Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2004 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 13, 2004 - 4:30 p.m. Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: Adams (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan referred to Item #4 and requested information on how much the City has spent to date on consultants, attorneys, etc. for extending the current cable franchises. On Item #16, the Gugasian property across from the Bay Club, Council Member Heffernan requested information on when the minutes or a confirmation of what went on at that hearing would be available because of the appeal period. Council Member Nichols noted that he will pull Item #6 on the Landmark buildings during the regular meeting. He noted that all the buildings are being treated the same and questioned the appropriateness of that. Mayor Ridgeway confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that those issues have already been discussed. 2. CONFERENCE & VISITORS BUREAU PRESENTATION. Marta Hayden, Executive Director, Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (CVBBureau), introduced the Board members present at the meeting and utilizing a PowerPoint presentation pointed out that the Bureau's mission statement in essence talks about increasing the economic fiber for the community, generating overnight visitor stays and increasing what the visitor spends. She said they are continuing with that mission today by talking about the renewal of their contract. She said the Bureau feels they have a very important relationship with the City and noted that the contractual arrangement with the City happened over 20 years ago and they consider themselves the marketing division for the City. She noted that there have been some challenges in the hospitality industry and with the local economy so they want to make sure they're reaching their full potential and generating as much TOT for the City as possible. She explained that the City collects $8.7m in transient occupancy tax (TOT), which represents 10% of the City's budget. In addition, she noted room revenue, restaurant and the retail spent and noted that the hospitality community generates up to $25m in revenue for the City. She noted changes in the economy over the past two years and stated that a part of the partnership that they feel is very important is the reinvestment of a portion of the TOT to generate more TOT. She noted that today they will address the current economic climate, the competitive analysis, the bureau's budget, the state of the hospitality industry, allocation of resources, key Volume 56 - Page 578 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX accomplishments, what the Bureau does with the funding and the funding recommendation they would like to see approved with their contract renewal. She noted that they are aware of the City's challenges as it pertains to PERS, the stock market, and the state budget and the impact on the City. She presented a slide showing how the City competes with other cities in California and noted that San Diego has $16m to promote itself and Monterey has $3.3m. She said they need to be properly funded so they maintain and grow the market share. She noted that the Bureau was instrumental in bringing the Toshiba to Newport Beach, which represents over 3000 guest rooms, or $700,000 in room revenue as well as food and beverage revenues of over $300,000. She explained that over a six year period they are at the very lowest time in their funding level. In 2001 they were at over $lOm in TOT, last year dropped to $9m and this year based on the projections their funding is at $1.3m. For their base program just to operate it has to be between $1.6m and $1.9m. She stated that the bureau is very passionate about the programs they use to generate business for Newport Beach. This year they used $337,000 from their reserves in order to fulfill their commitment for the trade shows and familiarization trips. As far as hospitality, in 2001 the daily room rate was almost $170 and occupancy was over 75 %. In two years it has dropped to $135 per guest room and occupancy is 66.5 %. Since 2002 the occupancy has increased, but at the price of discounting rooms. In twelve months there have been over 700 new guest rooms opened within a six mile radius and during the same time period there have been another 1300 guest rooms added in the Anaheim and Garden Grove areas. This has impacted the larger conventions and Newport Beach no longer enjoys the overflow that used to come to the beach area. For all of Orange County there have been over 7000 new guest rooms added and everyone is competing for the same pie. She reiterated that they are at their very lowest level of funding in the most competitive market that they've ever had and they really need the funding to do a very effective program on the City's behalf. Over 90% of their funds are dedicated to sales and marketing to generate more TOT and bring in more groups. She said they are an umbrella group to get their hospitality partners together to participate in trade shows and familiarization trips to bring in planners to experience Newport Beach and look at Newport Beach as a possibility for their next meeting. Regarding their key accomplishments, she said they have goals and their sales lead goals resulted in $5m in direct room revenue. They also have sales goals from their influencing sales and they work with their partners in the hotel industry to do trade shows and develop leads to eventually book rooms. They had over $18m this year in room revenue. They launched a very successful summer stay program going after the vacationer and starting in May the occupancy has increased 10% every month. Another goal with their public relations agency and communications department is to get favorable impressions in the media. With the boat show in December, they received over $600,000 worth of ad equivalencies on all the major networks (CNN and A &E) and were in the top ten on the ultimate holiday town program. Ms. Hayden noted that the bureau is very pivotal to the sales process both as a catalyst and with their own sales force as a direct entity to go out and get the business. As far as what the bureau would do with additional funding, she noted that they are presently spending money from reserves which can't be sustained for very long. If they don't have the funds to go forward they won't be able to fund seven trade shows and the City would be missing $7m in room revenue. Their lead generating firms anticipate increasing their leads by 40% and they had a $lm revenue goal to generate leads, which they've exceeded. A Volume 56 - Page 579 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 I `iZ northern California sales office was established and their goal was $lm in leads. The advertising budget was increased to direct people to the website and to generate RFP's for future sales. She reiterated the goals of the public relations firms and their goals for favorable impressions. Revenue Manager Glen Everroad noted that the current contract provisions were established in 1998, which was an extension of a 1993 contract that the City originally created with the bureau to provide a portion of the TOT in addition to the Visitors Service Fee (VSF) that the hotels collect in the 10% rate that is charged on the room rental. Using a spreadsheet to illustrate his points, Mr. Everroad explained how the contract provides for the bureau's funding. The funding is a combination of the VSF, which is a portion of the 10% that the hoteliers collect and 99% of that VSF that is collected is provided to the CVB, which has been the source of their funding since the VSF was originally created in 1986. He noted that the spreadsheet reflects the last six fiscal years and the top number is the total collection that the hoteliers are providing to the City. The hoteliers collect 10% of the room rental rate. 9 of the 10% is the TOT and prior to 1993 all of the TOT was retained by the City and with the 1993 agreement the City began sharing a percentage of the TOT with the CVB. That came in conjunction with a TOT tax increase that was imposed in 1993 and the current agreement that was approved in 1998 is a continuation of that formula. The VSF reflects the 1% the hotels have collected and then there is a bonus amount. Since 1993 there was a threshold amount of TOT that the City anticipated coming from the 9% in TOT and then everything that exceeded that threshold amount of TOT the City would share 50/50 with the CVB in what is referred to in the agreement as a "bonus payment ". That bonus has a cap that was created in 1993 and both the threshold and the cap have increased by the change in the consumer price index since 1993. The bonus amount is an amount calculated from the TOT based on the threshold up to a cap. The last six years reflects a bonus amount that is at the cap that was established in 1993. The VSP plus the bonus is what the City remits to the CVB each year. The percentage of the total collection from the hotels that the CVB receives from the City is 14.88% (2003). Responding to Council Member Heffernan's questions, Mr. Everroad explained that the bonus amounts in each of the years depicted in the spreadsheet are at the cap and have been at the cap since around 1997 -98. He noted that they surveyed some of the local cities that the CVB competes with to identify what percentage of the collections those communities realize in terms of the CVB's effort. He noted that there are a wide array of formulas for funding conference and visitor bureau programs and noted that the average of the 10.12 communities surveyed provide a funding of the total collections from the hotel of about 14.8 %. The range in that particular survey was from a low of 8% to a high of 31% of the total collection being provided to the conference and visitor bureaus. The 31% was the City of Monterey, which is a unique situation since it is actually a City department opposed to a contractor to the City that provides that marketing effort for the convention center. The next City down in terms of funding percentages was Newport Beach, so the City is 2nd on a list of 11. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions about how the total collections have gone down but the bonus has gone up, Mr. Everroad explained that there is a lag between the payment of the bonus and the fiscal year in which the revenue is realized. The contract provides that the City will calculate and pay the CVB in 30 days following the end of the fiscal year. He noted that the City is always pushing against the cap in the bonus amount so even if the Volume 56 - Page 580 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX TOT collections fall because the CVB has been at the cap for the last six fiscal years, they get to the cap sooner. As far as projecting 2003 -04 TOT collections, Mr. Everroad noted that the City doesn't realize the bulk of the TOT, in the first two quarters of the fiscal year so it would be difficult to estimate at this time and deferred to the industry to make that projection. He noted that during the upcoming fiscal year there are some dynamics with a couple of hotels that will affect it. Ms. Hayden reiterated that the current formula is very complex and the one they are recommending is simpler and is a stepped program. Over the course of this last year she said they have talked about a subsidy since they're currently pulling money out of reserves and considered requesting a $400,000 subsidy, however realize this isn't the time for that so they're not recommending it. The other option is a room tax increase and with the economy recovering as it is they feel it could almost have a negative effect with the consumers and will put them higher than their competitive set. She explained how this will impact the group market and they feel the funds would be better spent on marketing to try to get more TOT than to drive the rate up. She said the one they would like to propose and that they feel is in the best interest of the City would be the stepped program. Their contract would remain as is and there would be no financial impact during this budget period and would remain as is through 2004. As of July lst, they would look at an average of what they've been getting for the percentage and would go up 1% in the funding formula. They project that if everything stayed as is the impact to the City would be $174,000. She said if they weren't doing certain projects the loss would be $5m so in TOT the loss would be another $500,000 if they weren't doing just one of the programs mentioned. Then they would look at increasing 1% in the subsequent following two years, which they feel would really soften the impact and the City would be sharing in the incentive and the risk as they move forward. It would make them whole and it is a very simplified formula. She asked that the Council adopt their recommendation and approve it going forward. City Manager Bludau reiterated that since the CVB currently receives 15.7% it would go up to 16.7 %, a year later to 17.7% and after a third year it would be at 18.7 %. It would go to a straight percentage rather than a cap. He explained that in 1992 -93 the first ERAF shift took place so the City was hit very hard and in trying to come up with new revenues staff thought a good opportunity was to increase the room tax from 9% to 10 %. In order to do that it needed the assistance of the hotels and basically there was an agreement made that if the hotels would support the citywide election, that the City would share 50% of that 1% increase but place a cap on it. He said what makes it complicated is the formula for that last 1% going from 9 to 10, so they get 15.7% because of the way that last 1% is treated and divided. Mayor Ridgeway explained that the Council does not take action at Study Sessions. Mr. Bludau explained that the current agreement expires at the end of February so it would be up for renewal "as is" or as is being proposed. Bruce Brainerd reiterated where the CVB has been over the last three years and the competitive environment they're in. He spoke in support of Ms. Hayden's comments about a tax increase potential and feel now is not the time for a tax increase given the competitive nature of business today for the groups coming in Volume 56 - Page 581 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX and the pool of funds. He said they are already negotiating away so many things at the property level to get the groups to come in because of the increase in the room inventory both in Huntington Beach and along the coast. In terms of overall business environment, he said they expect to see pretty much the same from the last twelve months coming into 2004. In addition there are two properties that have major renovations in progress (Hyatt Newporter and the Marriott Newport Beach), which will have some impact on the overall TOT. He reiterated that it is a very competitive environment and the City has inventory out of service and decreased revenues. He said they would appreciate any support the City can provide them in marketing the city. Mayor Ridgeway questioned how many properties the CVB promotes. Ms. Hayden reported that they promote seven major properties and also promote all the inns and boutique properties, so all the properties are promoted. She said they have both the visitor segment and also the meetings. She noted all the information available on their website and all the things they do to promote visitors to come to Newport Beach. She said they also promote to bus groups and youth groups and noted that about 40% of their efforts go to the individual traveler. Council Member Bromberg reiterated the state budget situation and noted that he's had his own business for over 30 years and said that if he's learned anything over those years it is that you have to spend money in order to make money, even in the hard times, and probably have to spend more and try harder during those times because of the greater competition. He said he favored a short -term relief, a quick infusion of some money, but the competition is fierce. He said he's also been a proponent of a 1/2 percent increase in TOT, however right now that doesn't seem feasible in the group market. As far as the group market, he said he feels strongly that you have to spend money to make money. He said he's comfortable with the very capable CVB staff and would support the stepped program and would like to see it come back as an agenda item. Council Member Webb asked what the TOT comparisons are with the City, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine. Mr. Everroad clarified that the visitor typically doesn't distinguish between any other fee that is imposed by the hotelier, self- assessed by the hotelier, or imposed by the City to fund conference and visitor bureaus, business improvement districts (BID), etc. He said the numbers he will be conveying are a total of the TOT and VSF or BID that the guest may be paying. Anaheim is at 15 %, which is the high end of those surveyed. Costa Mesa has a 6% TOT and seven of the hotels in that community have a self- assessed 2% BID that funds their marketing efforts. Laguna Beach has a 10% TOT and a 2% BID, 50% of which funds the CVB and 50% of which funds various arts programs within the community. Irvine is at 8% with a 2% BID, 75% of which goes to the Chamber and 25% to the City. Huntington Beach is at 10% TOT and a 1% BID and they also fund an additional $250,000 out of TOT. Garden Grove is at 13 %. Palm Springs has a range of 11 -1/2% for hotels without convention facilities and 12- 1/2% for hotels with convention facilities. San Diego is at 10 -1/2 %. He reiterated that these figures are what the hotelier imposes, so in Newport Beach it would be recited as 9% TOT and 1% VSF for a combined rate of 10 %. Volume 56 - Page 582 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX Council Member Webb said that it appears that the only City that Newport Beach wouldn't be competitive with is Costa Mesa which is a couple of percent less, however the City is below Laguna Beach, Anaheim and Huntington Beach and about the same as Irvine. Ms. Hayden noted that everyone around Newport Beach with the exception of Costa Mesa is 10 %, so they're comparable. Council Member Webb noted that as far as TOT Huntington Beach is 10% but there is a 1% for the BID and the person paying the bill doesn't know the difference. He asked whether it would be possible for the City to have some sort of BID with the hotels. Mr. Bludau explained that if it were an official TOT increase it would have to go to a vote of the people, but if the hotels decide themselves to basically tax themselves or levy a fee of 1/2 or 1 percent, they could in effect do that. The City would collect it and rebate it back and it would not require a vote of the people since it would not be a City tax. Council Member Rosansky questioned whether the City collects any "per head" fee that goes into the coffers and is shared by the CVB or is it strictly the hotels that fund this. He asked whether there are other businesses that thrive off the visitors that come to the community. Mr. Everroad reported that there are no other exactions made by the City that fund the CVB. He reported that summer rentals do pay TOT and a VSF which is imposed on 525 vacation rental properties. They collect the same percentage from the room rental rate as do the hoteliers and it also funds the CVB as well. Ms. Hayden noted that the City enjoys the benefit of the sales tax from retail so there is a multiplier effect and they do generate more than room tax, however it doesn't come back and impact them. Mr. Everroad explained that the City receives about 13% of the total sales tax which is 1% of the 7 -3/4% that is imposed by the retailer. He also noted that the City does impose a Marine Charter passenger tax on the charter industry which goes into the general fund and there is no subvention to CVB of those monies. Council Member Heffernan questioned the CVB on the proposed Marinapark Hotel and asked whether it adds to their pool or if it is more competition. Ms. Hayden stated that if it does come to fruition it has been estimated that it will bring in $lm in revenue to the City and it would be a benefit. She reiterated that with the Inn at Pelican Hill, which won't come to fruition for 2 -3 years, they are already doing the pre -sale for that, which will have a very positive impact for the City. Council Member Heffernan asked why the TOT is going down. Ms. Hayden reported that there is more inventory in a no- demand market and the planners are taking advantage of the excess inventory and driving a harder bargain with the hotels so the profit margin with the hotels is going down. This decreases the room rate and there is more availability. She said they're hoping to generate more revenue in the next few years. She stressed the importance of the redevelopment of the two properties since it will have a very positive effect because they'll be more sellable. She indicated that if the Council approves their proposal they will use the new funds for more trade shows, by going to more feeder markets, would enhance their webpage by making it a booking engine, and host more familiarization promotions. In response to Mayor Ridgeway, Ms. Hayden reported that the CVB has 11 employees and one contractor in San Francisco, as well as lead generating firms and consultants. She stated that they have seen a definite increase in email use, and noted that the groups use the website for their preliminary research Volume 56 - Page 583 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 and the RFP process. She noted that their reserve fund is $800,000 and this year they've spent about $300,000 of it. She also noted that the CVB has a reserve policy in place which requires them to keep 1/2 of their operating costs in reserve. As far as the impact of 9 -11, Ms. Hayden reported that 2001 was the biggest year for Newport Beach — over $10m. 9 -11, the Afghan war, the loss of consumer confidence, the stock market and the security alert changes have all impacted the industry, and they feel the turn around will be towards the latter part of 2004. Mayor Ridgeway agreed with Council Member Bromberg's comments about spending money to make money, however reminded the CVB of the City's PERS obligation from 2004 -2008 that will ratchet anywhere from $lm - $3m to the City's general fund cost and there is no corresponding return. He said the question for most cities is a cut to services, and in their case, maybe they could look at less employees and more productivity. He said he isn't suggesting they go that route; however he pointed out that they've incorporated a dynamic economic model when talking about loss but not when talking about the future of these additional improvements and the resort in Newport Coast and the proposed Marinapark hotel, which would generate $150,000 to their bottom line. He stated that from his reference point it does need to be brought back for a Council decision; however he said that as of today he has a greater obligation to the citizens to look at the PERS costs than to the CVB's request. He said, however, that he does like the simplicity of their request and recognized that they're using their reserves. He said he feels the economy is improving and feels their revenue will increase even if the new hotels are not built. Regarding the self- imposed fees, he said they could negotiate that. He reiterated that the Council's obligation is to the upcoming budget for 2004 -05 and the PERS component is a very significant consequence to everyone. 3. PRESENTATION FROM CORONA DEL MAR CENTENNIAL FOUNDATION — PLANNING FOR CORONA DEL MAR CENTENNIAL ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS. Peggy Fort said she's here to report on the progress and provide an update for the Corona del Mar (CdM) Centennial celebration. She said she serves as the Executive Director of the CdM Centennial Foundation, which is the leading body that is organizing the celebration on behalf of the community. She voiced her appreciation to the people she's been working with since January of 2003. She noted that they've worked very diligently as a group to include the entire community in putting together a celebration for them, as well as a prelude to the City of Newport Beach's centennial in 2006. She said there are a number of residents, community leaders and business leaders from CdM in attendance to show their support of what has been planned so far. She provided a brief background of the foundation. Mayor Ridgeway questioned whether this item was to discuss the Parks, Beaches & Recreation (PB &R) Commission action and voiced concern about the limited amount of time to discuss this item. He noted that he's had a lot of communication about the proposed statue at Inspiration Point. Ms. Fort reported that one of the aspects of the Centennial is the proposed community enhancement plan for Inspiration Point. The plan involves a time Volume 56 - Page 584 INDEX (100/2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX capsule monument that the committee would like to erect to honor the centennial and to inspire future generations to respect the preservation of the ocean and to also combine some of the themes that the centennial has looked at, which include art, culture and the opportunity for the community to come together. She noted that the committee went to the PB &R meeting last Tuesday to present the conceptual site plans. At that meeting the Commission decided not to vote on the issue and asked the committee to come back with some specific outreach verification (i.e. letter campaigns and answers to questions they had). She stated that it's important to stress that the committee is comprised of over 200 members that are residents of CdM and noted that they have received their official 501c3 status to support fundraising for the centennial. She reiterated that they've done an extensive outreach campaign throughout the month of December. She presented information regarding their campaign as well as information about the time capsule monument. Ms. Fort reported that the group originally looked at an area along Ocean Boulevard as a potential site for something like this to honor the centennial because in many ways it is a historic site in the community. This is meant to enhance the Inspiration Point location, to fit into what is already there, and to improve upon it and not take away or impede views. She said they originally looked at a site at the corner of Larkspur and Ocean Boulevard and in early December they held a meeting to discuss it. Through the recommendation of the residents at that meeting the committee was asked to consider Inspiration Point as the location. At this point in time she said they aren't able to look at another option as far as location because it will make it impossible for the project to come to fruition because of the amount of time left before the centennial. She said the goal is to have the time capsule monument completed by the ground breaking event for the centennial, which is October 14th. She said they looked at a number of ideas for the art sculpture portion of it and noted that the artist chosen meets the criteria that the Centennial Foundation established in regard to the work that this artist is doing. She noted that dolphins are unofficially the mascot of CdM and people will have an opportunity to purchase bronze plates to help fund the monument. In response to Council Member Heffernan, Ms. Fort reported that in order to complete the monument by the groundbreaking ceremony they would need to give Wyland's organization a down payment of $40,000 by April lst. She explained that in setting the date for the celebration the committee looked at the entire year and noted that the fist part of July is officially when CdM was purchased from The Irvine Company, however it was difficult to plan a big beach event and celebration during the middle of summer, so they chose the October date for the celebration. She said if they are to move forward with the monument they will need to get approval in February. Mr. Bludau said the Committee needs to go back to PB &R for approval. City Attorney Burnham explained that depending on whose property it is they would need approval of the City or the property owner to install the monument. He explained that according to the Public Works Director a good portion of Inspiration Point may be owned by the State of California. If it is owned by the State the City would need to review the agreement relative to Corona del Mar State Beach and what the obligations are. If it is City property, Mr. Burnham indicated that the Council would need to approve an Encroachment Permit. He explained that since PB &R advises the City on the use of public lands and Volume 56 - Page 585 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 11011 D►:/ parks, the question was whether this particular location would be an appropriate one for the installation of a sculpture of this nature. In reference to questions about the height limit, Mr. Burnham indicated that this could potentially be an issue that needs to be addressed, however it will depend on whether it's City or State property and depending upon whether it's right of way or fee property it may be that the top of curb height limit which is applicable to structures along Ocean Boulevard might be applicable to this installation. He said once his office has all the information they will offer an opinion on this issue. As far as formal notification he indicated that the encroachment permit process doesn't require notification, however there are specific requirements in the code regarding noticing for a variance. Even though it's not required for an encroachment permit, the City Council or staff could notify people within whatever radius is deemed appropriate. He noted that the Recreation & Senior Services Department notified residents within a three block radius of the proposed site for the PB &R meeting. He noted that there isn't a procedure in place that would require notification if the Council chose to exceed the height limit on a project. In response to Council Member Bromberg's questions about what the group has done as far as community outreach in the neighborhood Ms. Fort indicated that in early December the committee hosted a meeting on Ocean Boulevard and personally walked and invited neighbors, as well as sent a mailing to over 225 residents within the impact zone. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting. She said they also had a booth at the CdM Christmas Walk and got 30+ signatures in support of the project. She noted that the outreach has been ongoing since January and they've been publicizing their committee meetings and working hard to bring the community together in the whole process. As a result of the PB &R Commission meeting they are going to be hosting another neighborhood meeting at the Reed's home, which is two homes away from Inspiration Point on Ocean Boulevard and also will be doing a very focused letter, email campaign and signature campaign befor the PB &R Commission meeting. At the neighborhood meeting there was no one in opposition to the project. Council Member Webb said he thinks the Ocean Boulevard right of way is an extra 40 feet beyond the curb so if there is any doubt about whether it's in the right of way it can be moved five foot closer to the street to make sure it's in the right of way rather than worrying about the State Lands Commission or whoever else is involved. Rather than worry about who should be noticed everybody should be noticed and the City needs to make sure that the residents that are going to be most impacted by the views are given the opportunity to come forward and speak. Recreation & Senior Services Director Knight reported that her department sent out notices 2 -1/2 weeks before the Christmas holiday, as well as the Friday before the meeting, to residents three blocks in either direction of the location and one full block back (250 notices). She reiterated that they were mailed by the City and the first was a postcard and the second notice was a copy of the agenda. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that this isn't clear in the minutes and it should be. Bruce Colbright said he thinks the monument is a great idea; however it needs a Volume 56 - Page 586 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX location that is best suited for it. He noted that CdM has very few view parks and the committee should find a more suitable park where maintaining the view is not a principal issue. He said a monument of the size proposed will interfere with the use of the park. He distributed photos of Inspiration Point as well as pictures of alternative locations (Oasis Senior Center, median strip on Coast Highway at the Marguerite intersection, Begonia Park at the corner of Bayside and Carnation, and Grant Howald Park). He said a monument like this needs a prominent location. He said that Inez Howald, wife of Grant Howald, who was a member of the group who purchased the parcel and donated it to the City to be preserved as open space for the view, mentioned that the deed restricts the parcel such that it was to be preserved in perpetuity with no structures on the site. He said zoning may also be an issue since it prohibits the loss of any public views. He said that in essence you don't enhance a world class view by blocking it. He said there may also be issues with earthwork and the City needs to make sure they've addressed the geology of the site. Helen Anderson noted that she spoke with Inez Howald who said that the deed definitely stipulated that there were to be no structures on that property. She also noted the number of slides on the terrain. Council Member Nichols noted that one of the PB &R Commissioners surveyed people in the area and all five of the people he surveyed thought Inspiration Point was an inappropriate location and noted that he felt he surveyed a wide range of people. He said he has some of the same feelings and stated that it is a wonderful project that has merit and it should be placed somewhere in the business community where the supporters are. He noted that Grant Howald Park is too off the beaten path. Mayor Ridgeway noted that Council has asked for a legal opinion regarding the height and said he would be surprised if there were a deed on the property. He said he wished Phil Sansone was here, however he said he felt he would have supported it since he was very pro- Corona del Mar. He said the City and the Centennial Foundation have done a good job of noticing the public; however he said he'd like to hear from the people who are directly impacted across the street or immediately adjacent to the project. He said We a gorgeous project and it should not be in the back parks. As far as geology issues he said this will be easy to engineer, however the greater issue in his mind is the three foot height limit that appears to be violated somewhat regularly on Ocean Boulevard by park benches, spyglasses, etc. He noted that PB &R brought up a lot of red herrings that need to be ferreted out and a legal opinion is needed regarding the height and zoning. He also said everyone in the community that is here and listening should be notified that PB &R will be hearing this on February 3, 2004. He asked that someone from City staff find out who the 5 people are that the commissioner spoke to that opposed the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. ADJOURNMENT — at 6:10 p.m. + +xrr * * * * * * *t *xrxrrr+xtte * * *x * ** Volume 56 - Page 587 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 7, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary 2 Mayor Volume 56 - Page 588 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 13, 2004 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Volume 56 - Page 589