..t5 1 - %.-+•/ 15"? \n. 1 t f 1
`^[',S'�f�..�,r"fjl it 1- ._at. �i�qx.� \ ♦ � y}. vt•C1U0 vE l ': h' � t L..,�Ed: t � �y _
� - ! ae�•etcvaExr. roroaas=xk vu.4: 2
m'sa _ .-nvm rcrcm rex�
� e a au eL'tt5W'r.Plb- vJ�iRUf
Mttu4• 15x111 pu. YcOtu
7 1
- �31 M- rR F, A
Passive Central Park Parking Lot (31 spaces)
AI `9Y
...,i r
Er
IF E
rf
14i
C. H
(Most recent concept without additional central parking lot)
1.nd.ped Edge T, .�t
Ni�enor(Celiter Park
City of Newpoil Beach
F-I 1
Original Passive Park
-Nk
Concept (as approved by PB&R, 11104)
VIX=11
CZI -
Ak-Wf-IV 9-4
Flew.-6•-. 9, 2004