Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - City HallCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 20 July 25, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager 949 - 644 -3000, hbludau cit .new ort- beach.ca.us Robin Clauson, City Attorney 949 - 644 -3131, rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us Patricia Temple, Planning Director 949 - 644 -3228, ptemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us Marie Knight, Recreation Director 949 - 644 -3151, mknight @city.newport- beach.ca.us Stephen Badum, Public Works Director 949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @city.newport- beach.ca.us Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager 949 - 644 -3345, rdmonston@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: STAFF ASSESSMENT OF THE AVOCADO SITE AS A CITY HALL SITE, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CURRENT CITY HALL SITE, AND WHETHER TO MAKE THE AVOCADO SITE THE SUBJECT OF A NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURE ISSUES: 1. Identify the issues that could impact locating a new city hall on the Avocado site, adjacent to the Central Library. 2. In considering such a relocation, identify the issues associated with potential open space uses for the current city hall site. 3. Does the City Council want to put the city hall site location issue on the November ballot for a vote? STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear presentations on the site assessment report, discuss the issues and decide whether a ballot measure on the city hall site location is something the City Council wants staff to prepare. Staff Assessment of Avocado Site July 25, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND /HISTORY: The most recent initiation of discussions as to whether a new city hall is needed began with a presentation from the City Manager to the City Council in June, 2002. The presentation's theme was the current city hall has not been updated and upgraded because it was always believed a new city hall would be built, and if that is not the case, City staff needs to begin the process of planning and implementing the update /upgrade. Work space was at a premium, and many of the city structure's systems (electrical, air conditioning, plumbing) were old and failing. The City Council decided to do a space needs assessment for city hall, and in late 2002, Griffin Structures was hired through an RFQ process to conduct the space needs assessment. That assessment was completed, presented to the City Council and accepted in 2003. Several times during city hall discussions, both the City Council as a whole and the Council Building Committee decided (not unanimously) the best location for city hall would be the current site. This decision was made and confirmed based on the following considerations: other locations were too complicated to make happen, the negative impact of the loss of city hall on the Peninsula and the City owning the current site. In 2005, the City Council authorized a contract with Griffin Structures to do public outreach meetings to determine what the public liked and did not like about the current city hall. Based on the public outreach meetings, Griffin did a site layout, floor plan layout, and 20% of conceptual drawings for a new city hall at the current site. A replacement fire station and a parking garage were included in the site plan. There were six (6) public outreach meetings, and in November, 2005, Griffin Structures presented the layouts and cost estimate for a new fire station, a 300 car parking garage and a 72,000 sq. ft. city hall. The estimated cost of the complex at that time was $48M. In January, 2006, the City Council appointed residents to a Facilities Financing Review Committee and a City Hall Site Review Committee to get further input from residents who possessed technical expertise in finance and site development issues. The City Council gave direction to the City Hall Site Review Committee not to assess the Avocado site, adjacent to the Central Library, as a potential city hall site because that site was in the process of being planned as a passive park. The City Hall Site Review Committee assessed 22 sites it had identified during its review process, and it provided a report which stated the Committee believed there were two good sites for a city hall — the current site and the Irvine Company's Corporate Plaza West site. After the report was completed, The Irvine Company stated it had no interest in either selling or leasing Corporate Plaza West to the City for a city hall site. In May, local architect Bill Ficker provided the City Council a concept to locate the new city hall at the Avocado site, and based on the information he provided, was invited to give a complete presentation of his concept at the July 11th Council Study Session. At Staff Assessment of Avocado Site July 25, 2006 Page 3 the June 27th Council meeting, the City Manager was asked to do a site assessment of the Avocado site for the Council meeting on July 25tH STAFF AVOCADO SITE ASSESSMENT ISSUES: For staff to do a thorough assessment of the major issues involved in considering the Avocado site for a city hall location is not an easy undertaking. There are many issues which come into play when this site is assessed for development of any kind. The fact that the project's definition is unclear (one or two story, site plan, circulation, parking, etc.) makes the analysis even more difficult. Given the information available, this staff report attempts to provide the City Council and the community with enough relevant factual information so that a decision can be forthcoming as to further analyzing the site, abandoning further thought of this site for anything other than a park, or to place the issue on the ballot for community input. Since there are so many issues involved in consideration of this site, the issues are covered separately by memos, in order to detail and clarify those issues. The following issues will be covered by memos and have been prepared by various staff members: • The CIOSA Agreement • Planning /zoning issues and entitlements • Environmental issues (sensitive resources) • Park planning issues • Traffic issues • Topographical issues • The Ficker Plan ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide range of issues which would have to be dealt with in order to build a city hall on the Avocado site, but staff has not identified any single issue which could be deemed to pose a "fatal flaw" to that decision. POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE: . At the July 11th City Council meeting, Mayor Webb suggested Council consider placing the issue on the November ballot. For a measure to make the November ballot, the City Council would need to decide the wording no later than Friday, July 28th. Such a ballot measure could take two forms. It could be in the form of an advisory vote measure, which would not be binding, but would allow the community to express its opinion. If the vote was positive, then relocation of city hall would likely require a General Plan Amendment that would be subject to a further vote under Charter Section 423 (Greenlight). Staff Assessment of Avocado Site July 25, 2006 Page 4 The other ballot measure form would be as a Charter Amendment. A Charter Amendment ballot measure would be binding on the City Council, as the voters would be deciding whether to amend the City Charter by inserting Charter language regarding the future location of city hall. This charter amendment would need to be drafted in a way that would provide that by voter approval to designate the Avocado site for city hall, a future vote under Section 423 (Greenlight) would not be required. CONCLUSION: It appears there are two viable sites on which the City Council could decide to build a new city hall. However, as the saying goes, "the devil is in the detail." The current site has undergone enough planning to where we have good identification of the site issues involved. The point was reached where the key remaining issues seemed to involve funding and exterior appearance, and the Facilities Advisory Review Committee was satisfied a funding program could be developed to afford this and other needed public facilities. The Avocado site has been presented as a concept, and since a site layout and floor plan does not exist, the level of scrutiny of both sites for the city hall project is not comparable. Bringing the Avocado city hall site to the point where it has the same informational detail as the current site would easily take a year and probably in the range of $150,000 - $250,000 in architectural and other consultant fees. With construction costs escalating anywhere from 10 % -15% a year, such planning, and the time delay involved, could easily add an additional $4,000,000 - $6,000,000 to the cost of building a city hall and parking garage. While a number of issues have been identified in the following memo staff reports regarding the Avocado site, the City Manager believes timing and cost are important issues that also need to be factored into this discussion. Submitted by: Homer L. Blud City Manager Attachments: Memos from City Attorney, Planning Director, Recreation & Senior Services Director, Transportation /Development Services Manager, and Public Works Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO Homer Bludau, City Manager FROM: Robin L. Clauson, City Attorney RE Summary of CIOSA Agreement and Procedure for Amendment DATE : July 20, 2006 In 1993 the City and The Irvine Company (TIC) entered into a Development Agreement known as the "Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement" ( CIOSA). The Agreement provided comprehensive planning for long term development of virtually all the remaining undeveloped, or underdeveloped property owned by TIC in a manner consistent with the 1988 General Plan amendments. In exchange, the Agreement provided for advance funding of needed circulation improvements by TIC's prepayment of fair share fees and commitment to construct certain roadway improvements as part of the identified development projects. The Agreement also required preservation or donation of land for park and open space purposes. The 12.8 acre parcel, identified as "Newport Village (from library to San Miguel)" was one of 12 parcels TIC agreed to offer for dedication as open space. The open space dedications represented, "at least 72 acres more land than would be required under the current General Plan." The Agreement allowed for the City and TIC to agree to use up to 4 of the open space parcels to construct low and /or very low income senior housing. To locate City Hall on the Newport Village site next to the Central Library, would require an amendment to the CIOSA Agreement under the Government Code provisions for development agreements. Amendment of a development agreement is accomplished the same as approval of the agreement: by ordinance after a noticed public hearing. f Robin L. Clauson, City Attorney RC:da F:l usersX mAshamdl daV ig \Ciosalmemo\HBnewportVillge.doc G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department - Memorandum- July 20, 2006 TO: Homer Bludau, City Manager FROM: Patricia Temple, Planning Director.& SUBJECT: Newport Village Site (Newport Center Park) This memo provides the information requested in regards to the General Plan and Zoning, and sensitive resources implications of the consideration of this site as a location for Newport Beach City Hall. General Plan and Zoning The existing and proposed Land Use and Recreation Elements of the General Plan address the Newport Center Park site. The existing Land Use Element designates the site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space use, which provides for either active or passive use of open space areas. This land use designation was established as part of the Library Exchange Agreement. A commitment from The Irvine Company to dedicate the site to the City for open space was obtained through the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). The land use element contains no "entitlement" to construct buildings on the site currently, except approximately 10,000 square feet of un- built floor area from the allocation for the Central Library. While there is the ability to transfer development rights between sites in Newport Center, the remaining square footage is limited. Most of the future development is allocated to Fashion Island and Corporate Plaza West ( +/- 256,000 sq. ft.). There is a very small amount of additional un -built square footage in Theater Plaza (Block 300), about 4,500 sq. ft. The proposed General Plan adds no office space, and prohibits the conversion of retail space added in the update. The existing Recreation and Open Space Element designates the site for "Neighborhood Park" at 8 acres. It is a "Planned Facility." Neighborhood parks are considered to be active recreational facilities. The proposed Land Use Element designates this site as Open Space -OS. This land use category provides for areas to "protect, maintain and enhance the community's natural resources." This implies a more passive use of an area, although incidental buildings are allowed (such as restrooms and storage buildings). 1 The proposed Recreation Element includes a policy addressing priorities for provision of park facilities (R 1.9). This policy lists the Newport Center Park as a passive park, and it is the first of six priority park sites. Either the existing or proposed General Plan Land Use and Recreation Elements would need to be amended to allow use for a public facility like City Hall. Additionally, the current zoning of the property is Planned Community — PC. The PC Text designates the site for open space. This technically doesn't require an amendment, but it would be preferred to maintain the internal consistency of the City's planning documents. Charter Section 423 Since an opportunity to transfer development rights to this site is not available unless The Irvine Company agrees to provide the City a portion of the square footage allocated to their properties, the City would have to amend either the existing or proposed General Plan to allow construction of a City Hall. At the currently predicted size of 72,000 sq. ft., the amendment would exceed the 40,000 sq. ft. threshold established in Charter Section 423, necessitating approval of the amendment by the electorate. Sensitive Resources As part of the planning process for the Newport Center Park, a Biological Resources Assessment and a Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Study have been prepared. The following information has been taken from these reports. The site is approximately 12 acres in size. It is considered to be a disturbed site, which has been caused by grading, drainage feature modification and the development of the roads surrounding the site. Plant diversity is moderate, and the site is affected by noise from the adjoining streets. The site contains five plant communities: 1. Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS): 4.72 acres, 1.35 acres of low quality 2. Southern Riparian Scrub: 0.41 acre 3. Freshwater Marsh: 0.15 acre 4. Non - native Grassland: 5.66 acres 5. Ornamental Landscape: 1.66 acres The CSS is found generally north of the extension of Farallon Drive, with a restored strip of CSS on the southern border just north of the Newport Beach Central Library. The riparian scrub and freshwater marsh areas are contained in the drainage course. The studies indicate that the site has the potential for sensitive wildlife species, as follows: 2 P.9 High: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Moderate: San Diego Fairy Shrimp Northern Red - diamond Rattlesnake Orange- throated Whiptail San Diego Horned Lizard Western Spade Foot Toad Coastal Cactus Wren Southern California Rufous - crowned Sparrow Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands The surface drainage facility contains the following areas subject to Federal and State regulation (map attached): ➢ US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) jurisdictional waters: 0.5 acre ➢ USACE jurisdictional wetlands: 0.23 acre ➢ California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction (CDFG): 1.12 acres Possible Permits ➢ USACE Section 404 and 401 (Clean Water Act) ➢ CDFG Section 1600 (California Fish and Game Code) Recommendations With any development of the site, the following recommendations are made: 1. Focused survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and San Diego Fairy Shrimp 2. If nesting gnatcatchers are observed, no grading should occur in CSS from February 25 to July 15 3. Monitoring biologist on -site during grading 4. Avoid disturbance of CSS 5. Protect vernal pools 6. Comply with NCCP /HCP requirements regarding gnatcatcher and fairy shrimp 3 a hprn nrAn'a'Ap, j"'. I oq A. Legend Project Site USACE Wetlands = 023 acres v USACE Jurisdictional 0.27 acres 798 L. F.) CDFG Jurisdictional = 1.12 acres OVUIQU. i.M 10 LfDrary two 5 0 50100 200 0 Feet 12660008 1 JDMap_Exh2.mxd I August 2004 Exhibit 2 Jurisdictional Drainages Map NEWPORT VILLAGE PARK, ORANGE COUNTY, CA Recreation and Senior Services To: Homer Bludau From: Marie Knight, Recreation ii Senior Services Director Re: Newport Center Park Date: 7 -19 -06 This memo addresses the events, actions and issues related to the development of this site as a park after the May 22, 2001 Council meeting during which Councilman Bromberg requested $35,000 be set aside for the preparation of a conceptual plan for developing Newport Village as a passive park. (I have attached a full outline of significant actions related to the park, but for purposes of my portion I thought best to start at this date.) Patty Temple also stated at this meeting that the current General Plan and zoning designates the site for open space. I have broken down the issues into the following areas: 1. Current Park Acreage and Shortfalls 2. Overall Park Design 3. Park Development Timeline 4. Design process timeline and finances 1. Current Park Acreage and Shortfalls It is estimated that a total of 415.6 acres of parklands are needed within the City to accommodate our current resident population of 83,120 utilizing our standard of 5 acres per 1,000 population. Our current status is 286.4 acres of park (including the 12 acres for Newport Center Park) and 90.4 acres of active beach totaling 376.8 leaving us with a deficit of 38.8 acres citywide. The City has been divided into 12 service areas for purposes of determining park acres needed and deficits. The Newport Center Park (NCP) is in Area 9 — Newport Center, which, with the addition of Newport Center Park will be on the plus side by 9 acres or at a deficit of 3 acres without NCP. 2. Overall Park Design Through extensive community outreach a concept design for the passive park was created, with conceptual approval given by the City Council. For purposes of discussion, the 14 acre park can be segmented into three areas or phases. The first is the portion immediately behind the Library which was created to provide additional parking for the Library as well as for the park. This area will accommodate approximately 100 spaces. The second segment or middle portion of the park is a sloped turf area that leads to an open turf meadow. Also included in this area is a circular arbor seating area that can be R1 used for un- amplified programs such as library reading and educational programs and acoustical music performances. The third area of the park is the native habitat and restoration area. The most recent PowerPoint presentation outlining the development of the park is available for review. 3. Park Development Timeline • Throughout 2001 the PB &R Commission oversaw an extensive community outreach process where input from the public was sought on this parcel of property and the type of open space 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 and additional parking for the Library. This plan was well received by the various stakeholders including the SPON and the environmental interests, surrounding neighbors, Board of Library Trustees, and the PB &R Commission. • January 22, 2002 - Council held a joint Study Session meeting with PB &R discussing potential park sites. The Jamboree -PCH park site was determined to be the first priority, with Newport Village site the second priority. • May 14, 2002 - Newport Village site update from Steve Badum during Study Session, Council directed staff to develop park site plans, take it to the PB &R Commission or a recommendation and then bring a report to Council for approval. • May 27, 2003 - Budget review, Steve Badum proposed Newport Village Park conceptual design with budget of $120,000 in CIP. • February 10, 2004 - Joint meeting with Council and PB &R to discuss communitywide park sites, deed restriction restricting site use for park site only discussed, no action taken. • June 22, 2004 - Council approved $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to begin Newport Center park conceptual plans. • On November 16, 2004 a preliminary concept plan for the park was approved by the PB &R Commission. • On January 25, 2005 the concept plan was presented at the 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 the dollars needed to move forward on the development of the park. At this time the preliminary cost estimates for the completion of the park were approximately $1.2 million dollars, and these estimates were over a year old and based on a concept plan. The citizen committee stated a goal of raising $1,000,000 of what was needed. The Council accepted this offer to raise the funds. A committee of 10 volunteers led by Bernie Svalstadt met a total of 15 times from February through June to develop a fundraising plan, marketing materials including a web site and prospect lists in an effort to raise $1,000,000. This committee was staffed by Marie Knight and Bob Stein. The Committee was ready to roll out their plan and begin the public process however was put on hold when a potential donor surfaced. In early June staff was contacted by a member of the community interested in assisting with the funding of the park. After several meetings this resident stated his desire to possibly donate the entire $1.2 million dollars needed. On June 14, 2005 the City Council named this park — Newport Center Park. At that time staff indicated that a resident had expressed interest in making donation in exchange for naming rights. The Council indicated that they would be amenable to this and directed staff to pursue this further. • For several months, staff, representatives from Hall & Foreman and Council Member Selich have met with the prospective donor to discuss the park site, concept plans and development of the final construction documents. In addition, staff has worked with Hall & Foreman to obtain more accurate cost estimates on 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 – The City Council approved Professional Services Agreement with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for park design services in amount of $158,500 to complete the park design plans. 4. Design process timeline and finances June 22, 2004 – Original Hall & Foreman Contract • $128,950 – Paid in full. • Prepare Biological Resources Assessment, Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands, and 65% complete construction drawings. September 27, 2005 - Amendment No. 1 to Hall & Foreman Contract ■ $158,000 - $ 66,800 paid to date. • Complete construction documents for the original park including parkway landscaping along Avocado Avenue and landscaping along the northern perimeter of the park, design of the circular arbor, and design for the three "gardens in the park." A November 8, 2005 — Additional Services for Concept Plan for a California Native Garden in the northern half of the park. • $5,800— Paid in full. • Prepare a scenario for a proposed California Native Garden including concept plan • Investigate possible bridge alternatives and costs January 2006 — "90% complete" submittal. The submittal included: • Nearly complete drawings for the parking lot, park grading, storm drains, drainage details, circular arbor (foundation, trellis and canopy framing, structural details, seating area, stairway details, electrical site plan and details, light standard details, landscape plan and details, and irrigation standard details). • Structural calculations for the circular arbor have been prepared. • The irrigation plan has not been prepared yet pending resolution for the design of the northern section of the park. • The circular arbor structural calculations have been reviewed by a consultant. The circular arbor and electrical drawings have not yet been reviewed by the Building Department. The current cost estimate based on construction drawings is in the area of $1.7 million dollars. The Donor has since come back to the City with an offer of $600,000. Marie Knight, Director Recreation and Senior Services ,d Newport Center Park Timeline of Significant Actions • February 11, 1985 - Council designated a part of the Newport Village site a Neighborhood Park. • October 24, 1988 - Revised Land Use Element to allow for the possible relocation of the Central Library to the Newport Village site. • April 13, 1992 - Council discussion regarding separation and transfer of TIC property Central Library site from Newport Village site; included the transfer of 30,000 sq. ft. of entitlement to Corporate Plaza West for The Irvine Company. • April 27, 1992 - Minor change to agreement with TIC; finalized the transfer of 30,000 sq. ft. of entitlement from Corporate Plaza West to Civic Plaza instead. • August 24, 1992 - Council discussion as to whether Newport Village site would be included in CIOSA Agreement with The Irvine Company. • October 28, 1996 - Council received and filed report on the status of Development Agreement with TIC regarding the Library Exchange Agreement. • November 12, 1996 - Council accepted the finding of the CIOSA Open Space Agreement, including the Newport Village site. • October 27, 1997 - Council sustained Planning Commission action to initiate the General Plan amendment for the Newport Village site. • September 8, 1997 - Council approved (6 -1) Newport Village site for senior affordable housing, subject to General Plan, LCP and PC text amendments. • December 14, 1998 - Councilwoman Glover requests staff to follow up with the transfer of title to the City on the Newport Village site. • January 25, 1999 - City accepts Offer of Dedication for Newport Village site. • June 27, 2000 - In response to request submitted to City Council to reserve 3.5 acres on Newport Village site for an arts and cultural center, Council voted to: 1) Deny the request for reservation without prejudice to reconsideration at some future date; 2) Direct the ad hoc committee to: (a) Meet with interested parties, members of the community and potentially impacted residents to determine their position on Center and appropriate use(s) of Newport Village; (b) Determine if the Center would preclude other uses of Newport Village site that may have support in the community; (c) Obtain any information necessary to initiate general plan /zoning amendments for the Center if the Council were inclined to do so; and 3) Request that the ad hoc committee report the findings and make recommendations to the City Council after completing the tasks outlined in 3 (a -c). The motion carried 6 -1, with Ridgeway absent. Mayor Noyes appointed Council members Glover (Chair), and Thomson, Don Gregory from the Arts Commission, Catherine Saar - Kranzley from the Board of Library Trustees and Debra Allen from PB &R to serve on the ad -hoc committee. • February 27, 2001 - After lengthy discussion Council voted 5 -2 to continue issue of whether to consider Newport Village for an arts and cultural center postponed until March. • March 13, 2001 - by 6 -1 vote with Ridgeway dissenting, voted to no longer pursue further consideration of the proposed arts and education center on the Newport Village site. • May 22, 2001 - During budget discussion, Councilman Bromberg requested $35,000 be set aside for the preparation of a conceptual plan for developing Newport Village as a passive park. Patty Temple stated the current General Plan and zoning designates the site for open space. • January 22, 2002 - Council held a joint Study Session meeting with PB &R discussing potential park sites. The Jamboree -PCH park site was determined to be the first priority, with Newport Village site the second priority. • May 14, 2002 - Newport Village site update from Steve Badum during Study Session, Council directed staff to develop park site plans, take it to the PB &R Commission or a recommendation and then bring a report to Council for approval. • May 27, 2003 - Budget review, Steve Badum proposed Newport Village Park conceptual design with budget of $120,000 in CIP. • February 10, 2004 - Joint meeting with Council and PB &R to discuss community wide park sites, deed restriction restricting site use for park site only discussed, no action taken. • June 22, 2004 - Council approved $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to begin Newport Center park conceptual plans. 0 • January 25, 2005 - Study Session overview of planning process and public outreach efforts by PB &R. June 28, 2005 - Council names Newport Village site "(Donor Name) Newport Center Park" on 6 -0 vote, after Marie Knight told of donor who might be willing to provide up to $1.2M towards park site development. August 30, 2005 - During General Plan Update discussion, motion defeated by 3- 3 (Selich, Rosansky, Web against - with Heffernan, Daigle and Nichols for) vote to amend the Planning Commission's commendation to add an alternative study for 80,000 sq. ft. of government, educational and institutional use at the Newport Village site to accommodate the possibility of relocating City Hall on that site. • September 27, 2005 - Approve Professional Services Agreement with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for park design services in amount of $158,500. ,n July 19, 2006 To: City Manager From: Transportation & Development Services Manager Public Works Department Subject: Traffic Review for Proposed City Hall Site — Newport Village The proposed City Hall site in Newport Village has been reviewed from a traffic impact perspective. The project has been analyzed for impacts under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Access points are considered as is congestion at nearby locations. The TPO analysis was conducted for the year 2009 on the assumption that construction would be complete in 2008. Twelve intersections in the area were analyzed with and without the project. All intersections are forecast to operate at Level of Service D or better with the City Hall project, so no mitigation would be required per the TPO. A copy of the TPO analysis is attached. The plan for the proposed City Hall shows two access points. A primary driveway on Avocado Avenue, opposite Farallon Drive, provides access to both the public parking lot as well as the parking structure for employee parking. The structure is also accessible from Avocado Avenue via a driveway adjacent to the Central Library. These two access points should adequately service the project. Just northerly of this site is San Miguel Drive which at certain times of the day is quite congested between the intersections with Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. While the TPO analysis shows these intersection operating at no worse than LOS C during the peak hours, the close spacing between them constrains the ability to stack the amount of traffic that could be handled by the intersections. The addition of a City Hall at the Newport Village site would add to this congestion. The Avocado /San Miguel intersection serves just over 2500 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour. The addition of City Hall would increase this by approximately 125 vehicles, or about 5 %. Additional access possibilities have been suggested and are discussed in limited detail due to the lack of detailed information on how they might affect existing traffic as well as traffic using the City Hall. One suggestion is to provide a right -in and right -out access from MacArthur Boulevard to the employee parking structure. This would reduce the additional congestion at the Avocado /San Miguel intersection. Another suggestion is to connect Farallon Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. This would provide a direct connection for traffic destined to Corporate Plaza and the 100 and 200 blocks of Newport Center drive which would considerably reduce traffic on San Miguel, but during peak periods this traffic would severely impact access in and out of City Hall. Ld INTRODUCTION This study documents the findings of the traffic analysis to evaluate the traffic related impacts of a proposed City Hall site located northerly of the existing main Library. The site is bounded by open space to the north, the main library to the south, Avocado Avenue to the west and MacArthur Boulevard to the east. Figure 1 shows the project site location. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION The proposed City Hall site is composed of a single floor building of approximately 68,000 square feet, surface parking and a 220 space parking structure. This analysis assumes that the project would take access off of Avocado Avenue; one access point would be the fourth leg of the signalized Farallon Drive /Avocado Drive intersection and the second access would be a full access just north of the existing main library. The proposed City Hall project opening year is assumed to be 2008, therefore the analysis was conducted for year 2009 which is consistent with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordnance. STUDY AREA This analysis is focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the morning and evening commute peak hours (between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on a typical week day. A total of 12 key study intersections were selected for analysis (9 primary intersections and 3 signalized intersections). The key study intersections are: • Jamboree Road /San Joaquin Hills Road (SJHR); • Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway (ECH); • Newport Center Drive /East Coast Highway; • Avocado Avenue/San Miguel Drive; • Avocado Avenue /Farallon Drive; • Avocado Avenue /CDM Plaza; • Avocado Avenue /East Coast Highway; • MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road; • MacArthur Boulevard /San Miguel Drive; • MacArthur Boulevard /East Coast Highway; • Goldenrod Avenue /East Coast Highway; and • Marguerite Avenue /East Coast Highway. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one -way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the proposed land use. Consistent with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, NBTAM trip rates were utilized. Table 1 shows the NBTAM trip rates for a Civic Center use. Table 2 summarizes proposed trips forecast to be generated by the proposed City Hall site. "W Table 1 Trio Generation Rates Land Use Unit Trip Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Daily Civic Center TSF 2.50 0.30 2.80 1.10 2.60 3.70 32.00 Source: NBTAM Table 2 Proposed Trip Generation Land Use Size Unit Tri Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out I Total In Out Total Daily Cit Hall 68.0 TSF 170 20 1 190 75 177 252 2176 The proposed City Hall site is forecast to generate 2,176 new daily trips, which includes 190 a.m. peak hour trips and 252 p.m. peak hour trips. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The geographic distribution of traffic is dependent on several factors. These factors include the type and density of the proposed land use, the geographic distribution of population form which employees and potential customers /users of the proposed project are drawn and the location of the project in relation to the surrounding street system. The trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of the trips generated by the proposed project. The general trip distribution assumes that approximately 25 percent of project traffic is oriented towards the west via East Coast Highway, approximately 15 percent is oriented towards the north via Jamboree Road, approximately 25 percent is oriented towards the north via MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 20 percent is oriented towards the east via San Miguel Drive /San Joaquin Hills Road and approximately 15 percent is oriented towards the east via East Coast Highway. Figure 2 illustrates the project trip distribution. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Consistent with the TPO, a one percent test shall be conducted to determine if the proposed project will add one percent or more project traffic to any leg of a key study intersection. If the proposed project adds one percent or more project traffic to a key study intersection, then further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis shall be conducted at that intersections. The ICU methodology was used to determine the intersection volume -to- capacity ration (V /C) and corresponding level of service (LOS) based on the.turning movements and intersection characteristics at signalized intersections. A capacity value of 1,600 vehicles per lane was used. The ICU for intersection corresponds to a LOS'value, which describes the intersection operation. The LOS vary from A through F, with LOS A representing best possible conditions (Free Flow) and F representing forced flow or failing conditions. Table 3 summarizes the ranges of ICU and corresponding LOS. 'C Table 3 Level of Service Definitions LOS ICU Interpretation A 0.00-0.60 Excellent Operation — free flow B 0.61 — 0.70 Very Good Operation — stable flow C 0.71-0.80 Good Operation — slight delays D 0.81-0.90 Fair Operation — noticeable delays E 0.91-1.00 Poor Operation — long delays F 1 Above 1.00 Forced Flow - congestion The upper limit of satisfactory operation is considered LOS D. Mitigation is required for any intersection where project traffic causes the intersection to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse. If an intersection is operating at LOS E or worse in the baseline condition, project impact occurs when the project - generated traffic increases the ICU by 0.01 or more. ONE PERCENT TEST The proposed City Hall site is forecast to add one percent or more project traffic to at least one leg of all key study intersections; therefore, further ICU analysis is required at all study intersections. YEAR 2009 PLUS APPROVED PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Year 2009 was selected for analysis, since the proposed project is forecast to be completed in Year 2008. Therefore, pursuant to the TPO analysis shall be conducted one year after opening year. Year 2009 plus approved projects traffic conditions were evaluated to determine pre - project conditions. Ambient growth and trips from approved projects were added to existing conditions to determine Year 2009 volumes. Table 4 summarizes the Year 2009 Plus Approved Project Conditions LOS. Table 4 Year 2009 Plus Approved Projects Conditions Level of sarvirP Intersection Year 2009 Plus Approved Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Jamboree /SJHR 0.60 A 0.54 A Jamboree /ECH 0.78 C 0.83 D Newport Center /ECH 0.39 A 0.53 A Avocado /San Miguel 0.48 A 0.73 C Avocado /Farallon 0.24 A 0.39 A Avocado /CDM Plaza 0.22 A 0.38 A Avocado /ECH 0.51 A 0.62 B MacArthur /SJHR 0.65 B 0.87 D MacArthur /San Miguel 0.68 B 0.57 A MacArthur /ECH 0.59 A 0.78 C Goldenrod /ECH 0.72 C 0.67 B Mar uerite /ECH 0.81 D 0.74 C n2 As shown in Table 4, all study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under Year 2009 Plus Approved Project conditions. YEAR 2009 PLUS APPROVED PROJECT PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Year 2009 Plus Approved Projects Plus Project conditions were evaluated to determine the affect of the proposed project on the surrounding circulation system. Project traffic was added to existing plus ambient growth plus approved projects to obtain Year 2009 Plus Approved Projects Plus Project conditions. Table 5 summarizes the Year 2009 Plus Approved Project Plus Project Conditions LOS Table 5 Year 2009 Plus Approved Proiects Plus Proiect Conditions Level of Service Intersection Year 2009 Plus Approved Projects Conditions Year 2009 Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AICU ICU LOS AICU Jamboree /SJHR 0.60 A 0.54 A 0.61 B 0.01 0.54 A 0.00 Jamboree /ECH 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.79 C 0.01 0.84 D 0.01 Newport Center/ECH 0.39 A 0.53 A 0.39 A 0.00 0.54 A 0.01 Avocado /San Miguel 0.48 A 0.73 C 0.54 A 0.06 0.80 C 0.07 Avocado /Farallon 0.24 A 0.39 A 0.26 A 0.02 0.40 A 0.01 Avocado /CDM Plaza 0.22 A 0.38 A 0.24 A 0.02 0.38 A 0.00 Avocado /ECH 0.51 A 0.62 B 0.54 A 0.03 0.63 B 0.01 MacArthur /SJHR 0.65 B 0.87 D 0.65 B 0.00 0.88 D 0.01 MacArthur /San Miguel 0.68 B 0.57 A 0.73 C 0.05 0.59 A 0.02 MacArthur /ECH 0.59 A 0.78 C 0.60 A 0.01 0.78 C 0.00 Goldenrod /ECH 0.72 C 0.67 B 0.73 C 0.01 0.67 B 0.00 Mar uerite /ECH 0.81 D 0.75 C 0.82 D 0.01 0.76 C 0.01 As shown in Table 5, all study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under Year 2009 Plus Approved Project Plus Project conditions. F: \USERS\PBW\DKeely \dkeely\Traffic Phasing Ordinance \TPO \City Hall - Avocado \Doc \write up.doc _2 .d. W H N H U W I 0 lz CL w e 0 LO TMM aL LIZ IL Z Ro H� w w y aG R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Works Department Memorandum DATE: July 19, 2006 TO: Homer Bludau, City Manager FROM: Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Direc SUBJECT: Avocado Site Assessment for Possible City Hall As you requested, the PW staff has reviewed the proposed City Hall concept as presented by Mr. Bill Ficker and present the following for your consideration: General Comments: One key difference between the Ficker plan and the current city hall plan is the proposed square footage and the size of the parking structure. The Ficker plan visualizes a one story 68,000 sf office building, 220 space parking structure, and an 80 space surface parking lot; and our current City hall plan has a two story 72,000sf office building and a 300 space parking structure. For the purposes of comparison, we will assume that both plans will provide equal office space and parking. It is a difficult task to compare the current City Hall plan which has been fully explored versus the Ficker plan which is a concept with many potentially undefined design features and issues. For the purpose of this review, we looked at the proposed basic concept realizing that more design and analysis may be able to overcome some of the minor issues that have been raised regarding architectural features, aesthetics, one story versus two story, and operational needs. Refinements and additional features such as a garden roof, photovoltaics, and other mitigating features may be easily incorporated in any future design at market costs. If the City Council elects to proceed with design development at this site, staff would fully explore the City's options. The overall one story design raises a few concerns. The existing City Hall plan is very efficient utilizing less than 4 acres. The Ficker plan envisions using approximately 6 acres of the 12 acre site. The one story layout limits natural day light for the interior spaces. This is a key element of the current LEED certified City Hall design which maximizes natural lighting and provides roughly twice the exterior glass area of a single story building. While the lack of natural day light may be mitigated by skylights and such, studies have shown that actual views to the exterior environment are crucial to health and well being of the building occupants. Additionally, skylights and other overhead natural lighting tend to produce glare and heat gain problems. Atriums could be added but that would increase the already large footprint. The appearance of the „n expansive roof would be another concern. The surrounding high rise office buildings would be looking down on a 72,000 square foot flat roof that would reflect light and detract from the aesthetics of the view. This issue would need to be mitigated with additional architectural features and /or a garden roof design. Also because of design restrictions and view requirements, mechanical equipment would need to be placed within landscape areas on the surrounding ground and not on the roof where the system would be more efficient and less costly to maintain and repair. Groundwater issue: The question of groundwater has been raised as a potential problem for this site. The groundwater problem that is being experienced at the Central library is a result of groundwater seepage into the basement level which is approximately 10 foot below street grade. There is no evidence of groundwater seeping from the sloped areas along Avocado. Therefore, one could assume that as long as the proposed grading does not exceed street level, there should not be a substantial groundwater problem. That said, there is still a chance that there could be groundwater present and that an appropriate geotechnical investigation should be preformed should Council elect to develop this site. If groundwater is encountered, a subdrain system should be able to mitigate the problem with an increase in the overall cost of construction. Viewglane /Grading Issue: The differential height between the street grade of Avocado and the viewplane is consistently 35 feet between Farallon and the Central Library. This height would appear to allow up to a two story office building and up to a three story parking structure with an uncovered roof deck. The amount of grading is dependent upon the desired height of the structures. The Ficker Plan is below the viewplane and calls out for approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earth to be removed from the site. Lighting in the viewplane has been an important issue for the neighboring residences. The lighting needs of the proposed parking structure would need to be carefully considered. As the mounting heights of the lighting must be below the viewplane, the finished elevation of the parking structure may need to be lowered. Costs If one assumes that both buildings would be equivalent in floor area, the costs would be effectively equal between the two buildings. The trade offs in cost between a one story versus two story are roughly equal. The one story requires more foundation, roofing, and lighting costs, while the two story requires more structural, elevators, stairs, and restroom costs. The cost for off site improvements, utilities, building shell, interior improvements, furnishings, fixtures are equivalent for both locations. The primary differences been the two sites are grading, retaining walls, relocation expenses, mitigating amenities, and potential traffic mitigation improvements. _�z The Ficker plan shows a parking structure that appears to be partially retaining on two sides. In addition to the cost of the retaining walls, there would also be a need for a mechanical ventilation system per the Building Code. These design components would significantly increase the cost of the parking structure over the typical freestanding design that would be utilized at the current City Hall site. The cost of the parking garage listed in the Ficker plan does not appear to address current market costs. The listed cost for the parking structure is calculated at $15,000 /space. Recent industry costs are $15,000 to $20,000 per space for standard designs with retaining designs up to double the cost. Depending on the magnitude of the retaining walls and the Building code requirements, I would estimate that such a structure would cost between $2 to $4 million more than a standard structure. Grading is also an issue that affects both sites. The existing City Hall site requires minimal grading but has extensive building demolition costs. Our current estimate sets these costs at $1 million. The Ficker plan also requires grading of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported off the site. This cost is approximately $2 million. More grading would be required for a two story structure on the Avocado site, increasing the grading cost differential even more. The existing City Hall requires that the existing workforce be moved offsite during construction. The temporary relocation is expected to last 12 to 18 months. These costs have been estimated at $2 million. In addition to the hard monetary costs, the City staff would need to move twice which would reduce production and effect customer service. The construction of a new City Hall on Avocado would minimize this problem as the only disruption would be the one move into the new facility. One unknown factor is any potential cost to mitigate traffic operational problems at the intersections of San Miguel /Avocado and San Miguel /MacArthur. A separate report from Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer will provide more information on this issue. Additional costs could be envisioned for the mitigation of design concerns as discussed above. Atriums, architectural features, garden roof, HVAC systems, sub drains, retaining structures, and other needed features can significantly increase the overall cost of the building. Without a comprehensive design process, it would be unfair to characterize the Ficker plan as significantly more expensive than the current City Hall plan. Based upon the above discussion, the differential costs are estimated to be within 10% ($3 million), with the Ficker plan being the more costly One advantage of the current City Hall plan is that it has been fully defined and priced out. The Ficker plan is a conceptual plan with many unknown costs such as: • The extent and magnitude of needed retaining walls; • Building Code issues that would affect design and cost; • Geotechnical issues including grading required and the techniques; -rA • Potential groundwater issues; • Mitigation measures for adjacent businesses and residents such as garden roofs, architectural features, custom lighting; • Potential Traffic congestion mitigation and operational improvements to existing intersections; • Potential archaeological issues Reuse of the Existing City Hall Site: The current site is laid out into two parcels. Parcel 1 which is 3.9 acres includes the majority of the City Hall property and it includes frontage along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. Parcel 2 is .33 acres and is the current Fire Station # 2 site on 32nd Street. The proposed Avocado City Hall site is 6 acres, so any swap of park or open space will come up short by approximately 2 acres. The existing City Hall site has several constraints that would affect any reuse of the property. One key constraint is the presence of access easements that are currently held by the adjacent property owner, Lido Partners, at the entrance at Finley Street and the former alley between Parcel 1 and 2, adjacent to the current Fire Station # 2. These access easements would not be able to t be eliminated via eminent domain unless there was a legitimate public purpose such as a park, community center, or other public use. Since the current Fire Station #2 site (.33 acres) is too small to construct a modern fire station, it is estimated that a minimum of .84 acres of parcel 1 would be required . This would yield approximately 3 acres for an alternative public use along with the former fire station site (.33 acres) on 32 "d Street. If the property was to be developed into a non- public use, the access easements would remain and additional .5 acre may need to be reserved to preserve the existing ficus trees that have significant public interest as a part of the City's urban forest. The estimated remaining developable land would be approximately 2.5 to 2.8 acres. The Ficker plan indicates that some of the existing building could be retained for community use. However, there should be some analysis to determine the amount of required parking and potential remodel costs to bring these buildings up to code. The proximity to the beach and the current parking deficit for the surrounding businesses make a public parking lot a viable alternative as well as a park and /or community center. No cost estimate has been placed on retaining the current city hall site as park space, as the park amenities have not been identified. h n "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED," Ago 1 -a,5 NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS° 401 North Newport Boulevard, Suite 100 y JJ���11 Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone (949) 722 -2300 FAX (949) 631 -4276 ocat +on 04Re� www.nbaor.com July 20, 2006 2006 Mayor Don Webb OFFICERS City of Newport Beach PRESIDENT 3300 Newport Boulevard JENNIFER WONG Newport Beach, CA 92663 PRESIDENT-ELECT CD CARRIE ALLEN M zq nrs Dear Mayor Webb: SECRETARY - LOUISE STUART The Board of Directors of the Newport Beach Association of Realtors® TREASURER MICKEY HARTUNG reviewed the presentation of Mr. Bill Ficker regarding the new city hall. DIRECTORS BARBARA AMSTATDER The Board of Directors unanimously supports Mr. Ficker's proposal BOB CHAPMAN DIANE COLTRANE and renderings for constructing the new city hall adjacent to the library JAKE KLOHS by Fashion Island. ROBERT MILLIKEN JAMES SCHMIESING JAMES WEISENBACH This seems to be the most logical and cost effective solution, as well EXECUTIVE VICE - PRESIDENT as the city being able to function during construction with no PATRICIA MOORE, CAE, RCE. interruption. While we also reviewed the additional thoughts regarding the possibilities of development and or sale of the current city hall property we offer no opinion regarding these options at this time. We do however feel that relinquishing the rights to the entrance to this to the current city hall property from Finley Avenue would be a major mistake on the cities part. Sincerely, Jennifer W�� g President JW:kf Ld REALTOR` CELEBRATING 75 YEARS OF SERVICE M o' oP TU„": -c CD M zq nrs urn N ®-� a✓ V," n -;r v o' oP TU„": "RECEI ED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED: O Harkless, LaVonne From: Margaret Cunningham [hears2u @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:13 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Opposition to Avocado City Hall site City Clerk -- please forward this to City Council members. Item: Using Avocado site as a city hall site: July 25 agenda of City Council I strongly oppose moving the City Hall to the Avocado Park site because it will increase traffic through the Harbor View Hills neighborhood and endanger the residents on Harbor View Drive, as well as put Harbor View Elementary school children and pedestrians using that street at risk. Moving City Hall to Avocado will only increase the cut - through traffic on Harbor View Drive and increase traffic risk and noise. The Avocado site should remain a park, as planned. Thank you. 'Margaret Thielemeir 2915 Harbor View Drive hears2u@earthlink.net - - r xT LU LO �e r� M C� p W0' F :al W� GV } 4� (D 1 11P Y Q > y� � LU xT LU LO �e r� M C� p W0' F :al W� GV } 4� (D 1 Sao �7vv�2 a�v.y�vrra Q u/a T y 1191D v/ sore y C4O,gAj 77FiF- Mc=am T1414i J 0411 / 7_) X006 THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING LOCATING THE NEW CITY HALL ON THE DESIGNATED PARK SITE (NEWPORT CENTER PARK) THAT IS THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY ABOVE THE CENTRAL LIBRARY AND BOARDED BY AVOCADO AND MAC ARTHUR. THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING, FOR THE JULY 25, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, PROPOSING THAT THIS MATTER BE PUT ON THE NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT. THERE HAS BEEN NO TRAFFIC STUDY AND NO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. IF YOU AGREE THAT BEFORE. THIS MATTER SHOULD GO ON THE BALLOT THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETE TRAFFIC STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE THEN I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT. DATE: DATE: DATE: q - 0 .I0 D6 DATE: % 0� DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: 7 l-? a/o DATE: / " i ( DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: arry Allen Cea NAME: IjAfA./A� NAME: i/• /� �_^ l � NNII ZM '1. Wlanr NAME: I u b l u 11' C p, �-6 /k c-6L T t6 6 L? Ce.I1 NAME: NAME: NAME: NAME: COUNCIL AGENDA NO. 20 -1-2-6-% CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 37 June 27, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Council Building Committee Mayor Don Webb Council Member Tod Ridgeway Council Member Ed Selich SUBJECT: COUNCIL BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY HALL PROJECT PLANNING ISSUES ISSUES: 1. Does the City Council believe the current location is the best available site for a new city hall? 2. If so, what is the next step to initiate in the city hall/civic center planning process? BUILDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Based on the site assessment study from the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee, and the written response from The Irvine Company, affirm that the location of the new city hall and associated civic center will be on the current site. 2. Approve $25,000 for entering into a contract with a new architectural firm to provide three (3) alternative exterior design concepts based on the existing floor plan. DISCUSSION: In November, 2005, Griffin Structures completed its contract for development of a site and floor plan (20% schematics) for the proposed city hall, which was part of the civic center project, consisting of a new city hall, a 300 vehicle parking garage and a replacement fire station. LPA Architects provided architectural services to Griffin Structures for this project. Griffin estimated the cost of the project to be $48,000,000. Rather than continue with project planning, the City Council decided in January, 2006, to form two citizen committees to review separate issues on which Council wanted additional public input: 1) the City's ability to afford the civic center project, while still being in a position to afford other identified and needed public facilities over the next 20 years, and 2) an assessment of other sites in the community which could accommodate a city hall and its associated requirements. Therefore, the Finance Review Committee (Chair Steve Frates, with 9 citizen members) was appointed to took at the City's long Council Building Coi...nittee Recommendations June 27, 2006 Page 2 term financial capabilities of affording public facilities, and the City Hall Site Review Committee (Chair Larry Tucker, with 11 citizen members) was appointed to identify and assess potential sites throughout the community for appropriate city hall locations. Both Committees provided oral and written reports during the May 23rd meeting. (See attached City Hall Site Review Committee report.) At the June 13th meeting, the City Council asked the Council Budget Committee and the Council Building Committee to review the Committees' reports and bring back recommendations as to potential Council actions regarding study conclusions. Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway and Council Member Selich compose the Council Building Committee. Two days prior to meeting, Mayor Webb and the City Council received a letter from Dan Young of The Irvine Company stating the Corporate .Plaza West site (corner of PCH /Newport Center Drive) identified by the City Hall Site Review Committee as one of two viable city hall locations, was not for sale. (See attached letter.) The lone remaining site identified by the Committee for further consideration was the existing city hall location. After meeting, the members of the Committee offer the following recommendations for Council consideration regarding the city hall project: 1. Based on the comprehensive study and assessment of potential city hall locations by the citizen City Hall Site Review Committee and the written response from The Irvine Company, the City Council should affirm the existing location as the only feasible site currently available for the future city hall and associated civic center structures and direct the Building Committee to pursue further development of plans for a new city hall and associated civic center. 2. Provide up to $25,000 to engage a new architect for the preparation of three (3) alternative exterior design concepts for the city hall structure, based on the existing floor and site plan which has been developed by LPA Architects. The Building Committee believes the city hall floor plan previously developed has the size, layout and spatial relationships to meet the City's needs. The Committee believes the appropriate exterior design concept for the city hall and associated civic center structures is a remaining issue. The Committee believes that obtaining alternative exterior design concepts will assist the City Council in making a decision on the "look" that the Council and the community aspire to see in its city hall. S "led n Webb Tod Ridgew d Selich Mayor Council Me r Council Member Attachments: City Hall Site Review Committee Report dated May 1, 2006 Letter from The Irvine Company dated June 7, 2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REPORT OF THE CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 1, 2006 PUBLIC OUTREACH; SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT. On January 24, 2006, the City Council established the City Hall Site Review Committee. The members of the Committee appointed by the City Council are: Larry Tucker (Chair), Stephen Brahs, John Hamilton, Lloyd Ikerd, Donald Krotee, Wallace Olson, Gordon Glass, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen, John Nelson and Scott Riddles. The Council also appointed Councilmembers Tod Ridgeway, Steve Rosansky and Ed Selich as liaisons to the Committee. In establishing the Committee, the Council adopted the following mission statement for the Committee: "To identify and assess all reasonable potential sites within the boundaries of Newport Beach for a city hall facility and provide a written report and oral assessment report to the City Council, along with Committee recommendations as to the best location(s) for further City Council consideration no later than May 1, 2006." In order to solicit the Community to receive suggestions about potential City Hall locations, an outreach program was conducted. The Chairman of the Committee authored a letter to the Editor of the Daily Pilot soliciting site suggestions. The letter was printed in a prominent location by the Daily Pilot on February 2, 2006. The Daily Pilot also published a front page article on the topic on February 16, 2006, where, again, site suggestions were solicited. Additionally, all members of City Committees and Commissions were asked to suggest sites. The Council liaisons informed the public of the Committee's work and solicited sites at Council meetings. Also, anyone who had e- mailed the Internet address established by the City to accept comments on the City Hall topic, was asked about any ideas each might have for a City Hall site. And finally, anyone who had spoken to the City Council at a Council meeting about any aspect of the City Hall project, and whose address was available to the City Clerk, was also solicited for site suggestions. The Committee met on six occasions: February 13, March 6, March 20, April 3, April 17 and May 1, 2006. Each meeting was open to the public, and the agenda for each meeting was published on the City's website. Most of the meetings lasted two hours. Detailed minutes of the meetings have been published and are available for public review. SUGGESTED SITES. The Committee received 76 comments relating to site suggestions. (See attachment of suggestions.) From these comments, 22 different sites were suggested. The sites were as follows: 1. Vacant Site north of San Miguel between MacArthur /Avocado 2. Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center 3. Land Rover dealership/Police and Fire Station properties -1- 4. Vacant land/existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH 5. Newport Beach Country Club parking lot 6. Banning Ranch land in West Newport 7. Newport-Mesa Unified School District site on east boundary of Banning Ranch 8. Edler Building at Campus/Dove 9. Back Bay View Park at PCH/Jamboree 10. The Newport Dunes property 11. Camelback building adjacent to Self Storage/Temple Bat Yam 12. Inland Portion of Ardell Parcel 13. Birch/Mesa corner property 14. Existing City Hall site 15. Coyote Canyon Landfill 16. City Parking lot in Mariners Mile 17. Northwest corner of PCH and Bayside Drive 18. Rogers Gardens 19. Lower Castaways 20. The Lawn Bowling Park off San Joaquin Hills Drive, near San Miguel 21. Medical buildings on Dover Drive, between Cliff Drive and West 16th 22. Two buildings in San Joaquin Plaza (presently occupied by Pacific Life) The sites fell into one or more of the following four categories: (i) Those that were geographically unsuitable; (ii) Those that were technically or practically infeasible; (iii) Those that were not presently or in the near term available because the owner or another party with a long term position was not interested in selling or yielding its interest in the site within the foreseeable fixture, without other conditions; and (iv) Those that merited further consideration. SITES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION. Those sites deemed geographically unsuitable were: 46 Banning Ranch land in West Newport, too far removed from most of the population; #7 Newport Mesa Unified School District land adjacent to Banning Ranch, too far removed from most of the population; #8 The Edler Building at Campus /Dover, too far removed from most of the population; 413. Birch /Mesa corner property, too far removed from most of the population; and #15 Coyote Canyon Landfill, very little property which could support a structure and parking. Additionally, the Impact Mortgage Building on Dove Street in the airport area was suggested after the site analysis part of the Committee's work was completed. However, in connection with the evaluation of the Edler Building in the airport area -2- 11 ( 0), the Committee concluded that the airport area is geographically unsuitable for a City Hall site, due to it being on the fringe of our jurisdictional boundaries and too far removed from most of the population. Those sites deemed technically or practically infeasible were: #1 Vacant site north of San Miguel between MacArthur and Avocado due to traffic congestion and site design constraints; #9 Back Bay View Park due to costly site constraints, present use as a City park, need for a General Plan Amendment with likely Measure S vote and Coastal Commission approval, which is not likely; #10 Newport Dunes due to State restrictions on city halls for tideland uses; #11 Camelback building adjacent to self storage/Temple Bat Yahm due to problematic access issues; #12 Inland portion of Ardell site due to its location in an already congested area and its incompatibility with contiguous residential uses; #16 City parking lot in Mariner's Mile due to its insufficient size; #19 Lower Castaways due to poor access issues; #20 Lawn Bowling Park due to its use as a park, the need to relocate costly and 'major Edison lines, its incompatibility with surrounding residential and the likely need to make improvements to Crown Drive that would alter the character of a road adjacent to homes; #21 Medical buildings on Dover Drive due to long term leases of certain tenants, location near residential, need to include former Bank of Newport property for sufficient land and desire of owner to ground lease property; and #22 The Pacific Life Buildings 1 & 5 in San Joaquin Plaza due to building sizes and configuration, non - contiguous location, and shared parking in an office complex. Those sites for which an owner, or other interest holder was not willing to sell, or had other conditions (such as related entitlements on a portion of the same property), were: #2 Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center —still using property and expects to be doing so for the foreseeable future; #5 Newport Beach Country Club parking lot —complicated due to ownership of land and golf course being different and each having its own lender; #17 Northwest corner of PCH and Bayside Drive�owner working on development plans and would consider City Hall use in connection with other land use changes on the property, timing is uncertain; and #18 Rogers Gardens —owner has no interest in selling. The former Newport Technology Center site was not included in the list of suggested sites since the site was purchased by Hoag Hospital about the time the Committee was appointed and Hoag representatives indicated the Hospital planned to use the site for medical office purposes. BE SITES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. After the elimination of the sites described above, three (3) suggested sites remained from the list, including the existing City Hall site, for further consideration by the Committee. The two other sites were the Land Rover/Police/Fire Station and the Corporate Plaza West site. While the Land Rover site is not available because the owner is not interested in selling the site, there is a parking lot north of the fire station that is owned by The Irvine Company (TIC) and is part of San Joaquin Plaza (formerly Civic Plaza). TIC would consider discussing a joint use parking structure on that land. CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS USED TO EVALUATE REMAINING SITES. Based upon Council guidance and the Committee's perception of important considerations for a City Hall location, the Committee established a matrix of constraints and considerations to evaluate each site not otherwise eliminated from consideration. Included in the constraints and consideration matrix were the following factors: Site availability Sufficient parcel size Site configuration Centrally located Ease of travel Ease of ingress /egress Utilities/Public Services availability Physical constraints Environmental hazards General Plan/zoning designations Adjacent uses compatibility Measure S (Greenlight) vote required Approval of other agencies required Compliance with CEQA Timing of potential sale Private use restrictions Cost to acquire land Cost to improve site /retrofit building Timing to begin construction Unique characteristics Relocation costs The issues with the sites that merit consideration are as follows: #3 Police and Fire Station properties, with joint use parking structure. The details of a joint use parking structure would have to be worked out, including 1n the design, ownership, financing and use. Of course, there can be no assurance that an acceptable arrangement can be worked out. This site has some additional special challenges because it is the home to the City Police Department and a fire station. Each of those facilities may have to be relocated or rebuilt to accommodate a new City Hall on this site. That might entail expenditure of funds for such facilities earlier than otherwise might have occurred. The square footage that will need to be added to the site will require a Measure S vote. CEQA analysis will be necessary. The Committee concluded that this site likely has too many issues to be resolved to be a feasible alternative in the near term. #4 Vacant land /existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH — TIC owns both the building and the vacant lot. The building is the western most of the two buildings owned by TIC in that location and according to TIC representatives is approximately 42,000 s.f of useable area. The building is vacant presently and is now being marketed by TIC. The vacant land has been entitled by the City for an approximately 42,000 square foot office building with required parking. The Committee assumed that the existing building could be retrofitted to meet the City's office needs, while the vacant land could be improved with new facilities to accommodate the unique parts of City requirements such as a City Council Chambers and other meeting rooms. The Committee identified the following issues with respect to this site: (i) TIC. has indicated it is not typically a seller of its office properties in Newport Center, but rather a landlord, but has indicated that the site would be a suitable location for a City Hall and is open to discussions with the City about leasing the site; (ii) the cost to acquire the land and building, if for sale, is unknown; (iii) the cost to retrofit the building is unknown; and (iv) the timing of the project would be subject to making an agreement with TIC and processing the project through the Coastal Commission. Although beyond the purview of the Committee, some members suggested that all of the Corporate Plaza West property be considered for acquisition to allow the City to consolidate other facilities on this site to create a more complete Civic Center complex in a central location. #14 Existing City Hall site. The Committee identified the following issues with respect. to the existing City Hall site: it is a small in size; it is not centrally located; ease of travel is an issue; it lies within the Coastal Zone; a temporary relocation off site during construction would be costly; it would involve additional costs to build a parking structure due to its size and finally, the land may be more valuable for residential purposes so there could be a lost opportunity cost in not selling the land and buying cheaper land zoned and/or already improved for office purposes. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EXISTING CITY HALL SITE. The Committee also considered alternative uses for the existing City Hall location if another location proved feasible for City Hall. Based upon the input of several -5- Committee members that residential land values would be the highest and best use of the site, the Committee requested that one of its members inquire about the value of the land for residential purposes from a reputable homebuilding firm. The information reported back to the Committee was that the value of the land, zoned at 25 units per acre, in a two - story configuration could equate to more than $6,000,000 per acre, fully entitled. The Committee has received other information that this amount may be low. The Committee did not undertake to ascertain the net amount of land at the existing City Hall site that would be available for residential use if City Hall were moved. COST AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. For the two sites that seem to have the most promise as a new City Hall site, the Committee endeavored to identify cost and other considerations associated with each of the sites that may be of use to the Council in reaching its conclusion. (1) The Corporate Plaza West building would have to be retrofitted to be used for City Hall purposes. The adaptability of the space, including for unique City needs (such as a Council Chamber or Planning/Building Counter area), has not been reviewed by the Committee, but such a professional review should be conducted prior to any Council decision on the Corporate Plaza West Property. Further, the Committee is not in a position to determine if the cost to retrofit would be extraordinary or typical of an office space renovation. (2) It appears that the Corporate Plaza West land and existing building would be able to provide adequate parking without incurring the cost of a parking structure. (3) The existing City Hall site would need a parking structure. (4) There would be a cost to move the City's operations twice if the existing City Hall location were to become the new City Hall site (i.e. move out, construct, move back). (5) If another site becomes the new City Hall site, then the City will save money by not having to lease and adapt temporary City Hall offices during construction (i.e. City Hall would remain where it is until the new facility is ready to occupy). (6) However, if the City retained ownership of the existing City Hall site until a new City Hall in a new location is ready for occupancy, the City may own two parcels (i.e. the existing City Hall site and the new City Hall site) until after the City moves into the new location and completes the sale of the existing City Hall site. (7) If the City is to maximize the value of the existing City Hall site, the City would need to incur the time and expense of completing the entitlement of the existing City Hall site for residential use. (8) The existing City Hall site would require no additional planning for a City Hall use, other than Coastal Commission approval. Further, the site has already gone through the preliminary design phase for a new facility. This existing level of planning and design and the fact that the City owns the site would allow a project at this site to proceed expeditiously. no (9) Any other significant construction costs that might be unique to a particular site. FINANCIAL COMPARISIONS. The City has already generated considerable information concerning the budget of a new facility at the existing City Hall site. Missing information with respect to a project at the existing City Hall site would need to be ascertained (e.g. costs associated with a temporary City Hall and to move twice). In order to be able to understand the financial aspects of the Corporate Plaza West location, the City would need to retain a real estate professional to gather needed information to be able to make a financial comparison of a new City Hall on the Corporate Plaza West site versus the existing City Hall site. That information would include but not be limited to preparation of a reliable, all- inclusive budget (hard costs, soft costs, land and existing building acquisition costs, costs to carry that site before and during construction, and all other costs related to acquisition, ownership, design, financing and construction) of the Corporate Plaza West site. The City would also need to address the manner in which it would finance a new location while likely still owning its existing location. Ultimately, if the Council deems it appropriate, the Council should determine how the budget for a new City Hall at the Corporate Plaza West site (less the net proceeds to the City in connection with the sale of the existing City Hall site) would compare with an all- inclusive budget for the conceptually designed new City Hall at the present site (without the fire station component). CONCLUSION. Based upon the above, the Committee recommends to the City Council for further consideration the following two sites: 1) Corporate Plaza West building/vacant land, and 2) The existing City Hall site. The Committee approved this Report by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Larry Tucker, Chairman -7- nol Vol THE IRVINE COMPANY June 7, 2006 Mayor Don Webb City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear ebb: As an outgrowth of the discussion about possible sites for a new City Hall, we have been asked to indicate in writing whether The Irvine Company would sell our office complex at Corporate Plaza West to the city if that becomes the preferred site. The property is not for sale, but our reason has nothing to do with the discussion of where City Hall should be; rather, it reflects our corporate philosophy as a master planner, community builder, and real estate investor. For decades, we have had a guiding business philosophy and core mission to selectively build, own and reinvest in our own growing portfolio of investment properties to support the long -term viability and appeal of our master planned communities, and to assure as well the long -term success of The Irvine Company as a going and growing concern. As such, we are investors with a commitment to holding our commercial properties for the long -term. We have not been sellers of our commercial properties, nor do we plan to. We are proud of our long and constructive relationship with the City of Newport Beach in helping the city solve municipal problems through thoughtful planning and land use. In this case, however, I regret that because we never sell our commercial properties, I must ask that you remove Corporate Plaza West from consideration as a site for a new City Hall. Sincerely, tan ng ecutive Vice r siden DY:dlk 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, CaRomia 92658 -6370 • (949) 7204000 11 Agenda Item No. SS2 July 11, 2006 THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING • PLANNING URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB ARCHITECTURE ADVOCACY PLAN . FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CITY HALL FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: Avocado Avenue SITE: Bounded by Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Blvd, to the west and east, the Central Library to the south and continuation of Farrallon Avenue bounding the north edge of the site. Open space and natural park to remain from Farrallon Avenue to San Miguel Drive. Planning Summary 1.1 The following is intended as a summary and general overview and reasons for this advocacy plan: 1.2 There has been adequate and detailed analysis done to establish the credibility of this plan reflecting the physical opportunities as well as the financial opportunities and functional opportunities. 2. Location A. The City of Newport Beach "Reference Grid" graphically illustrates the convenience of this proposed location. B. Other endorsements for this location might be that thoughtful studies placed our main library and police headquarters in the Newport Center area and certainly substantial thought was given by knowledgeable people in business and visitor serving when the Chamber of Commerce selected their location. 3. General Philosophy and Considerations A. This plan is Intended to respect many strong feelings related to the natural environment of the existing site. It is sincerely hoped that people in the community of perhaps diverging opinions of development and natural open Spaces, might have an opportunity to demonstrate a cooperation for mutual benefit. The proposed architecture and type of development might provide a hallmark opportunity to illustrate with natural landscaping what might be accomplished by cooperation. Some of this type of thought has been included in areas like the "Reserve" in Palm Springs where landscaping within developments has been left in the natural desert context and these have been very successful. 417 THIRTIETH STREET . NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 t PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan April 26, 2006 Page 2 of 5 B. If the location and general philosophy of a city hall is, in fact, put to a vote with various options and locations, perhaps for the reasons stated in the following narrative, this advocacy plan might well provide the opportunity to serve the general population and reflect the general electorates view of our city, its civic center, and financial commitment. C. This plan provides a better opportunity for more people to enjoy the natural environment and setting and, as a matter of fact, places a substantial number of people in the environment daily. The convenience of the site to the general population, the good road access, etc., is obvious. D. There are certainly concerns for people in Harbor View Hills with any development that takes place below MacArthur Blvd., and this has been carefully respected. There is a view plane established over all of this property and the entire project is below that view plane. The project is 1 -2.ft. below the view plane at the southwest comer. It is approximately 4 ft. below the view plane at the southeast corner. It is 13 ft. below the view plane at the northeast corner and approximately 12 ft. below the view plane at the northwest corner. E. The grading of the site retains the berm, which is approximately the view plane all along MacArthur, and would not change any of the visual grading, planting, etc., as seen from MacArthur Boulevard or Harbor View Hills. Grading, is.an obvious question to everyone. Grading for this project, as indicated, would require the removal of approximately 150,000 cubic yards, including the yardage removed for the parking structure. A person mentioned that the central library has some problems with water in the basement, that there is an "underground river." This is highly unlikely because usually water in a basement is due to a construction or design error, and not necessarily serious water concerns. In a downhill area with steep, surrounding ground you would expect water to accumulate around the walls of a basement at the.library area. Actually removing a great deal of soil from this site might substantially help that situation. But with regard to the city hall, a basement would not be recommended because of its expense and waterproofing, and for major storage, which would be all the basement would really provide. There could be much less expensive facilities provided in an industrial area. 4. Architecture and Image . A. It is the opinion of the preparer of this advocacy plan that the City of Newport Beach does not need an "image building." The Town Hall, which in early history, identified the city, is no longer necessary, and certainly a city like Newport Beach, with its world -class recreational harbor and its natural assets and quality of development need not be identified by its "city hall." 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan April 26, 2006 Page 3 of 5 B. We are not trying to renew a city, such as Bilbao in Spain with its dramatic building. Trying to create forms of yachts or sails, etc., in a building could not possibly compete with the natural visual assets of this community. C. It would seem that perhaps we might take a page from the Irvine headquarters development and expand on it. Bill Pereira, who was the planner for The Irvine Company and the UCI campus, and certainly an intemationally recognized architect, conceived the buildings illustrated in this report as being very simple and reasonably cost buildings and dramatically enhanced them with Tom Van Sant intaglios on the natural concrete walls. Tom Van Sant is an internationally known sculptor that the City has employed, to provide intaglios in natural concrete aggregate walls that can, better than almost any other fashion, memorialize the history of Newport Beach. Some of the other intaglios can be seen in the Bank of Newport building at Avocado and Coast Highway, showing the Dory fisherman, etc. This can.be a tasteful expression of architecture and combining art without being "corny." 5. Plan and Building Configuration A. This plan .illustrates a single floor city hall of approximately 68,000 s : ft. with a parking structure between t e mam w lg and Ine library, nousing 220 cars. It also illustrates a ground level open parking of approximately 70 -8rca—rs. It is the opinion of this advocacy plan that a single story building has many advantages: Dramatic cost advantages over a two -story building due to simple structural considerations, no elevators, stairs, etc. 2. Easy to reconfigure, change or reconfigure services such as air conditioning, etc. 3. Opportunity for skylights or atriums within the building. 4. Multiple and easy access to the building; pleasant opportunities to walk outside of the building and enjoy the environment. 5. Low maintenance. 6. Easy communication for planning, etc., to make all departments more accessible to each other. 417.THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan April 26, 2006 Page 4 of 5 6. Costs The following is intended as a "magnitude" of cost but is based on knowledgeable construction cost information. Grading 157,000 cy @ 15.00/yd. 2,000,000.00 Onsite Improvements Paving 140,000.00 Curb & Gutters 41,000.00 Lights and Enhanced Paving 72,000.00 Retaining Wall 300,000.00 Landscape (Natural Restoration) 500,000.00 Parking Structure. 3,300,000.00. 220 cars Building Shell 68,000 SF 11,900,000.00 Interior Improvements 68,000 SF 4,080,000.00 Furniture and Fixtures 2.700,000.00 Total 25,033,000.00 Fee 2500.000.00 TOTAL $27.533.Q00.00 417 THIRTIETH STREET* NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675.9628 • FAX (948) 675.9638 Advocacy Plan April 26, 2006 Page 5 of 5 7. Conclusion The above represents an unusual opportunity. Obviously, in this proposal it is not intended to reflect the final economic analysis because this can be better done by others evaluating the alternatives to other developments. But the opportunities are obvious. And they are: A. The city owns the proposed site for this development. B. It would be far less expensive to develop than the existing site, physically. C. The existing site could be sold to almost cover the cost of this new facility. D. It would mean one simple move for all of the city hall divisions, and perhaps even because of the budget, provide better facilities, newer, more modern furniture, computer systems, etc., to modernize outdated systems of present departments. E. Finally, perhaps a new city hall of higher quality, easy to configure in the future. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Stop Polluting Our P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, July 11, 2006 Mayor Don Webb City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Support for Newport Center Park Dear Mayor Webb, )RECEIVED � AFTER AGEEJ DA, 0(y PRi N-TED: \ j Newport California 92662 The SPON Steering Committee met on July 5, 2006 to discuss the proposal to locate City Hall at the Newport Center Park site adjacent to the Central Library. SPON recognizes that finding an appropriate site for City Hall requires consideration of as many feasible options as possible. However, SPON does not agree that placing City Hall at the Newport Center Park site is an appropriate option. SPON has consistently supported use of the site in accordance with the CIOSA Agreement in which the only permitted use on the site is open space. SPON's record on this matter is documented with letters dated August 20, 1998 and June 14, 2000, endorsing the use of the site as a passive open space park and not for senior housing or an arts and cultural center. Reasons for SPON's long - standing support for passive park use include the ability of the public to enjoy incomparable views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline, the presence of important coastal sage scrub, vernal pools and other biotic resources on the site, and because this area of the City is deficient in park space. Significant public support and momentum to use the site for park purposes is demonstrated by the offer of private funding to construct the park. SPON appreciates your consideration of our input in the widespread debate on the City Hall site selection issue. We hope you will agree that the Newport Center Park site is worthy of retaining for open space purposes in accordance with past City Council actions and agreements. Sincerely, y n Y te o r., M 0 Brent Cooper "f1 SPON Presiding Officer rn oorn cc: City Council Members r®n` n. N City Manager Bludau Assistant City Manager Kiff Assistant City Manger Wood THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING a PLANNING WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB UPDATE July 6, 2006 URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ARCHITECTURE ADVOCACY PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CITY HALL FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCATION: Avocado Avenue SITE: Bounded by Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. to the west and east, the Central Library to the south and continuation of Farrallon Avenue bounding the north edge of the site. Open space and natural park to remain from Farrallon Avenue to San Miguel Drive. Introduction This update is intended to be brief. Since the City Council has had my correspondence from October and December and the submittal of this Advocacy Plan dated May 1, 1 will attempt not to repeat the issues in those documents. 1.1 This document is intended to respond to many questions and recommendations made to me through discussions of the project. 1.2 Primarily, my efforts have been to determine what issues would be the most important ones to mitigate if, in fact, the site I propose is the best for the City Hall. 1.3 Obviously, questions and recommendations prompted me to do a more careful analysis of the Avocado site north of the library as well as the proposed City Hall planning. 1.4 Based on the above analysis to this date, I am recommending a plan which I believe provides the greatest opportunity for cooperation. 1.51 Although it would be impossible in any city on any subject to satisfy everyone's concern, I do believe that everyone's concern must be heard. 1.6 In all of my correspondence I have voiced the opinion that people of good faith and trust will ultimately come together in the best interest of the city, although the result might differ slightly from their preference. I believe this is the most important single issue the city will face and although there are many agreements, etc., that have been discussed with regard to the Avocado parcel, if it is in the best interest of all parties, even if there is a contract, certainly the parties can agree to modify almost any kind of contract and, in my opinion, not breach their own integrity or compromise their future goals, principles or "religion." 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan Update July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 5 2.0 Analysis of the Present City Hall Site Plan and Narratives, Space Planning, Etc. 2.1 Although preliminary plans have been done, I was astounded to observe the following: A. I was unable to find any indication or report with regard to operations, workflow, upgrading of systems or any reference to personnel to coordinate the processes necessary for efficient performance, particularly in the Planning, Public Works and Building Department. B. No consideration in the planning for personnel work schedules, etc. C. No reference to improvement of technology as it affects storage and work functions. 22 The City Hall plan is based on a swap of land and an easement that the shopping center has for truck exit onto 32nd Street. This "area" swap seems to check out; however, the most incredible observation is that the signalized intersection at Finley St. is dedicated City Hall! 2.3 The City Hall and parking structure seem to be jammed on an inadequate site. The new fire station is jammed into a corner of that site (8A) and appears to be inadequate in its access and certainly will not provide pleasant living quarters and open space for the staff. 2.4 There is a one -lane in to the City Hall parking structure from 32 "d Street and two lanes out, one with right turn to Newport Blvd. only and one lane for right or left turn. 2.5 Crucial to planning, the City Council had approved a Hogle Ireland study to analyze the workflow and personnel schedules, etc. However, the date for completion of this study has now been extended to August. 3. Review of the Proposed Park Plan on Avocado . 3.1 1 was equally astounded by observing this plan. There has been an indication that this plan is ready to build just as the indication that the City Hall plan is ready to build. It is difficult to differentiate between the inadequacies of both plans. 3.2 The plan shows a parking lot behind the library. Parking lots and streets and roads, etc., have certain design constraints, generally parking lots are sloped so that you can get in and out of cars, both for comfort and normal use and particularly for the handicapped. The grades shown on this plan do not provide any access to the park above. The nearest "level" spot that can be reached is at an elevation of approximately elevation 170. This will be 30 -35 ft. above the parking lot or approximately the level of the floor of a four -story building. To the highest point of the lot elevation 195 ft. would be the level of the floor of a six -story building. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan Update July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 5 3.3 Any park, if it is intended to serve the people, must have handicap access. This access can only be provided by putting automobile access in from Farallon Street, and even this will be difficult to get up to view heights. A. My original sketches of a City Hall site showed access and a parking lot in that area because a park of this size and access requirements, etc., indicated that even if a City Hall was not built on this site the approximation of what I have shown for road access and parking is valid for the park. It is not even necessarily needed for the City Hall. B. The Park Plan as shown would require removal of (estimated) 37,000 cubic yards of dirt. Access to parking and the.parking lot at an average elevation of 180 would require removal of 18,000 cubic yards. Total 55.000 cubic yards. 4. Answers to some questions. 4.1 What about building on park sites or open space? Answer: First of all, this would be a building that would not usurp, by any means, the entire site. It would be a "city hall on the green." The access from .Farallon and the parking is something that would be required for the park use anyway. The City Hall also provides parking for the library and other functions as, described in the more full report. There are many examples of building on public property. A recent example, of course, is the laboratory building on the old Shellmaker property and the Muth Center. These . serve many functions such as classrooms, laboratories, etc. There are also recreation centers such as the rowing center, etc., made up of structures and they are buildings and they are used for other than open space park sites. 4.2 The view plane. Answer: This building is totally below the view plane as described previously. 4.3 Water Intrusion Answer: This is strictly a red herring. There would be no professional suspicion of having any water problems or any building construction problems. The building would have no basement. Being on the top of a hill, it is unlikely that there would be any water problems. There is no water seeping out on Avocado St. or MacArthur Blvd., etc. Any water problems that the library might have would almost surely would be assigned to improper waterproofing and drainage system around the building. Even basements are built in water tables all over Newport Beach. There must not have been any concern about water tables when the library was built; otherwise, it surely would have been stopped or some major adjustments made. Obviously, borings, etc., did not indicate that a building should not be built at that site. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan Update July 6, 2006 Page 4 of 5 4.4 Costs Answer: It should be obvious that there is an opportunity for great cost savings just due to the simplicity of construction. Having an open site rather than an extremely tight site on which to build, delivery of materials, parking for construction crews and, of course, a huge benefit by having only one move and perhaps most importantly, not imposing inconvenience to the customer and the staff imposed by two moves. 4.5 What about trading or buying other property? Answer: This is answered partially in the proposal to trade for the existing City Hall property and I hope that this is considered a "mitigation." The City should be developing a fund for mitigation of this type and purchase of other property. Perhaps if this proposed mitigation can be accomplished, it will bring the community together to provide funds for acquisition of more open space and parks, if desired. 4.6 Architecture and Planning Answer: Any expression on my part about architecture was merely to establish a philosophy that Newport Beach need not build a monument. It should be tasteful and should express the intellectual and cultural capital of our community. There was a comment the Council that this single floor plan would be excessively long and would be something like a K -Mart; however, perhaps there was a misreading of the plan because upon checking the proposed City Hall plans at the existing site, it appears that the building proposed for the Avocado site is only 24 ft. longer. This provides even more validity for a single floor because those riding their Segways in the building I proposed will not have to take their Segways upstairs but can use them on a single floor. 5. Suggestions 5.1 There have been suggestions from a couple of architects with regard to perhaps turf on the roof of the City Hall or higher areas of the City Hall, etc., to provide some better views for visitors or for employee lunch break rooms, etc. These can all be accommodated and stay well within sight plane so there will be no intrusion into the sight plane where the hillside homes above this site would experience any view intrusion. 6. Proposal 6.1 The plan submitted herewith expresses graphically the opportunities that might be achieved by developing the existing City Hall as an urban park site. It does several things. A. In its accomplishment, it would open up an area without demolishing any trees. B. It would provide a far better fire station site with optional accesses and proper yard work spaces and open spaces around the fire department. 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 Advocacy Plan Update July 6, 2006 Page 5 of 5 C. The corner site at Oporto and 32nd St. could be used for parking, but this is a planning detail. D. This urban park would preserve the Council building as a community hall, much needed in the entire Peninsula and West Newport/Lido area. The existing lobby and tower could be preserved to memorialize the City Hall location and additional walks and some additional paving surrounding it could be added with trellises and perhaps something like a Peet's Coffee Shop where people from the surrounding area could, in fact, enjoy some green open space. It is almost guaranteed that this open space would be highly used. E. This park could be a vital space for art walks, etc. There was no attempt to analyze how.much parking should be used for such an urban park site. That would be addressed in more detailed planning, obviously, as would the statements above. Conclusions If the above proposal is embraced, it might be a best example that the City could ever set for cooperation and where everybody benefits. Certainly the Avocado site could provide views (perhaps not as good as the view from the top of the site presently) but many, many more people could participate in that view and the enjoyment of the park, especially employees and visitors, and when we speak.of a view of our city and the ocean, how wonderful it would be for all those visiting the City Hall daily as well as visitors from out of town to see "Newport Beach from the City Hall," unlike the existing site where you see the "City Hall from Newport Blvd." 7.2 The money spent to date should not be considered wasted. It is often frugal to spend money to find out what "not to do." 417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638 N E W CENTIRI 41 I PARK I�f V 14M yl Ews m PTIV 5, C-ws E5. M. cohs-rAL SPaE- SCRUB ORNAMEN-ML LAMPSChPF Not SEE' Office: 337,261 sq R Police Station: 48,000 sq_ft. �. Museum: 31,208 sq ft. Auto healer: 2.14 acres12.5,000 sq.ft. Fire Station. 13,481 sq_ft_ Retail: 1,760 sgft. 12. Corporate Pkaa West. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Fast Coast Highway, the Newport Beach Country Club and the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial land use. The site is allocated 115,000 sgft. 13. Balboa Bay Tennis.Clab. This site is bounded by Corporate Plaza West, the Newport Beach Tennis Club and the Granville Apartments. The site is designated for Recrea- tional and Environmental Open Space and is allocated 24 tennis courts. 14. Newport Beach Cnwatry Club. This site is designated for Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space to allow the continuation of the 13152 sere facility. 15. AmlingW Nursery. This site is located on East Coast Highway and is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use. The maximum allowed development is 5,000 sq it. for retail commercial land use only. 16. YidIa Pakf. This site is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Sea island and the Newport Beach Country Club. The site is designated for Multi- Family Residential land use and is allocated 228 dwelling units. 20% of the units shall be affordable, with the affordability standards and team determined at the time of Project approval. -67- of regional retail may be added upon commitment of the Bay'view Landing site for senior citizen housing.(GPA94 -Z(B)j No office development is allowed in Fashion Island. 19. Newport Village. This area is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue. A. Ten acres at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities for museum use with a maximum allowed development of 100,000 sq.ft. B. Four acres of the Newport Village area is shown for Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space for neighborhood park use. The precise location of the park site has not been established, but will be determined when plans are submitted for off -site development that was transferred as part of the Library Exchange Agreement. The property owner shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of dedica- tion of four acres of the site in consideration for the conversion of previous residential entitlement to office use. The offer to dedicate the four -acre parcel may be modified to require dedication of another site within the City subject to the consent of the property owner and the City, The irrevocable offer to dedicate the four -acre parcel shall be provided within sixty (60) days after a written request from the City to the property owner. The irrevocable offer shall not obligate the property owner to dedicate the property prior to issuance of permits for the office development that was transferred off -site, or the execu- tion of a development agreement which vests the property owner's rights to construct the allowable development. C. Approximately 2.5 acres at the corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Mac. Arthur Boulevard is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institu- tional Facilities, for use as the Orange County Transit District transfer facility. Storage of buses overnight and routine maintenance of vehicles is not allowed on this site. D. A four -acre portion of the Newport Village site was previously shown for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial Uses with an alternate of Government, Educational, Institutional Facilities to allow for the possible relocation of the City library from Civic Plaza. As part of the Library Exchange Agreement, GPA 91 -1(C) and Amendment No. 746 were approved designating this four -acre site for a 65,000 sq.ft. library, and deleting all previous entitle- ments. E. The balance of the site,.which was previously designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use, was redesignated for Recrea- tional and Environmental Open space as part of the Library Exchange Agree- sm �'- : RN-25 -1999 1100 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 714 644 3139 P.02i02 ment and Amendment No. 746. All development entitlements for this property were transferred to other areas of Newport Center as part of that agreement, FMIMTEn GROWTH FOR STATIS171CAL AREA IA Big Canyon (Statistical Area L2) Big Canyon is hounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The area is identified as the Big Canyon Planned Community. The areas are numbered as on PIanned Community Text map. (see Map 4) 1. Big CanyonAma L This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 83 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 2. .Big Canyon -Area 2. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 17 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 3. Big Carryon Area 3. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 12 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. Kitz TOTAL P.02 Residential (in do's) Commercial (m sq.$.) F-6s* Gen.Plan Projected FSsting Gen.Plau Projected VIA7 Projection Growth 1/ M Projection Growth 1. Block O -0- -0- 0 246,146 432,320 186,174 2. Block 100 0 0 -0- 195,545 196,545 4 3. Block 200 -0- 4 •o. 207,781 2tY7,781 4 4. Block 3M 4 -0- -0- 130,408 134,9118 4,5M S. Block 400 4 -0. 4 440,118 440;11$ 4). & Block SW 40- -a 4)- 377,170 377,170 -0- 7. Black 6 -0 -o- -0• 1,284,134 1,284,134 4 8. Black 700 -0- 40- 4)- 327,671 377,671 40- 9, Block 800 -0- 245 245 253,984 253,984 -0- 10. Block 900 67 67 4 616,630 622,630 6.0m 11. Chic Plana -0• 40- -0- 365,160 456,710 91,550 12. Corporate Plaza weal 4 -0- 4 151000 115,000 1001000 13. Tennis Club -0- 0 41 -0- -0- -0- 13. ATE Country Club 4)- 0 4 4)- -0. -0- 15. Amlin& -0- 0 -0- 3,960 510W 11040 16, Villa Pant -0- 228 228 -0- -0. 4 17, Sea Island 132 132 4 4 4 A- is, Fashion Island $ 4 -0- 1,603,850 1,633,850 30,E 19. Newport V71i age 40- -0- 4 650 165,0W 164,350 TOTAL 199 672 473 4069,207 0821 54614 Population 394 1,331 937 (RevisedIZ94) Big Canyon (Statistical Area L2) Big Canyon is hounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The area is identified as the Big Canyon Planned Community. The areas are numbered as on PIanned Community Text map. (see Map 4) 1. Big CanyonAma L This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 83 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 2. .Big Canyon -Area 2. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 17 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 3. Big Carryon Area 3. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 12 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. Kitz TOTAL P.02 Y January 25, 1999 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY January 25, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: OFFERS OF DEDICATE NEWPORT VILLAGE BAYVIEW LANDING The Irvine Company has submitted offers to dedicate the Newport Village and Bayview Landing parcels (Offers). These Offers are required by CIOSA and were referenced in the Resolutions that accompanied the Public Works' staff report dated January 11,1999. We expect soon to receive offers to dedicate Newporter Knoll and Newporter North (the area around Harbor Cove). Recommendation: We recommend the adoption of the Resolutions accepting the Offers as referenced with Public Works' staff report dated January 11, 1999. r- rt H. Burnham, City Attachments F:\users\cat\shared\CCmemo\OffersofNV-BV.doc F. A reservation of any and all natural oil, oil rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas rights and other hydrocarbons by whatsoever name known, geothermal steam and all products derived from any of the foregoing, that may be within or under the Property, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and storing in and removing the same from the Property or any other land, including the right to whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than the Property, oil or gas wells, tunnels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of the Property and to bottom such whipstocked.or directionally drilled wells, tunnels and shafts under and beneath or beyond the exterior limits thereof, and to redrill, retunnel, equip, maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells or mines; but without, however, the right to drill, mine, store, explore or operate through the surface or the upper 500 feet of the subsurface of the Property; G. A reservation of easements as needed for installation of utilities required to serve development on other properties of OFFEROR, to perform habitat mitigation in.or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, to mitigate for development impacts on development parcels, for public rights -of -way, and for. temporary construction access and staging; and H. The following covenants (the "Covenants): (1) that the Property will be used only for open space purposes; (2) that the OFFEROR will have the right to review and comment on all future improvement plans for the Property; (3) that the CITY will not require the OFFEROR to provide, directly or indirectly, any parking facilities for use of the Property; (4) that the CITY will maintain the Property in a safe condition; and (5) that the CITY will not abandon the Property nor transfer it or any portion of it to a third party without OFFEROR's prior written consent, which consent will not be withheld if the transfer is to another public entity for open space or park purposes. 3 MATTERS RELATED TO COVENANTS A. Amendment. The Covenants may be amended by mutual agreement of OFFEROR and CITY. Any amendment must be recorded in the Recorder's Office, County of Orange, California. .022 /WP51 /RKB /TIC /C10SA0FR.NV 3 EXHIBIT 'E' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT OPEN SPACE DEDICATION DATE' 11/24/92 (1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall b'e offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in this Agreement. The Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open Space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North. OPEN SPACE # PROPERTY ACRES TO BE TIMING OF I DEDICATED U DEDICATION 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH j 2.4 i I (3) 2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH 8.6 (3) 3. i JAMBOREE /MAC ARTHUR 4.7 (3) 4. i UPPER CASTAWAYS I 30.6 I (2) 5. BAY VIEW LANDING I 6. i NEWPORTER NORTH I 47.2 (2) 7. i BLOCK 800 —0— N/A 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST —0— N/A 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION i North Area 17.3 (2) South Area —0— N/A 10. NEWPORTER KNOLL 12.0 (i) 11. i NEWPORTER RESORT —0— N/A 12. - NEWPORT VILLAGE 12.8 (4) I from library to San Miguel I TOTAL 146.7 (1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall b'e offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in this Agreement. The Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open Space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North. *<rooa�• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644.3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Entitlement Status of the Newport Village Site May 22, 2001 25 Patricia L. Temple 644 -3228 ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2001- , initiating General Plan Amendment 2001 -2, for the Newport Village Site; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2001- , initiating an amendment to the mun Newport Village Planned Comity District Regulations; and 3) Direct staff to return to Council with plans, specifications and a budget amendment for the improvement of a park on the Newport Village site. The approximate 12 acre site bounded by the Newport Beach Central Library, MacArthur Boulevard, San Miguel Drive and Avocado Avenue is commonly referred to as the Newport Village Site. Councilmember Bromberg requested a report on the entitlement status of this site; expressing an interest in assuring its use for open space. The Land Use Element Map designates. the site as Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial: (the City's commercial office category). However, the text of the Element does indicate that there is no development allocation for the site, and also references the fact that the zoning for the site is Open Space, as established by a Planned Community Text amendment approved as part of the Library Exchange Agreement (Development Agreement No. 4). The zoning document sets forth the permitted uses as open space and parks. The site's ultimate use and ownership was also addressed as part of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA), where it was one of several sites identified for dedication to the City. An irrevocable offer of dedication was made by The Irvine Company, which has been accepted by the City, with limits on the use of the site for parks and open space. The fact that the mapped land use designation was never changed to reflect the use limitations of the site imposed as part of the Library Exchange Agreement and CIOSA is a confusing factor to persons using the Land Use Element It is, therefore, appropriate for this designation to be changed to be consistent the site's zoning designation. Additionally, the land use limitations in the PC Text are very vague and general, and do not address such issues as whether library support parking is permitted, or what proportion of the site (if any) should be used for active or passive park uses, or preserved as environmental open space. In order to resolve these issues, staff recommends. that General Plan and Zoning amendments be initiated to clean up and add greater specificity to these documents. Additionally, in order to implement the intent of these land use limitations, it is also recommended that the City commence the planning and design of the site, in order to ultimately budget for and construct park improvements on the site. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Attachments: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Draft Resolution for initiation of a General Plan Amendment 2. Draft Resolution for initiation of an amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community Text Page 2 t Resolution No. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE NEWPORT VILLAGE SITE AS RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001 -2) WHEREAS, the City is the owner through dedication of the site northerly of the Newport Beach Central Library know as Newport Village; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a clear understanding for the City and its residents as to the ultimate and long term use of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to initiate amendments to the City's General Plan as set forth in City Council Policy K -1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby initiate an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to designate the Newport Village site for Recreational and Environmental Open Space use. ADOPTED this day of May, 2001. - MAYOR ATTEST: Lavonne Harkless, City Clerk fh D 4. 4 (Item 6) November 10, 2005 RECREATION Et SENIOR SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Parks, Beaches ft Recreation Commission FROM: Marie Knight, Director SUBJECT: General Plan Update Attached for the Commissions review and input is the draft Recreation Element for the General Plan Update. The Element contains a series of goals and policies that provide the City with long term guidance in relation to each of the topic areas. Staff has been working with our consultant on this draft which includes several revisions to our current element such as: adding the priorities for park development that were identified by the Commission and Council a few years back, taking out those areas that pertain to natural resources, coastal access, marine issues, and environmental protection and placing them in their own element, and making sure that we have identified any trends that may affect us in the coming years such as the expansion of school based sports programs which will affect our use of facilities in the coming years. Also included for the Commissions reference is the current Open Space Element of the General Plan. The Commission is asked to provide input on any recommended changes or additions to this draft. i RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT PARKLAND ACREAGE NEEDS nd NEEDS y The following table is a summary of existing park and recreation acreage plus acreage needed to meet the City's standard of five acres per 1000 residents -- both as of June 1998 and at projected City buildout in 2010 (service area boundaries are shown in Figure 1 -1): The above Citywide totals do not include parkland in future annexation areas, such as the Newport Coast, because such areas are not presently in the City. Existing and projected parkland needs were derived from the Inventory of Existing Facilities and Population by Service Area tables in the Technical Appendix. The acreage results in the above table are addressed later in this chapter under Citywide Needs and Service Area Needs. 2 -3 TABLE 2-1: PARKLAND ACREAGE EXISTING PARK ACREAGE: JUNE 1998 - FUTURE :PARK ACREAGE:'2010; Park Park Active Combined ,Profedted� Exrsbng = -proiecte(I., School Service Area Acres Acres Beach Park/ Deficit] -)'j - Park:..- Parkl ;`D,eficit ( -)' -, Recreation Needed Existing Recreation Beach Excess (t) Need -! beach ";Excess( +)'. gcreage . Acreage Acreage 1: West 64.7 9.1 34 411 -21.6 70.9 43.1 -27.8 0 Newport 2: Balboa ( 25.5 6.5 44 50.5 +25.0 I 27.9 50.5 +22.6 I 3.3 Peninsula 3: Newport I 64.3 50.2 0 50.2 -14.1 I 69.7 50.2 -19.5 ( 37.8 His. et al 4: Santa Ana I 3.2 2.0 0 2.0 -1.2 I 3.2 2.0 -1.2 I 0 Heights 5: Lower Bay ( 17.3 0.1 0 0.1 -17.2 I 23.1 0.1 -23.0 I 0 6: Balboa I 17.9 0.3 1 1.3 -16.6 ( 19.6 1.3 -18.3 I 0 Island 7: Eastbluff I 31.3 71.0 0 71.0 +39.7 I 35.7 71.0 +35.3 I 22.8 8: Big I 13.9 0 0 0 -13.9 I 16.5 0 -16.5 I. 0 Canyon 9: Newport I 10.9 4.0 0 4.0 -6.9 I 11.1 4,0 -7.1 0 Center 10: Corona I 44.4 23.9 11.4 35.3 -9.1 I 48.6 35.3 -13.3 I 0 del Mar 54.6 51.9 0 51.9 -2.7 63.8 51.9 -11.9 11: Harbor 4.6 View' Totals 348 219 90Z 309 -39 405 309 -96-- 68.5 12: I Newport Coast Private Park Area: 58.1 ac. I 50 58.1 +8.1 Including the annexed Bonita Canyon area. " Deficit/excess acreage if no additional parks are built. ' 69,600 x 5 ac. per thousand = 348 ac. 2Includes beach area where active recreation takes place -- i.e. typically within 100 feet 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. 381,000 (estimated 2010 pop.) x 5 ac. per thousand = 405 ac. (including Bonita Canyon but excluding potential future annexation areas, such as the Newport Coast The above Citywide totals do not include parkland in future annexation areas, such as the Newport Coast, because such areas are not presently in the City. Existing and projected parkland needs were derived from the Inventory of Existing Facilities and Population by Service Area tables in the Technical Appendix. The acreage results in the above table are addressed later in this chapter under Citywide Needs and Service Area Needs. 2 -3 Study Session Item # s4 DATE: February 5, 1999 TO: Mayor Dennis O'Neil and Members of the City Council FR: Tom Thomson RE: Newport Village Newport Village permitted use includes 1.) open space or, 2.) low income rental housing under an existing state program. The general plan of Newport Beach shows this parcel to be dedicated to open space. Any other use would require an amendment to the general plan. Such an amendment has been initiated, but it has not been pursued. The CIOSA designation is open space. I propose we create a Newport Central Park. A possible configuration is . attached for your review. The subject area encompasses 12.8 acres from San Miguel south to the library. We could have dedicated open space from San miguel south approximately 750 feet to a meandering line but at no point exceeding 800 feet. This could preserve preciosu ecolgical habitats. The bluff top view park area would begin roughly adjacent to Farallon Drive southward approximately 560 feet. It could be park -like, with turf grass but absent any, further enhancements or improvements. It will be mowed, edged and cared for as we are accustomed to having our parkways maintained. According to General Services Director Dave Neiderhaus, the city's contract for maintaining parks and open space runs $180 per month per acre, which includes mowing, edging, use of appropriate pesticides and herbicides, and fertilization. The park area measures 560 feet in length and 105 feet wide (58,800 square feet or, 1.34 acres), not including the already existing side slopes which can remain. 11 The area below the grassy park could be an additional passive strip as buffer/ • preserve to a new slope located approximately 120 feet from the library. Approximately 80 -120 new -- parking - spaces. - could - -be - created behind the library depending upon configuration, etc.. The buffer would use the same angle as the existing slope that runs down to the new parking lot north of the library. These parking spaces could be available to those utilizing the library or the open space /park. NOTE: It is anticipated that the view park area will follow the existing contours of the bluff used for picnics, watching the sun set and, moreover, allowing citizens to enjoy the quality of life in Newport Beach in a setting that augments Inspiration Point in Corona del Mar. However, no organized activity of any kind would be allowed. No weddings, parties or any function will. be allowed. It is meant as a view park only for the citizens of Newport Beach. A future option that might be considered is a Greco -Roman stone seating area in the shape of a 1/4 amphitheater built into the slope. No portion of this natural stone -like replication of a Greek lecture pit would exceed the height of the natural berm. There would be no amplification of. sound, in fact, no sound capability, no lights, no power, much like a true Greek or . Roman ruin, it would serve as a quiet reading spot for all ages. This area could be accessed from the library through the existing door in the public area. I feel this plan would be an asset to the citizens of Newport Beach for generations to come.. -, I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions in regard to the above. Respectfully submitted, Tom Thomson (Dictated but not read by Tom Thomson) 6 -15 -2000 9:04AM 0G/15/2fl00 08:43 FROM GENERAL SERVICES 949'650 0747 9497210450 EUGEK0 ABURTO P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92562 3unc la, 2000 r LaDOnna Ktenitz Community Str%ices Librarian City of Ncy Pon Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. N,�x pprt urs,ch; CA 92663 12.5 acre site north Of the Central librw &e. Request for park Developmestt at the PoGE 01 Dear �Ss. }Cienitx, SPON is a :6 year old coCtmunit otgaaization which has had a long interest in Park and open space means in :he City ofNen' .ore Beach support a Passive open On t4av 16. 2000. '118 SPON St rir q Corrminee voted Unanimously San hlioucl and botdet'ed by space park at tha-site above the UbrarY, extending from the library att by -be MacArthur and ;avocado. This 1"1t.5 acre srt Dc�ds designAtedhasReae""naisand Irvine Company as part of the CIQSA Agr art of the Library Bnwronmcntal Open Space m thQ Land 'Use been co'>sidnr"d_r °spark p"ar°se pan it has not Yn Exchwige Agreement in 1591. It s long been formally designated as a park. Accordingly, SPON rmucsls rhm the City create a passive open space Park on City, site. Ttus site lac some of the most magnr5cent views available frnm public propeRy is the Ctb', end also has many environmentally sensitive rlpu71 resources. h makes an ideal atop a a. ch in e, vretu aad nature oriented Dark. for all 70,000 plus residents of the City of Newport Beach is pe1pctuuy. . Thu request v +ould also help satitfy the Parks detiacncy n this Pan of the CnY• Spt l tequesls that this park dettlopmenl request be forwarded to the Pules, Besc'•t`s. and Recreation Commission £ot as c?xrsideranon at the ]uly. 2000. PBR Commission meeting Thank yoc for ,your help. SincerelY, Juiy 23; 1998 .'r!aycr amM f C til Council . City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear 'Mayor and Members OF City Council::. This letter will serve as reinforcement of the Parks, beaches and Recreation Commission's unanimous approval in keepino the parcel ,of land known, as li/ew Village north of the library dedicated as open, space. It is our belief that retaining this property with its sperm acular gateway view and the soft scape it allows in the middle of a business environment is a much greater asset to the City of Newport Beach than the development that is currently being considered by the City. At the September 6, 1994 meeting of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, this parcel of land was added to the: Recreation and Open Element and listed as open space. Thank you in advance for your consideration or this correspondence. Respectfully, o�-.U_Pat Beek, Chair f : Parks; Beaches and Recreation Commission -c: Kevin Murphy, City P4anager ............ ............................................................................................. TOTAL P.01 Robert A. Hamilton March 9, 1998 Jan Vandersloot Stop Polluting Our Newport 2221 East 16'b Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: LETTER REPORT, INITIAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND Dear Jan, On behalf of the citizens' group Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), you requested that I complete an initial biological survey on a parcel covering approximately 12 acres in the City of Newport Beach (City). You indicated to me that this parcel is presently dedicated to the City as natural open space, and that SPON intends to participate in the City's planning process regarding proposed construction of residential housing on this parcel. This letter report presents the methods, results, and conclusions of my initial biological survey. METHODS On 7 March 1997, I inspected an open space parcel covering approximately 12 acres near Fashion Island Newport Center. The site is rectangular, and bounded on the east by MacArthur Boulevard, on the north by San Miguel Drive, on the west by Avocado Avenue, and on the south by the Newport Beach Public Library. Goals of my survey included (1) characterizing the site's plant communities, including their dominant species plant and overall condition, and (2) identifying plant and animal species present on the site, including sensitive species. I inspected the entire site and made note of each vertebrate wildlife species that I detected. I recorded the plant species characteristic of each plant community, but did not attempt to assemble a complete list of plant species present on the site. Observations of sensitive species are discussed, but analysis of sensitive species potentially present on the site was beyond the scope of this preliminary study. Survey Summary Survey Date Time Start Conditions End Conditions 7 March 1998 0800 -1130 clear; sunny; still; —70T clear; sunny; still; —78 °F P.O. Box 961 -d 20611'h Sycamore Drive ds Traburo Canyon, CA 92678 �- (714) 459 -2875 (Phone/Fax) w robbham @f(ash.net -�- Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist RESULTS Plant Communities The project site consists of a grassy mesa bordered on the south by a native coastal sage scrub restoration effort, on the east and west by road edges and associated ornamental plantings (in places), and on the north by native coastal sage scrub and two drainages supporting cat -tail marsh vegetation. The following paragraphs discuss these communities, and their characteristic species, in greater detail. Annual Grassland /Seasonal Wetlands The mesa, which accounts for approximately half of this parcel; is vegetated primarily with non- native grasses and forbs, interspersed with native forbs and sub- shrubs. Considering the site's location and the species composition, it is likely that the entire mesa was mechanically disturbed in the past. Dominant and locally prevalent non -native species include brome grasses (Bromus diandrus, B. mollis, B. madritensis ssp. rubus), Slender Wild Oats (Avena barbala), storksbills (Erodium spp.), Bermuda - Buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra), and peppergrass (Lepidium sp.); native species well represented in the site's annual grasslands include. Cudweed Aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), Big Gumplant (Grindelia caniporum), Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and Deer Weed (Lotus scoparius). Two seasonal ponds exist within the site's annual grasslands. The larger of the ponds is at the mesa's northeast corner and covers approximately 0.2 acre. This pond contained water to a maximum depth of approximately six inches during the site survey, and supported at least three species adapted to wetland conditions: spike -rush (Eleocharis sp.), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The second.pond is found along the western edge of the mesa, near the intersection of Avocado and Farallon, and covers approximately 01 acre. This pond contained water to a maximum depth of approximately eight inches during the site visit, and supported at least two species adapted to wetland conditions: Curly Dock and Mulefat. Additional plant species were present in these seasonal ponds, but were not mature enough to be identified during the site survey. Finally, a seasonally wet swale runs east and west near the southern edge of the mesa; 1 did not observe surface water within this swale, but the swale supports African Umbrella -Sedge (Cyperus alternifolius), a species adapted to wetland conditions'. Cat -tail Marsh Cat -tail marshes are found in two perennial drainages that are fed by urban runoff in the northern portion of the site. The site's principal drainage runs east and west, and supports a fairly extensive stand of emergent vegetation, mostly cat -tails (Typha sp.). Also present here are numerous large specimens of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia jubata) and some shrubby Arroyo Willows (Salix lasiolepis). Approximately half of the emergent vegetation was recently removed from this drainage (i.e., within the past week) and stacked near its western terminus. To the north is a north -south trending tributary to the principal drainage; this drainage supports a stringer of cat - tails. Together, these cat- tail marshes appear to cover between 0.5 and 1.0 acre. 'Identification made by botanist David Bramlet. Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist Coastal Sage Scrub Native coastal sage scrub covers much of the northern half.of the site. This community is dominated by California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and.California Sunflower (Encelia californica), with smaller amounts of Deer Weed, California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Saw - toothed Goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), Coastal Prickly -Pear (Opuntia littoralis), Lemonade Berry (Rhus integrifolia), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), and California. Wishbone Bush (Mirabilis californica). These native shrubs provide approximately 80 to 100..percent cover in most areas, but are being encroached 'upon by invasive exotic species, particularly Hottentot -Fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and Myoporum ( Myoporum laetum). The cut -slope at the southern edge of the mesa (behind the Newport.Beach Public Library building) is being restored to a coastal sage scrub community comprised mainly of Black Sage (Salvia mellifera), California Sagebrush, California Sunflower, Ashy- leaved Buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), and Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Scattered specimens of ceanothus ( Ceanothus sp.) are also present. This habitat is perhaps a year or two from reaching full maturity, as the plants are now mostly two to three feet tall. Ornamental Plantings Manufactured slopes along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard have been planted with non - native ornamental groundcovers, including acacias (Acacia spp.), African Daisy (Dimorphotheca sp.), and Sweet - Alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Sweet- Alyssum, known to be an invasive exotic weed in southern California and elsewhere; is expanding somewhat into openings in the adjacent coastal sage scrub community. Wildlife This section discusses only vertebrate wildlife species observed during the site visit; it was beyond the scope of this preliminary survey to attempt to identify species with potential to occur on the site. Reptiles Two reptile species were observed: Side- blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Western Skink (Eumeces skiltomanus). Birds Of the 24 bird species observed during the site survey, most are common native residents such as the Red - tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), American.Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans); House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria): Winter visitors observed on the site include Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago)', Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus); Orange- crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata), Yellow - rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata), and White- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). One pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers (Polidptila mlifornica californica), a federally threatened species, was observed in coastal sage scrub habitat located in the northeast portion of the site (see attached map). I followed the male for over an hour and could see that this bird was definitely not banded. I obtained only brief views of the secretive female, but I believe that this bird was 1 Observed in cat -tail marsh habitat. Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist unbanded, as well. I did note that the female was carrying nesting material. The male gave a variety of calls and scolds typical of the species; at one point, the male and female maintained communication through paired (occasionally tripled) House Finch -like calls: "jrry? jrry ?" I suspected that a second male California Gnatcatcher _ may have been present, but I could not determine this conclusively. At one point the paired male responded very aggressively to another bird that remained invisible to me, snapping his bill and scolding repeatedly Mammals Two common native mammal species were detected during the field surveys: California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Audubon Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Tracks of. a canid, possibly a Coyote (Canis latrans), were observed along a path on the mesa. DISCUSSION This open space parcel shows evidence of past disturbance, and its isolation from larger natural open spaces reduces its conservation value for native plants and animals: Nonetheless, the site- presently supports a pair of threatened California Gnatcatchers, and its wetland and coastal sage scrub habitats are protected by state and federal resource protection laws. The presence of a Red - tailed Hawk on the site in early March suggests that this species nests in the project vicinity and is likely to utilize the site during the.breeding season. Thus, loss of this open space area would likely represent a foss of foraging habitat for nesting raptors. If the City is considering development of.this parcel,,I would offer the following recommendations: • Retain a competent, experienced biologist to conduct a full biological assessment of the parcel. This should include mapping and quantification of the site's plant communities, analysis of the potential for additional sensitive plant and animal species to occur on this parcel, and any appropriate focused surveys. For example; the site's seasonal -ponds should besampled for fairy shrimps and .rare plants;. although none were observed during the initial site. survey, these species are typically difficult to detect except through a series of directed surveys over a period of several weeks. • Consult with the County of Orange and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that loss of occupied California Gnatcatcher habitat is handled- properly with respect to the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for Central and Coastal Orange County. Rather than completing a full set of six to nine California Gnatcatcher surveys, it may be possible to identify coastal sage scrub on the site as occupied by nesting gnatcatchers, based on the results of this study and perhaps one or two additional follow -up surveys. • Delineate jurisdictional wetlands and consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding potential impacts to cat=tail marsh habitat, seasonal ponds and /or a seasonal swale. • Consult with the California Department of Fish & Game regarding potential impacts to streambeds with defined bed and banks. If a land -swap is considered involving other_ undeveloped.parcels within the City presently zoned for development, it would seem appropriate for such land to be of equal area to the subject parcel, . and to support coastal sage scrub occupied by California Gnatcatchers. If land to be swapped for k Robert A. Hamilton, Constdting Biologist the subject parcel does not support native plant communities, then restoration with appropriate, locally native species, should be required. CONCLUSION Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the planning process for this interesting piece of land. If you have any questions regarding this report, or wish to further discuss any issues, please call me at (714) 459 -2875 or send e- mail,to robbham@flash.net. Sincerely, -- Robert A. Hamilton Consulting Biologist Attachments: Map Showing Location of California Gnatcatcher Nesting Pair List of Wildlife Species Observed 5 Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist - WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND The following vertebrates were noted in the study area during the current study. Presence may be noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by the presence of tracks, scat or other signs. *Introduced species AVES - BIRDS -- Accipitridae Hawks Buteo lineatus Red - shouldered Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red - tailed Hawk Scolopacidae Sandpipers Gallimtgo gallinago Common Snipe Columbidae Pigeons, Doves. Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin AlIen's Hummingbird Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Corvidae Jays, Crows Corvus brachyrhynmos American Crow Corvus coral Common Raven Monarchidae Monarch Flycatchers Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Aegithalidae Bushtits Psaltriparus miniinus Bushfit Troglodytidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Sylviidae Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers Polioptila californica California Gnatcatcher Regulidae Kinglets, Gnatcatchers, Thrushes, Babblers Regulus calendula Ruby- crowned Kinglet Parulidae Wood Warblers Vermivora celata Orange- crowned Warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow- rumped Warbler Geothlypis trichas Common Yellow-throat Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist Emberizidae Sparrows and Buntings Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White- crowned Sparrow Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Passeridae Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus House Sparrow MAMMALIA MAMMALS - Leporidae Hares, Rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon Cottontail Sciuridae Squirrels Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel . Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stebbins (1966)',' American Ornithologists' Union (1983)2 and Ingles (1965)3. 'Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 'American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check -list of North American Birds, sixth edition. Washington, D.C. and supplements through the 41" (1997). ' Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. Robert A. Hamilton July 16, 1998 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 SUBJECT: FOLLOW -UP REPORT, INITIAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND NEWPORT VILLAGE SITE Dear SPON, In a letter report dated 26 March 1998, I provided the methods'and results of an initial biological survey of the 12 -acre "Newport Village" project site, located in the City of Newport Beach (City). Subsequently, SPON requested that botanist David Bramlet and I complete follow -up biological surveys on this site. The purpose of these follow -up surveys was to search for additional plant and wildlife species present on the site, and to further observe a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) previously observed on the site. This follow -up report presents the methods, results, and conclusions of my two biological surveys, and incorporates results of Mr. Bramlet's 1998 botanical survey. METHODS .. I completed field visits on 7 March and 2 June.1998, and David Bramlet inspected the site on 25 May 1998. . Goals of our surveys included (1) characterizing the site's plant communities, including their dominant species plant and overall condition; and (2) identifying plant and animal species present on the site, including sensitive species. We inspected the entire site and made note of each plant and vertebrate wildlife species detected. Observations of sensitive species are discussed, but analysis of sensitive species potentially present on the site'is beyond the scope of this prelim nary study. SURVEY SUMMARY Date Personnel Time Conditions 7 March 1998 Robert Hamilton 0800-1130 clear; sunny; still; —70 - 78'F 25 May 1998 David Bran-let 0900-1100 not noted 2 June 1998, Robert Hamilton 1200 -1300 clear; sunny; wind 4 mph SW; —75 °F d P.O. Box 961 20611'h Sycamore Drive Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (714) 459 -2875 (PhoneFax) robbham @flash.oet .�� Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist RESULTS Plant Communities The project site consists of a grassy mesa bordered on the south by a native coastal sage scrub restoration effort, on the east and west by road edges and associated ornamental plantings (in places), and on the north by native coastal sage scrub and two drainages supporting cat -tail marsh vegetation. A total of 42 native and 61 non -native species were detected on the site during the field surveys. The following paragraphs discuss these communities, and their characteristic species, in greater detail. ANNUAL GRASSLAND & SEASONAL WETLANDS The mesa, which accounts for approximately half of this parcel, is vegetated primarily with non- native grasses and forbs, interspersed with native forbs and sub - shrubs. Considering the site's location and the species composition, it is likely that the entire mesa was mechanically disturbed in the past. Dominant and locally prevalent non -native species include brome grasses (Bromus diandrus, B. rrollis, B. ntadritensis ssp. rubus), wild oats (Avena spp.), filarees (Erodium spp.), Bermuda- Buttercup (Oxalis pes- caprae), and Black Mustard (Brassica nigra); native species well represented in the site's annual grasslands include Cudweed Aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), Sand Pepp ergrass (Lepidium lasiocarpum), Rigid Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesiz), Big Gumplant (Grindelia camporuni), Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca grandifora), and Deer Weed (Lotus scoparius). Vernal Barley (Hordeum intercedens), a sensitive species, occurs in bare loamy -clay areas on the mesa. Two seasonal ponds exist within the site's annual grasslands. The larger of the ponds is at the mesa's northeast corner and covers approximately 0.2 acre. This pond contained water to a maximum depth of approximately six inches during the 7 March 1998 site survey, but had dried by 25 May. The second pond is found along the western edge of the mesa, near the intersection of Avocado and Farallon, and covers approximately 0.1 acre. This pond contained water to a maximum depth of approximately eight inches during the 7 March 1998 site visit, but this pool also had dried by 25 May. These seasonal ponds support a variety of native and non - native plant species adapted to wetland conditions, including Pale Spike -Rush (Eleocharis palustris), Woolly Marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus), Vernal Barley, Toad Rush Uuncus bufonius), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Finally, a seasonally wet swale runs east and west near the southern edge of the mesa; we did not observe surface water within this swale, but the swale supports African Umbrella -Sedge (Cyperus alternifolius), a species adapted to wetland conditions. CAT -TAIL MARSH Cat -tail marshes are found in two perennial drainages that are fed by urban runoff in the northern portion of the site. The site's principal drainage runs east and west, and supports a fairly extensive stand of emergent vegetation, mostly Slender Cat -tail (Typha.angustifolia). Also present here are numerous large specimens of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana) and some shrubby Arroyo Willows (Salix lasiolepis). Approximately half of the emergent vegetation was removed from this drainage 2 Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist in February 1998 and stacked near its western terminus. To the north is a north -south trending tributary to the principal drainage; this drainage supports a stringer of cat - tails. Together, these cat- tail marshes appear to cover between 0.5 and 1.0 acre. COASTAL SAGE SCRUB Native coastal sage scrub covers much of the northern half of the site. This community is dominated by California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California Sunflower (Encelia californica), with smaller amounts of Deer Weed, California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Saw- toothed Goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), Coastal Prickly -Pear (Opuntia littoralis), Lemonade Berry (Rhus integrifolia), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilidaris), and California Wishbone Bush (Mirabilis californica). These native shrubs provide approximately 80 to 100 percent cover in most areas, but are being encroached upon by invasive exotic species, particularly Hottentot -Fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and Myoporum (Myoporum laetum). The cut -slope at the southern edge of the mesa (behind the Newport BeachPublic Library building) is being restored to a coastal sage scrub community comprised mainly.of Black Sage (Salvia ntellifera), California Sagebrush, California Sunflower, Island Buckwheat (Eriogonum grande), Interior Flat- topped Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosuni), and Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Scattered specimens of ceanothus ( Ceanothus sp.) are also present. This habitat is perhaps a year or two from reaching full maturity, as the plants are now mostly two to three feet tall. ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS Manufactured slopes along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard have been planted with non - native ornamental groundcover, including Golden Wattle (Acacia pycantha), African Daisy (Diniorphotheca sinuata), and Sweet - Alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Sweet - Alyssum; known to be an invasive exotic weed in southern California and elsewhere, is expanding somewhat into openings in the adjacent coastal sage scrub community. Wildlife This section discusses only vertebrate wildlife species observed during the site visits; it was beyond the scope of this preliminary survey to attempt to identify species with potential to occur on the site. REPTILES Two reptile species were observed: Side - blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus). Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist BIRDS Of the 26 native and one non- native bird species detected during the site surveys, most are common residents such as the Red - tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Black Phoebe. (Sayornis nigricans), House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria). Winter visitors observed on the site include the Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago)', Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), Orange - crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata), Yellow - rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata), and White - crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). On 7 March and 2 June 1998, a pair of federally threatened Coastal California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) was observed in coastal sage scrub habitat located in the northeast portion of the site; these sightings are described subsequently, in the Sensitive Species section. MAMMALS Two common native mammal species were detected during the field surveys: California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Audubon Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Tracks of a canid, possibly a Coyote (Canis latrans), were observed along a path on the mesa. SENSITIVE SPECIES Sensitive species are plants and animals that are endangered or rare, as those terms are used by CEQA and its Guidelines, or are of current local, regional or state concern. This section lists and briefly discusses the status of each sensitive species that may occur on the site; for bird species, potential for occurrence excludes migrants and rare winter visitors. Legal protection for sensitive species varies widely, from the relatively comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened and endangered species to no legal status at present. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), local agencies, and special interest groups such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publish watch lists of declining species; some of these lists describe the general nature and perceived severity of the decline. hi addition, recently published findings and preliminary results of ongoing research provide a basis for consideration of unlisted species. Finally, species that are not rare or threatened statewide or regionally, but whose local populations are sparse, rapidly dwindling or otherwise unstable, may be considered to be of "local interest." The following paragraphs discuss two sensitive plant species and one sensitive wildlife species detected during the course of the site surveys. Several additional sensitive species potentially occur on the site, but analysis of these species is beyond the scope of this preliminary study. Observed in cat -tail marsh habitat. 4 Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist Coulter's Saltbush (Atriplex coultdri) Coulter's Saltbush is placed on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B, which includes species considered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and elsewhere. This low, spreading perennial saltbush species is known to occur in coastal bluff and grassland habitats with some alkalinity. Red stems and opposite leaves distinguish Coulter's Saltbush from the more common, introduced Australian Saltbush. This species is distributed from Los Angeles County, east to San Bernardino County and south to Baja California. It is most commonly found on the Channel Islands. In Orange County this species has been recorded from Laguna Beach, Pelican Hill, Signal Hill, Trabuco Canyon and Cristianitos Canyon. On 25 May 1998, David Bran-let detected one specimen of Coulter's Saltbush on a bare, eroding slope in the southeast portion of the mesa, growing with Vernal Barley and the introduced Australian Saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata). Vernal Barley (Hordeum intercedens) This annual grass is placed on CLAPS List 3, a review list of plants suggested by CNPS for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed. This species was recently added to this review list due to the continued declines in preferred habitat, the limited collections, and general lack of knowledge related to the difficulty of identifying this grass. Vernal Barley is known from scattered collections throughout a range that extends from San Francisco to Kern County, extending south into Baja California and onto the Channel Islands. In southern California, Vernal Barley is generally known from Riverside County, where it occurs on the Santa Rosa Plateau and in alkali sink grasslands along the San Jacinto River and west of Hemet. In San Diego, Vernal Barley is found adjacent to vernal pools on Otay Mesa, extending northward to Camp Pendleton. This species was only recently recorded in Orange County, where it has been recorded at vernal pools in Costa Mesa (Fairview Park) and clay soil habitats at the U.C. Irvine Ecological Reserve, near Quail Hill (Irvine), and at several locales near the county's southern border. On 25 May 1998, David Bran-Jet detected limited numbers of Vernal Barley (fewer than 100 plants) in bare loamy -clay areas on the mesa, and in the site's seasonally wet ponds. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) The Coastal California Gnatcatcher is a federally threatened bird species that is considered a California Species of Special Concern. This species formerly occupied coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities from Ventura County south to northwestern Baja California. It is now absent from much of its former range. In Orange County, Coastal California Gnatcatchers occupy coastal sage scrub and similar native associations on gentle to moderate slopes south and east of the Santa Ana River. The major populations are located near the coast, in the Fullerton Hills, on the coastal slope of Loma Ridge and in the southern foothills. 5 Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist On 7 March 1998, I observed a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers in coastal sage scrub habitat located in the northeast portion of the site (see attached map). I followed the male for over an hour, and during brief views of the secretive female, I could see that she was carrying nesting material. On 2 June 1998, I observed this pair again for approximately 10 minutes, and did not detect any juveniles. DISCUSSION Although this open space parcel is physically isolated from larger open space areas and shows evidence of past disturbance, it retains a mosaic of habitats that includes seasonal and perennial wetlands, coastal sage scrub and grasslands. The site's wetland and coastal sage scrub communities are subject to specific state and federal resource protection laws. The site's plant communities provide habitat for a variety of native plants, reptiles, birds and mammals. In particular, the presence of two biologically sensitive plant species, and attempted nesting by a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers attests to the site's value as natural open space. The presence of a Red - tailed Hawk on the site in early March suggests that this species nests in the project vicinity and is likely to utilize the site during the breeding season. Thus, loss of this open space area would likely represent a loss of foraging habitat for nesting raptors. If the City is considering development of this parcel, Iwould offer the following recommendations: Retain a competent, experienced biologist to conduct a full biological assessment of the parcel. This should include mapping and quantifying the site's plant communities, analysis of the potential for additional sensitive plant and animal species to occur on this parcel, and any appropriate focused surveys. For example, the site's seasonal ponds should be sampled for fairy shrimps and rare plants; although none were observed during the site surveys, these species are typically difficult to detect except through a series of directed surveys over a period of several weeks. Consult with the County of Orange and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that loss of occupied California Gnatcatcher habitat is handled properly with respect to the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for Central and Coastal Orange County. Rather than completing a full set of six to nine California Gnatcatcher surveys, it may be possible to identify coastal sage scrub on the site as occupied by nesting gnatcatchers, based on the results of this survey and perhaps one or two additional follow -up surveys. Delineate jurisdictional wetlands and consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding potential impacts to cat -tail marsh habitat, seasonal ponds, and /or a seasonal swale. Consult with the California Department of Fish & Game regarding potential impacts to streambeds with defined bed and banks. If the City considers swapping this land for one or more parcels located elsewhere in the City, it would seem appropri ate for such land to 1) presently be zoned for development (not open space), 0 Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist 2) be of equal area to the subject parcel, and 3) support wetlands, sensitive plant species, and coastal sage scrub occupied by nesting California Gnatcatchers. If any land considered for swapping for the subject parcel includes degraded plant communities, then restoration with appropriate, locally native species should be required prior to removal of habitat from the subject parcel. CONCLUSION Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the planning process for this interesting piece of land. If you have any questions regarding this report, or wish to further discuss any issues, please call me at (949) 459 -2875 or send e -mail to robbham@flash.net. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton Consulting Biologist Attachments: Map Showing Location of California Gnatcatcher Nesting Pair Appendix A - Plant Species Observed Appendix B - Wildlife Species Observed 7 .ocation of California Gnatcatcher Pair - Newport Fashion Island Open Spac, Streets98 Copyright ©1988- 1997. Wcrosolt Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved, Please visit our web$Re at hupa /maps.exped2.cone. Pagel Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist APPENDIX A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND The following plant species were detected on the project site during the current study. * Introduced species ANTHOPHYTA: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Aizoaceae Carpet -Weed Family * Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot -Fig * Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Small- flowered Ice Plant Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family * Amaranthus albus Tumbling Pigweed Apiaceae Carrot Family Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed * Foeniculum vulgare Sweet Fennel Asteraceae Sunflower Family Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Baccharis pRularis ssp. consanguinea Coyote Brush Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat * Carduus pycnocephalus Italian Thistle * Centaurea melitensis Tocalote * Chrysanthennmi coronatum Garland Chrysanthemum Conyza canadensis Common Horseweed * Cotula coronopifolia African Brass - Buttons • Dimorphotheca sinuata African Daisy Encelia californica California Encelia Filago californica California Filago • Filago gallica Narrow- leaved Filago * Gazania linearis Gazania Gnaphalium beneolens Fragrant Everlasting Grindelia camporum Big Gumplant * Hedypnois cretica Crete Hedypnois Hemizonia fasciculata Fascicled Tarweed Heterotheca grandii fora Telegraph Weed * Hypochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's Ear Isocoma menziesii Coastal Goldenbush Lessingia filaginifolia Cudweed Aster Psilocarphus brevissimus Woolly Marbles * Sonchus asper Prickly Sow - Thistle * Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow = Thistle Stephanomeria virgata Tall Stephanomeria Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii Heliotropium curassavicum ssp. oculatum Brassicaceae * Brassica nigra * Coronopus didymus * Hirschfeldia incana Lepidium lasiocarpum * Lobularia maritima * Raphanus sativus Cactaceae Opuntia littoralis Capparaceae Isomeris arborea Caryophyllaceae * Polycarpon tetraphyllum * Spergula arvensis Spergularia marina Chenopodiaceae Atriplex coulteri Atriplex semibaccata * Chenopodium murale Salsola tragus Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia ssp.intermedia * Convolvulus arvensis Crassulaceae Crassula connata Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima Marah macrocarpus Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce serpyllifolia Eremocarpus setiger Fabaceae * Acacia pycantha Lotus hamatus Lotus scoparius Lotus unifoliolatus Lupinus bicolor Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting. Biologist Borage Family Rigid Fiddleneck Salt Heliotrope Mustard Family Black Mustard Lesser Wart -Cress Shortpod Mustard Sand Peppergrass Sweet - Alyssum Wild Radish Cactus Family Coastal Prickly -Pear Caper Family Bladderpod Pink Family Four - leaved Polycarp Corn Spurrey Salt Marsh Sand Spurry Goosefoot Family Coulter's Saltbush Australian Saltbush Nettle- leaved Goosefoot Russian- Thistle Morning -glory Family Short -lobed Morning -Glory Field Bindweed Stonecrop Family Pigmy Sand Weed Gourd Family Coyote Gourd Wild Cucumber Spurge Family Thyme- leaved Spurge Doveweed Pea Family Golden Wattle San Diego Lotus Coastal Deerweed Spanish Lotus Bicolored Lupine A -2 • Medicago polymorpha var. polymorpha • Mehlotus indica Geraniaceae • Erodium botrys • Erodium cicutarium Lamiaceae . Salvia mellifera Lythraceae * Lythrum hyssopifolium Myoporaceae * Myoporum laetum Myrtaceae * Eucalyptus camaldulensis Onagraceae * Oenothera sp. Oxalidaceae * Oxalis pes- caprae Plantaginaceae • Plantago coronopus • Plantago erecta ssp. californica Plumbaginaceae * Limonium perezii Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist Bur- Clover Yellow Sweetclover Geranium Family Long- beaked Filaree Red - stemmed Pilaree Mint Family Black Sage Loosestrife Family Grass Poly Myoporum Family Myoporum Myrtle Family River Red Gum Evening- Primrose Family Evening- Primrose (planted) Wood - sorrel Family Bermuda - Buttercup Plantain Family Cut -leaf Plantain California Plantain Leadwort Family Perez's Sea - Lavender (planted) Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family * Eriogonum grande . Island Buckwheat (planted) Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum Interior Flat- topped Buckwheat * Polygonunt arenastrum Yard Knotweed * Rumex crispus Curly Dock Primulaceae * Anagallis arvensis Rhamnaceae * Ceanothus sp. Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis Scrophulariaceae Miniulus aurantiacus Primrose Family Scarlet Pimpernel Buckthorn Family ceanothus(planted) Willow Family Arroyo Willow Figwort Family Bush Monkeyflower A -3 Robert A. Hamilton; Considting Biologist Solanaceae Nightshade Family * Nicohana glauca Tree Tobacco * Solanum americanum Small- flowered Nightshade ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONAE MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Cyperaceae Sedge Family * Cyperus alternifolius African Umbrella -Sedge Cyperus eragrostis Tall Umbrella -Sedge Eleocharis palustris Pale Spike -Rush Juncaceae Rush Family Juncus bufonius Toad Rush Poaceae • Grass Family Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat • Avena fatua Common Wild Oat • Brachypodium distachyon Purple False Brome * Bromus diandrus * Common Ripgut Grass Bromus hordeaceus Soft Chess * Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Foxtail Chess * Cortaderia selloana * Selloa Pampas Grass Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass Hordeum intercedens * Vernal Barley Hordeuni murinum ssp. leporinum Hare Barley Nassella sp. Needlegrass • Paspaluni dilatatuni Dallis Grass • Pon anntia • Annual Bluegrass Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitfoot Grass * Schisnuts barbatus Mediterranean Schismus * Setaria pumila * Yellow Bristlegrass Vulpia ntyuros Foxtail Fescue Typhaceae Cat -tail Family Typha dontingensis Slender Cat -Tail Taxonomy and scientific nomenclature follows Hickman (1993)1; commonnames primarily follow Roberts (1998)2. 'Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles. 2Roberts, F. M. Jr. 1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Orange County, California, Second Edition. F. M. Roberts Publications, Encinitas. KM Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist Troglodytidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Sylviidae Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers Polioptila californica California Gnatcatcher Regulidae Kinglets, Gnatcatchers, Thrushes, Babblers Regulus calendula Ruby - crowned Kinglet Mimidae Thrashers Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Parulidae Wood Warblers Vermivora cetata Orange- crowned Warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow - rumped Warbler Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Emberizidae Sparrows and Buntings Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Zonotrichia leticophrys White- crowned Sparrow Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Cardtielis psaltria . Lesser Goldfinch Passeridae Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus House Sparrow MAMMALIA MAMMALS Leporidae Hares, Rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon Cottontail Sciuridae Squirrels Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stebbins (1966)', American Ornithologists' Union (1983)2 and Ingles (1965)3. 'Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 'American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check -list of North American Birds, sixth edition. Washington, D.C. and supplements through the 41" (1997). 'Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. WIN Nlaatner Field Vernal Pools - Woolly Marbles &> Mather Field Vernal Pools _. ci vviffl r Page 1 of 2 name `� Woolly Marbles b„71U naimie ` ;c Psilocarphus brevissimus farlmiv Asteraceae (sunflower) hablfat vernal pools Size plant up to 4 inches tall, each "marble" 1 to 2 cm across fun, facts Each fuzzy "marble" contains both leaves and flowers. descrilpton Member of the sunflower family. Each is made up of 20 or more disk flowers. These are well hidden in the cob- webby fuzz. The plants are pale green. http:Hw- ww.saesplasl3.org /plants /psibre.htm 7/2/2006 Mather Field Vernal Pools - Woolly Marbles Page 2 of 2 is later in the season when the leaves curl up. #e `Yc! --y Woolly Marbles are annual plants. They germinate as the vernal pool water warms and begins to evaporate in the spring. Once the water is gone, they grow quickly. Woolly Marbles can be seen from late April until the rains begin in the fall. The flowers are well hidden in the fuzz. They bloom in May. ec010gs Woolly Marbles are enderriic to vernal pools. Endemic means they cannot grow in other environments because they are either too dry or too wet. The plants do not release their seeds until the rains come in the fall. This prevents them from blowing away into unsuitable habitats. Woolly Marbles are able to grow in vernal pools long after many other vernal pool plants have dried up. Their fuzz keeps the dry air from touching the plant and stealing its moisture. investigate The individual flowers are very well hidden in the cob -webby fuzz of the plant. See if you can find the disk flowers in the Woolly Marbles by using your hand lens. C 4' al= >h htip:// www. saesplash.org/plants /Psibre.htm 7/2/2006