HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-5-23 City Hall Committee ReportsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 21
May 23, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Office of the City Manager
Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
949 - 644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: ORAL REPORTS FROM THE FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW
COMMITTEE AND THE CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
ISSUE:
What conclusions have the two citizen committees reached regarding: 1) the City's
ability to finance its long term facility needs and 2) good locations for a future city hall?
RECOMMENDATION:
Listen to the oral presentations, accept the written reports and thank the committee
members for their valuable services to the City.
BACKGROUND:
At its January 24, 2006, regular meeting the City Council adopted the attached
resolutions forming the Facilities Finance Review Committee and the City Hall Site
Review Committee. At the same meeting it also appointed citizen volunteers who had
applied to serve on these two committees.
The Facilities Finance Review Committee was composed of the following 9 residents:
Steve Frates (Chair); Fay Bosler; John Buttolph; Denis Gitschier; Phil Smoot; Jack Wu;
Tim Brown; Steve LaBruna and Roy Ward. City Council Members Don Webb; Dick
Nichols and Keith Curry served as Council ad -hoc committee members.
The City Hall Site Review Committee was composed of the following 11 residents:
Larry Tucker (Chair); Stephen Brahs; John Hamilton; Lloyd Ikerd; Donald Krotee;
Wallace Olson; Gordon Glass; Rush Hill; Roberta Jorgensen; John Nelson and Scott
Riddles. City Council Members Steve Rosansky, Ed Selich and Tod Ridgeway served
as Council ad -hoc committee members.
Oral Reports from Facilities Finance Review
& City Hall Site Review Committees
May 23, 2006
Page 2
The Committees met on alternating Mondays starting February 13. The meetings were
noticed and open to the public. Members of the public did attend most meetings. City
staff Dennis Danner, Dick Kurth, Dan Matusiewicz, Steve Badum and Homer Bludau
staffed the committees. The City Clerk team of Leilani Brown (Site Review) and Cathy
Malkemus (Facilities Finance Review) took minutes of the meetings. The written
reports from the Committees are included for your review, as are the meeting minutes.
The City Manger was very impressed with the seriousness with which the committee
members took their duties. Attendance was excellent for the meetings, the discussions
were serious, detailed and at times, spirited, and the Chairs of the committees (Steve
Frates and Larry Tucker) were able to develop strong consensus on the part of their
part committees.
Submitted by:
Homer L. Blu u
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING A CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council has had under consideration the construction
of a new civic center project (city hall, parking garage, fire station) at the current
site, and
WHEREAS, public input into the civic center process has resulted in a
wide range of opinions as to the best location for the city hall; and
WHEREAS, there is a great deal of professional talent in the community
that could help in identifying locations which would be appropriate for city hall
locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach as follows:
Section 1. The City Hall Site Review Committee is hereby established.
Section 2. The Committee shall consist of seven to eleven (7 -11)
residents, appointed by the City Council and three (3) Ad-
Hoc City Council Members, appointed by the Mayor.
Section 3. The Mission Statement of the Committee includes identifying
and assessing all reasonable potential sites within the
boundaries of Newport Beach for a city hall facility and
providing a written 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.
Section 4. PROCESS:
A. All Committee meeting are to be open to the public.
Public comments and questions are allowed to be heard
during each meeting, at the discretion of the Committee's
Chair, as long as they do not hinder the Committee in
making effective use of its time.
B. City staff will be provided to take minutes of each
meeting. Meeting minutes will be available no later than
the beginning of each meeting.
I
C. Any questions the Committee has necessary to further its
work, will be addressed to the City Council ad hoc
members or City staff. It unanswerable, the questions
should be posed to the City Council in writing.
D. The Committee should first review the space needs
assessment document, which the City Council believes is
valid in determining the space needs for city hall
operations.
E. While no budget is being provided for the committee to
do its work, Committee requests which involve costs
should be conveyed to the City Manager for his
determination, after having receiving input from the three
City Council members.
F. If needed, the City will provide the Committee with a real
estate professional to obtain pertinent information on
potential city hall sites for the Committee to use for site
assessment purposes. This professional will be selected
by the Council Building Committee.
G. The Committee will disband after the Committee's oral
presentation has been made, unless its life is extended
by action of the City Council.
Section 5. CITY HALL NEEDS:
A. The site or structure needs to be able to accommodate a
city hall of approximately 72,000 sq. ft. while providing for
adjacencies which will foster close cooperation among
the Planning, Building and Public Works departments.
B. The site needs to have parking or parking potential for
approximately 230 City employees' vehicles and 70
public parking spaces.
C. Sites recommended by the Committee should be
surrounded by compatible land uses.
D. Sites recommended need to be available to being
construction or move -in (in case of occupying an existing
structure) no later than July 1, 2007.
Section 6. CITY HALL CONSIDERATIONS:
A. Cost considerations are an important factor in site
assessments.
a
B. The ease by which the public can travel to city hall is an
important factor in site assessments.
C. The Committee should plan for a city hall site which
accommodates all current city hall staff members.
D. Retain all current city hall departments at the same site.
E. The Committee should not consider sites which would
require the condemnation of private property.
F. The Committee is to include in its consideration of sites
existing structures which can be retrofitted to
accommodate city hall requirements.
G. City Hall operational functions are considerations outside
of the Committee's scope of focus.
H. The Committee should assess the opportunities and
challenges associated with selling the current city hall
site and relocating elsewhere. That assessment should
include the highest and best use of the property, agency
permits required, EIR requirements, time involved to sell
the site, Greenlight voting considerations, potential value
of the site and any other issues the Committee believes
could influence the decision to sell the site.
Section T WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS:
A. The Committee's written report should thoroughly define
the strengths and functional/operational constraints of
each site given serious consideration. The written
assessment of each site should include the following
issues: cost considerations, ease of travel for the public,
central location, timeliness in obtaining control over the
site, current General Plan zoning of site and zoning /uses
of surrounding properties, design constraints, adequacy
of parking, site dewatering issues, unique construction
issues, space sufficient to provide for adequate site
landscaping, current site ownership, site size in square
footage, and whether the site would require a Greenlight
vote.
B. The Committee's written report should be submitted to
the City Council no later than May 1, 2006. The
Committee is requested to complete its work in a
thorough and complete manner, as soon as possible, and
earlier than May 1st, if feasible.
C. The Committee is asked to select a Committee member
to provide an oral presentation to the City Council
covering the written report's considerations, finding and
recommendations, after the written report is co p ted.
ADOPTED this 14th day of February 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH l
1, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 2006.12 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 14th
day of February 2006, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 15th day of February 2006.
(Seal)
c a6" 0�i -
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING A FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Council has had under consideration the construction
of a civic center project, consisting of a new city hall, a replacement fire station
and a parking garage; and
WHEREAS, the City staff was working with a financial team for the
issuance of Certificates of Participation (COP's) as the project's financing
instrument; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed in the community as to
whether COP's are the proper financing mechanism for this project and whether
the City can afford this type of debt financing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of
Newport Beach as follows:
Section 1. The Facilities Finance Review Committee is hereby
established.
Section 2. The Commission shall consist of seven to eleven (7 -11)
residents, appointed by the City Council and three (3) Ad-
Hoc City Council Members, appointed by the Mayor.
Section 3. The Mission Statement of the committee states: "after
reviewing the 20 year facility needs of the City and the City's
financial capacity to meet those needs, make
recommendations to the City Council on financing, budgeting
and revenue methods which will allow those needs to best
be addressed for the continuation of high quality City
services to meet the community's needs."
Section 4. PROCESS:
A. All Committee meetings are to be open to the public.
Public comments and questions are allowed to be heard
during each meeting, at the discretion of the Committee's
Chair, as long as they do not hinder the Committee in
making effective use of its time.
■
B. City staff will be provided to take minutes of each
meeting. Meeting minutes will be available no later than
the beginning of each meeting.
C. Any questions the Committee has necessary to
proceeding with its work will be addressed to the City
Council ad -hoc members or City staff. If unanswerable,
the questions should be posed to the City Council in
writing.
D. The Committee should review the 20 year facility needs
list and cost estimates prepared by staff for the
Committee's consideration.
E. Review the methods used by the City in the past for
financing its facilities.
F. The Committee should review the current and long term
future financial status of the City, giving particular
attention to the assumptions on which the long term
financial projections are based.
G. The Committee should review a complete listing and hear
a thorough explanation of financing alternatives available
to public agencies to finance public facilities.
H. The Committee will disband after the Committee's oral
presentation has been made, unless its life is extended
by action of the City Council.
Section 5. FACILITY FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
A. Take into consideration the potential rise and fall of
interest rates and the effect those changes might have on
short and long term cost of facility financing.
B. Take into consideration the short and long term costs of
labor, construction materials, and other cost factors
which have the potential to impact the City's ability to
afford its facility needs.
C. Consider revenue enhancement alternatives which are
available to the City for financing its facility needs.
D. Consider how the proposed Initiative to require a public
vote for the City to enter into certain kinds of debt would
affect the ability of the City to meet its long term facility
needs and what the cost to the City might be under the
Initiative's requirements.
E. Consider how the timing of facility replacements or
refurbishments over the next 20 years can best be
staggered in terms of affordability.
F. Use today's dollars in estimating future financing needs
and costs.
Section 6. WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS:
A. The Committee's written report should list the facility
needs and costs that it reviewed, make an assessment
on the short and long term financial ability of the City to
replace/refurbish its needed facilities, identify the
assumptions that are key to making that financial
assessment, assess the implications of the potential
Initiative which would require a public vote for the City's
issuance of certain debt, and make recommendations as
to how the City should position itself to meet the
community's public facility needs.
B. The Committee's written report should be submitted to
the City Council no later than May 1, 2006. The
Committee is requested to complete its work in a
thorough and complete manner, as soon as possible, and
earlier than the May 151 date, if feasible.
C. The Committee is asked to select a committee member
to provide an oral presentation to the City Council
covering the written report's considerations findings and
recommendations
ADOPTED this I day of February 2006.
ATTEST:
after the written report is completed.
cd
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 2006 -13 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 141h
day of February 2006, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Webb
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 15th day of February 2006.
(Seal)
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
N
Facilities Finance Review Committee
April 24, 2006
1. The Committee recommends that the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan,
specifically the plan designated as Attachment A to this report, should be
developed in final form and reviewed and updated at duly noticed Council
Meetings on a regular basis:
• As part of the annual budget review process;
• Any other time an actual project is being considered for design and
funding within the current fiscal year; and
• Any time the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan deviates from
the financing schedule adopted by the City Council.
2. The Committee recommends that a Facilities Replacement Fund,
consisting of deposits from reserves, General Fund contributions, proceeds
from COPS and interest earnings thereon, should be established. This
Facilities Replacement Fund would represent all revenues and
expenditures connected with the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan. Jt
would also act as a repository for funds set aside in reserve for future
program expenses, thereby facilitating `level funding" from the General
Fund.
3. The Committee finds that although the Long -term Facilities Financing
Plan is an ambitious undertaking, it can probably be accomplished within
an acceptable time frame, depending upon Council project priorities, using
revenue sources currently available to the City. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan not include any
form of tax increase.
4. The Committee recommends the use of Certificates of Participation
(COPS) to fund the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan. The Committee
further recommends that the use of COPS should be supplemented by an
initial General Fund allocation to the Facilities Replacement Fund. Staff
reported to the Committee that the Capital Projects Reserve that has been
established for this purpose is expected to have an accumulated balance of
approximately $14 million after the close of the 2006 -2007 fiscal year.
The Committee recommends that this entire amount should be allocated to
the new Facilities Replacement Fund.
5. The Committee recommends that future annual General Fund allocations
to the Facilities Replacement Fund should be targeted at $4.5 to $6
million, adjusted upward at least 2.5% per year, unless the City Council
determines that other General Fund Operating Budget requirements should
constrain it to a lower level. The specific level of funding within that
range should be identified by the City Manager, in light of competing
requirements, in his Budget Recommendation to the City Council.
6. The Committee recommends that the annual contribution (the "Net
General Fund Impact ") to the Facilities Replacement Fund should be
capped at 5% of General Fund revenues during any fiscal year. Absent a
determination by the City Council that there are special extenuating
circumstances, prospective projects should be delayed until they can be
accommodated within that 5% ceiling.
7. The Committee recommends that, while support of the Long -term
Facilities Financing Plan is an important and appropriate use of the fiscal
resources available to the City:
• The existing service levels for operations supported by the General
Fund. should be maintained,
• The existing Capital Improvement Program support level should be
maintained,
• Reserves should be maintained as per Council Policies, and
• Replacing and repairing existing facilities should generally have
priority over adding new facilities.
8. The Committee recommends that the City Council should continue to
conduct a vigorous community outreach program including noticed
community meetings as part of the process of finalizing the Long -term
Facilities Financing Plan, especially with regard to scope, need,
prioritization and financing of projects. The goal is to ensure that the City
provide sufficient information to demonstrate the substance of the Long-
term Facilities Financing Plan.
9. The Committee recommends that an independent "Needs Assessment'
should be conducted as each facility is being considered for design and
approval, unless the City Council determines that such an outside
assessment is not needed and would constitute an unnecessary
expenditure.
10. The Committee recommends that the schedule for replacement of
individual facilities should depend upon:
• Need
• The actual and projected balances in the Facilities Replacement
Fund
• The cost of COP financing
• The availability of other funding on a case by case basis
• Council and Community priorities
• The status of the useful life of the asset to be replaced and the
ability of the current facility to meet service and regulatory
requirements
Iq
11. The Committee recommends that the City Council and City Staff should
make all reasonable efforts to secure additional outside funding for
specific projects within the Long -term Facilities Financing Plan.
Particular attention should be given to encouraging volunteer fund raising
and also naming opportunities where appropriate. The Crean/Mariners
Library is an excellent example to emulate whenever possible.
12. The Committee estimates that the proposed initiative to require a public
vote for the City to enter into COP financing agreements would impact the
Long -term Facilities Financing Plan in several ways:
a. There would be a direct cost of holding a special election, if the
vote were not held in concurrence with a regularly scheduled
election
b. To the extent that the requirement for a vote delayed a particular
project the cost of that project would increase at an estimated rate
of approximately 3% per year
c. The requirement for a vote would affect the promptness with
which financing could be obtained, which could result in
additional, but undetermined, financing costs
d. A public vote would establish whether the public wants its funds
spent on a project and the level of public support
15
FACILITY REPLACEMENT PLANNING WORKSHEET "D.1"
Service to OpBud" ratios for Orange County Cities
red are as follows: Newport Beach-56%; Cost
3.51X: Anaheim, 14.V7% GardenGrove, 5 %;
9.73% Huntington Beach, 5.11%; Fullerton, 5.3%;
n Viejo.? 41%
Average of all 6 Cities fincluding Newport Beach at
I
Interest Fan
Net C(
ii std' ": t
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual Genera! I'vi d C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund
Projected Gerrera�urM Operatng FiperMltures 8 CIPS "ODBUd "!middle pei '
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual General Fund C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund (
Projected General Fund Operating Expenditures & CIPs "OpBucr flow bai
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual General Fond C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund (
Yr.
Approx.
Projecter
Location Home
Street Address
Built I
Construction
SOFT
Age
cost
CkIC CertEeri :'
330ONOWOMBlisIt.
1948:...
1
.. . +.-
3309- f9aNp(xtld.
1984i.:Ffalfle
,`
.._..
1976
. .CWrcre60._.= .."•.':3
:..:::.39.
. ... f? ,,•,; '•''
3300 ..• BNd.
1948
Conaeta- .,..
4 2'.:56.
3300 Newport Blvd.
.1972
Frertie SWcod�
:12,214 .34
$34,00(
WA
$8,00(
,$31.00(
110 E. Balboa Blvd.
Fire Stations Fire Station #1
1962
Frame Stucco
3,423
44
$6,00(
Fire Station #2
475 32nd Street
1952
Frame Box=
9,953
54
$6,00(
Fire Station #3
868 Santa Barbara
1971
Concrete/Frame
13,605
35
$6,00(
Fee Station #5
410 Marigold
1948
Frame Stucco
2,095
58
$6,00(
Fire Station #6
1348 Irvine Ave.
1958
Frame Stucco
2,926
48
$6,00(
Potential Crystal Cove Fire Station #9
Crystal Cove
WA
TBD
3,000
0
$6,00(
Lifeguard Headquarters
Newport Pier
1958
F.S. & ConC. Blk.
4,339
48
$4,00(
rr�86 ?,47.
1 $6.00(
SS
$6.00(
ParlsE .. VV0, : Co(mpP.]ity Ctr"
883 W 1ft'*eet
> 78D .;,.
11 980,
:30
$5,39'
.;
Cptue(tltlb:, .'
600; 5uf.
: - '-
10
. 7(
8,042 .
:
$3,61f
1770;W.Bal6dfliW.
±:IFI@Iy1e �
$742...50
$1,23:
1750W BSbga: :
1�76
- ralex ,- ......;'
393,7.
:66'
$1,76f
,...
51affp;
?NIA
$4,50(
Yaeem
e'
A -'.':
10
wn
. $4,00(
Mice:' Barbde Yacht Basin
829 Harbor•IsIvid Dr.
:.VVood•Fiame
$5,00(
Twig
$160,58:
Estimated wsi in
Key Assumptions:
1. Only General Fund projects are addressed.
Project A
2. Contingency, Stabilization, and Designated Reserve Requirements must be maintained.
3. Service levels supported by the Operating Budget should not be adversely impacted.
4. Construction costs will increase an average of 3% per year over the long run.
5. COP interest rate wilt be 4.8% for the first Issue, and 5% thereafter.
6. COP Reserve requirement will be approximately one year's debt service.
7. COI will be $200,000 per issue, plus 20bps of Debt Service for Insurance, plus $7.50 per Certificate for
Underwriter's Discount
8. The term will be 30 years in each case, but the last year will be paid by the Reserve Fund.
9. City earnings on temporarily idle funds will be 414 for 2 years: 4.5% for 3 years, and 5% thereafter.
10. City will increase Annual Budget Contribution by 2.5% each year.
11. Construction expenditures for a project will take place over three years as follows: 10% first year; 55% second
year; 35% third year.
12. All expenses must be absorbed by the General Fund (potential Grant Funds were not considered).
...
13. Funding for future new parks is not included. The assumption is that it will be provided via negotiations
with
ExlsU Lip
Developers in conjunction with the approval process for new devglopments.
14. Construction cost for a potential new Marina at Marina Park is not included. The assumption is that if
it
becomes a reality, the Marina will be established as an enterprise activity, and construction expenses and debt
service will be fully covered by fees.
15. Potential expenses for dredging are not included in this analysis. Whatever portion of such expense
that is
Annual But
not covered by outside Grants will have to be budgeted as part of the ongoing annual Capital improvement
Project
program.
Service to OpBud" ratios for Orange County Cities
red are as follows: Newport Beach-56%; Cost
3.51X: Anaheim, 14.V7% GardenGrove, 5 %;
9.73% Huntington Beach, 5.11%; Fullerton, 5.3%;
n Viejo.? 41%
Average of all 6 Cities fincluding Newport Beach at
I
Interest Fan
Net C(
ii std' ": t
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual Genera! I'vi d C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund
Projected Gerrera�urM Operatng FiperMltures 8 CIPS "ODBUd "!middle pei '
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual General Fund C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund (
Projected General Fund Operating Expenditures & CIPs "OpBucr flow bai
Ratio of Debt Service to Annual General Fond C
Ratio of Level Payment Plan to Annual General Fund (
Estimate for
in Related Expenditures
2007-08 2008-09 2009 -10 2010.11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 201415
zq4
$636,540 $3,500,970 $2,227,890
$760,062 $4,180,
$695,564 $3,825,604 $2,434,476
3,710 $Z550,403 $1,622,984
. .. :;$636.540
... - .N.
�._�76
4007_31.: 142187,376
�fe0or (3% average over kWara) 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.230 1.267 1
gement(5 %) $240,000 $1,320,000 $840,000 $307,661 $1,692,136 57,076,814 _$148,214 - $815,177 $525,258 $88,692 $487,
Cash Flow Proiaction Worksheet
Amount $50,400,000
Reserve $3,553,200
Other COI $678,800
Total $54,632,000
'avments A
B
C
D
E
64,608,810 $31,131,462
$4,600,147 $2,191,655
$813,784 $495,749
44,555,080 - $4,555,080 34,555,080
$18,625,311
$1,331,710
$376,940
34,555,080 44,555,080 44,555,080 44,555,
- $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 $2,199,
- $1,322,
7b(d%
$0
- $3.473,281
. $3,473,281
43,473,261
- $8,028,361
- $8,028,361
- $8,028,361
- $10,228,327
- $10.228,327
510:228,327
411,551,
JF Ded Service
4565,000
- $582,530
-$561, 180
- $565,463
4W5,N
- 5561,615
5581, 815
4580,60.5
5561,615
- 558/615
-5563
Cash
Flow Analysis
— Facility Replacement
Fund — "Level Payment Plan"
4.47%
4.40%
4.34%
4.28%
4.22°/
4.16%
find Balance:
$ 4,000;000
'$65,617;828
'$44;509,642
:'$31,460,377
$94,989;915
. $62431,197
441,26.139
$70 ;212,889
$52,884,697
$40,955,431
$56AM,
Cash in
$176,311
r:o':g e..dget
0.44%
307%
3.00%
29`",
6.01%
5.801A
5.61%
6.80%
3P Proceeds
$50,400,000
$0
$0
$64,608,810
$0
$0
$31,131,462
$0
$0
$18,625,311
___4.30 %___
:ontribution
$5,750,000
$5,893,750
$6,041,094
$6,192,121
$6,346,924
$6,505,597
$6,668,237
$6,834,943
$7,005,677
$7,180,962
$7,360,
Total
$56,150,000
$5,893,750
$6,041,094
$70,800,931
$6,346,924
$6,505,597
$37,799,699
$6,834,943
$7,005,817
$25,806,273
$7,360,
Cash Ouf
6.73%
7.:
sting Budget
4.47%
4.47%
4.48%
4.47/0
4.47/6
4.47%
4.47%
vc60n Costs
$4,800,000
- $26,400,000
- $16,800,000
- $6,153,220
- $33,842,710
- $21,536,270
32,964,281
$16,303,547
- $10,505,168
31,773,839
49,756,
COP Paymems
- 5585.000
41,035,811
- $1,037,161
44,038,144
48,593609
48,613.006
- $8.613,008
410,812,972
410,812,912
410,812,972
412,111
.FuWM ante
51.632,626
52,433,675
$1,747,402
$2,920,571
53530,871
S2480820
52,722,339
52,953363
52363056
12.513294
52,591
lancing Cost
$1,267,828
- $1,601,936
- $2,290,359
$1,118,173
- $5,062,932
- $6,132,386
- $5,890,667
$7,859,589
$8,429,914
48,299,678
$9,522,
-4 %increase
$128,526,671
$131,706,469
$134,801,972
$138,579,214
$1",122,383
$149,887,278
$156,882,769
$162,118,080
$168,602,803
$176.346,915
$182,360
^ ^, &;cge;
0.44%
33.06%
3.00`a
2.9154
5.96%
5.75%
5.53`4
6.67%
6.41%
617%
6(
Ming Budget
4.47%
4.47%
4.48%
4.47%
4.40%
4.34%
4.28%
4.22°/
4.16%
4.10%
4.(
1,SY. increase
5128,528.671
51]7,708, "9
51]4,801,972
1738,579,214
$143/629,486
5748,"9,519
$1537615,252
$159,022,8]5
WSIOSW.Er
;170,]49,2]7
$176,311
r:o':g e..dget
0.44%
307%
3.00%
29`",
6.01%
5.801A
5.61%
6.80%
6.57/6
6.33°
6.1
ding Budget
4.47%
4.47%
4_43%
4.38 %4_34%
___4.30 %___
4.26%
__ 422%
___4_1
mine rease
$128,526,671
$131,706,469
$134,801,972
$138,579,214
$142,043,694
$145,594,787
$149,234,656
$152,965,52]
$156,789,661
$160,709,402
$164,727
. '.a B::cget
0.44 °'.
3.067
100%
2.91'.[,
6.05%
5.92%
5.77/
7.07%
6.90%
6.73%
7.:
sting Budget
4.47%
4.47%
4.48%
4.47/0
4.47/6
4.47%
4.47%
4.47/.
4.47%
4.47%
4.4
2017 -18
2021 -22
a:
UA
$830,540 $1,567,972 $2,906,891
1760,062 $1,180,341 $2,660,217
2024 -25 202
$746,240 $4;104,323
4500940 $2.785172 54`2763291
166,307 .$858687 '. $547074
ud
0,085 V=469
$633,385 $3,483,618 $2216,848 -
11,773,839 $9,756,115 $6,208,437 $2,077,721 $11,427,467 $7,272,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.267 1.305 1.344 1.384 1.428 1.489 1.513 1.558 1.805 1.813 1.702
$88,692 $487,806 $310,422 $103,886 $571,373 $3631601 - $0 $0 $0 $0 - _ $0
D t
118 625,311 $21,816,073
$1 331,710 $1,559,849
$376,940 $407,253
$1( 333,961 $23,783,174
-$3,473, 281 43, 473, 281 43, 473, 281 - $3,473,281 43, 473, 281 43, 473, 281 43,473,281 - $3,473,281 - $3A73,281 43A73,281 43,473.251
- $4,555,080 - $4,555,080 - $4,555,080 - $4,555,080 44, 555, 080 - $4,555,080 44,555,080 44, 555,080 44 ,555,080 44,555,080 44,555,080 -$4,88
- $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,966 42,199,966 - $2,199,966 - $2,199,968 32,19
- $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 41,322,753 - $1,322,753 - $1,322,753 $1.32
- $1,547,130 - $1,547,130 - $1,547,130 - $1,547,130 - $1,547,130 - $1,547,130 - $1,547.130 $1.64
. $11,551,080 - S71,551.080 - $11,551,080 - $13,098,210 - $13,098,210 - $13,098,210 - $13,098,210 - $13,098,210 -513,098,210 - $13,098.71( $13,09
_.- .:_.._ , .:. - .. ... ...... ....... ..........�.<. _.. :,- .- ,m..e. <.. .: ..,... _. ..R_._.. ..... ..gym...___._....._ -___
- 1584,845 -S5 ,,O 7 - $583,047 3563,047
$10,955,431
.$50,688,188 -
$44,770,042
$36,185,'175
- $53,981188 -
;$39:897,204-
':$29;694,500 -
$2,712 ,391
$23;827,518
$21,049,185
$18,387,16
"M
$18,625,311
$0
$0
$21,816,073
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4.04%
$7,180,962
$7,360,486
$7,544,498
$7,733,111
$7,926,439
$8,124,599
$8,327,714
$8,535,907
$8,749,305
$8,968,038
$9,192,239
99,47
$25,806,273
$7,360,486
$7,544,498
$29,549,183
$7,926,439
$8,124,599
$8,327,714
$8,535,907
$8,749,305
$8,968,038
$9,192,239
6,47
$1,773,839
- $9,756,115
- $6,208,437
- $2,077,721
- $11427,467
- $7,272,024
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3.83%
11081$62
312,114,127
312,714,127
312,114,127
313,098,210
- 113,098,210
-$13.09 @210
313,098,210
313,098,210
- 113,098,210
- 113,088.210
-$111
12513. 294
$2, 591,611
$2,19$199
$2,438,878
$2,515,254
12.042,930
$1,788,387
11,877,430
11,570.571
11,488187
11.370.878
41.:
$8.299,678
49,522,517
- $9,920,928
49,675,449
- $10,582,956
411,055,280
- $11,309,823
411,420,780
. $11,527,639
- $11,630,023
411,727,534
311.81
110073.517
-519.278.632
- $16.129.365
- $11.753.170
- $22.010.422
- $18.327.304
411,309.823
- $11,420,780
- $11,527,639
- $11,630,023
411727,634
411.81
4.344,916
$182,360,792
$189,655,223
$197,241,432
$205,131,090
$213,336,333
$221,869,796
$230,744,578
$239,974,361
$249,573,335
$269, UK
6.64%
6.39%
6.14%
5.39%
6.14
5.90%
5.68%
5.46%
5.25%
505'1.
410%
4.04%
3.98%
3.92%
3.86%
3.81%
3.75%
3.70%
3.65%
3.59%
3.54%
$ff4i4�.3)7
____________________________
176,311,460 $182482,381 $188,869,244
$195,479,688
_______________________________
5202,321A56 $209,402,707 $216.731,802 S22A,317A15 $232,188,524
1240,2W.4fl TAI
-
6.87%
6 -64%
6.12%
670%
6.47°7
6.26%
694%
5.84%
5 -64%
5.45:.
4_22_%4_17%
4.13 %4_09%
4.05 %4.02%
3.98 %3_94%
3.90 %3_86%
3.83%
BIM 784A07
$184,727,137
$168,845,316
$173,066,449
$177,393,110
$181,827,938
$186,373,636
$191,032,977
$196,608,802
$200.704,022
$2D6,721.822 8!19/
r. ..
7.35!
7.17%
7.00%
7.38%
7.20%
7.03%
6.86%
6.69 ° /
6.53 1G
6.11-x.
4 47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
2025 -26 2026 -27 2027 -28 2028.29 2029 -M1 2031-31 203132 203233 2033 -M 2034 -35 2035 -38 2038-
C
i tit
� t r
513,236,561
513,236,561
513,236,561
S13,23Q561
513,236561
$13,236,581
$13,236,561
513,23Q561
$13,236.561
513,236,561
$13,236561
S9,6
33,473,281
33,473,281
33,-573,281
,i3,d73,281
,i3,d73,281
33,473,281
53,473,281
!� ii:;73,281 --:E,473,281
3.69%
•-
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.702
$0
1.754
$0
1.906
....._
1.860
.....,,.BD ,.....
1.916
. $0
1,974
.... .. $0
2,33
$0
2.091
... $D ..
2.15!
.. . $0 ..
2.221
...$0 ..
2268
$0
513,236,561
513,236,561
513,236,561
S13,23Q561
513,236561
$13,236,581
$13,236,561
513,23Q561
$13,236.561
513,236,561
$13,236561
S9,6
33,473,281
33,473,281
33,-573,281
,i3,d73,281
,i3,d73,281
33,473,281
53,473,281
!� ii:;73,281 --:E,473,281
3.69%
•-
•53473,281
2
44,555,080
44,555,080
- S4,555,DB0
54, 555, 080
44,555,080
54,555,080
54,555,080
54,555,080
54 ,555,080
- $4,555,080
- $4,555,080
44,55,
52,199,966
- $2,199,966
52,199,966
- $2,199,966
-$2,199,966
52,199,966
- $2,199,966
- $2,199,966
- $2,199,966
52,199,966
52,199,966
52,14
. $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
51,322,753
51,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $11322,753
. $1,322,753
41,32.
- $1,547,130
- $1,547,130
$1,547,130
51,547,130
41,547,130
- $1,547,130
- $1.547.130
41,547,130
- $1,547,130
- $1,547,130
- $1,547.130
- $1,54
013,098,210
- $13,098,210
513,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13.098.210
413.098,210
. $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098.210
- $9,62
618,387;199
.'$151851;904
,$13;464,194
:;51:1;205,550.
; "0,118;D57
'.:$7;204;439
0+478,086
$3,953;084'
:;%$2644;2,48
r$.Y;587;148
':: $298,182
Ei7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9,192,239
$9,422,045
$9,657,596
$9,899,036
$10,146,511
$10,400,174
$10,660,179
$10,926,683
$11,199,850
$11,479,846
$11,766,943
$12,06'
$9,192,239
$9,422,045
$9,657,596
$9,899,036
$10,146,511
$10,400,174
$10,660,179
$10,926,683
$11,199,850
$11,479,846
$11,766,943
$12,06
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
- 513,096,210
- 513,98,210
-513, 098.210
-513,098,210
413,098,210
413,098,210
313,098,210
-513,98,210
413,5,48,210
413,098,210
d13W,210
49,6
51,370,676
57,278,456
51,191,970
51,111,662
51,039, 081
5971.883
5913,029
5862,869
5821,262
5789,378
5167,698
$a
611,727,534
- $11,819,754
- $11,906,240
- $11,986,528
512,060,129
- $12,126,527
512,185,181
512,235,521
512,276,948
- $12,308,832
- $12,330,512
- $8,941
$269558,269
$269,938,520
$280,736,060
$291,965, 503
$ 303,844,123
$315,789,888
$328,421,483
$361,558,343
$355,220,676
$369,429,503
$399,67
5.05%
4.85%
4.67/
4,49%
4.31%
4.15%
199%
3.83%
3.69%
3.550A
141'.,
2
3.54%
3.49%
3.44%
3.39%
3.34%
3.29%
3.25%
3.2D%
3.15%
3.11%
706%
3
___________________________ ___-$289'3794,-39r
1240,294,422 5248,704,727 $257,409,393 SIBa ,41x,721 Sz75; !43,377
_ _______ ____o________ .....2
, $z95,3E3,199 $305.721 ,611 $316 ,421,887 $327,498,832016 $360,8:
5.45%
5.27%
5.09%
4.92%
4.75%
4.59%
4.43%
4.28%
4.14 %
4.00%
:7 1u,•i-
3.83%
3.79 %____3_75%
___ 3.72 %___
3.68 %____3.64%
___ 3.61 %___
3,57 %___
3_54%
3.51%
3
$205,721,622
$210,864,663
$216,136,279
$221,639,686
$227,078,178
$232,755,133
$238,574,011
$244,538,381
$260,651,820
$266,918,116
SM7,$44,069
$289,97
6.37%
6.21%
6.06%
5.91%
5.77%
5.63%
5.49%
5.36%
5.23%
5.10%
4 vn.
3
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47/6
4.47%
4
236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$9,663, 361
$9, 663.361
$9,6&3,361
55,063,214
$5,06
73,281
53, 473, 281
-$ 3,473,281
,53,473,281
43,473,281
-$9,624,929
39,624,929
39,824,929
- $5,069,649
35,069,849
$0
$0
�F
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
$0
$0
r &:
2.094
$0
236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$9,663, 361
$9, 663.361
$9,6&3,361
55,063,214
$5,06
73,281
53, 473, 281
-$ 3,473,281
,53,473,281
43,473,281
-$9,624,929
39,624,929
39,824,929
- $5,069,649
35,069,849
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
$0
$0
2.0.33
$o
2.094
$0
2.157
$0
2.221
.. to ......
2.288
$0
2357
to
2427
$0
2500
...$D .........
2515
..,ao . . ...........
2652
..
236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$13,236,561
$9,663, 361
$9, 663.361
$9,6&3,361
55,063,214
$5,06
73,281
53, 473, 281
-$ 3,473,281
,53,473,281
43,473,281
-$9,624,929
39,624,929
39,824,929
- $5,069,649
35,069,849
55,080
44,555,080
44,555,080
44,555,080
44,555,080
- $4,555,080
44,555,080
- $4,555,080
$1,058,511
$1,426,501
99,966
42,199,966
- $2,199,966
42,199,966
- $2,199,966
- $2,199,966
42,199,966
- $2,199,966
42,199,966
42,199
22,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
- $1,322,753
41,322
47,130
41,547.130
- $1,547,130
- $1,547,130
- $1,547,130
41,547,130
- $1,547,130
- $1,547130
- $1,547,130
41,547
+8.210
413,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $9,624,929
- $9,624,929
- $9,624,929
45,069,849
- $5,069
4.47%
4 47%
78,088
$3;953.084
$2.644.246..:
$1'567;148
:. _� ': $738,182
��
..: $174,493
$3;284,834...
36;863,575 �
:81,$876,081
....
;:'.819,853
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
60.179 $10,926,683 $11,199,850 $11,479,846 $11,766,843 $12,061,014 $12,362,539 $12,671,602 $12,988,392 $13,313,
50,179 $10,926,683 $11,199,850 $11,479,846 $11,766,843 $12,061,014 $12,362,539 $12,671,602 $12,988,392 $13,313,
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0I
666.210
- $13,098,210
- $13,098,210
- $13,096,210
- $13,098,210
-$9,624,929
39,624,929
39,824,929
- $5,069,649
35,069,849
413.029
$662,689
$821,262
$769,378
$767,698
$664,256
$821,131
$975,843
$1,058,511
$1,426,501
65,181
-$12,235,521
$12,276,948
- $12,308,832
- $12,330,512
- $8,940,673
- $8,803,798
-$8,649,086
41,013,338
$3,641,348
65,181
412.235.521
$12.276.948
- $12.308.832
- S12.330.512
48- 940 -873
-SA 803 798
-56 649 066
34- 013 338
A3 644 UR
3`14.1.
183%
3.69%
3.55%
3.41%
2.41%
2.32%
2.23%
1.13%
126%
3.20%
3.15%
3.11%
3.06%
3.02%
2.97%
2.93%
2.B9%
UI.1
;306721,611
f318,421,887
$]27498,8]2
$338.959,015
$]50,822,580
538],101370
$375,809,918
$]88,88],285 5402
4 41+'.
4.28%
4A4%
4.00%
3.86%
2.74%
2.65%
2.56%
1.30%
361 %___
3.57 %3_54%
3.51 %
3.47 %3_44%
3.40 %
3.37 %3.34
%___
574,011
6244,63$381
$250,651,820
$256,918,116
$263,341,069
$269,924,596
$276,672,710
$283,689,528
$290,879,266 $297
49 ":
5.36%
5.23%
5.10%
4.97%
3.57%
3.48%
3.39%
1.74%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4.47%
4 47%
FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
February 27, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Fay Bosler, John Buttolph, Denis Gitschier, Phil Smoot, Roy Ward, Jack Wu,
Chairman Steve Frates, Mayor Don Webb, Council Member Keith Curry, Council
Member Dick Nichols
Absent: Tim Brown, Steve LaBruna
CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Frates called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE, COUNCIL AND STAFF.
The committee members introduced themselves, as did the staff members in attendance
at the meeting, which included City Manager Homer Bludau, Public Works Director Steve
Badum, Administrative Services Director Dennis Danner, Administrative Services Deputy
Director Dick Kurth, Finance Officer Dan Matusiewicz and Deputy City Clerk Cathy
Malkemus.
3. REVIEW OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMMITTEE'S
PARAMETERS.
City Manager Bludau referenced Resolution 2006 -13, which established the Facilities
Finance Review Committee, and highlighted the committee's mission statement, process,
considerations, and requirements for written and oral reports. He noted that the
committee is requested to complete its work by May 1, 2006, and that any questions not
answered at the committee level should be posed to the City Council in writing.
4. REVIEW OF CITY S 20 YEAR FACILITY NEEDS.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Public Works Director Badum displayed a list of the
assumptions made by staff when preparing the City's 20 year facility replacement plan, as
well as a list of the reasons when replacement of a facility is considered. He then
displayed a list of the City's existing facilities, which included the civic center buildings,
police station, fire stations, maintenance facilities, libraries, parks and community
centers, restrooms, and utilities buildings and facilities.
Public Works Director Badum displayed the proposed 20 year plan for City facility
replacement and major park development. This list included the City Hall campus, Police
Station, Fire Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, Lifeguard Headquarters, the Balboa and Corona
del Mar libraries, the West Newport Community Center, Oasis Senior Citizens Center,
Ensign Theater Arts Center, the Balboa Community Center and Girl Scout House at
Marina Park, the Balboa Yacht Basin and two park development projects, which included
Sunset Ridge Park and Marina Park. The plan included the address of each of these
0
Facilities Finance Review Conunittee
Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2006
facilities, the year the facility was built, the type of construction, the approximate square
footage of the facility and the estimated replacement costs. He displayed a photo of each
facility and explained the individual reasons why each facility is being recommended for
replacement.
In response to questions and concerns raised by the committee members, Public Works
Director Badum stated that a thorough needs analysis of each facility, like was done for
the civic center project, would still need to be done, and that the information presented in
the plan is based on current square foot numbers and today's construction costs. City
Manager Bludau added that the City's current population is just over 83,000, and that
90,000 to 92,000 is the expected population at build out. He stated that the number of
residential units that will be used for the General Plan Update Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) has not yet been determined by the City Council.
Dolores Otting stated that the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan update is using
15,000 as the additional dwelling unit count, which would equate to 20,000 to 30,000
additional residents, and that this would impact the size of the facilities. She also stated
that a new fire station at Crystal Cove should be included in the 20 year plan.
Public Works Director Badum confirmed that any new facility needs analyses would not
be completed prior to May 1, 2006, but that he would provide the committee with any
information that might be helpful. He stated that the proposed 20 year plan is intended
to provide an overview. City Manager Bludau added that the financing tools would
remain the same and that the square footage of many of the facilities on the 20 year plan
would not be affected by additional increases in population. Additionally, no new fire
stations are expected to be needed and there is the possibility that the Corona del Mar
library could be eliminated.
Mr. Buttolph expressed concern that the proposed plan is based on population figures that
are likely erroneous and stated that it's not reasonable to assume that the same square
footage will be needed when the facilities are replaced. He stated that it would be
important for the committee to know if the existing capacities are sufficient, and if not, by
how much. City Manager Bludau stated that it's best to do any space needs analyses
right before the facilities are built so that they will be sized correctly. Mr. Smoot
suggested that possibly a 10 year plan should be reviewed by the committee. Mr. Ward
suggested that the committee create several subcommittees to fully address the many
issues that need to be addressed.
5. REVIEW OF CITY S FINANCES — HISTORICAL OVERVIEW, CURRENT STATUS
AND FUTURE PROJECTIONS.
Using the PowerPoint presentation that was used at the City Council meeting of
September 27, 2005, to explain how the City could afford the debt service load for the civic
center project, Administrative Services Director Danner presented an overview of the
City's finances. He explained that the general fund would be used to pay for the facility
replacements in the proposed 20 year plan, and displayed pie charts showing the general
fund revenues by type and the general fund expenditures by category. He also displayed
charts showing the general fund revenue, expenditure and fund balance trends from the
1994 -95 Fiscal Year (FY) through FY2004 -05.
2
A
Facilities Finance Review Conunittee
Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2006
Administrative Services Director Danner confirmed that his estimates have always been
conservative, so the actual general fund revenues would be higher than what he
estimated in September when the presentation was created, and noted that he has never
overestimated revenues. He continued with his presentation by displaying the projected
operating cost changes for the proposed civic center from FY2005 -06 through FY2008 -09.
He also displayed and discussed the projected increases in property tax revenue, a
summary of projected revenue changes, projected changes in expenditures and a
summary of projected net cash flow changes for fiscal years 2006 -07 through 2009 -10.
Lastly, Administrative Services Director Danner displayed and discussed the summary of
the City's fiscal condition, as presented in September. He stated that the PowerPoint
presentation can be viewed on the City's website under Projects /Civic Center.
6. DISCUSSION AS TO HOW TO PROCEED WITH TASK.
Chairman Frates suggested that the committee point out to the City Council that not all
of the facilities listed in the proposed 20 year plan can be financed with City resources,
without going into debt, and that a prioritization of the facilities and potential financing
will need to be considered.
Mr. Smoot suggested that "what if' scenarios also be considered in the projected budget
numbers. Chairman Frates suggested that high and low numbers could possibly be used
Council Member Curry suggested that the expenditures of the projects be phased. He
additionally suggested that the committee look at the affordability question in the same
way that the credit rating agencies look at it, and determine what an appropriate debt to
general fund ratio would be, what the appropriate level of financing would be, and if the
contingency reserve levels are sufficient.
Chairman Frates suggested that information be provided at the next meeting on how
Newport Beach compares to other cities in regard to its credit standing. Mayor Webb
suggested that the Planning Department provide the projected population and housing
figures at the next meeting and how it might impact the facilities on the list.
Ms. Otting suggested that the impact of the quality of the lower bay be included in the
budget projections. Council Member Nichols suggested that the money that will need to
be spent by the City on the dredging projects also be taken into consideration.
Mr. Gitschier suggested that the options for financing alternatives be presented to the
committee.
ESTABLISHMENT OF FUTURE MEETING DATES.
It was the consensus of the committee to meet every other Monday at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, with the next meeting taking place on March 13, 2006.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None.
9. ADJOURNMENT — 5:50 p.m
ih
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 27,2006
The agenda for the Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting was posted on
February 24, 2006, at 9:45 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the
City of Newport Beach Administration Building.
Chairperson
Recording Secretary
�M
FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 13, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tim Brown, Denis Gitschier, Phil Smoot, Roy Ward, Jack Wu, Chairman Steve Frates,
Council Member Keith Curry, Mayor Don Webb, Fay Bosler (arrived at 4:05 p.m.),
John Buttolph (arrived at 4:15 p.m.), Council Member Dick Nichols (arrived at 4:15
P.M.)
Absent: None
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Frates called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE, COUNCIL AND STAFF.
Committee member Tim Brown introduced himself, as did the other Committee members,
Council and staff members in attendance, which included Assistant City Managers
Sharon Wood and Dave Riff, Public Works Director Steve Badum, Administrative
Services Director Dennis Danner, Administrative Services Deputy Director Dick Kurth,
Finance Officer Dan Matusiewicz and Deputy City Clerk Cathy Malkemus.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006.
It was moved by Mr. Wu to approve the minutes. With the exception of Mr. Brown who
abstained, the minutes were approved without objection.
4. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN.
Assistant City Manager Wood provided a handout showing the potential increases in the
City's housing units and population, as presented in the proposed General Plan. She
noted that the General Plan update is still in draft form and that the numbers have not
yet been approved. She further explained that the "total" numbers given represent the
maximum build out that could occur. The "likely" numbers include 3300 units in the
airport area, 1375 units in Banning Ranch, 454 units in Mariners Mile, 600 at Newport
Center, 400 in Newport Coast and 1000 units in West Newport/Mesa, which is the area
behind Hoag Hospital. She read from the handout, which listed potential impacts on
public facilities caused by population increases for the fire department, police department,
parks and libraries.
In response to questions, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City's daytime
population, which includes residents, as well as the people who visit and work in the area,
has already been factored into the number of people that the fire and police departments
serve. Public Works Director Badum added that the needs assessment that was done in
Facilities Finance Review Conurdttee
Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2006
conjunction with the new City Hall proposal included a growth factor for the next 20 years
and looked at the number of City employees that would be needed. Assistant City
Manager Wood confirmed that only minor modifications would be needed to the facilities
under consideration by the Committee to accommodate the population scenarios
presented in the handout. She further confirmed that the "likely' numbers do not include
any R -2 conversions, and explained that the "total" numbers are being used for purposes
of the Environmental Impact Report (E1R), because E1R's are supposed to analyze the
worst case scenario or the maximum build out that could occur.
Dolores Otting requested that the Committee consider the City's debt ratio over the next
20 years.
5. REVIEW OF OTHER CITIES' ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AND DEBT RATIOS.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Administrative Services Director Danner displayed a
chart showing comparative debt information for selected government activities for the
fiscal year ending 2004. The chart included comparisons for annual debt service,
Certificates of Participation (COP's) and all bonded debt, and total long term obligations,
and compared Newport Beach to Costa Mesa, Anaheim,• Garden Grove, Irvine,
Huntington Beach, Fullerton and Mission Viejo.
In response to questions, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the cities
were chosen because they were nearby and in Orange County, and confirmed that it is
difficult to compare cities, Mr, Buttolph noted the significant difference in Newport
Beach's numbers for COP's and all bonded debt, and total long term obligations, compared
to the other cities. Administrative Services Director Danner explained that Newport
Beach is better at recognizing its long term obligations, and that other cities will be
required to do so in the future. Additionally, he confirmed that the City does have an
unfunded liability with the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and that the
retirement fund should be fully funded in less than 15 years.
Administrative Services Director Danner displayed the assumptions made by staff, which
included that only general fund revenue would be available for the facilities program, that
contingency, stabilization and designated reserve requirements would be maintained, and
that service levels supported by the operating budget would not be adversely impacted.
He then provided a summary of the presentation made at the February 27, 2006,
Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting and displayed the general fund revenues,
expenditures, and fund balance graph, and the projected changes in revenue and
expenditures for fiscal years 2006/07 through 2009/10.
6. UPDATE OF CITY FINANCE PROJECTIONS.
Administrative Services Deputy Director Kurth continued with the PowerPoint
presentation and noted that projections beyond four years become more generalized. He
displayed the various growth indicators that were used in making the longer term
projections, which included revenue, expenditures, fund balance, Consumer Price Index
(CPI), property tax revenue and sales tax revenue. The average for each over the past
eleven years was also provided.
Administrative Services Deputy Director Kurth stated that with this information, three
growth scenarios were calculated. These included an upper level of growth with revenue
-1 .
Facilities Finance Review Conunittee
Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2006
increasing 4.8% and expenditures increasing 4.0 %, a middle level with revenue increasing
4.0% and expenditures increasing 3.5 %, and a lower level with revenue increasing 2.5%
and expenditures increasing 2.5 %. He noted that all of these scenarios are conservative,
yet also realistic. He then displayed the revenues and net transfers, operating
expenditures and Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), and the estimated increase in
fund balance for each of the three scenarios. The charts included the amount that would
be set aside for various reserves and the resulting projected additional funding available.
Figures were presented for fiscal years 2008/09, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2024/25 and 2026/27.
He confirmed that inflation has been taken into consideration.
Administrative Services Deputy Director Kurth displayed five potential vulnerabilities to
the City, which included future state budget actions, general economic downturn, other
unforeseen problems, natural disaster or war, and property value decline. He encouraged
the committee members to add to the list and to provide input on any of the information
provided. In closing, he displayed the information that would be provided at the next
Committee meeting.
In response to questions regarding future employee costs, Administrative Services
Director Danner stated that the City goes through a "meet and confer' process with the
employee associations and the City Council has always been prudent with these contracts.
Additionally, the retirement benefits for the safety associations have already been
enhanced. He noted that wages have been increasing, on average, 3% to 4% per year over
the past four to five years, and will continue to increase consistent with the inflation rate.
Regarding State issues, Mr. Frates stated that the next target for additional funds will
most likely be special districts, such as the water districts. In regard to PERS, Mr. Frates
stated that Newport Beach is in relatively good shape.
Ms. Otting asked if the City's infrastructure and how it will impact the City's debt ratio
will also being considered by the Committee. Administrative Services Director Danner
stated that the City has master plans for its water and sewer systems, which are funded
by user fees. They will not be considered by the Committee, since they are not funded out
of the general fund. Water quality in the bay would be a consideration when discussing
the general fund, however. Mayor Webb noted that the water and sewer funds are well
funded.
Responding to additional questions from the Committee members, Administrative
Services Director Danner stated that 3.1% is the inflation factor that was used for salary
and benefits, and most of the other projections. Public Works Director Badum stated that
the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index is used for construction project
projections. Administrative Services Director Danner confirmed that at the next
Committee meeting, projected fund balances, assuming funding of the facility
improvements, will be provided for the three scenarios presented earlier.
Ms. Otting asked if the City will still be able to fund the various projects that the
community expects. Public Works Director Badum stated that many of the projects Ms.
Otting is speaking of are funded with the help of grants and other outside sources.
Mr. Ward suggested that the construction of fire stations be standardized. Mayor Webb
noted that every site has a different size and shape. Mr. Ward stated that initial
standardization could reduce the costs to build.
'N3
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2006
DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDAS AND TASKS.
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on March 27, 2006, at 4:00 p.m, in the
Council Chambers.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
9. ADJOURNMENT - 5:25 p.m,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The agenda for the Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting was posted on March
8, 2006, at 10:15 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
Chairperson
Recording Secretary
2a
FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 27, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tim Brown, Denis Gitschier, Phil Smoot, Roy Ward, Jack Wu, Chairman Steve Frates,
Council Member Keith Curry, Mayor Don Webb (arrived at 4:10 p.m.)
Absent: Fay Bosler, John Buttolph, Council Member Dick Nichols
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Frates called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING ON MARCH 13, 2006.
It was moved by Mr. Ward to approve the minutes. Without objection, the minutes were
approved.
3. DISCUSSION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND TAKEOVER OF COUNTY
RDA IN SANTA ANA HEIGHTS.
Assistant City Manager Kiff displayed a list of the projects proposed by the Santa Ana
Heights Project Advisory Committee and the estimated cost of each. The total cost of the
projects is approximately $37 million, and approximately $28 million is currently available
and designated for these projects. Additional increment increases to the fund are expected to
continue and would result in a $12 million surplus by 2017.
In response to various questions, Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that the money is
currently in the hands of the County, and would be transferred to the City when the
redevelopment agency is taken over. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the district has
a $165 million debt capacity, which is very healthy. The projects would be managed by City
staff and hired consultants.
4. DISCUSSION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR FACILITIES
STUDY AND NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR POLICE AND FIRE STATIONS.
Public Works Director Badum stated that a needs assessment and facilities analysis of City
Hall has been completed, and staff has requested proposals from various consultants to look
at the fire stations and the police station. He stated that staff is looking for the Facilities
Finance Review Committee's endorsement, and hopefully a recommendation to the City
Council, to direct staff to continue with the process. He explained that the analyses and
studies are costly, with the selected proposal for the fire stations coming in at $256,000, and
$223,000 for the police facility. He noted, however, that the information provided would be
valuable and provide a good basis for determining the City's facility needs.
Chairman Frates expressed his support for the analyses being done. The knowledge and
experience of the firms doing the analyses was discussed, and it was confirmed that the
studies would help the City prioritize its facility needs and improvements. In response to the
.,a
Facilities Finance Review Cornmittee
Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2006
analyses not being completed prior to the Committee's deadline to report to the City Council,
Chairman Frates stated that the Committee's task is to look at the range of the facility needs
as they currently exist and make a recommendation to the City Council on the City's
financial capacity to complete these projects. City Manager Bludau agreed and stated that it
would be up to the City Council to determine prioritization.
Additionally, City Manager Bludau confirmed that the City's current Emergency Operations
Center (EOC) is undersized, and Mr. Ward suggested that the studies take disaster
preparedness into account. Mr. Brown suggested that the consultants also take into
consideration what makes Newport Beach unique. He also expressed his support for the
studies. Mayor Webb agreed that assessments need to be done, but stated that he hasn't
made a determination yet on how detailed they need to be.
It was moved by Chairman Frates that the Committee express its support to the City Council
for the concept of conducting the studies and analyses, as outlined by the Public Works
Director, on major capital facilities and that the studies be undertaken prior to the City
committing to building such facilities. Mr. Brown added that the Committee should also
recommend that the City Council receive an in -depth analysis of the costs associated with the
studies and use diligence when determining what costs are warranted. Without objection,
the motion carried.
5. REVIEW OF POSSIBLE FACILITIES FINANCING SCENARIOS.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Public Works Director Badum noted that the facilities list
that was presented at the February 27, 2006, meeting has been updated to include an
increased size and cost for the police station, an added fire station at Crystal Cove and
refined cost estimates. He displayed a list of what is not included on the facilities list. A
discussion followed on the potential future costs associated with the dredging of the upper
bay, which was one of those items not included on the facility list. City Manager Bludau
confirmed that the dredging will be completed even if the remainder of the Federal funding is
not received. Newport Beach would only be responsible for a percentage of the costs, as
others in the watershed would also be liable. Public Works Director Badum displayed the
updated facilities list,
Administrative Services Director Danner displayed the three financing alternatives looked at
by staff for facility projects. These included paying cash, issuing general obligation bonds
and issuing Certificates of Participation (COP'S). Additionally, he displayed and discussed
the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. In response to various questions,
Administrative Services Director Danner confirmed that a general obligation bond would
have to be approved by the voters and results in an increase in taxes. City surplus could be
used to reduce the amount being borrowed, but could not be used to pay off the bond.
Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth displayed a very detailed facility
replacement planning worksheet. He explained that the worksheet includes the facilities list
presented by the Public Works Director and a possible timeline for the scheduling of the
projects, for the purposes of showing how COP financing would work. He also noted the box
that contained the key assumptions made by staff in preparing the worksheet. Using the
scheduling scenario presented in Worksheet A, the spreadsheet included the total project
costs and the project costs for fiscal years 2006 -07 through 2040 -41, as well as cash flow
projections and debt service for each of these years.
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2006
Using the same worksheet, Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth noted the cash
flow analysis and stated that staff would recommend that a facility replacement fund be
created to finance the facilities replacement program. He stated that there is approximately
$14 million in a general fund reserve that would be available for such a fund. In addition to
reserves, money would also be added to the facility replacement fund from COP proceeds,
interest earnings and an annual budget contribution, which would be assumed to start at
$4.7 million the first year and increase by 2.5% each year. He explained that $4.7 million
was chosen because in the scenario presented, it keeps the fund balance greater than zero.
Expenditures from the facility replacement fund would be for construction costs and COP
payments.
Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth stated that another way to check if a
scenario is possible is to use the debt ratios, as explained at the Facilities Finance Review
Committee meeting of March 13, 2006. He noted the area at the bottom of the worksheet
that showed the debt ratio numbers for debt service and a level payment plan. This
information was displayed for the three growth scenarios, as discussed at the previous
meeting, and for the fiscal years 2006 -07 through 2020 -41. Deputy Administrative Services
Director Kurth responded to various questions regarding the information contained in the
spreadsheet. He then displayed Worksheet B, which assumed that all projects would begin
in 2006 -07. He explained that this is not a reasonable scheduling of the projects, but was
prepared for the Committee for comparison purposes. He also displayed Worksheet C, which
assumed that the City would only use cash to pay for the projects. He explained that this
was also prepared for comparison purposes. A general discussion followed regarding the use
of reserves.
Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth displayed Worksheet D, which presented a
condensed timeframe for the scheduling of the projects. In Worksheet A, projects were
scheduled from 2006 -07 to 2031 -32, and in Worksheet D, from 2006 -07 to 2020 -21. He noted
that with the condensed schedule, the City's first year annual budget contribution increases
to over $5.5 million and the debt ratio is higher. He noted that any program would only be a
plan, and would depend upon the decisions made by the City Council when the budget is
prepared each year. Administrative Services Director Danner added that it would also be up
to the City Council to prioritize the projects. In conclusion, he displayed staffs conclusions
for the Committee's consideration as potential recommendations to the City Council.
A general discussion followed regarding the use of COP's and the initiative being circulated
for signatures, which, if approved, would require voter approval for the use of COP's. It was
confirmed that COP's are used widely. Mr. Brown suggested that the Committee recommend
to the City Council that the public be educated on the issue.
Nancy Skinner asked if it would be possible to not allow future City Councils to change the
intent for the use of a reserve, and suggested that the intent of a reserve fund be approved by
the voters, which would disallow its use to be changed in the future.
6. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDAS AND TASKS.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that a revised copy of Worksheet A would be
provided at the next meeting of the Committee, noting that a calculation. error was
discovered.
Mr. Frates complimented staff on the information provided. He suggested that at the next
meeting, the Committee discuss the recommendations that will be provided to the City
Council.
3
,'I
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2006
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on April 10, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
S. ADJOURNMENT - 6:20 p.m.
The agenda for the Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting was posted on March
23, 2006, at 5:10 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
Chairperson
Recording Secretary
FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 10, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Fay Bosler, Tim Brown, John Buttolph, Denis Gitschier, Phil Smoot, Roy Ward, Jack
Wu, Chairman Steve Frates, Council Member Keith Curry, Council Member Dick
Nichols, Mayor Don Webb
Absent: None
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Frates called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING ON MARCH 27, 2006.
Without objection, the minutes were approved.
3. DISCUSSION OF BAY DREDGING OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that at the previous Facilities Finance Review
Committee meeting, it was asked what the City's share of the ecosystem restoration
project (also called the Upper Newport Bay dredging project), would be if the Federal
share did not become available. He explained that the project is a Federally mandated
project and of the $38 million needed, approximately $19 million has been secured. The
project was begun the week prior, will last approximately 2 1/2 years and will remove
approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of sediment. He provided a handout, which listed
the partners in the project and the amount that each would be responsible for if there
were no additional Federal funding. Newport Beach's share would be 16.53 %, or $3.1
million over a two -year period. A general discussion followed regarding the Lower Bay
and Upper Bay dredging projects. Additionally, it was clarified that it is possible that
Newport Beach would not have to contribute any money to the Upper Newport Bay
dredging project, and optimism was expressed that the additional Federal funding would
be secured.
4. DISCUSSION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS VS. CERTIFICATES OF
PARTICIPATION.
Chairman Frates displayed detailed information on both General Obligation bonds and
Certificates of Participation (COPs). He stated that it's important for the Committee, and
the community as a whole, to understand the difference, and explained that a General
Obligation bond requires a tax be levied against all of the parcels in the City, whereas a
COP is similar to a lease /purchase situation. In the case of Newport Beach, the lease
agreement is between the City and the Public Facilities Corporation, which is comprised
of the City Council and meets annually. He suggested that information regarding
General Obligation bonds and COPs be contained in the Committee's final report to the
City Council. A general discussion followed regarding these two forms of financing. In
response to a question regarding the initiative in the process of being qualified for the
.4
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2006
November 2006 ballot, Mr. Buttolph stated that those in support of it aren't advocating a
specific form of financing, they are seeking the right of the voters to approve certain debt
incurred by the City. Differing opinions were expressed regarding the initiative.
Dolores Otting questioned the recent refinancing of the Central Library COP's. Council
Member Curry explained that the City is earning more on its investment than it is paying
in interest. Additionally, he stated that the money that would be used to pay off the COP
could be used towards other facility improvements. Administrative Services Director
Danner added that at the time the Library COP's were issued in 1992, the City could not
afford to pay for the project upfront. Additionally, he explained that the City would be
penalized if it called -up the COP's prematurely. In response to additional questions and
discussion, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the refinancing lowered
the annual payments without extending the maturity schedule. A general discussion
followed regarding bond refunding and using cash to pay for facility improvement
projects.
5. REVIEW OF FINANCING OPTION SPREADSHEETS PRESENTED AT THE
MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2006.
Administrative Services Director Danner briefly reviewed the information contained in
the spreadsheets, as presented at the previous Committee meeting. He displayed
Worksheet C, which assumes that the City would pay cash only for facility improvements.
The discussion continued on the drawbacks of using cash only, which included the delay
in getting the projects started, the delay in being able to use the facilities, the potential
increase in construction costs during the delay, the other projects and priorities that get
put on hold, and also the possibility that the money would be used towards other
expenditures before being spent on the intended projects.
City Manager Bludau noted that the sinking fund of nearly $14 million, discussed at the
previous Committee meeting, did not exist prior to 2000. Administrative Services
Director Danner added that when the "sinking fund ", or the capital improvement reserve,
was established, the City also established a retirement reserve because those rates were
increasing. Ms. Otting stated that possibly there should be a blended approach, and noted
that there are projects that need to be done now. It was explained that the Committee is
not setting the priority for facility projects, it is only reporting back to the City Council on
the options for financing and how best to optimize cash flows.
Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth distributed corrected copies of
Worksheets A and D, identified as A.1 and D.1, as discussed at the previous Committee
meeting. Larger versions of both were also displayed. He explained that the purpose of
the worksheets is to find out if the City's general fund has the capacity to fund a facility
improvement program without imposing a tax increase, and also to determine how
quickly the projects can be completed. He stated that with a mixture of cash and COPS,
the City could handle the program without a tax increase. He pointed out that an
accelerated pace of accomplishing the projects would require more cash, as illustrated in
Worksheet D.I. Additionally, he stated that the worksheets provide reasonable
parameters regarding how much money the City can dedicate to a facility improvement
program. It was noted that both of the scenarios presented could be handled by the City,
and Chairman Frates added that each one illustrates a prudent plan with conservative
projections. The information contained in the worksheets was discussed and used
throughout the meeting.
qn
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2006
Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth complimented the work done with regard
to the preparation of the facility needs report and the analysis being done by the
Committee, and suggested that these efforts be continued. Specifically, he suggested that
the Committee include recommendations in its report to the City Council that puts a
mechanism into place to insure that facility replacement is a part of the annual budget
review process and that the big picture is kept in mind each time a new project is
considered. Various aspects of the budget and the budget preparation process were
discussed. City Manager Bludau noted that each year the money that is needed to meet
the reserve policy is set aside first, and Administrative Services Director Danner stated
that the contingency reserve is 12% of the General Fund.
6. REVIEW OF THE FIVE STAFF CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED AT THE MEETING
OF MARCH 27, 2006, FOR THE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION AS
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that staff has prepared eight
recommendations that the Committee can take into consideration when preparing its
report to the City Council, if desired. The recommendations were provided in a handout,
as well as displayed on an easel, and Chairman Frates led the discussion by reading the
first recommendation, which stated that a Facilities Replacement fund should be
established that is a conduit for all revenues and expenditures connected with the facility
improvement program and facilitates a level funding plan. He asked for input from the
committee members on the recommendation and the approach being taken. Mr. Buttolph
spoke in opposition to relying on staffs preparation of the recommendations and stated
that the Committee should develop its own recommendations, although he questioned if
the Committee would have enough time to do this before the deadline to report back to the
City Council. Chairman Frates and others stated that the recommendations presented
are a reflection of what the Committee has discussed at previous meetings and in
response to questions raised by the Committee members and, additionally, are for
consideration only.
The second recommendation stated that sufficient funds to handle facility replacements or
renovations appear to be available without a tax increase based on reasonable financial
projections, a 12 to 25 -year program and General Fund support. The Committee
suggested that it be rewritten as a recommendation, rather than an observation, and that
it specifically state that a tax increase will not be incorporated.
The third recommendation stated that COPS are the preferred funding mechanism; a seed
money "down payment" to the facilities replacement fund in excess of $14 million is
essential; and ongoing General Fund support of the facilities replacement fund for COP
"level payment" costs should not exceed 5% of the annual general fund operating budget.
And, the fourth recommendation stated that $4.5 to $5.5 million, adjusted for inflation,
should be the target figure for General Fund support of the facilities replacement
program, with the exact figure to be determined as part of the budget preparation process
each year; and that existing service levels for operations supported by the General Fund
should be maintained, existing capital improvement program support level should be
maintained, reserves should be maintained as per Council policies, and
replacing /repairing existing facilities should generally have priority over adding new
facilities or programs. After a general discussion the Committee suggested that the
fourth recommendation be replaced with the final point made in the third
recommendation.
3
3
Facilities Finance Review Connnittee
Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2006
The fifth recommendation stated that a long -term facilities planning worksheet should be
reviewed and updated regularly as a part of the annual budget preparation process and
any other time an actual project is being considered for action. The Committee suggested
that it be rewritten as a recommendation, that the worksheet be called a "facilities plan ",
that "regularly" be changed to "annually" and wording added to have it reviewed any time
the facilities plan deviates from the financing schedule.
The sixth recommendation stated that the facilities planning worksheet represents a good
foundation for a facilities master plan; the City Council should continue to conduct
appropriate community outreach as part of the process of developing such a plan; and the
process should address prioritization of projects The Committee suggested that the
community outreach statement become the recommendation.
The seventh recommendation stated that a professional needs assessment should be
conducted as each facility is being considered for action, unless the City Council
specifically determines that it is not required in a specific case. The Committee suggested
that 'for action" be deleted, that "required" be changed to "needed" and "professional"
changed to "independent'.
The eighth recommendation stated that after a prioritization of projects has been
established, the actual pace at which replacement of individual facilities are addressed
should depend upon the actual and projected balances in the facilities replacement fund,
the cost of COP financing, the availability of other funding on a case by case basis, and
other unforeseen developments.
Council Member Curry suggested that a ninth recommendation be added that would
recommend that the City Council make every effort to secure outside funding for facility
replacement projects.
Mr. Buttolph stated that the Committee should also consider what would happen if the
proposed initiative is approved by the voters and then prepare an appropriate
recommendation. City Manager Bludau agreed and read from the resolution establishing
the Committee, which lists one of the Committee's considerations as considering how the
proposed initiative would affect the ability of the City to meet its long -term facility needs.
Administrative Services Director Danner handed out a copy of the Government Finance
Officers Association "Debt Issuance' booklet to each Committee member.
DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL.
It was the consensus of the Committee to form a subcommittee that would meet and draft
recommendations for the full Committee to consider at its next meeting. It was decided
that the subcommittee should include the review of the proposed initiative in their
drafting of the recommendations, and Ms. Bosler suggested that an executive summary
also be prepared that would preface the Committee's recommendations and address such
issues.
The subcommittee members selected were Tim Brown, John Buttolph, Steve Frates and
Phil Smoot- They decided to meet on Monday, April 17th at 4:00 p.m. The other
Committee members were encouraged to contact the subcommittee members prior to the
meeting with any additional suggestions.
3
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2006
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Nancy Skinner suggested that the cities in the State get together and form an initiative
that would stop the State from taking the cities' money. She was informed that such
efforts have been taking place.
9. ADJOURNMENT - 6:40 p.m.
The agenda for the Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting was posted on April
5, 2006, at 11:10 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
5
Chairperson
'5
FACILITIES FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 24, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: John Buttolph, Denis Gitschier, Phil Smoot, Roy Ward, Jack Wu, Chairman Steve Frates,
Council Member Keith Curry, Council Member Dick Nichols, Mayor Don Webb (arrived
at 4:30 p.m.), Tim Brown (arrived at 5:15 p.m.)
Absent: Fay Bosler
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Frates called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING ON APRIL 10, 2006.
Without objection, the minutes were approved.
3. DISCUSSION OF INITIATIVE MEASURE TO ADD CHAPTER 3.25 TO THE
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL
BEFORE THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO BORROW TO FINANCE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the initiative measure was briefly
discussed at the previous Committee meeting and consideration of it is a part of the
Committee's responsibilities as directed by the City Council when the Committee was
established.
Mr. Buttolph stated that the Committee is aware of the intent of the initiative, as discussed
at previous Committee meetings, but he announced that the Committee may not be aware
that there is an issue with the signatures that were submitted to the City Clerk's office.
Specifically, pending a decision on the Padilla case, the Registrar's office is requiring an
indemnification agreement with the City, prior to verifying the signatures because the
petition was not also printed in Chinese and Spanish. He reported that a staff report has
been prepared and the matter agendized for the April 25, 2006, City Council meeting. A
general discussion followed regarding the status of the initiative.
Chairman Frates noted that the Committee will include an evaluation of the potential impact
of the initiative within its report to the City Council. Whether the initiative will be placed on
the ballot and approved by the voters is not a matter that needs to be addressed by the
Committee.
4. DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL.
Chairman Frates led the review of the draft Committee report as prepared by the
subcommittee by reading the first recommendation, which addressed the establishment of a
Facilities Replacement Fund. It was recommended that the seventh recommendation
li,�-
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2006
addressing the development of a Long -term Facilities Financing Plan become the first
recommendation of the report. Specifically, this recommendation, as presented by the
subcommittee, stated that the Committee recommends that the Long -term Facilities Plan,
early versions of which were initially presented to the Committee in the form of large
spreadsheets, should be developed in final form and reviewed and updated at duly noticed
Council Meetings on a regular basis, as part of the annual budget review process, any other
time an actual project is being considered for design and funding within the current fiscal
year; and any time the Facilities Plan deviates from the financing schedule adopted by the
City Council.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that the specific report that the Committee is
referring to is Worksheet D.1, which was presented at the April 10, 2006, Committee
meeting. It was moved and unanimously approved to replace "early versions of which were
initially presented to the Committee in the form of large spreadsheets" with "specifically the
plan designated as Attachment A to this report ".
Chairman Frates read the first recommendation, noting that the first through seventh
recommendations would be renumbered in the final report, as the result of the seventh
recommendation becoming the first recommendation. The initial first recommendation
stated that the Committee recommends that a Facilities Replacement Fund should be
established. This Fund would act as a conduit for all revenues and expenditures connected
with the Facilities Replacement Program. It would also act as a repository for funds set aside
in reserve for future program expenses, thereby facilitating "level funding" from the General
Fund.
It was moved and unanimously approved to replace "act as a conduit for' with "represent"
and to add "consisting of deposits from reserves, General Fund contributions, proceeds from
COPS and interest earnings thereon" after "Facilities Replacement Fund" in the first
sentence.
The second recommendation stated that the Committee finds that although the Facilities
Replacement Program is an ambitious undertaking, it can probably be accomplished within
an acceptable time frame, depending upon Council project priorities, using revenue sources
currently available to the City. Therefore the Committee recommends that the Facilities
Financing Plan not include any form of tax increase.
For consistency reasons, it was moved and unanimously approved to change any reference to
a facilities plan or program to "Long-term Facilities Financing Plan" throughout the entire
document. No other changes were made to the second recommendation.
The third recommendation stated that the Committee recommends the use of Certificates of
Participation (COPs) to fund the Program. The Committee further recommends that the use
of COPS should be supplemented by an initial General Fund contribution of "seed money" to
the Facilities Replacement Fund. Staff reported to the Committee that the Capital Projects
Reserve that has been established for this purpose is expected to have an accumulated
balance of approximately $14 million after the close of this fiscal year. The Committee
recommends that this entire amount should be contributed to the new Facilities Replacement
Fund.
It was moved and unanimously approved to replace "contribution of seed money" with
"allocation ", "this fiscal year' with "the 2006 -2007 fiscal year ", and "contributed" with
"allocated ".
W
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2006
The fourth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that future annual
General Fund contributions to the Facilities Replacement Fund should be targeted at $4.5 to
$6 million, adjusted upward at 2.5% per year, unless the City Council determines that other
General Fund Operating Budget requirements should constrain it to a lower level. The
specific level of funding within that range should be established by the City Manager, in light
of competing requirements, in his Budget Recommendation to the City Council.
Dolores Otting suggested that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) be used instead of 2.5 %. After
discussion by the Committee, it was moved and unanimously approved to replace
"contributions" with "allocations ", to change "adjusted upward at 2.5% per year" to "adjusted
upward at least 2.5% per year ", and to replace "established" with "identified ".
The fifth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that the annual
contribution (the "Net General Fund Impact ") to the Facilities Replacement Fund should be
capped at 5% of General Fund expenditures during any fiscal year. Absent a determination
by the City Council that there are special extenuating circumstances, prospective projects
should be delayed until they can be accommodated within that 5% ceiling.
A general discussion followed regarding General Fund revenues. It was moved and
unanimously approved to replace "expenditures" with "revenues ". In response to Ms.
Otting's question, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that General Fund
revenues total approximately $130 million per year.
The sixth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that, while support of the
Facilities Replacement program is an important and appropriate use of the fiscal resources
available to the City; the existing service levels for operations supported by the General Fund
should be maintained, the existing Capital Improvement Program support level should be
maintained, reserves should be maintained as per Council Policies, and replacing and
repairing existing facilities should generally have priority over adding new facilities.
It was moved and unanimously approved to leave the sixth recommendation as
recommended by the subcommittee.
The eighth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that the City Council
should continue to conduct a vigorous community outreach program including noticed
community meetings as part of the process of finalizing the Long -term Facilities Financing
Plan, especially with regard to scope, prioritization and financing of projects. The goal is to
ensure that the City provide sufficient information to demonstrate the substance of the
Facilities Financing Plan.
Nancy Skinner suggested that the need for the community outreach be clear in the
recommendation. It was moved and unanimously approved to add the word "need" after
"with regard to scope ".
The ninth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that an independent
"Needs Assessment" should be conducted as each facility is being considered for design and
approval, unless the City Council determines that such an outside assessment is not needed
and would constitute an unnecessary expenditure.
Ms. Otting stated that the person doing the needs assessment should not be the same person
that does the project. Public Works Director Badum spoke in support of allowing the same
3
rhl
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2006
person to conduct the needs assessment. The Committee agreed that the word "independent"
is sufficient to address the issue. It was moved and unanimously approved to leave the ninth
recommendation as recommended by the subcommittee.
The tenth recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that the schedule for
replacement of individual facilities should depend upon: the actual and projected balances in
the Facilities Replacement Fund, the cost of COP financing, the availability of other funding
on a case by case basis, Council and Community priorities, and the status of the useful life of
the asset to be replaced and the ability of the current facility to meet service and regulatory
requirements.
It was moved and unanimously approved to add "need' as the first reason for facility
replacement.
The eleventh recommendation stated that the Committee recommends that the City Council
and City Staff should make all reasonable efforts to secure additional outside funding for
specific projects within the program. Particular attention should be given to encouraging
volunteer fund raising and also naming opportunities where appropriate. The
Crean/Mariners Library is an excellent example to emulate whenever possible.
It was moved and unanimously approved to leave the eleventh recommendation as
recommended by the subcommittee.
The twelfth recommendation stated that the Committee estimates that the proposed
initiative to require a public vote for the City to enter into COP financing agreements would
impact the Facilities Replacement Program in several ways: there would be a direct cost of
holding a special election, if the vote were not held in concurrence with a regularly scheduled
election; to the extent that the requirement for a vote delayed a particular project the cost of
that project would increase at an estimated rate of approximately 3% per year; the
requirement for a vote would affect the promptness with which financing could be obtained,
which could result in additional, but undetermined, financing costs; and the City's ability to
meet its long term facility needs would be enhanced by broad public support. A public vote
would establish whether the public wants its funds spent on a project.
The Committee discussed the initiative and the reasons for including the reference to public
support in the recommendation. Specifically, it was discussed if the public support would
enhance the City's ability to meet its facility needs or if it would establish if the public wants
to spend the funds on the project. After discussion, it was moved and unanimously approved
to eliminate, "the City's ability to meet its long term facility needs would be enhanced by
broad public support" and add, "and the level of public support" to the end of the last
sentence.
Chairman Frates and the Committee members acknowledged the support of staff throughout
the process. It was moved and unanimously approved to have Chairman Frates prepare a
formal letter of commendation to staff. Chairman Frates was also recognized for his
contributions. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Webb also thanked the Committee
members and those from the public who attended the meetings.
The presentation of the Committee's report to the City Council was briefly discussed and it
was indicated by City Manager Bludau that it would most likely occur at the regular meeting
of the City Council on May 23, 2006. It was moved and unanimously approved to select
Chairman Frates as the spokesperson for the Committee.
'4
Facilities Finance Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2006
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
6. ADJOURNMENT - 6:10 p.m.
The agenda for the Facilities Finance Review Committee meeting was posted on
April 19, 2006, at 8:45 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
Chairperson
Recording Secretary
ww
w
U °
Z� °
N
Q
Z N
LL ca
uo
0
w U
CL
J w
p=mq j -
U
Q w ._ LL
LL oC
U
W
LL
V
fu
m
J,
140,
a.
�V
LL
kD
C)
C)
N
fo
5m
I
i
O
N
c
U
fo,�
C
—U
O
fu
E
dl
CL
O
F
O
0
N
fu
ate--'
ru
-r-
O
-0
4-J
N
4-J
U)
m
rn
.
-p
—
U
4-f
Q
Q
IJj
•n
O
O
Q-
E
;L-
U
-O
r6
E
O
O
Q.
•"—'
(p
L
(�4-J
C
(U
Cn
o
c3u:
Q>r�
a
E
J
o
E
CD
a�
-v
O
. S
E
°1
U
U
,Q
C
Q
EtjE
a)
H
LL
Q
�O
z
U
O
b
(6
c
Q.
Q
O
fu
C �
O
C
��
U U
O .c
Q.4-J
C
fu
r0 3
C
c
(U s=
E
+-
L �
co
O Q
Q -0
C N
ra �
a
c
c 4-0
M Q-
Q O
U- "fu
(6
ILL
�- U
pl C
C 4=
J �
= E
4-- U
4-J QJ
a�
ra
A>
Q (U
C 'C d1 a 'E a �° a -v
W 'i U -U r- LL
tij M U_ D U_ ° �'
L � ;4= f6 X
Q a) a + 0 N
cn aJ E p. a)
L
E(� '� -a L L fu
O � ca M o�
E
fu E 0 42
a « 4., L _
pCN cam°
—
ca) -0 -0��3�
>
_0 ° u (1)
(� L °o -moo ��
° no LL uc°
LL V'C:a a
° uD C a)�.�avi A
-I� L V -6 C N 16 6 c o N
' O .� j p� N C C a)
VQ F- LL u4-3 a)iL4- 4-J
fo
LL oC
N
W
.E
E
O
U
r
.w
C)
p� N
� (Yj
N
C: C fo
LE C
W I
O
LL 0L
E
4-J
I
x
L
AS
04
-1
O
J4-J
N
C
4-J-
O 4
N
c
U
.�
O
f�6
A
CL
4-J
fU
0),o
N
C
-'
G
'O
fp
N
U
O
-0
E
L
Q
•-
>
'
fa
_
r6
�
"O
C
�
CI
�--�
r6
N
�►
L
C
�
-r-
O
U
Z;
(1)
fu
•�
N
a
m
E
o"M
7E
c
a
au
�'�
o
E
c
0
c
c
�
O
�+
N
fu
�
•U
0
N
-0
aj
V
LO
-�wlL
4-+
a
N
N
m
U
C
N
(
L
L
IL
U
4-
i
L
V
.�
M
E
E
U
W
�> C)
W C)
poo N
U
M
� N
fu
iz 57
r
._ O L.
(u
U
O
T
C
C
O
Q
N
J
a)
Q
4-J
a)
Ca,,
te
4-,
a)fa
U
v
c
�
,l-+
(6
—
�
C:
-a
4-J
EE
>►
a)
a--'
Q)
L
E
a--+
a)
4-
p
C
C
U
-J
°
-C
Vn
4'
a)
E�
`0aa)4
-J
�m
(n
J
a)
V
U
O
L -
U
a)
E
=
=
4-J
Q
O
U
a)
M
L
4-)
i�
4-J
a)
U
��
�
°a)�,a)mE0
E
E-°
c
°fit
c
°vim
°
6juno°+'160J°
E-
a)
°v
a)�Ua)�'0Er-�
~
d
d
Q
a)
U
r
"C3
a)
c
a)
0
�
a)
�
fu
a-1
LL
�
E
0
LL
C
V)
fu
M
0Q.�°
-J
�Vna).��r��
U
'Y
�
ai
o
N
�
)
a'
a
QO
C
a)
�
O
�
C
a)
H
a
ii
4-J
LL
a
O.
M
c-1
a)
o_
E
E
U
W O
p� N
V
m
U.
U.
yj
-A
4-J
M.
�V
m
N
L
N
c
N
rV,
M
M
C
f6
4-+
f6
+J
U
ai
ai
E
O
U
H
Lri
t '
'1- _
_ "
O
Z.
—U
Li�•�
E
E
>
N
a
L
N
a
6
N
�
•V
i
O
�
f
C
a•J
C'
Q
M
o�
4mJ
.o
o
mH
cn
O
—
U
C
(1)
N
MM
(6
�
73
U
a +
�
fu LL
O
(n
QOM
O
O
u?
O
O
t '
'1- _
_ "
c
C
E —
(U C
U
L
U
Q 4-J
O�O
U C:
O
O
m
t C
E
C O
U
a1 4-J
fa
C -a
f6
� m
C
N
co
m
�
-p
au
N=
C:
4-J
0
■=
C��Q
(
O
O
O
ra
u
3
r�
fu
fu
C—N
o
E
�
U
�
Q
(6
Zn
U
O
E
W
4-J
a''
Qfp
='U
QD
•j
m
.r
U
C
O
O
Q
N
N
��
(�
'�
c
M
E
LL
O
c
'�
U
U
c
ru
U
V
N
E
-0
�,
. �
>.
°
5
�
E=
C:
fa
w
IL
(
i
a-J
c
I
E
d-j
C
E
O
i
rn
z
C
>u fu
4-J
L
U
M
N
u
•-
p
�,Q-a
LL
DC
- i
.E
E
O
U
O
W O
p� N
V M
c N
fu
U. C
G
V)
C1
�
.r
c
.a
+-J
O—_
�V
O
4-J
c
O
U.
ru
tf
V)
C1
�
.r
c
.a
+-J
(6
+-J
O
4-J
c
O
fc 6
ru
tf
N
O
�
Q
Q
r6
E
'Fu
cn
—
>
.�
N
r6
'U
(v
a
U
U
,V
.
c
a
E
.r
a
.}J
•�
L
V)
C1
�
'U
U
X
CU
c
O
E
fc 6
aj
N
o�
}r
ai
U_
=
O
=
.�
N
p
'U
(v
a
U
4J
a.j
E
o
•�
V
I
O
rn
L
c
_r_
O
Q-•-
H
J
m U
n
O
Q
Q
-
0.—
P 5
ro
Q 'ra
O E
�O -0
� O
N
U "c
�LL
0�
E
am
V)
O
a
c
E
cu
o -a
Q
C
'ateJ
c
Q E
U N
c�
U
L
cu
Q
4T
c
r=
B
O
f6
75
O
3J_ U
'U
4 N
c
cn cn
N
c>
2
Q-
O O
.c
n
� O
c
ra M
t
cp
fitz
c �
U
r6
X
X
=
O
N
aj
N
N
}r
ai
U_
=
=
>
N
p
(v
a
75
O
3J_ U
'U
4 N
c
cn cn
N
c>
2
Q-
O O
.c
n
� O
c
ra M
t
cp
fitz
c �
U
r6
W
.E
E
U
O
p� N
N (Yj
u N
fa >,
i
LL �
U O O t -C
ca a- - 4-) 4-J
N N � N
� ❑. a r J
V p LL L .4
O O
ov,.��.�p�,
U ~+
.0 N N C
O
U U- G + (a
o . cn o ii
a�U � Ea�—
c p 0 c N Ln
p U O O
� cn :p p c
0o� °� "U-
O 4--J M vi •� L
E -1 'P c
L
C •N
Ucn
0.
a� -� 0 �
c
°' O
Eo�0 u��
N Q > U
E N E U W M O uc
U c " Q .[= p' ru
N O p
OU fl.� a M U c(n
..
I
W
4-J
L
O
�V
LL
0C
U O O t -C
ca a- - 4-) 4-J
N N � N
� ❑. a r J
V p LL L .4
O O
ov,.��.�p�,
U ~+
.0 N N C
O
U U- G + (a
o . cn o ii
a�U � Ea�—
c p 0 c N Ln
p U O O
� cn :p p c
0o� °� "U-
O 4--J M vi •� L
E -1 'P c
L
C •N
Ucn
0.
a� -� 0 �
c
°' O
Eo�0 u��
N Q > U
E N E U W M O uc
U c " Q .[= p' ru
N O p
OU fl.� a M U c(n
..
4?
E
E
O
U
O
O O
p[ N
O
�rj
c
N
._-
O
�V
Q
ro
L.L
�
6
3
N
:-J
._-
O
�V
Q
LL
0C
6
3
z
o
aV
_
c
+'
vii
c
fu
�T(
`�
M
=�
o
o
.N
-0
�.
c
�
CL
4-J
U
0
fu
E���o
E
94
�3
-
-0
o
L-
ru
E
.;
4-
N
-a
61
4 -J
U
in
c
�
�
a
�auuC:
6
3
4° a � o
(3) c
fu
(1) T o u >, ° '
CL
a m fu
U
f6 a) a) a)
L
O U
a-J - N O U
4 L
(� U cn o
r �� _' a�
L
4-
.� O a L a� o fu
pC N E o M o ru
-a ra U u N
[� o -c =3
• c (6 U U U fu a--)
E a) O a) 'c�—n � a) a)
I U(V Z H H H U H E ai
4-J—� O • • • • • •
•U L
ra
LL o
E
.E
O
U
W
•> O
W O
w N
V
fo
C
LE
V,
Zvi
■.
�V
LL
N
C�
G
tf
n
ca u
U
U
c O
49
U
O
U �
t
r�
.1-J
c
E
U
9)
U
O
c
cn
N
O
=
O
c
c
4-j
°�.aa'3aj
c
L
O'
N
—
U
U
�
�
c
O
�
ro
O
c
c
c
0.-
N
d
=3
N
U
�
L
°�.aa'3aj
c
L
O'
N
—
U
C
�
�
c
O
�
ro
O
c
c
c
0.-
(v
CL
E
1
4-J
J
O
ate.+
M
>
E
a
-C
p
LL
r6
N
O
L
C
cC
o
"O
cO_
O
O
i
c
L
U
ra
.J
cn
M
V
C
L
E
W
E
E
V
�2 O to
W 0
re N
U N
C:
N
C: fo
R.
LL
' L
O
V C-
LL OC
(1) V
O _f m N
U >, U Q U ate+ C v
L (6 Vi m Q
O t� O L O L E •- O Q
fa m a) L -E U In
O L
fu U a= la 3 >O 3 a� C Q�
U m 0 U o U C O 4-J LL u aj
a) E — C N OL A r -� N N
L o Q- a) ° a) = >
0 L L
Q a) �o D -W
L `2a) a) c °�C
-0 Et
� O 4-J •— NO U X 3 �
a) O J C: O O - -C
'O a)
O — }, Q 5 C
n � c m
+�+E r60 °t L+'McoM
E L _ in � N -
(n° �° �aiLE im)fu U'v+v , a) v 4- J0- E-0 0
E C a) a) O ~ tf ca a) 'a
UE cnH O-mr LQN-
H ra ra a
N
E
E
O
U
flo
W
.> C)
W O
p[ N
V N
fu
fa
■
W I
L
O
fo
U. I..V
0
tM
M�
O m
U v_
N •�
N N
0
c �
a� c
X .
W LL
= L
v �
V ,d^
L
U
0 Z
M N N T- O � � N —
64 ER 64 &f3 6c)- 6c)-
suoipiW
M
M
M
r
M
0)
N
ti
N
LO
N
co
N
N
rn
r
ti
r
LO
co VII
r
r
f
LO
co
T—
tj
E
E
0
U
W
■n >, O
W O
p� N
V N
fu
r
■
(LL
V / I
O
■
fo
LL LL
N
_
O
L
Q.
0
_.
at
LL
R
L
d
_
d
Mal
LJ
suopl!w
O O O O O O O O
LO O LO O LO O LO O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O to O In O LO O In O to O
1.f) V M M N N 1 c- O O
;eBpn81 301 ;0;uaoJsd
LO
M
M
M
M
O
N
N
Ln
N
M
N
N
�ca
LO
I
M
r
r
LO
M
r
W
E
E
0
U
W
■ > O
a O
p� N
V N
fo
fo
U. ■
-I-,
4-J
0
■ �..i
fu W
3
LL
r.+
C
V
C.
d
LL
O O O O O O O O O O O
� �
61fl
UaUELI
U)
co
co
co
co
O
N
r
N
LO
N
M
N
N
O
r
LD
co
r
O
r
co
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 comer property
14. Existing City Hall site
15. Coyote Canyon Landfill
16. City Parking lot in Mariners Mile
17. Northwest comer 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 future, 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;
47 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;
#13 Birch /Mesa comer 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-
,tti
( 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:
#I 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
922 The Pacific Life Buildings I & 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 comer 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.
-3-
0
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
IR
1q
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-
tl�
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: pwnership,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.
6-
aU
(9) Any other significant constriction 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).
CdONLG71Iilf:7ON1
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-
Al
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
February 13, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brahs, Gordon Glass, John Hamilton (arrived at 4:21 p.m.), Rush Hill (arrived at
4:15 p.m.), Lloyd lkerd, Roberta Jorgensen, Don Krotee, John Nelson, Wallace Olson, Scott
Riddles, Chairman Larry Tucker, Council Member Edward Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Steven
Rosansky (arrived at 4:24 p.m.)
Absent: Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. WELCOME.
Chairman Tucker called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m.
Chairman Tucker highlighted the guidelines established by the City Council on December 13, 2005.
He noted that a draft Council resolution has been distributed which formalizes the guidelines and
stated that the resolution goes before Council tomorrow night. He reported that the Committee
will be submitting a written report to Council at the culmination of the process.
2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
Each Committee Member provided a background of their qualifications and experiences.
3. PURPOSE OF COMMITTEE.
City Manager Bludau referenced the 'draft resolution and highlighted the makeup of the
Committee, the mission statement, the process, City Hall needs, City Hall considerations, and the
requirements for the written and oral reports. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky believed that the deadline
is May 1, not May 15, 2006.
In response to Member questions, City Manager Bludau believed that condemnation would be
acceptable as long as the property owner wasn't forced to leave property they didn't want to leave.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky stated that the City wouldn't object to a favorable condemnation;
however, he believed that condemning a property owner or lease of a tenant would be looked at
differently.
City Manager Bludau clarified that, regardless of where City Hall is located, the Fire Station will
remain in this area.
4. DISCUSSION OF CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS APPROACH.
Chairman Tucker reviewed the list of constraints and considerations, and described how each could
affect a potential site. Mr. Nelson suggested adding a political constraint. Mr. Brahs recommended
adding an image category..• Mr. Hill believed that. environmental hazards need to be analyzed,
Item 2 (Will configuration of site. allow development of optimally sized floor plates consistent with
City desired workflow) isn't practical, and Item 5 (Utilities and public services available to the site,
including compliance with storm water runoff) should be combined with Item 14 (Cost to acquire
property and to create finished pad for building and parking, or building(s) ready to retrofit). He
also suggested adding a category for unique characteristics.
4
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2006
Mr. Riddles received confirmation that the City wants to own the property versus enter into a long
term lease.
LIST OF SUGGESTED SITES.
Chairman Tucker reported that individuals who spoke at a Council meeting or emailed
nbcityhall @yahoo.com were asked to submit suggested City Hall location sites. He added that he
also had a letter published in the Daily Pilot.
Chairman Tucker stated that the suggested sites, to date, include the current site, the vacant site
between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado south of the bus depot and north of San Miguel, the
Art Museum and old library site in Newport Center, the Land Rover dealership/Police
Department/Fire Station area, site in Corporate Plaza West at the entrance of the Newport Beach
Country Club, Banning Ranch and a soon -to -be vacant school site in Banning Ranch, a building at
Campus and Dove across from John Wayne Airport (JWA), Back Bay View Park, a site in the
Airport Business District near Mesa and Birch, and a site on Camelback adjacent to the self storage
lot and Temple Bat Yahm. He reported that he met with Dan Miller of The Irvine Company and
indicated that they are willing to participate in discussions.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, the Committee
continued the discussion.
6. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT A SITE.
Mr. Ikerd suggested that a commercial site near the current location be identified and that the City
continue to use the current facility until the other site is developed in order to avoid relocation
costs. Chairman Tucker noted that the Committee needs to analyze a specific site, not just an area.
Mr. Nelson recommended eliminating any site from consideration that requires a Greenlight vote.
Discussion ensued relative to how Greenlight and Greenlight 11 affects or would affect a property.
Council Member Selich indicated that, at some point, the Planning Department will need to
determine how many square feet are allowed on the potential sites.
Ms. Jorgensen expressed the opinion that some of the locations are vague. It was the consensus of
the Committee to receive an assessor's parcel description or an aerial map with yellow lines
outlining the sites so that Members could visit the sites prior to analyzing them. Chairman Tucker
indicated that a description, including acreage, should also be provided.
Following discussion, City Manager Bludau indicated that he could contact the Daily Pilot to write
a story that asks people to contact the City if they have property they would like to sell for possible
placement of the City Hall. Mayor .,Pro Tem Rosansky stated that he could also make
announcements during Council meetings.
BEGIN ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED SITES
Chairman Tucker discussed the Back Bay View Park as it relates to the constraints:
Is the parcel size sufficient to accommodate 72,000 s.f. and 300 parking spaces?
The site has about 6 acres of tabletop acreage and could accommodate 70,000 s.f. and 300
parking spaces.
2. Will configuration of site allow development of optimally sized floor plates consistent with
City desired workflow?
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2006
The configuration can be structured to allow floor plate sizing.
3. Is site centrally located and easy to get to?
Access would be off of Coast Highway at the Promontory Point traffic signal.
4. Ease of ingress /egress to /from site from contiguous roadways, and circulation onsite.
It may be an odd - shaped parcel with many grade differences.
5. Utilities and public services available to the site, including compliance with storm water
runoff.
Utilities and public services may be nearby, although some of the site may be lost once
paving begins.
6. Physical constraints?
May have easements, wetlands, habitat, and/or slopes.
7. General Plan and zoning designations on the site.
Neither would work.
8. Compatibility with adjacent uses?
Not sure the senior housing facility is incompatible, but the Newport Dunes is next to the
site.
9. Would a Measure S vote be required for the site?
Yes.
10, Are approvals of other agencies required?
Yes, the California Coastal Commission.
11. Type of document(s) likely needed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)?
Can't determine without an initial study, but probably would need a Mitigated Negative
Declaration because of the biology on the site.
12. Current owner of site and willingness and timing of potential sale.
The City is the owner.
13, Are there private use restrictions or rights reserved by a former owner, including design
constraints?
There may be deed restrictions from The Irvine Company,
14. Cost to acquire property and to create finished pad for building and parking, or building(s)
ready to retrofit.
3
5i
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2006
May be very costly.
15. Ability to aesthetically and cost efficiently design and construct site work, landscaping,
parking, and buildings.
Probably will be an expensive site to deal with.
16. Time required in order to begin construction or retrofitting the site.
Does not need to be determined at this time.
17. Environmental hazards?
The site was formally a gas station.
18. Unique characteristics?
The whole site fits into this category.
Mr. Hill recommended creating a matrix of the constraints versus the site locations and using a
rating system. Mr. Olson suggested also having a ranking system once the sites have been
narrowed down. Mr. Glass noted that there are conditions outside of the City's control, i.e. Coastal
Commission approvals. City Manager Bludau indicated that the matrix can be generated and
distributed prior to the next meeting.
8. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE.
City Manager Bludau reported that the Facilities Finance Review Committee will be meeting on
February 27 and recommended staggering the dates between the two Committees. It was the
consensus of the Committee to meet on Monday, March 6 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, and then meet every other Monday. It was noted that the Committee can also meet at
alternative locations during the off weeks, if needed.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS — None.
10. ADJOURNMENT — 5:45 p.xn.
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on February 9,
2006, at 10:15 a.xn. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
4
Chairperson
6y
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
March 6, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brahs, Gordon Glass, John Hamilton, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen, Don Krotee, John
Nelson, Wallace Olson, Chairman Larry Tucker, Council Member Edward Selich, Mayor Pro
Tem Steven Rosansky
Absent: Lloyd Ikerd, Scott Riddles, Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 13, 2006 MEETING.
Mr. Glass requested that Item 5 (page 2) be amended to state that the site on Camelback is
adjacent to the self storage lot and Temple Bat Yahm.
Without objection, it was moved by Chairman Tucker to approve the minutes, as amended.
2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED SITES.
Chairman Tucker reminded the Committee that the current City Hall site will be the benchmark
when analyzing the suggested sites. The Committee utilized a matrix and aerial photos to discuss
the following sites:
Vacant Site between MacArthur and Avocado
Chairman Tucker believed that the site should remain on the list since it is centrally located. He
noted the egress and ingress issues. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) owns the site. Mr. Glass believed that the transportation
center is underutilized and the same amount of bus service could be provided someplace else.
Chairman Tucker requested that a traffic engineer provide an opinion on the traffic at the
intersections if a City Hall were built there. He believed that the General Plan Update probably
has a lot of this data. He indicated that The Irvine Company is willing to have discussions about
any of its properties, but would not support anything that restricts circulation into or out of
Newport Center. Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky provided photos of the site from two locations. He
believed that a City Hall would be able to be built closer to San Miguel Drive because there is a
grade difference past that, but noted that the site is intended to be used for affordable housing.
Mr. Hill pointed out that a three or four story structure will block Harbor View's view of the Back
Bay and believed that the community would object to this location, Chairman Tucker asked that
staff look into this.
Art Museum and Old Library Site in Newuort Center
The Committee discussed the lot size and questioned the proposed land use. Chairman Tucker
indicated that the Art Museum is considering moving to the Art District in Costa Mesa, but is not
sure if they want to sell the property. He believed that the site should remain on the list. Mr. Hill
expressed concern that not everything can be built on the site.
Al
City Hall Site Review Conunittee
Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2006
Land Rover Dealershi» and the Police /Fir_e_Station
Chairman Tucker noted that the dealership is over 2 acres and the Police Department and Fire
Station is 4 acres. He suggested keeping the site on the list to conduct further analysis. Council
Member Selich noted that Requests for Proposals (RFPs) have been sent out to look at what the
Police facility needs. Mr. Glass asked where the Police Department will be built if not on the
current site.
Mr. Hamilton indicated that the Land Rover Dealership is moving part of their operation to the
airport area but would really like to move onto Coast Highway. He confirmed that someone owns
the land, someone else owns the building, and the dealership has the ground lease. Chairman
Tucker stated that the property owner and building owner should be contacted. Ms. Jorgensen
asked, if it doesn't work out with the owners, if there is the possibility of creating a public /private
parking structure to help augment some costs. Chairman Tucker noted that The Irvine Company
owns that parcel. Mr. Brahs asked if there are any view impacts at this location.
Corporate Plaza West on Pacific Coast Highway
Chairman Tucker reported that The Irvine Company owns the site and noted that the Committee
would be considering the vacant lot and the first building shown on the aerial photo.
Chairman Tucker requested a list of the length of leases for current tenants. Public Works Director
Badum reported that his department has looked at the concept drawings for a new building at that
corner and believed that the plans will soon be in if they are not already. Referencing the aerial
photo, Mr. Glass asked what the net acreage and required parking will be after the building to the
right is subtracted. Mr. Brahs asked that the City find out if the buildings are occupied.
Newport Beach Country Club Parking Lot
Chairman Tucker noted that the site is centrally located; however, the owner stated that the
Country Club has a long term. lease and each entity has separate loans on the property. He
indicated that he will talk with the ground owners to see if they have any interest in the concept.
He suggested leaving the site on the list for now. Mr. Brahs stated that this site would take
creativity but asked about the willingness to change the entitlement.
Banning Ranch Land in West Newport
It was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration since it is not
centrally located.
Newport -Mesa Unified School District Site in Banning Ranch
City Manager Wood reported that the School District will most likely not put a school on the site,
but it's an asset for them and leverage with the developers. It was the consensus of the Committee
to remove this site from consideration.
Edler Building at Campus and Dove
It was the consensus of the Committe6 io remove this site from consideration since it is not
centrally located.
ec4
City Hall Site Review Conunittee
Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2006
Back Bav View Park at Pacific Coast Highwav and Jamboree Road
Mr. Krotee noted that there are environmental concerns and implications since this is a City park.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky expressed the opinion that chances are low that the park would be
converted since all the improvements have already been made. Mr. Glass noted that the site is
controlled by the California Coastal Commission. City Manager Wood reported that part of the
park project was to replace the coastal sage scrub 4:1 and, if the use were changed, she didn't know
where to replace the sage scrub. Without objection, the site was removed from consideration.
Newport Dunes
Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the entire site is tidelands and the County holds the
trust. Chairman Tucker and Council Member Selich indicated that former City Attorney Burnham
believed that a City Hall is not a permitted use on tidelands. Ms. Jorgensen noted the access
issues. Mr. Glass pointed out that the site is dedicated for recreational use. Without objection, it
was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration.
amelback Building Adiacent to the Self Storage Lot and Temole Bat Yahm
Chairman Tucker reported that the site is owned by The Irvine Company, has development on it,
and is centrally located; however, access may be a problem. He suggested leaving the site on the
list and running it through the matrix.
Chairman Tucker asked for a list of tenancies, especially since the City doesn't want to displace
tenants. He also questioned if any change can occur on Jamboree Road, such as a signalized
intersection, to assist with access.
Inland Portion of the Ardell Parcel
Mr. Krotee reported that the site is big enough and there is access to it, but there are many
constraints on Mariners Mile. Mr. Hill noted that the intersection at Riverside and Coast Highway
is one of the most impacted intersections and asked what the impact would be on traffic if a City
Hall were built there. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that staff would be looking at the
difference between a City Hall use and what the General Plan now shows for the site. Chairman
Tucker requested that staff find out the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the site. Mayor Pro Tem
Rosansky noted that the new General Plan Update will allow mixed uses there.
Birch Street/Mesa Drive Vicinity
Chairman Tucker noted that no specific site was suggested and, without objection, recommended
that this area be removed from consideration.
Existing Citv Hall Site
Without objection, the Committee agreed that this site needs to be on the list.
Covote Canyon Landfill
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky noted that the bottom area can have construction. Chairman Tucker
expressed concern about the location because it is not centrally located. Without objection, it was
the consensus of the Committee to remove the site from consideration.
4S
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2006
City Parking Lot in Mariners Mile
Chairman Tucker noted that the property is only a little over one acre and, by itself, is too small.
Mr. Glass asked whether the Ardell property can be purchased along with this site. Without
objection, it was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration if it's going
to be considered by itself.
Pacific Coast HighwavBayside Drive
Chairman Tucker indicated that the landowner is willing to discuss placing a City Hall on the site;
however, he wants to also have other projects on the site which might intensify the site. He
suggested keeping the site on the list for now.
Chairman Tucker asked what the land use intensity, height limit, and FAR are on the site.
Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that this site is subject to the Coastal Commission.
Rogers Garden
Chairman Tucker noted that the site is easy to get to and is centrally located, but he is not sure if
the owner is interested in selling the land. He suggested contacting the property owner prior to
spending any time analyzing the site.
Other Suggested Sites
Site Across from Rogers Garden
Chairman Tucker reported that the new Saint Mark Church will be built there.
Lower Castaways Site
City Manager Wood reported that the land is owned by The Irvine Company and that it is zoned
Recreational & Marine Commercial. Chairman Tucker suggested placing the site on the list in
order to find out more information about it. He requested an aerial map and information regarding
this site.
Lawn Bowling/Tennis Court Property on San Joaquin Hills and Crown Drive
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky reported that the City owns the land and noted that it is big enough for
the City Hall project. Chairman Tucker requested an aerial map and information regarding this
site.
One of the Parcels on Cliff Drive, Above Dover
Mr. Krotee indicated that, the parcel is available, there is over 4.5 acres, and the residential
properties are buffered by the Environmental Nature Center. He stated that, for a City Hall use,
the owner may want to sell the property rather than have a ground lease. City Manager Wood
believed that the parcel is a little smaller, but flatter, than Lower Castaways. Chairman Tucker
requested that Mr. Krotee forward him the addresses of the sites so aerial photos can be generated.
Discussion
For all the suggested sites, the Committee requested that staff provide height and view restrictions,
length of current occupancies, FAR, entitlements, and if the site is affected by the Coastal
Commission.
City Hall Site Review Connnittee
Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2006
Mr. Krotee believed that price should be a new category on the matrix. Chairman Tucker noted
that office prices and residential prices are different. Mr. Brahs indicated that the Committee
needs some type of comparison or range of costs because it'll give an idea of the feasibility from an
economic standpoint.
Dolores Otting believed that Mr. Brahs brought up a good point about costs since the Facilities
Finance Review Committee is only looking at which building(s) to replace. She suggested building
the new City Hall on top of the Police Department building since it is centrally located, a parking
structure can be built, and the Fire Station needs an addition.
Nancy Skinner stated that she likes the Art Museum /Old Library site and the suggestion to build
the City Hall on top of the Police Department since the site is already owned by the City. She
added that, while construction is going on, the City wouldn't need to relocate. Regarding the lawn
bowling and tennis court site, she suggested moving that use to the current City Hall location and
building the new City Hall on the lawn bowling site since no open space will be lost. She believed
that the concern about the location of the Camelback site is a non - issue. She asked if there was a
way to do a land trade with the Ardell property in order to utilize the parking lot. She believed
that Rogers Garden will not move from their current location. She hoped that the City Hall will be
on land that the City already owns and that there will not be a loss of open space. She agreed that
having financial costs would be helpful.
Regarding costs, Chairman Tucker noted that the Committee doesn't have the budget to do the
analysis and that this is beyond the Committee's charge, but suggested determining whether the
cost would be high, moderate, or low. Ms. Jorgensen indicated that, after narrowing the list down,
the Committee could possibly look at costs since it should be reflected in the report to Council.
Council Members Rosansky and Selich noted that the $48 million City Hall budget also includes a
furnishing allowance, financing charges, reserve funds, relocation costs, and other costs. Mayor
Pro Tem Rosansky added that it really comes down to whether the City can buy the site for less
than what it can sell the current site for. Council Member Selich explained how he would estimate
the costs, starting with the land cost to have a flat pad and whether there is an existing building.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky believed that the Committee will examine the sites, eliminate the sites
that clearly won't work, and analyze the remaining sites and see what the constraints are since it is
ultimately Council's decision whether to spend more money for a better site. He added that cost
shouldn't drive the Committee's decision.
Mr. Glass suggested placing + or — symbols in the matrix. He recommended splitting the "Cost to
Acquire/Build/Retrofit" line item. Mr. Krotee recommended expanding the line item to be two lines
(Cost to Acquire and Cost to Develop) since there is enough expertise on the Committee to make
these types of assumptions. He also suggested using 1 to 10 in the matrix instead of + and —
symbols. Mr. Nelson believed that some of the criteria should be weighted.
Mr. Hill asked which projects would trigger a Greenlight (Measure S) vote. Chairman Tucker
suggested finding out the Measure S implications on the remaining sites after talking to the
property owners.
Chairman Tucker encouraged the Committee to send him any comments or questions so he can
forward them to staff. He invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the
public comments.
Mr. Hamilton emphasized that the current City Hall site is the most valuable piece of property on
the list and should be used as leverage to help pay for the next site. Mr. Hill stated that this is
based on the assumption that the site is a developable piece of property and noted that any use on
this site would require a General Plan Amendment. Chairman Tucker noted that the Committee is
60
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2006
charged with also recommending what to do with the current site if City Hall were moved to a
different location.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS - None
4. ADJOURNMENT - at 6:10 p.m. to March 20, 2006
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on March 2,
2006, at 2:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
6
Chairperson
J
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
March 20, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brahs, Gordon Glass, John Hamilton, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen (arrived late), Don
Krotee, Lloyd Ikerd, John Nelson, Wallace Olson (arrived late), Scott Riddles (arrived late),
Chairman Larry Tucker, Council Member Edward Selich
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Steven Rosansky, Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 6, 2006 MEETING
Motion by Mr. Glass to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried without objection.
2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED SITES.
Vacant Site between MacArthur and Avocado
Chairman Tucker reported that the site is designated for a park or senior housing, has a base limit
of 32' and a maximum height limit of 50', the site is not located in the Coastal Zone, and there is no
floor area allowed since it is designated Recreational - Environmental Open Space. He noted that it
would require a general plan amendment and has a PC text zoning. He stated that the biggest
issue is circulation, but asked staff to determine if the site would be functional with some
improvements. Mr. Glass pointed out that the transportation center is underutilized and suggested
doing a land swap. Mr. Hill stated that, since the shape of the site and the height limit would
create an inefficient layout for the square footage, he believed that staff should not spend any time
on it and the site should be removed from consideration. Public Works Director Badum indicated
that City Hall does not generate a large number of trips, but noted that it is impossible to get more
cars onto the small area between Avocado and MacArthur to accommodate additional traffic flow.
He emphasized the need for a One Stop Shop in the new City Hall and expressed the opinion that
this site is unworkable for this.
Art Museum and Old Library Site in Newport Center
Chairman Tucker reported that he spoke to a Board Member who indicated that they may relocate
some day, but they do not have a timeline and have not thought about what they will do with the
current site. It was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration.
Land Rover Dealership and the Police/Fire Station
Chairman Tucker requested that staff contact the landowner. He reported that he will be meeting
with The Irvine Company on March 31 and stated that they may be interested in constructing a
joint use parking structure. Mr. Brahs indicated that the special land use restrictions are for
25 years and began in 1991.
City Manager Bludau indicated that the Facilities Finance Review Committee is talking about a
new Police facility in 20 years and reported that the Police Department is in discussions with The
Irvine Company to fence in their parking lot for security reasons.
0
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Corporate Plaza West on Pacific Coast Highwav
Chairman Tucker indicated that The Irvine Company will provide him with a list of space sizes and
terms of leases at their March 31 meeting.
Newport Beach Country Club Parking Lot
Chairman Tucker stated that he doesn't expect that all the parties will agree to the sale because
four acres will take away a lot from the parking lot.
Camelback Building Adiacent to the Self Storage Lot and Temple Bat Yahm
Chairman Tucker reported that staff does not support signalizing the intersection due to the grade
on Jamboree Road. It was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration.
Inland Portion of the Ardell Parcel
Chairman Tucker reported that staff believes that the site would work from a traffic standpoint
and that a traffic signal can be installed, but a detailed study would need to be conducted. Mr.
Glass believed that it would be easy to get an easement roadway across the hotel and the other
parking lot in order to have a back entrance. Chairman Tucker reviewed the height limit, floor
area ratio, and lot area, and noted that it is in the Coastal Zone. Council Member Selich confirmed
that City offices would be allowed in the current Retail Service Commercial (RSC) zoning.
Chairman Tucker requested that staff contact the property owner.
Northwest Corner of Pacific Coast Highway/Bayside Drive
Chairman Tucker reported that the owner didn't dismiss the idea of having a City Hall on the
property but would also like to have other entitlements as well. Council Member Selich indicated
that a stand -alone City Hall is all the City Council has considered in the past. Regarding traffic, he
noted that all the traffic for the square footage allocated on the parcel is in the traffic study.
Chairman Tucker asked if a dual left turn lane from eastbound PCH to northbound Bayside is
needed and, if so, does the geometrics of the intersections allow this. Council Member Selich noted
that, as you come in from Bayside Drive, there is a short distance from Coast Highway to the edge
of the property and questioned if there is enough stacking room from a left turn to get into the
property.
Rogers Garden
Mr. Hill indicated that he would contact the property owner since he is a client of his.
Lower Castaways Site
Chairman Tucker indicated that The Irvine Company owns the property and they believe that the
circulation would not work. Public Works Director Badum noted that access would be from Cliff
Drive and creating left turns into and out of the site would require extensive grading on a site
that's considered a native park.
Lawn Bowling/Tennis Court Property on San Joaauin Hills and Crown Drive
Chairman Tucker stated that he suspects that this site will not be a likely location since it's already
a park. Mr. Hamilton requested that an alternative site or two smaller sites be located for the lawn
bowling and tennis courts so the site can still be considered. Mr. Ikerd indicated that the lawn
bowling area can be placed on top of the parking structure. Mr. Glass believed that the location
lad
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
does not have a prominent frontage and is in a hidden part of the City, and requested an aerial
photo of the site. Chairman Tucker noted that it is easy to get to, is centrally located, is on a six
lane street, and is about four acres.
Medical Buildings on Dover Drive
Chairman Tucker indicated that the address is 745 Dover Drive and the site is 2.8 acres. He
requested an aerial photo of the site. Mr. Glass suggested acquiring the old bank and the property
in the back so the lot size totals about four acres. Mr. Brahs indicated that the site has special land
use restrictions. Mr. Krotee discussed the traffic and residential proximity to the site. He
indicated that he can contact the property owner to see if the land is available for purchase.
Existing City Hall Site
Public Works Director Badum reported that the City Hall project geotechnical study indicated that
liquefaction will not be an issue for this site and stated that copies of the study can be given to the
Committee, if desired. Mr. KfDtee suggested using a weighted system of 1 to 10 for most of the
items, but use 1 to 20 for "Cost to Acquire Land" and "Cost to Improve Site' since this will give
Council a more imperial view to choose a site. Without objection, Mr. Hamilton recommended
analyzing the existing City Hall site using the matrix in order to have numerical values to compare
the other sites with.
Constraints Q = worst highest # = best
atjug
Explanation
Site Availability 1 to 10
10
City owned
Sufficient Parcel Size (1 to 10)
7
Fits the facility, but would require a
parking structure; parking structure
ma enerate revenue
Site Configuration (1 to 10 )
10
Configuration is sufficient
Centrally Located (1 to 10)
5
If you consider the boundaries from
the Santa Ana River to Newport
Coast
Ease of Travel 1 to 10
3
Ocean is on one side
Ease of Ingress/Egress 1 to 10
8
Has traffic signal
Utilities /Public Services Available 1 to 10
10
Already available
Physical Constraints 1 to 10
10
None
Environmental Hazards 1 to 10
10
None
General Plan/Zoning Designations 1 to 10)
10
Already zoned appropriately
Adjacent Uses Compatibility 1 to 10
10
No issues
Measure S Vote Required 1 to 10
10
Not required
Approval of Other Agencies (1 to 10)
Compliance with CEQA (1 to 10)
5
Is subject to the California Coastal
Commission for both City Hall
construction and residential use
10
Not needed and the added footage is
within the statistical area allocation
Timing of Potential Sale 1 to 10
10
Not applicable
Private Use Restrictions 1 to 10
10
Not applicable
Cost to Acquire Land (1 to 20)
3
Comparing the value of the land for
another purpose (i.e. housing units)
vs. the current use, and considering
potential revenue achieved by
selling the property
Ir,
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2006
Cost to Improve Situ
6
Water table is 5' to 6' down, so it
(strikethrough for this site only) (1 to 20)
may be more costly to build the
parking structure; need to also
factor in all the relocation costs
during the construction period
Potential Aesthetics /Cost Efficiency
—
It was the consensus of the
Committee to remove this line item
from the matrix
Timing to Begin 1 to 10
10
Same as site availability
Unique Characteristics — Relocation Costs (for
1
Expensive to rent a temporary
this site only) (1 to 10)
location and expensive to move
twice; undesirable
Regarding the report to Council, Mr. Krotee indicated that the Committee can write two
paragraphs about trading the existing site and its worth for residential development. Mr. Hill
believed that Opportunity Loss should also be included in the matrix. Ms. Jorgensen indicated
that, if the Committee provides comments on the remaining sites, the sites will not need to be
prioritized. Chairman Tucker indicated that the Committee should give Council a comprehensive
report relative to why sites were removed, the strengths and weaknesses of the remaining sites,
and the value the current site has for other uses.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS — None
4. ADJOURNMENT — at 5:55 p.m. to April 3, 2006
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxx
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on March 15,
2006, at 5:05 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
4
Chairperson
L2
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
April 3, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brahs, Gordon Glass, John Hamilton, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen (arrived late), Don
Krotee, Lloyd Ikerd, John Nelson, Wallace Olson, Scott Riddles (arrived late), Chairman Larry
Tucker, Council Member Edward Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Steven Rosansky(arrived late)
Absent: Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 20, 2006 MEETING.
Mr. Krotee requested that page 3 be amended to reflect his suggestion to use a weighted system of
1 to 10 for most of the matrix constraints, but 1 to 20 for "Cost to Acquire Land" and "Cost to
Improve Site" since this will give Council a more empirical view to choose a site.
Without objection, the minutes were approved as amended.
2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED SITES.
Land Rover Dealership and the Police/Fire Station
Chairman Tucker reported that the land owner is not interested in selling the property. However,
he reported that he met with The Irvine Company (TIC) and Mr. Bren's representatives said he
believed that a City Hall in his area is a good idea and is interested in the idea of building a joint
parking structure behind the Fire Station, although the mechanics and ownership of the structure
would need to be worked out. Council Member Selich agreed that the parking structure is worth
looking into.
Chairman Tucker noted that TIC is not inclined to sell their properties, as they are currently
buying property. Mr. Brahs indicated that he sold property for Mr. Bren because he doesn't like
ground leases.
It was the consensus of the Committee to eliminate the Land Rover Dealership area from
consideration and keep the Police/Fire Station area on the list.
Corporate Plaza West on Pacific Coast Highway
Chairman Tucker reported that the current tenant has turned over the building to TIC to find
another tenant and TIC doubts a 72,000 sq. ft. building will fit on the vacant pad. Council Member
Selich indicated that he doesn't support leasing this site due to parking issues. Mayor Pro Tern
Rosansky noted that there may be conflicts for the City if it is leasing from TIC since they do a lot
of business with the City.
Mr. Ikerd stated that he likes this site since it is 10 acres and suggested relocating the Police and
Fire Stations here in the future to create a Civic Center, and trade the current Police and Fire
Station site for this site. Mr. Brahs noted that the existing buildings are 42,000 sq. ft. each, there is
30,000 sq. ft. of entitlement, and the site has a .25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which is enough for
surface parking. He expressed support for trading or buying this site, and also selling the current
City Hall site. He discussed the economic advantages of this site. Council Member Selich noted
10b
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 3, 2006
that a lot of the area in Newport Center is designated for mixed use and believed that this
designation can be placed on this site if a trade occurs.
Regarding a possible ground lease, Chairman Tucker stated that the difference with this site is that
the City would probably be able to make improvements and have the power of condemnation.
Mr. Hill expressed concern with a ground lease since the City would be leaving a legacy of giving
away land in exchange for a ground lease.
Chairman Tucker asked staff to determine if this property is in the Coastal Zone.
Constraints
1 = worst, highest # = best
Ratin
Explanation
Site Availability 1 to 10
5
Not sure if it's available
Sufficient Parcel Size (1 to 10)
10
Ideal floor plate; a parcel line can be drawn
between the two buildings; can possibly create
a full Civic Center
Site Configuration (1 to 10)
10
Doesn't require underground parking or a
parking structure — can have surface parking
Centrally Located 1 to 10)
10
Yes
Ease of Travel 1 to 10
10
Easy to get to
Ease of Ingress/Egress 1 to 10
10
There are traffic signals at every intersection
Utilities /Public Services Available
1to10
10
Already there for existing buildings
Physical Constraints (1 to 10)
8
Have to work with something that's already
there
Environmental Hazards 1 to 10
10
None
General Plan/Zoning Designations
1 to 10
10
Not necessary to have a zone change, but can
change designation to GEIF
Adjacent Uses Compatibility 1 to 10
10
Residents and The Irvine Company want it
Measure S Vote Required (1 to 10)
10
Not required as long as the City stays within
the 30,000 s . ft. existing entitlement
Approval of Other Agencies 1 to 10
10
Not required if site is not in the Coastal Zone
Compliance with CEQA (1 to 10)
10
Not an issue since City can operate City Hall
and then request a zone change
Timing of Potential Sale 1 to 10
5
Rated the same as Site Availability
Private Use Restrictions 1 to 10
10
Nos ecial land use requirements
Cost to Acquire Land (1 to 20)
6
Will cost less than retail and residential sites
since it's an office site
Cost to Improve Site/Retrofit
Building (1 to 20)
6
One building is usable, but floor to ceiling
height may be a problem; will need to rebuild,
not retrofit
Timing to Begin (1 to .10)
5
Currently there are no tenants, but City may
need to lease
Unique Characteristics 1 to 10
10
Good location and traffic flow
Relocation Costs 1 to 10
10
None
Opportunity Costs (1 to 10)
new line item)
10
All remaining sites are 10's, except for the
Existing City Hall site which is a 3
Rogers Garden
Mr. Hill indicated that he hasn't been in contact with the owner yet.
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 3, 2006
Inland Portion of the Ardell Parcel
Chairman Tucker indicated that he hasn't been in contact with the owner
It was the consensus of the Committee to eliminate this site from consideration because the
residents that overlook the site would have a problem with it, there are problems with the ingress
and egress, there may be parking issues, the area may be zoned for mixed use, and the lot might
not be deep enough for a City Hall since the back strip is in the bluff area.
Medical Buildings on Dover Drive
Mr. Krotee stated that the trustee is open to selling the property as a last opportunity, but
recommended moving this site down on the list because it would most likely only be available
through a ground lease. He noted that the area residents probably won't have a problem with
having a City Hall there since they supported building St. Andrews Church on the site. Council
Member Selich reported that the owner of the Newport Bay Hospital still has 15 years on his lease
and is not interested in moving.
Discussion ensued relative to the City's desire to lease the land versus own the land. Mayor Pro
Tem Rosansky indicated that the site should be a significantly better site before considering leasing
a property over purchasing a property, although it depends on the lease terms. City Manager
Bludau believed that leasing isn't a reason for not considering a site and that the Committee should
point out the trade -offs in the report.
It was the consensus of the Committee to eliminate this site from consideration since a ground
lease most likely will be required, the site is surrounded by residents, it is not centrally located, the
corner site would need to be purchased, and the current tenant does not want to leave.
Lawn Bowling/Tennis Court Property on San Joaquin Hills and Crown Drive
Chairman Tucker reported that Southern California Edison lines run through the property. Public
Works Director Badum stated that the lines cannot be angled too far since they go directly into the
substation and all the lines are overhead. He noted that it would be expensive to underground
these lines. Mr. Hill reported that, for a hospital project he is working on, it would cost about
$500,000 to underground just one pole. He added that the City wouldn't want to spend all that
money for construction and have overhead utilities. Chairman Tucker noted that undergrounding
may still be cheaper than relocating City Hall twice at a cost of about $1.25 million. Mr. Hamilton
emphasized that the property already belongs to the City. In response to City Manager Bludau's
suggestion to invite a representative from Southern California Edison to a Committee meeting,
Chairman Tucker noted that no site is perfect and that the Committee should just note the issues
in the report.
Mr. Ikerd reported that the Getty Center in Malibu has installed lawn on top of the parking
structure and suggested doing this on the City's parking structure if the lawn bowling area is
relocated. Mr. Brahs questioned why the Committee is considering this park when it cannot
consider other parks.
Mr. Riddles indicated that he lives near the site and reported that the residents would be upset if
anything is done to the site.
It was the consensus of the Committee to remove this site from consideration due to Southern
California Edison issues, residential concerns, and access issues.
3
t'
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 3, 2006
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
3. ASSESS ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALE AND REUSE OF EXISTING CITY HALL
SITE.
In response to Chairman Tucker's question, City Manager Bludau confirmed that the site can be
rezoned to not have more than 99 residential units without requiring a Measure S vote.
It was the consensus of the Committee to get letters from homebuilders to see how much the
property would be worth if residential units were built and have the homebuilders determine how
many units can fit on the site. Council Member Selich and Chairman Tucker indicated that they
would contact homebuilders. Council Member Selich confirmed that this site would require a
rezoning and a General Plan Amendment, and that the homebuilder would probably want the
entitlements. Chairman Tucker stated that rezoning this site isn't a CEQA issue because
residential use creates fewer trips.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
4. DISCUSS COMMITTEE'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Chairman Tucker reported that he started a draft of the report which discusses the outreach that
has occurred, the eliminated sites, and the process the Committee went through. He stated that
the portion of the report pertaining to the remaining sites still needs to be written, but indicated
that it will include the strengths and weaknesses of each site. He stated that the matrix is an
internal tool for the Committee and will not be included in the report since the Committee may not
be prioritizing the remaining sites. He stated that he will forward a draft to the Committee in a
couple of days and will amend the report a few days after comments are received. He announced
that a May 1 meeting may be needed to finalize the report.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS — None.
6. ADJOURNMENT — at 6:05 p.m. to April 17, 2006.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on March 31, 2006, at
8:10 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
4
Chairperson
b�4
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
April 17, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Steve Brahs, Gordon Glass, Lloyd Ikerd, John Nelson, Wallace Olson, Scott Riddles, Chairman
Larry Tucker, Council Member Edward Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Steven Rosansky
Absent: John Hamilton, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen, Don Krotee, Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 3, 2006 MEETING.
Chairman Tucker requested that "imperial" be changed to "empirical" on page 1.
Without objection, the minutes were approved as amended.
2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTED SITES.
Rogers Garden
Chairman Tucker reported the owner of Rogers Garden was not interested in selling the property.
Police /Fire Station with Joint Use Parking Structure
Council Member Selich reported that the Police Department is in a 30 year old building, it has been
modified to accommodate changes in police operations, wasn't built with technology in mind, and a
professional will need to determine if the shell of the building can be reused since it is tilt -up
construction. He indicated that he is not sure if it will meet the Police Department's space needs in
the future and that the building has gone beyond its intended use. He pointed out that the current
facility will need to be operating while a new facility is being built. He reported that the Police
Department is 48,000 sq. ft. and the fire station is 13,000 sq. ft.; and there is no transferable square
footage, but 10,000 sq. ft. might be transferable from the San Joaquin Plaza. Chairman Tucker
noted that this may entail removing the fire station to build a new Police Department.
Regarding the parking structure, Mr. Ikerd recommended validating City Hall visitor parking to
determine how many visitors The Irvine Company and City Hall receive. He also pointed out that
the plan is to have a new Police Department some day and suggested finding a new site for the
Police Department and building the City Hall on this site or buying the entire 10 acres at Corporate
Plaza West now to possibly move the Police Department there in the future.
Constraints
1 = worst, highest # = best
Ratin
Explanation
Site Availability 1 to 10
10
City owns site
Sufficient Parcel Size (1 to 10)
7
Will require arrangement with The Irvine
Company for parking structure; not optimal
size without the Land Rover site, but it has a
175 ft. height limit
Site Configuration 1 to 10
10
The site is rectangular
Centrally Located 1 to 10
10
Yes
Ease of Travel (1 to 10)
10
Easy to get to
Ease of Ingress/Egress (1 to 10)
10
Pretty good ingress and egress
?0
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2006
Utilities /Public Services Available
10
Already exists
1 to 10
Physical Constraints 1 to 10
10
None
Environmental Hazards 1 to 10
10
None
General Plan/Zoning Designations
10
Already zoned GEIF
1to10
Adjacent Uses Compatibility 1 to 10
10
Yes
Measure S Vote Required (1 to 10)
1
Requires a Measure S vote since a City Hall
would addsquare footage and trips
Ap2roval of Other Agencies 1 to 10
10
None since it's not in Coastal Zone
Compliance with CE 1 to 10
1
Would need to comiRIX with CE QA
Timing of Potential Sale (1 to 10)
5
Dependent on arrangement with The Irvine
Com an
Private Use Restrictions (1 to 10)
8
There may be use restrictions with the parking
structure
Cost to Acquire Land (1 to 20)
6
There's a cost associated with the joint parking
structure
Cost to Improve Site /Retrofit
3
Need to tear down a specialized building and
Building (1 to 20 )
rebuild it
Timing to Begin (1 to 10)
5
Same value as Corporate Plaza West since
City will be dealing with The Irvine Company
with regard to the parking structure
Unique Characteristics (1 to 10)
1
Police Department and fire station may need
to be temporarily relocated during
construction; cars can't queue up on the street
in front of the fire station; may not be able to
Put a stop light there
Relocation Costs (1 to 10)
10
City Hall wouldn't need to relocate during
construction
Opportunity Costs (1 to 10)
10
All sites are 10's, except for the existing City
Hall site which is a 3
Corporate Plaza West
Chairman Tucker reported that a parcel line would need to be placed between the two existing
buildings and that the entire site is 10.1 acres, but the available site is about 7 acres. He noted
that The Irvine Company has already been approved to build an additional 42,000 sq. £t. building
on the empty pad to match the other buildings and to reconfigure the parking arrangement.
Mr. Ikerd emphasized that the City should try to get all 10 acres for future uses, especially since
the cost of land in 50 years is unknown.
San Joaquin Plaza (Buildings 1 and 5)
Chairman Tucker requested aerials of the site for the next meeting. He believed that the City
won't be able to build one 72,000 sq. ft.,building on the site and The Irvine Company doesn't want
to sell the property, but may do a long term lease. He emphasized that a long term lease is not a
reason to dismiss a site since it may become available in the future through eminent domain. Mr.
Glass believed that City Hall should be isolated from the rest of the buildings and parking lot. He
stated that the buildings at Corporate Plaza West may be smaller than these buildings; however, if
all 10 acres are available at Corporate Plaza West, a City Hall and Police Department should be
built there.
2
lC6
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2006
Chairman Tucker indicated that the configuration of the San Joaquin Plaza buildings may be
undesirable for a City Hall. Council Member Selich explained how the proposed City Hall had a
larger first floor compared to the second flood due to the Council Chambers and the One Stop Shop.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
3. ASSESS ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALE AND REUSE OF EXISTING CITY HALL
SITE.
Council Member Selich reported that a homebuilder told him that 98 two - story, slab -on -grade
condominiums could be built. Further, that there would be no parking structure. He stated that
this equated to about 25 units per acre on a 3.85 acre lot. He noted that the homebuilder came in
at $6 million per acre ($23.1 million total) and this also included all the entitlement permits. He
indicated that he is waiting for a response from a second homebuilder. Mr. Brahs believed that the
site shouldn't be considered due to the value of the land. However, if the site remains on the list,
the value should be stated in the report to Council. Mr. Nelson stated that the public will probably
want to see a $25 million park on the site, not housing.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
4. DISCUSS COMMITTEE'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Chairman Tucker indicated that he provided a draft report to the Committee and received some
comments back. He reported that staff feels the report needs more detail about why sites were not
considered further. He stated that he will update the report, resend it to the Committee, and then
provide it to staff so they can put it in its final format. City Manager Bludau indicated that the
report will probably go before Council at the May 23 meeting.
Mr. Glass asked if the report should include what the public's reaction might be if City Hall were
moved from its longtime location, especially during the City's centennial year. Mr. Brahs
recommended adding why the Committee did not consider the park site above the Central Library.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky emphasized that the park site was specifically excluded by Council.
Mr. Brahs stated that the format of the report is good. He recommended noting that a land trade
may be possible for the Corporate Plaza West site. Chairman Tucker expressed concern with what
the public perception would be and that some may think The Irvine Company got a sweetheart deal
for the existing City Hall site since it didn't go out to bid. Mr. Brahs agreed that this perception
may also occur with the Police Department/fire station site.
Chairman Tucker reported that the Committee will have looked at 22 sites by the time the report is
finalized and reiterated that the Committee was created to make sure no site was overlooked. He
noted that the public was asked to provide input on possible sites for consideration, but didn't.
However, they will still have the opportunity to speak at the meetings. Mr. Ikerd added that the
public also hasn't attended many Committee meetings.
Chairman Tucker indicated that the report will probably be structured to mainly focus on the three
remaining sites. He stated that the report would note that the Police Department/ /fire station site
has possibility but has many hurdles, that the biggest issue for the existing City Hall site is the
residential land value compared to commercial land value, and that there are positives and
negatives to the Corporate Plaza West site.
�6
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2006
Chairman Tucker indicated that costs will be discussed through site assessment, parking,
construction, and relocation considerations. He stated that the Committee doesn't have number
values to present to Council.
Chairman Tucker stated that, once the report is complete, the Committee members can talk to
Council Members as citizens because that view may be different than what they were charged with
as Committee members.
Chairman Tucker invited the public to provide comments. Hearing no one, he closed the public
comments.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS - None.
6. ADJOURNMENT - at 5:11 p.m. to May 1, 2006.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on May 14, 2006, at
5:00 a.xn. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
4
Chairperson
CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Council Chambers
May 1, 2006
4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Gordon Glass (arrived late), John Hamilton, Rush Hill, Lloyd Ikerd, Don Krotee (arrived
late), John Nelson, Wallace Olson, Chairman Larry Tucker, Council Member Edward
Selich
Absent: Steve Brahs, Roberta Jorgensen, Scott Riddles, Mayor Pro Tern Steven Rosansky,
Council Member Tod Ridgeway
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 17, 2006 MEETING.
Without objection, the minutes were approved as presented.
2. DISCUSS COMMITTEE'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Chairman Tucker stated that The Irvine Company suggested that the Committee look at San
Joaquin Plaza (formerly Civic Plaza), Buildings 1 and 5, which are currently occupied by
Pacific Life (lease expires March 31, 2008). He indicated that, in order to write the report, he
visited the buildings and presumed what the Committee would conclude. He reported that
there are two buildings that are each about 51,000 square feet, they are about 300+ feet
apart, each of the buildings are actually two separate buildings that are connected by a lobby,
each floor has a floor plate of about 12,500 square feet, parking is geared for office use not
visitors, a parking arrangement will need to be made with The Irvine Company, and parking
is not free so the City will need to make accommodations for visitors. He questioned how to
have a Council Chambers at this location. Without objection, it was agreed that this site was
not appropriate for a City Hall.
Chairman Tucker reported that he revised the report with comments he received from the
Committee. He stated that the Committee doesn't know exactly how much land residential
development can encompass on the existing City Hall site when the fire station and greenbelt
along Newport Boulevard are subtracted. Further, the Committee doesn't know the value of
the building and land at Corporate Plaza West. He noted that 20 Corporate Plaza received a
bid for close to $8001building foot and $100 /foot for the land. Mr. Hill noted that the price
included the fee - simple land.
Chairman Tucker emphasized that the Committee shouldn't try to determine the exact
economics, but let Council know that, if the project at Corporate Plaza West ends up being a
lower cost or equal to what the proceeds from the sale of the existing City Hall would be,
than the project is dollars ahead and may be something Council should seriously consider
since the Committee feels that Corporate Plaza West is probably a better location. Mr. Hill
believed that the value of the existing City Hall site is not the same if it has to go to a
Greenlight vote since the nexus for its value is based on residential use and being able to sell
it for that use with entitlements. Council Member Selich indicated that he will discuss
Greenlight issues with the City Attorney's office so they can provide input to Council.
nk
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2006
Chairman Tucker stated that cost considerations in the report include that the Corporate
Plaza West buildings would need to be retrofitted for City Hall use; no parking structure will
be needed at Corporate Plaza West, unlike at the existing City Hall site; there are relocation
issues with the existing City Hall site; the existing City Hall site entails factoring in the cost
of leasing space during construction and retrofitting it for City Hall use; if the City picks
another location, there are costs involved with acquiring another location and the City may
end up owning both sites at the same time; the existing City Hall site would need to be
rezoned, go before the Coastal Commission, etc.; and the existing City Hall site does not need
to be planned. Regarding recommending that the City buy all 10 acres at Corporate Plaza
West, Chairman Tucker indicated that this is stated in the report in order to possibly create a
complete civic center, but this was not part of the Committee's scope.
Regarding possibly owning two sites at the same time, Mr. Hamilton noted that there is no
debt on the current site, so the cost of remaining at this location during construction is not
significant.
Chairman Tucker stated that the report notes that the Committee didn't consider the
Newport Technology Center because Hoag Hospital had purchased the property before the
Committee started meeting. Further, they eventually plan to use the entire site. However,
he noted that it may be possible to use it as a temporary City Hall during construction since
it's the only 75,000 square foot building in the City, but it is unsure whether Hoag has a
phasing plan for occupancy.
Chairman Tucker stated that the Committee was requested to look at the Impact Mortgage
Building at 1401 Dove Street, but it had the same issues as the Edler Building since they're
both in the airport area and the Committee determined that the airport area wasn't where
the new City Hall should be located.
Mr. Hill recommended that the report suggest that a professional run economic comparisons.
Chairman Tucker noted that this is stated in page 5. Mr. Hamilton believed that this should
be the same person who will be analyzing the cost of leasing an alternative location if City
Hall remains at its current site. He felt that the rental on a 75,000 square foot building
would exceed the cost of interest for building a new City Hall.
Mr. Krotee requested that the report state that anything built on the existing site needs to go
before the Coastal Commission. Chairman Tucker indicated that part of the Corporate Plaza
West site is also located in the Coastal Zone, but this was already noted in the report.
Chairman Tucker reported that the staff report will go before the City Council at the May 23
meeting and requested that the Committee provide him with their changes this week so he
can finalize the Committee's version. He stated that staff will then add more detail behind
the reasons the Committee didn't accept certain sites. He confirmed that the aerials will be
included with the report.
Chairman Tucker noted that there was no one in the audience to provide public testimony
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS — None.
4. ADJOURNMENT — 4:46 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
,1ti
City Hall Site Review Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 1, 2006
The agenda for the City Hall Site Review Committee meeting was posted on April 28, 2006,
at 5:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
Chairperson
Recording Secretary
O
O CL
� O
O ry
Cn O
_ E
E
O
C) U
cn t..O
O
-�-, O
O N
N
� M
_ N
(o
O
U
U
^^W
E
E
0
U
R
4—
O
cn
^E
W
L
ro U) O L O 0 .�
_0
�a
fo 4-1 O O O O O O U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f0
0)
-
U
7
OC
N
N
.0
O
-
�I
--
U)w
O
U
O
O
o
L
ro U) O L O 0 .�
_0
�a
fo 4-1 O O O O O O U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c
a)
E
a)
cu
Cn
O
.co
.co
75
ca
V)
N
V)
ra
mo
fa
►Eq
M,
aO-+
fu
N
0
Q
z
N
mo
fu
O
fo
fu
L.
O
4–
.C: fo
U N
fu
N ,o
m >
O
E
U1
U)
ca
L.
L
—
O
aL.
Q
-O
O
_o
CL
mo
4-J
�U
�
z
fa
0
N
ca
mo
O
.0
ca
4–
_O
�U
O
U
.N
4, U
L
OJC
N 4-J
L O
.-,
O
m
N
E
E
O
N
E
O
�
LU
_o
CL
4-J
4-J
�U
L
L
4-J
fu
e�
O
� O
•-
fu
O L.
N
V
O �
O
� V
N :3
Jc O
oU
4-J
4-J
0.
U
l0
O
O
fu
fu
te
a-J
E
0
U
(u
N
L•J
.0
O
L
O
a-J
=) 4-J
4-J _>'
'ro
O
U
0 0
C: L
0
E
L
fo a)
U �
0
A
U
4-J
A
c
0
O
CL
0
m
V)
°z O
4-0 Qn
Cn
c�
C �
L-
0 O
U 4—
U
fo
cu
00
L 'gin
E
�O
U
m
E
U
c
�V
D
U
O
"O
O E
— L
.
tm
0
U)
c
E
E
0
L-
0
N
El
cn
0
U
Q
fo
U
0)
Qc�
C
O
v
V)
ca
a)
O
a-1
U)
—
a)
Ln
i
U_
N
L
N
' r-
4-J
(a
C
C
N
(a
a)
0
D
_
>
u
n
0�p�
r,
4.'
�
uC:(f)
4-J
4-J
c
0.
a
O
a)mE
=)
O
jL�_-C
rah
z
-O
M
U
U
C:
_
C:
fa
C
C:
a
rn
a�
fp
rn
U
C
°e
0—
0
0
U�
=
L'
�
::3
fo
0�
CL
0-0mm
. —
0
aC
L
0)
0
—
J
cn
U
_c
-r- f
a)
4-J
-0wm
0
W
CQ
\
E
N
�
V)
:3
�-r-
w
»
V)
ca
T'S1
VJ
C Q
2:
-0
C
mU
V
C
fl.fo
O
8L
V
ca
.� .,
V J
4
r-q
N
(yi
V)
ca
a)
O
L; 6 n
a
L-
0.
V)
c.
0
4-J
L-
0
v
z
O
00 0) +--i
O'
—
Ln
i
U_
N
O
CL
' r-
4-J
0
AND
az
a)E
_
>
fo
_�
n
0�p�
r,
U
uC:(f)
4-J
c
-0 °�
a
C'
a)mE
=)
-0
jL�_-C
rah
O
U
M
'C�
U
—
C
4-J
a
fp
°e
0—
0
/
>%
=
>.
0
CL
0-0mm
a'E
�S
aC
L
C
Ste. O
�
U
zmz
-0wm
L; 6 n
a
L-
0.
V)
c.
0
4-J
L-
0
v
z
O
00 0) +--i
W
U
1,
v
W
/1
+-�
r0
(n
Q
E
v
L
0
u-
a�
O
C
U
ca
fp
U
L
fa
a
•
C
O
L
U p
� a
a�
E E f6
U��
'L
w
_m
+--1 N M LO l0 Il*% 00
T-1 r-I rl rl rl rl rl T l
N
U
U O-
a.
L
c
fo
OS
QC
c�a
ai
2
ca�c
(n
=•LU
2:
O
w
6
a
fl.4-Jc�o
fu
L
O
fp
>
J
C
L-
m
�
f6
=
0
a..+
0
ei
�
O
p
—
30
L
OU
•—
U
�
ol
a..,
CD
-p
4-J
C
c
'a J
fu
U
In
:
—
(u
M
(D
C
0)
U
L
0pa
oar
-r-
U
L
4-J
U)
,X
>.
i
(U
6
+--1
N
O
''�
O
O
caWUUzQc
+--1 N M LO l0 Il*% 00
T-1 r-I rl rl rl rl rl T l
N
U
U O-
a.
N
OS
c�a
ca�c
(n
2:
L.
6
fu
L
O
fp
>
a
O
m
0)
0
Lf)
En 5.0
:mac
f0
—
30
O
•—
M
�
ON
a..,
CD
-p
O -
'a J
fu
C:
U
:
—
(u
M
L
p
J
U
0pa
C �
O
+--1
N
.--i
N
N
N
L �
O 4 N
OLcc)).o O
fu � 'LO'- . - u C NN fu -0 fo C: OU a)
OOn
fu
-O
O_ O >1 L- .•.-
L _� Ep�O C
m O L Q).O O
Li
_r_ O �- N
a m fu O •-
fu u
C Q W - 4-J
cn 4-J - N - 4-J
�
.O 3 3MLW�o E
a- J 4 � ca � a-J fa
U �53MMML-��L'L. Ln
0 L Oar 0 ra0mw=1 O
ca�4-J
Cn o 0 0 0
L-
C/) 4T
O
/+ O
�/ )
S-
o
O
O O
a
4-, o
�a
c 4-+
00
C 4-J
CO U E
.0 C E
O
Q CF 4—
N
L C: >
O
CD
L
E
O L
O O
O O
a , E L ,
.L� OC
> O
°o ° Q o
CL
(n U [6 N
C
O M O
01.-j 4.1
c C:
.� O O
M C a _ E
� m Q m 0
O O L L
O `0 W
O
�L) NO
z•f°o E
f E 0 L
4 4
E
N
> O
O
E
>
L E
4- N
O L
O L
--'
O
L'
L O
. �
N C a--+
0.0
4, _
L �
Nfl- [a0
i Q J m
� W O Q
M
NQ c00-
� U
4 N
4-1 4—;
i E O O
00 E V o
cam ° LnE
.5
cu
a)
Lmm
co
0.
cu
.0
W
�4- 0
0.
V )
L �
O.O
-r- V)
L
Q �
U
C:-0
N0
4-J 0
(1) O
ja�
N N
0)
O
U
U
rl
O
O
v uj
U �
L
00
m U
4.1 io a-J
C: tl
�— O
U
C �-0
0 0 0
U (DfO>.
a0_.+ fo 4-J Y
DLO_
>
>'°cn o
N 0
oa)�.-
00ul-r
4J .fO U
(U
O fa
'v O. >1
aU- o
L
v'
.T) � 3 M
fo
U
O
V)
0
U_
•L
Q)
fu
.fj,
O
N
N
N
cn
L (1)
0 =3
fn
N Ul)
Ln
OV
4-J U
0M
N U
U
f0 m
-0 E
00
O
L
�o
O U 0
T c C
rz
L-
040-
rl
m
W
0
C:
O�
U
0-0
V) d-j
f6
fl..
O E
w0
O 0
-a—
C: N
0
�vfp0
0-0 N
0 �
o in •-
I-
M v
0
0=3
-0 U
0 >�0
fo -0 v1
H M
0
L
Nruu
rl
O
4' 0
C
>Lna).o-
co,
C�_
-�e
fpcn
0E
N
o.Q U
4
fo
U
O
V)
0
U_
•L
Q)
fu
.fj,
O
N
N
N
cn
L (1)
0 =3
fn
N Ul)
Ln
OV
4-J U
0M
N U
U
f0 m
-0 E
00
O
L
�o
O U 0
T c C
rz
L-
040-
rl
m
W
0
C:
O�
U
0-0
V) d-j
f6
fl..
O E
w0
O 0
-a—
C: N
0
�vfp0
0-0 N
0 �
o in •-
I-
M v
0
0=3
-0 U
0 >�0
fo -0 v1
H M
0
L
Nruu
rl
-W.• co V)
cv un
tea) L N0
ov ="-o am
�wCO0 CCa)— p00.
(OC— C4"' --00 (ACC
a =:m 0W ONc-p 000
C C L U L 0 C
cnLna)U��i -0cn n3 C:
p�-oW0.0 �O�
�' C:.— O
(pnwa)cn-o j
(D
U)
)
O
c
0
Z
^L.
W
c
LR
V J
L L
�
0
OO
(1) tn
U0)
LL C
QO
NO
Z �
C O
fn
4-J U
�N
�_0
J
'a 4-J N
L
O N
a
o4-
C_. ^�
O
� � N
4-J fv
Q a-J O
V) 4-
fu
(n
fp
L
C
M O
OU4)
L M
NU
C
O=
I C
E
cnl N
MW
Wl
t]CI C
_ f0
Eel
L
o.`
y_ L
ON
O7�
C
C �
f6 C
� O
O 0)
C..S�
:E >
fa
fv
C C -
3: mu
roxo
0-0
N�
O �
'0 C
a�
� L
V
L
(v
�
U o
oQ)w
-0 f)
�I0= fu
i OU U
� N
O C
0 -0-0
C C
-p MM
L
W .0 fa
COL
c�
p,� V
� � O
�O�
C.� o,
O U.—
C
O C '
-O O
(U L
O.—
p1 N C'
CEO
L —
>T aJ
m
a-1
C
C
O
cn
z
�I
zI
E
.S
O-0
N
M
Ln
r-I
� N
O C
0 -0-0
C C
-p MM
L
W .0 fa
COL
c�
p,� V
� � O
�O�
C.� o,
O U.—
C
O C '
-O O
(U L
O.—
p1 N C'
CEO
L —
>T aJ
m
a-1
C
C
O
L
L.
4
0)
c6
N
0
.cn
0
1
CD
0
fu
.-J
0
4-j
fu
m
U
0
n
N
cn
fa
C
a
.0
4--i
_flD
a 4-J
._
4-J U
fo 0)
o .�
CL 4''
L .U)
U w
0 0
U)
O
co
W
V!
O
1
0n
W
U)
O
U
N
0)
N
C
O
O
4-1
U
'�
_CD
U
O
C
L
L
L
O
f0
a--+
(�/1
Ln
-W
'1")
L
i1
(n
rp
O
O
c
cn
C
C
C
N�
C
4-
-�e
O
L
L
'E
C:
a..i
4-J
a�
L
0
fu
CL
'o-
OU
f6
U
U
O
E
�>
C
O
\
n
C
�
a-+
fa
�
al
O
�
0
O
C L
V
0
0)0inY
OV"O
_
L
—J
U
�O
N
�
�
°
(U
�
O fa
N
4 -J
O_
(0
-0
Q
U
-0
U0
in
:
N
L
fa
U
—
�-
N
N
N'4-J
�.
N
N
—.—o
M 4-J
cn
N
O
O
4
O
0
M
U
U
c
c u
�+
(Lo-
M
:3
_° °
.0
04L-
�
-v
v
L
—
U
O
>
z
O
DO
UZZ
cl3:
nQUOO
�
O
0
0
0
c
.0
co
W
.C/)
O
Am
O
U
V)
O
Zim
fu
wo
.U)
O
A
U
M-1
0
�- _0
U
O U
O cn
cn
O
O
O
U
L
fu
N
E
V 4-J
(O �
4- L
-p O
L-
0 U
•
N
L
L
U
O
N
.E
�X
m
1m
1
•
O
N
Q
N
C
w
C
L
N
f0
C
L
I-
0
C
E
Q
O
U
O
.C/)
U
O
A,
O
E
c
N
.E
O
U
4-J
C L
O -�
U L.
�=3
U O
C
O '-
4-J U)
V) O
-0 3:
E
O O
o
O
fu
a�
O
U
C
fa
J
f0
U
f6
m
U)
c�
fo
E
a
L-
0
A
u
U
.K
w
N
•`t�: i C
t,;•f Wit;...
f`
c'
r,
f.
w
o I i 3
i f
•�, 5� Ar, � J t
� J'y
1 MUST GO DOWN 70•THE•6EAAG AIN; 'n
FOR THE CALL OF. THIE RUNNING 1-ID6' : =+
IS WILD CALL AND'A CLEAA,l A.L n
THAT MAY NOT. BE DEND., .:�.
iy•ri�.'.7i_':• :.a +�"r,�.Y��r 4'hii'���^ ' y'._'_
ADVOCACY PLAN
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CITY HALL
FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 1, 2006
WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA s NCARB
THE FICKER GROUP CONSULTING ® PLANNING
WILLIAM P. FICKER, AIA • NCARB
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.
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 of 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 • PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638
r
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 corner. 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 LICI campus,
and certainly an internationally 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 sq. ft.
with a parking structure between the main building and the library, housing 220
_. cars. It also illustrates a ground level open parking of approximately 70 -80 cars.
It is the opinion of this advocacy plan that a single story building.has many
advantages:
1. 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.
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 o PHONE (949) 675 -9628 • FAX (949) 675 -9638
417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9828 -.FAX (949) 675.9638
Advocacy Plan
April 26, 2006
Page 4 of 5
I
i
6. Costs
The following is intended as a "magnitude"
of cost but is based on knowledgeable
construction cost information.
Grading
.
157,000 cy @ 15.00tyd.
2,000,000.00 .
Onsite Improvements
Paving
140,000.00
Curb & Gutters
41,000.00
Lights
- and Enhanced Paving
72,000.00
Retaining Walt
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
2.500.000.00
TOTAL
$27.533.000.00
417 THIRTIETH STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • PHONE (949) 675 -9828 -.FAX (949) 675.9638
Advocacy Plan
April 26, 2006
Page 5 of 5
1
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
n u.zs os �
Miles
LOCATION 1
CITY HALL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADVOCACY PLAN - MAY 1, 2006
WILLIAM P. FICKER AIA a NCARB
--< , A± : -� -, - ,:. . . : : -. -. - -:, -,-. I
k
L
STEEL ROW- (M
JJLA'MD)MQ,STRYCTM
UiCTION a,--
SCALE
0 26 60
SECTIONS
CITY HALL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADVOCACY PLAN - MAY 1, 2006
WILLIAM P. FICKER AIA • NCARB
Tiv
.......... . . . .......
MACARTHUR 9
ELEVATION6 - AVOCA®