HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - Plans and Specifications for Newport Center ParkCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 29
June 12, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Homer Bludau, City Manager
949/644 -3000 or hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Council Decision to Proceed with the Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for Newport Center Park's Middle Phase with Tot Lot,
Restroom and Parking Lot Components, Increasing the Budget for
Such Planning and Finalizing Park Naming Rights
ISSUE:
Does the City Council want to authorize City staff to take the following actions?
1. Approve construction of the park based on the currently approved park concept plan,
incorporating the suggestions of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for
a tot lot, restroom and the addition of an upper parking lot. Construction would be
accomplished in phases, with the middle phase coming first.
2. Accept the $600,000 donation towards the construction of the middle phase in
exchange for the naming rights of the entire park, with the provision that other park
component naming rights will be available, and direct staff to negotiate the naming
rights agreement.
3. Provide conceptual approval to amend the FY 2007 -2008 park budget from
$200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids.
4. Direct staff to complete construction documents for the middle section phase as
soon as possible and put them out to bid.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
DISCUSSION:
Background: At the May 24, 2007 meeting, Mayor Pro Tern Selich asked these four items
be placed on this agenda for Council discussion and action.
Council Decision to Proceed with the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Newport Center Park's
Middle Phase with Tot Lot and Parking Lot Components, Increasing the Budget for Such Planning and
Finalizing Park Naming Rights
June 12, 2007
Page 2
These issues have been the subjects of numerous Council discussions over the past
several years. Most recently, due to the issue involving a potential conflict of interest on
the part of PB &R Commission Member Debra Allan, Council directed staff to stop further
spending on the Newport Center park site project and referred the park concept to the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for its assessment of the best use for this
park space. The Commission did reconsider the question and has determined the best
use to be a passive park use, but does recommend the passive park contain a tot lot,
restroom and parking lot.
The four action items being proposed by Mayor Pro Tern Selich would start the process
up again, and when plans and specifications for the middle phase of the park's
development are completed, direct staff to put the middle phase specifications out to bid.
Staff would then bring the bids back for Council review and award.
Rather than discuss the four issues separately, the following staff reports, minutes and
memo are included as background information:
March 27, 2007 Staff report on potential rescinding of action to move
forward with park planning due to potential conflict of
interest issue and refer park scope to PB &R. Minutes
included.
February 27, 2007 Staff report on whether to proceed with park planning;
report contains latest project cost estimate and detailed
history of past Council actions regarding the site. Minutes
included.
June 28, 2005 Minutes of Council discussion regarding park naming
rights.
Policy B -17 Council policy titled "Parks, Facilities and Recreation
Program Donations" establishes Council guidelines for
park naming rights
June 6, 2007 Memo from Sharon Wood regarding Planning issues
(CIOSA, park needs, park dedication and in -lieu
requirements for Newport Center new residential
development, Newport Center Park and OCTA General
Plan land use regulations [information requested by
Mayor Pro Tern Selich]).
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review.
Council Decision to Proceed with the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Newport Center Park's
Middle Phase with Tot Lot and Parking Lot Components, Increasing the Budget for Such Planning and
Finalizing Park Naming Rights
June 12, 2007
Page 3
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours
in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
Homer Bludau
City Manager
Attachments: March 27, 2007 Staff Report
February 27, 2007 Staff Report
June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes
Council Policy B -17
Memo from Sharon Wood Regarding Planning Issues
3
"RECEIVED AUER AGENDA
PRINTED" Ialfol
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
March 27, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Robin Ciauson, City Attorney
(949) 644 -3131 or rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS
DECISION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007 TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE
PROJECT BACK TO THE PARK, BEACHES AND RECREATION
COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ISSUE:
Should the City Council rescind its decision to proceed with the design and eventual
construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the project back to the Park,
Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) for reconsideration?
RECOMMENDATION:
If desired, rescind the City Council's decision of February 27, 2007 to proceed with the
design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 including the City
Council's decision to: (1) proceed with the preparation of plans and. specifications for the
bid package for Phase 1; (2) approve construction of the park per the approved City
Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the
middle phase first; (3) accept the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle
phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park; (4) approve, in concept, the
amendment of the Fiscal Year 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding for the park from
$200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and (5) direct staff to complete
the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put
them out to bid.
DISCUSSION:
On February 27, 2007, the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to develop
Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Copies of the staff report and meeting minutes from
the February 27, 2007 meeting are attached hereto.
k
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 2
Just prior to the February 27, 2007 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp
received an inquiry whether Park, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Deborah
Allen had a possible conflict of interest. City GIS staff prepared a map showing that
Commissioner Allen's residence was located 375 feet from the Newport Center Park.
Mr. Harp informed Commissioner Allen of this in the morning of February 27, 2007. Mr.
Harp was present at the Council meeting on February 27"' in my place as I was out of
state on bereavement leave. When I returned, I looked into the impacts a potential
conflict of interest would have on actions already taken by the City Council and the
PI'3 &R Commission and determined that an alleged violation of the Political Reform Act
could subject the PB &R Commission and City Council actions and decisions related to
the park's design and development to a legal challenge.
Specifically, the Political Reform Act (PRA) provides that an official may not make a
decision, participate In the making of a decision or in any way attempt to use his or her
official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has
reason to know he/she has a financial interest. The prohibition from using the official's
position to influence a governmental decision, according to a publication by the Attorney
General, "was intended to ensure that public officials do not act: indirectly to affect their
private economic interests by utilizing their official status or activities. It specifically
includes attempting to affect any decision within the official's own agency or any agency
appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency". Conflicts of
Interest, Office of the Attorney General, page 22.
When a decision involves another's real property located within a 500 foot radius of an
official's real property, the official's real property is presumed to be directly involved in
the decision. Real property directly involved in a decision is presumed to be a material
financial effect on the official unless the decision will have no financial effect, "not even
a penny." Unless the official establishes by a reasonable, objective method that there is
no financial impact on their real property interest they are expected by the regulations to
step down and not participate In the decision, or use their position to influence another
body of the same agency in making a decision.
I have provided the above regulations to inform the Council and the public of the basic
provisions of the PRA and regulations that apply. Given the potential conflict of interest,
the February 27, 2007 and /or decisions and recommendations of the PB &R
Commission could be subject to legal challenge by a resident under the Political Reform
Act.
Environmental Review: This is not a project under CEQA.
5
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 3
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Prepared & Submitted by:
Robin Clauson,
City Attorney
Attachments: February 27, 2007 Staff Report (Agenda Item No. 23)
February 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes (Agenda Item No. 23)
6
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
PI g Director Lepo reported on the following Planning Commission agenda items for
Mar 22, 2007: Variance No. 2006.003 for 709 Kings Road; the valetlparking management
plan at 70 Bison Avenue; Use Permit No. 2006-038 for the Wine Gallery; a report on
parking in- u fees; and a GIS application update.
The Council recessed at 9.45 p.m. d reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with all members present.
XDL CURRENT BUSINESS
18. PROFESSIONAL SERVIC AGREEMENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE OF
THE ZONING CODE (TIT 20) AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET
AMENDMENT 1100- 20071.
Associate Planner Ramirez stated that th urpcee of the budget amendment is to acquire
monies for a rewrite of the Zoning Code and Qr4 Review.
Motion by Council Member Daisle to a) appr the PSA with Hogle- Ireland for the
Zoning Code Rewrite and CEQA Review; and b) app e a budget amendment (07BA -061)
transferring $632,420 from the unappropriated General d reserve to a new Planning
Department Account, 2710.82932 Zoning Code Rewrite.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Metaber Gardner
XVIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS
17. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS FEBRUARY 27,
2007 DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF
NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARKS,
BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION (100-
20071.
City Attorney Clauson noted that this matter was brought about as a Parks, Beaches and
Recreation (PB&R) Commissioner was discovered to have a potential conflict of interest due
to the proximity of her residence to the subject property and whether the alleged violation
might result in a lawsuit to rescind the Council's previous decision.
Debra Allen, recipient of the alleged charges, said the charges were absolutely false. Upon
advise from Assistant City Attorney Harp she contacted the Fair Political Practices
Commission and was told there would be no conflict of interest as a citizen and PB &R
Commissioner with her speaking on this matter at the February 27 City Council meeting.
She was very disturbed that the City had left the impression via a press release that she
had a conflict of interest and felt that her reputation had been irreparably damaged as a
result. She furnished the City Council with a copy of a certified appraisal that indicated her
property value would suffer no financial impact as a result of the Council's decision.
Barry Allen provided four documents testifying to the fact that this matter would have no
affect on Debra Allen's property. There is no conflict of interest by a PB &R Commissioner
and the threat of a lawsuit is merely to get the City to overturn its decision so that further
consideration can be given to placing city hall on the site. He encouraged the City Council to
vote no on this agenda item.
Elaine Linhoff was upset by Tom Johnson's article in The Daily Pilot and asked the Council
Volume 58 - Page 98
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
to stand by its vote and move forward to develop the park.
Wendy Brooks wanted Council to consider placing a new city hall and park next to the
library because it would better serve the needs of the community and its residents.
Shirley Conger felt the Tom Johnson article was an attempt to divert attention from the
City Council's decision.
Allan Beek thanked the Mayor for clarifying the issue at hand and recommended the
Council remove this item from the agenda or vote no.
Tom Moulson found the entire issue laughable.
Karen Twingali said she won't speak about how shabbily the City treats its volunteers or
how little effort it takes to come up with perceived conflicts ofinterest. As a resident of
Newport Beach she lives 1.8 miles from the park and anyone who speaks in support of
proceeding with the building of the park should be heard and the Council should proceed
accordingly and support its constituents.
Bill Ficker asked the Council to put this matter on hold and research alternative options
because the park is one of the lowest priorities in the City's General Plan.
Dick Nichols urged the Council to reconsider this matter and give the City time to consider a
better plan for the property.
Barton Beek felt it would be wise for the Council to reconsider this matter and give the
residents more time to consider this decision by better educating the residents and putting
the matter to a vote of the people.
Mike Johnson said he has been involved with parks for many years and served on the PB&R
Commission in the 1970'x. He felt that the project site should be re- designed as a people -
friendly park similar to the park in West Newport Beach.
Garrett Smith felt that Debra Allen deserved thanks for her years of volunteerism but
should not be singled out because there are many individuals and groups that volunteer
their services to the City. He felt the only fair way to resolve this matter was to let the City
continue to research the area for the beat use and finally put it to a vote of the people.
Jack Croul requested the City Council reopen the issue of whether a park should be built on
the 12 -acre site because it is clear the residents are divided on how the property should be
used.
Hugh Logan was confident that Council would fairly review this issue and move forward to
protect the site as a park.
Bob Shelton felt the real issue was whether or not the decision was the right decision and
urged the Council to reconsider the site for joint use.
Evvy Compton asked Council to rescind its decision and reconsider using valuable City
funds on a project that people would use.
Lucille Kuehn urged Council to rescind ita motion, refund the donor's money, revisit the
Volume 58 - Page 99
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
issue and bring forth a better solution for use of the site.
Phil Arst complimented the Council Members who voted to protect public parkland. The
real issue is where to locate City Hall and in his opinion, this site would not be suitable.
Nancy Skinner asked Council to return the matter to PB &R because it would be helpful for
the citizens to better understand the proposed design concept for the park.
George Schroeder felt the only issue was whether the conflict of interest applied and once
determined the Council should move forward accordingly.
Ron Hendrickson believed the City was not short on passive parks but was short on active
parks. Therefore, this 12 -acre park is not needed at this time and this issue has not been
properly analyzed. It would be unfortunate if the City did not consider a small portion of the
property for a city hall.
Jan Vandereloot said that although this decision was not about Debra Allen he asked that
before the Council vote tonight it verify whether she has a conflict of interest and whether
the Council could ultimately uphold its previous vote.
City Attorney Clauson responded to Council Member Webb that the accuracy of the GIS
maps are to within five feet and reiterated that it is not the Council's responsibility to
determine whether there is a conflict of interest.
Council Member Curry said that based on the Counsel's input he would recommend
rescinding the vote and returning the matter to the PB &R Commission for developmental
review of the park design and careful review of the potential conflict of interest involving
Debra Allen.
Motion by Council Member Curry to rescind the City Council decision of February 27,
2007 and refer the matter back to the PB &R Commission for 30 days on a de novo basis to
consider the design of the park and to report back to the City Council. After discussion the
motion was amended to direct the PB &R Commission to report back as soon as possible,
however within 60 days.
Substitute motion by Mayor RosanskkX to rescind the City Council decision of February
27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park
Phase 1 and refer the matter back to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in
order to conduct a full public outreach effort..
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council.
Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Couincil Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosansky
Volume 58 - Page 100
q
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 23
February 27, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum
949-6614 -3311 or sbadum@city.newport- beach.ca.us
Office of the City Manager
Homer L. Bludau
949-6"-3000 or hbludau@cfty.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE
PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK
ISSUE:
• Should the City Council proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport
Center Park Phase 1 or should the Council maintain the Newport Center Park site as an
option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a firm decision on a City
Hall location?
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid
package for Phase 1 of the Newport Center Park, (See Sellch items for proposed
action) and determine whether a soccer field will be a component of the park plan
or
2) Take no action on park development until such time as the City Council
determines a final location for City Hall.
DISCUSSION:
Park Development History: The concept of having a park in the general vicinity of
what is now the Central Library site has its origins as early as 1990, when a 4 -acre park
was publicly discussed. Since 2000, the most recent park concept envisioned a parking
area behind the Library, passive park area just to the north of this parking lot with law
water ornamental landscaping, turf, a small amphitheater area, and a. very modest
native vegetation refurbishment at the north end of the site adjacent to San Miguel
R.7
Newport Center Park
February 27. 2007
Page 2
Drive. A cost estimate was prepared in November 2004 based on preliminary drawings
with costs estimated at $1.1 million. Since that time, various amenities have been
added to the design concept including an enhanced circular arbor area, landscaping
enhancements along the perimeter of the park on Avocado Avenue and San Miguel
Drive, and an enhanced vegetation area was proposed for the north area of the park.
In September 2006, a new construction phasing was proposed. The proposed revised
phasing was based on a sketch and follow -up conversations with Counciimember Ed
Selich and an unnamed donor. The first phase (Phase 1) would construct the passive
park area (including the Circular Arbor area and landscaping edge treatment along
Avocado Avenue) in the center of the site. Two new elements would be added to
Phase 1:
a 30- space, on -site parking lot with access near the intersection of Avocado
Avenue and Farallon Drive, and
an extension of the park area to the south to the existing top of slope. This
portion of the park would be sacrificed when grading for the library parking lot
(Phase 2) commenced.
The second phase (Phase 2), would construct the parking lot behind the library as well
as the stairway and ADA ramp to the circular arbor structure. Grading for the parking
lot would demolish about 65,000 square feet of park constructed under Phase 1.
The third phase (Phase 3), would construct the enhanced vegetation area and adjacent
landscaping edge treatment as originally proposed in November 2005.
In September 2006, a revised cost estimate was prepared to address the current
design concept. A conceptual plan with proposed phases and a detailed cost estimate
is attached for more information.
Phase 1, Passive Park Central Area $1,420,000
Phase 2, Library Parking Lot $1,589,000
Phase 3. North Park Area $ 764.000
Total estimated cost - $3,753,000
Approximately $200,000 is currently budgeted for the final design and preparation of
Plans, Specification and bid documents. Additionally, an unidentified donor has
committed to providing the City $600,000 towards the park construction in exchange for
naming rights. All work on this project is currently suspended and awaiting direction
from City Council as to the park funding priorities regarding this park, Sunset Ridge
Park and Marina Park.
At the February 13, 2007 meeting, Counciimember Webb requested that staff
investigate the possibly of adding an active soccer field element into the park. The
addition of a soccer field would require the following:
fl
Newport Center Park
February 27, 2007
Page 3
1) Additional grading would be required to provide a level playing field that would be
recessed in an effort to provide natural barriers and separate it from the adjacent
roadways.
2) A small restroom will be needed because of the extended presence of event
participants versus the short term passive use.
3) A larger parking lot (from 30 to 60 spaces) will be required to accommodate event
participants and the changeover/ overlap of successive games.
The additional cost to add an active element to the park is estimated at $476,000. The
attached exhibits show one potential configuration for a soccer field.
Recent Avocado Site Park Planning History
June 2, 2001 — City Council appropriates $35,000 to develop conceptual plan for site,
referring project to PB &R.
November 6, 2001 — PB &R approves/recommends following components to park site:
No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or natural looking material
Park not to be a "destination" park where groups meet for all day events, such as
picnics, reunions, etc.
• Natural look, but user friendly
Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential night lighting
Security lighting — only what is required for safety
Develop parking options for 25, 50 and 100 parking spaces
Develop two concepts — one with more turf, one with less turf
Consideration for environmentally sensitive areas
Benches, no picnic tables
Small amphitheater /outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people
Landscaping should consider flowers/trees, location and size for view protection
Drinking fountains
Garden -like area
2001 — PB &R does extensive public outreach meetings seeking and obtaining Input on
what elements the park should contain.
January, 2002 — City Council/PB &R joint meeting discussion of park priorities; Back Bay
View Park was determined to be first priority, with Newport Village (Center) second
• priority.
I)-
Newport Center Park
Febnowy 27.2007
Page 4
May 14, 2002 — Study session update from staff on park site. Council directed staff to
develop site plans, take it to PB &R for recommendation, and bring back for Council
review.
May 17, 2003 — In budget review, Public Works Director proposes Newport Center Park
oonoeptual design budget CIP project of $120,000. CIP approved with budget adoption
in June.
February 10, 2004 — Joint CounciVPB &R meeting, discussion of park artes
June 22, 2004 — Council approves $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine
to begin Newport Center conceptual park plans.
November 16, 2004 — Preliminary concept plan for park approved by PB &R
January 25, 2005 — Concept plan presented at Study Session, with favorable response
from Council. Council accepts citizen group offer to raise $1M of estimated $1.2M
needed (estimate already one year old).
June 2005 — Volunteer fund raising committee meets 15 times from February through
June to develop fundraising plan; when potential donor surfaces, plan is put on hold.
June 2005 — Potential donor contacts City staff. After preliminary meetings, donor
states his desire to donate $1.2M needed for project:
June 14, 2005 — Council names park site "Newport Center Park" and expresses interest
in donor obtaining naming right to the park.
June - August, 2005 — Councilmember Selich, staff and Hall & Foreman staff meet with
Prospective donor to discuss concept and plans.
September 27, 2005 — Council approves contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for
$158,500 to complete park design plans.
December 13, 2005 — City Council forms City Hall Site Review Committee, votes to
exclude the Newport Village site from Committee considerations.
May 23, 2006 — City Hall Site Review Committee reports findings to Council
July 25, 2006 — Bin Ficker gives proposal for City Han at Newport Center Park site;
Council reaffirms previous vote to exclude park site from consideration.
September, 2006 — New three -part phasing plan for park proposed by Councilmember
Selich; latest park development estimate of all three phases is $3,753,000 (without
soccer field).
(3
Newport Ceniar Park
February V, 2007
Page 6
February 13, 2007 — Councilmember Selich asks staff to place Newport Center Park
authorization on agenda for appropriation authorization to proceed with development;
Councilmember Webb asked that staff include the option of a soccer field component.
Councilmember Selich asked the following actions be presented to City Council for their
determination:
1. Approval of construction of the park per the currently approved City Council
concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking tot in phases with the middle
phase first.
2. Acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase
in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other
naming opportunities will also be available.
3. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding
for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids.
4. Direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase
as soon as possible and put them out to bid.
ZONING DESIGNATION
The site is currently zoned as "Planned Community" in our General Plan. This
• designation's permitted uses are limited to open space, including a public park. City
projects must be consistent with the General Plan.
Submitted by:
f�
U
KOM-erL Bludau
City Manager
H
City of Newport Beach .
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
direct the City Clerk to record the Resolution with the Orange County Recorder.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Term Selich, Mayo:
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
L.
Charles Griffin proposed that the property located at the northeast corner of Campus and Bristo
North would be a suitable location for City Hall and that the property could probably be aoquirei
through eminent domain.
O. Q0 D—MJ D BUSINESS
2& COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TCl INITIATE THE PROCESS TC
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARR (toe -"071-
Mayor Rosansky explained the procedures that would be followed for this agenda item.
City Attorney Aaron Harp responded to Bernie Svalstad's point of order concern and Cound
Member Webb's response that discussion about where City Hall should be located was not
the focus of tonight's discussion.
City Manager Bludau stated that the issue regarding tonight's public hearing item v
whether the City Council should proceed with the design and eventual construction of thi
Newport Center Park Phase I or, whether Council should maintain the Newport Cents:
Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a fire
decision on a City hall location. He provided a PowerPoint presentation in concert witl
staffs report that provided a detailed history of the park site planning and included maps
diagrams and a cost summary of the proposed project.
Public Works Director Badum apoke about how the concept and design has progressed anc
changed over time and how the estimated cost has increased from $1.2 million about a year
ago to over $8 million today.
Mayor Rosanaky recalled that the coat was $1.4 million at the time the donor brought fora
his offer of $1.2 million to complete the park and that the City would contribute $200,00(
toward' completion.
Council Member Daigle wanted to know if the donor requested additional improvements fm
the $800,000 donation, and if so, the value of the enhancements and how they have affectec
the overall budget. Public Works Director Badum moved forward with his presentation tc
show the costs of improvements and indicated that the original concept did not have t
Parking lot. The difference between the northern area and the revised design for the passive
Park account for the difference in estimated costa of enhancements. Public Works Direc%m
Badum confirmed to Council Member Daigle that the additional $600,000 donation is offeel
by the design enhancements.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he was involved in proposing the enhancements as a dired
result of input and that the donor was not entirely responsible for the enhancement coal
increases. The original cost was not based on a set of plans.
Mayor Rosansky stated that although the original estimate was not based on a set of plane
Council took its action based on the original estimate.
Volume 68 - Page 80
IS
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 87,2007
Public Works Director Badum agreed with Council Member Webb that there could be a me
savings if the City were to move forward with the entire project rather than phasing th
project and that the second phase would result in removal of a large amount of landamp
material.
In response to Mayor Raeansky, Public Works Director Badum responded that late last yea
and again at the February meeting Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested the proposal be brough
back as a phased project.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the details of the donation have not been worked on
with the donor but believed that. he expected his contribution would be based upon th
completion of Phase I within a reasonable period of time. One of the actin items on th
agenda this evening is to consummate the agreement.
Council Member Webb recalled that the agreement would allow naming rights so that th,
concept under the CIP budget was a $1.7 million contribution for a total project cost of $1.1
million with the City contributing about $ 200, 000. According to current estimates th,
$600,000 additional contribution would require the City to contribute 86 percent.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich concurred with Council Member Henn that the fundraising would no
be limited and further stated that the idea for naming rights was to allow other mgjo:
contributors to have naming rights as well, although he was not aware of any at this time.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan indicated to Mayor Rosansky that he ha(
been with the City for four months and had visited about 40 of its 64 parks. Approximate)
two - thirds of the acreage is passive and the demand for park programs is very strong. Th
City is always trying to enlarge the inventory and there are other needs that could be met
especially for youth. The City owes approximately $3 million on Sunset Ridgi
Park. The potential development design consists of an overlay of two baseball fields and tw,
soccer fields with estimated construction mate of $6 to $7 million, which is not currentlt
budgeted for. He felt the athletic organizations would welcome a discussion abou'
additional active park space. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responds(
to Council Member Daigle that he would assume the General Plan was responsive to and it
line with community needs and desires. Prior to tonight's meeting he reviewed the
Recreation Element and felt it was very fair and he would keep the Sunset Ridge Park an(
Newport Center Park in the first priority positions because there are approximately 6001
kids that need to be accommodated during each season. He indicated that generally cities
do not have enough park apace.
Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the current General Plan designation for th
site is Open Space and would require a vote of the people to change the designation Slv
stated that the City's standard is to provide 6 acres of parks and open space for every 1001
residents. Currently there are 10.9 acres needed for Area 9 and there are currently 19 acres
available. The West Newport area requires 64.7 acres and the active park acreage plus the
beach area totals 43.1 acres, leaving a deficit of 21 acres, exclusive of Sunset Ridge
Park.
Iahrary Director Kateouleas reported that the library parking problems are legendary an(
when the building was originally designed it was intended to be part of a complex tha'
included a museum that would provide additional shared parking. Programs are limits(
due to lack of parking and they lase out on programs because of it.
Volume 68 - Page 61
1�
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Webb said he was concerned with whether the Council should look a
funding a passive park outside of what was authorized in the CIP. He displayed a phot
array of the park inventory and pointed out the views from many of the existing parks. H,
felt that the City's money should not be used for passive parks when there was etch a din
need for active parks and he could not support moving forward with a passive park north (i
the library.
Council Member Gardner said this site was deeded in perpetuity as open apace. Three
different City Councils have turned away proposals for this site and she felt the City shout
stand by its promise to the residents.
Bernie Svelstad supported the park because the public voted to approve the park and no
the soccer field. His committee spent a lot of time fundraising and he felt that in spite of the
fact that half of the value of the donation had been lost there would be sufficient donation
to complete the project.
Allan Beek said the site designated as open space would be a good place for a park and :
very poor place for a city hall.
Tom Collister urged Council to not approve the site for a park site because it is a high traffic
area with safety concerns that would render it inconsistent with the surroundim
commercial area.
Larry Tucker said he is here to promote good decision making and urged the Council to no
make a decision tonight and further explore finding the best possible location for city hall.
He said he believed the Park Plus plan was innovative.
Tom Moulsou felt the Council had a moral obligation to support recommendation #1.
Shirley Conger supported a passive park above the library and believed the city hall shoudc
be developed nearby on a different site.
BJ Johnson said that the Corona del Mar Residents Association voted in favor of the part
and felt the City Council should move forward with Phase I tonight. She encouraged tlu
City to place Council Member Webb's park presentation on Channel 3 to encourage par)
usage.
Greg Sullivan supported a park and felt traffic generated by a City Hall on the site wouli
Promote safety concerns and result in additional taxes to the residents.
Jim Robertson thanked Mayor Rosansky for his Park Plus Plan about the most logical sits
for city hall and acknowledged that an earlier Council may have adversely acted to preclude
city hall from this site. He urged Council to vote no and to consider other options for the Site
based on the best interest of the City and its residents.
Ron Hendrickson felt the Council should postpone this decision and move forward tc
consider the site as the new city hall location.
Barry Allen said that 61 individuals signed a petition this evening in favor of saving the
park and felt the Council should move forward with Mayor Pro Tem. Selich's proposal.
Wendy Brooke felt the Park Plus proposal was the perfect solution for the site.
Don Udall supported the park and felt the City should keep its word.
Norm Witt supported the Park Plus concept as a win -win solution and urged Council to take
Volume 58 - Page 62
I-7
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27,8067
no action on the park development tonight.
Joe Garrett supported the park and supported the Park Pius program as a win -win solutioi
that would provide a crown jewel.for the community.
Scott Calder said he supported the Park Plus proposal and could not understand why whet
a better idea was presented the Council would not give it frill consideration.
Mary Barrett Blake asked Council Members to open their minds, listen to the residents an(
support the Park Plus Program because it would create an incredible Community center site.
Novelle Hendrickson supported the Park Plus program and took exception with portions o
staffs report because there was never a public hearing on'the matter during regularly
scheduled City Council meetings.
Val Skoro encouraged approval of Phase I and pursuit of the OCTA as a site for city hall.
Gladys Wolcott said this Council, voted for a park and asked Council Members to keep that
word and build the park.
Debbie Stephens said this site has always been designated as a park site .and the Cound
should move forward and build the park.
Dick Mamwitz *&red hie full support to the Park Plus program that he believed made fisca
sense. He urged the City Council not to take a vote on this issue until full study of a city
hall and park was completed.
Hugh Logan urged the City Council to vote yea on Phase I.
Jack Croul felt the site was not suitable for a park but that it would work well for a city hal
and the site could include a 8 -acre park.
Dan Guggenheim supported the Park Plus proposal and encouraged everyone to consider
the possibility that the City Could have both a new city hall and park because it would fulfil
the needs of past and present Councils and provide value to all residents of Newport Beach.
Craig.Batley urged the Council to delay making a decision, study the matter and continut
the debate.
Gene O7tourke felt the issue before the City Council was that it should wait four months to
make a decision about whether the site should include a city hall and park.
Marcia Doesey supported the shared use plan proposed through the Park Plus program ant
asked the City Council to vote no on tonight's proposal.
Richard Cabin was opposed to considering a city hall on the site and urged Council to vote
yes and proceed with Phase I.
Larry Porter said the City Council should proceed with construction of the park.
John Moftakhar felt a municipality should be flexible in its decision- making process ant
believed it would be cost prohibitive to hold a special election for a city hall at the sits.
Jo Vandery rt encouraged the Council to delay its decision and not be pushed into making E
decision at this time.
Mike Johnson said he was in favor of moving the current city hall site and liked the concept
Volume 88 - Page 68
q
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
of efficiency of economies proposed via the Park Plus program.
John Heffernan said he was part of the Council who voted in 2005 to remove this site from
consideration for City Hall and he now realizes he made the wrong decision. He spoke v
support of a mixed -use option with the park and city hall at the location and urged th
Council to study it further.
Leonard Lane asked Council to keep its commitment and move forward with the park.
James Turner supported the Park Plus program.
Barbara Birney felt everyone could be satisfied with a mixed -use of the site.
Bob Shelton believed it was never a mistake to take time to consider all options. The moo
important promise would be to withhold a vote until all sides were fully vetted an(
considered.
Debra Allen said she supported speakers who asked the Council to keep their promise ti
build a park and the problem with a mixed -use Proposal was that the city hall would take s
big chunk out of the middle of the grassy area.
Dr. Jan Vanderaloot, speaking an behalf of SPON, said this site was designated open spas
and limited to park use and therefore the City Council should keep the Public trust ant
develop the park.
Dr. Jack Skinner believed that the proposed dual use has merit and should not be so quickk
dismissed this evening.
Helen McGruder said the City Council has a duty to serve the entire community. Tie
Council should take no action until it commits to a final location for a city hall.
Nancy Skinner.said she would not support a plan to override a promised park unless a fat
superior plan were proposed and she would like the opportunity to review a full proposal fix
a mixed -use on the site and urged Council to postpone its decision for fans months.
John Connelly felt it was reasonable, practical and responsible for the Council to consider aI
options and to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Christine Carr felt the Council should move forward with the park.
Steve Brahs, member of the Site Selection Committee, said he felt there was no better sib
for a city hall and a vote for Phase I would prohibit further consideration of a city hall on the
site.
Tim Brown said he strongly supported a passive park on the site and believed it was a cleat
recommendation of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission.
Bill Picker presented 250 signatures in support of asking the City Council not to proceei
with the park design and construction until the city hall issue is resolved. He indicated that
his plan includes having a park and city hall on the site and an urban park on the current
city ball site.
Charles Griffin wanted the City Council to move forward with Phase I and said the obvious
location for city hall was the airport industrial area
Laura McCaut said a good architect could design the site to accommodate a city hall and a
Volume 68 - Page 64
1�
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27: 2007
park and that it was fiscally responsible to build a city hail at that location.
Mayor Pro Tom Selich said after listening carefully he came to the conclusion that the eas:
way was to continue the matter and the right way to handle this situation was to mw
forward with the park. He said one of hie first tasks when he joined the City Council was b
build this park and said there are plenty of options in Newport Center for City Hall.
Motion by..May9r ZmTem 8elich to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plan
and specifications for the bid package for Phase I of the Newport Center Park as follows: 1
approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, wit]
the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; 2) acceptance o
the .$60000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for namin{
rights for the entire park. with the provision that other naming opportunities will also bi
available; 3) conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the iundini
for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bide and 4) direct staf
to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as aeon as possible am
put them out to bid.
Mayor Pro Tom Selich clarified that his motion did not include the consideration for a soon
field.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan noted that neighborhood residents ens
library patrons would most likely utilize the passive park and the amenities would dictab
the types of uses. Mayor Rosanaky avid he has not seen a conceptual plan, therefore is
would be difficult to vote on the issue. Access would include a 284 -foot switchback raml
that would climb 30 to 40 feet from the library to the top of the hill.
Council Member Webb said that a large area of manicured grass would require a great dea
of maintenance. He asked if a soccer field was located in the area would there be more use
and Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded that there could be fow
teems at the same time during practice days and a soccer field would draw more individuah
than a passive park use.
Public Works Director Badum reminded Council that the conceptual enhanced plan was
shown during staffs report and that about 70 percent of the plan was complete. Public
Works Director Badum responded that the direction to staff was to include benches and no'
picnic tables, no lighting, more turf and parking spaces to accommodate the library.
Public Works Director Badum explained that phasing was an idea that was brought up Zak
in the game and that there was no construction plane for phasing.
In response to questions about redesigning the park, Mayor Pro Tom Selich said he believec
the commitment the Council made previously was in accordance with the proposec
conceptual plan.
Council Member Webb said the reason the Council is taking time to consider this proposal iu
because this is a passive park that would require a substantial amount of money that cook
be used to construct active parks. He felt the Council should be very concerned about the
cost benefit ratio of a passive use that is by definition not a destination park and for th<
Council to approve Phase 1 it might be wasting considerable capital.
Su to take no action on park development
until such time as the City Council commits to a final location for a new city hall.
Volume 58 - Paste 66
i�
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Daigle said she recognized the passion and commitment by par]
proponents, however given the uncertainty about the cost and phasing as well as competin
priorities, she recommended this matter be tabled until June when the Council could look a
its budget for the ensuing year.
Council Member Curry spoke in opposition to the substitute motion and said that during hi
campaign he clearly stated his position that he would support the park. He said he wa;
disappointed with the leadership tonight because the community has been needle*,
divided. It comes down to whether the Council would support the park and put the Cit,
Hall at another location. This is a matter of trust going back to 1990 and he is committed ti
having a park at this site.
Council Member Henn said he read and considered every email and felt it was his mandad
to consider all issues and input throughout the evening. He stated that it is too early d
conclude what is the beet location for City Hall since it is a complex issue that deserves g
great deal of consideration. No matter where it pea the cost is likely to be $50 million a
more. He rejected the notion that people who live near Newport Center Park are somehoe
acting in a selfish and narrow manner and their views are to be discounted and said tha
anyone who lives in or near any project that involves intensive land use ate entitled ti
express their views. After viewing the parks with Council Member Webb it was dear that a'
least half were not often visited and "bang for the buck" is not the decision rule. He spoke o
integrity and stated that the Council needs to act with integrity over time and the first poin
is that this site has been envisioned as a passive park for 15 years or more. The aeoont
commitment is that the City just completed and endured a hard fought election and thr
voters approved a General Plan for the first time in 25. years. The General Plan included i
vision for open space and parks and was a balanced plan that should only be changed for the
highest standard. He indicated he would vote for the original motion and against the
substitute motion.
Mayor Rosansky explained that his questioning of staff was an attempt to elicit infoxmaticz
that has not been before the public. Although he had previously voted to keep City Hall ii
its current location, after reviewing his actions he was willing to correct them if they werc
not appropriate at the time. The General Plan says that the City has a surplus of paWvc
parks and if the Council is to consider its limited resources it should look at economies a
scale. He spoke of the Council's fiscal responsibilities. He indicated that he is a proponew
of parks and a proponent of a park in this location and nothing ham been said tonight abou,
not building a park at this site. Thousands of residents use the ldbrary on a regulu bash
and according to the director there is a huge need for additional parking. He reiterated wlu
the basic users of the park would be and noted that there is no direct connection between thg
proposed pork and the library except a long upward winding ramp or staircase. In referena
to the time it has taken to build this park, he noted that the land was dedicated in 1992 anc
if there was such a great need for this park it would have been built 10 years ago and peopk
would not be asking to put City Hall, senior apartments, etc. on the land. Mayor Rosansk3
said he is Chairman of the Building Committee and the committee has looked at many sum
and the bottom line is that none of those sites panned out. Referencing past promisee ant
the commitment to keep them, he noted that on May 27, 2003 and again on February 8
2005, the City Council voted 6.1 to keep City "Hall at its current location. He explained that
the City Council is not keeping that promise because there is new information that hag
indicated there might be a better location for City Hall. He felt the Only promise was that
there would be nothing else on the site. The site review committee looked at more than 2(
sites and most people feel that the site in question is the beat site for City Hall. However, ii
is incumbent upon this Council to not move forward with funding of this park tonight wher
there is a clear need for use of thews funds in other areas of the City.
volute 88 - Page 66
D1
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27,2007
Council Member. Gardner took exception to Mayor Rosansky's characterization that i
positive decision on this matter was "politically expedient."
Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing
so the parking lot would be built first.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rossnaky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Counci
Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes Council. Member Henn, Council 'Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Counci
Member-Webb, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosaosky, Council Member Daigle
The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 18:10 a.m. with al
members present.
21. IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFI
AND BOB HENRY PARK 1100- 80071.
Dr. Jan Vandereloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees am
felt it was perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the humebuilders.
Motion by CounoRMember Webb to continue this item.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry. Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Maya
Rosanaky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
22. 7_ flog - 20071- No oral
report provided.
P. RENT BIISINE�@
$28. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT; BUDGET AMENDMENT [100 - 8007].
Asaistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendation that the City invest it
camerae and editing equipment to continue the City's programming efforts. Time - Warner
has contributed $400,000: Cox $600,000, and Time-Warner will provide 10 -year ongoing
support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year.
Volume 58 - Page 67
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
ondo conversions without meeting the current parking standards and
t t only new construction is required to meet the higher number. She
co
me that a condo conversion does not qualify as new construction, so
the ity's existing ordinance which allows a lower number of parking
space is used. Mayor Pro Tem Webb emphasized that the vote today is to
make t standards for new construction and condo conversions the same.
Council . . ber Selich stated that the concerns that the Commission had
were relate to the larger buildings and offered as a compromise to have
this ordinanc only apply to triplexes or larger units. He indicated that
the duplexes c stay as they are and possibly have the Commission look
at the parking st&pdards so there is rationality as to how it's applied.
Amendment No. 2 5 -001
amending the Condom' 'us
Municipal Code to inc re e
the current standards for r
effective date of the ordinan
and that any condominium
the effective date be allowed
amended his motion to approve Code
by introducing Ordinance No. 2005 -12
Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the
the minimum required parking standard to
ojects that are three units or larger with an
a to be one year after the date of its adoption,
nversion applications deemed complete by
t roceed under the existing regulations in
effect prior to this amendment; nd pass to second reading on July 26,
2005.
Council Member Selich m d is motion to change the effective
date of the ordinance to be 90 days of the date of its adoption to have
any condominium conversion application eemed complete.
Council Member Selich explained that m t of the comments he has
received are from duplex owners. He said at there aren't that many
triplexes and four- plexes. Mayor Pro Tem Web added that the unit that
was approved because there was no other wa to handle it should've
provided 17 parking spaces instead of 7.
The amended motion carried by the following roll call
Ayes:
Selich, Webb, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan
Noes:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
Nichols
Council Member Selich suggested sending the issue of duplexe back to
the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked if consistency betty n the
Coastal Zone and Corona del Mar areas and the rest of the City be
looked at so there is one parking requirement for duplexes and co do
conversions. He indicated that this can be included in the Zoning Co
OF PARK LOCATED BEHIND THE NEWPORT BEACH
LIBRARY ( contd. from 6/14/05).
Recreation and Senior Services Knight reported that they received 425
suggestions for the name of this park which were forwarded to the Parks
Volume 57 - Page 336
INDEX
(100 -2005)
a3
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 26, 2005
Development Committee, a subcommittee of the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission (PB &R). She stated that the committee narrowed
the list to three and forwarded it to PB &R who is forwarding them to
Council tonight.
Mayor Pro Tern Webb stated that the park is in Newport Center and
suggested naming the park "Newport Center Park". He believed that
everyone thinks of Central Park as New York City, but Newport Beach
doesn't want to be tied to New York City. Council Member Ridgeway
stated that he would like to call the park "Newport Center Central Park ".
Council Member Selich stated that he could support naming the park
"Newport Center Park". Council Member Rosansky suggested naming it
"Center Park" since everyone knows the park is in Newport Beach.
Council Member Daigle stated that she likes "Newport Center Central
Park", but agreed that having "Newport Center" in the name is important.
Jan Vandersloot stated that, in 1999, former Council Member Thomson
introduced the idea of turning this location into a park and called it
"Newport Central Park ". He noted that Stop Polluting Our Newport
(SPON) developed a concept for the park and called it "Newport Central
Park" since it is above the Central Library, is central in Newport Beach,
and is adjacent to Newport Center. However, he doesn't have any
objection to "Newport Center Park".
Bernie Svalsted stated that he is the chairman to the committee that is
trying to raise over $1 million for the park during the Centennial. He
indicated that some of his committee members would prefer "Newport
Beach Centennial Park ", but supports "Newport Center Park".
City Manager Bludau stated that there is a separate issue to discuss, but
suggested that Council decide what the name of the park will be before it
is discussed.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Webb to name the park located behind the
Newport Beach Central Library "Newport Center Park ".
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Nichols
Recreation and Senior Services Knight stated that, several months ago
when they came before Council with the concept for this park, Council was
told that they did not have the $1.2 million needed for the development of
the park. She reported that someone in the community is interested in
potentially underwriting the development of the park; however, they
would like some name recognition. Council Member Ridgeway stated that
this happened with Mariners Library and the Creans. He noted that, even
though their name is on the library, the citizens still refer to it as
Mariners Library. He stated that the same will occur here.
Volume 57 - Page 337
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
June 28, 2005
Recreation and Senior Services Knight referenced the Council policy and
added that it suggests that facilities and areas within parks can be named
after an individual if there is a Council- approved capital campaign.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that, if someone is going to underwrite a
majority of this cost, he has no problem putting their name on the plaque
in the park. He pointed out that this person should realize that people
will be calling it "Newport Center Park ".
Council Member Rosansky questioned whether this is an agendized item.
City Attorney Clauson believed that this is agendized because Council is
naming the park. Council Member Rosansky noted that Council already
named the park. Following discussion, Council Member Ridgeway
recommended that Council reopen the issue so it could reconsider the
name of the park.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Webb to reopen the consideration of the
name of the park.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Nichols
Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Webb to name the park located behind the
Newport Beach Central Library "(Donor Name) Newport Center Park".
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Nichols
City Manager Bludau noted that the naming right and anything else that
goes along with that will be done via an agreement with the City.
27. CHEDULING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
S'R4NDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH EXPANSION PROJECT
(PA2 65) (contd. from 6114105).
City Manager Bh<au stated that Council had previously talked about
whether they wante old a special meeting to discuss the St. Andrews
Presbyterian Church expan ' n project or use one of the August meetings
to only talk about this. Mayor rnan noted that there are already four
meetings scheduled for August due to General Plan Update. He stated
that August 2 is the only Tuesday left to h special meeting.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tgm Webb to hold a spec eeting to discuss
the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion Projec August 2 at
7 p.m.
INDEX
(100 -2005)
Volume 57 - Page 888
as
B -17
PARKS, FACILITIES, AND RECREATION PROGRAM DONATIONS
PURPOSE
The City Council recognizes the need to promote community involvement and active
participation in quality of life components throughout the community, and the need to
establish a fair, equitable, and uniform procedure for which gifts may be donated to the
City. This policy establishes criteria for donations to assure area compatibility,
attractiveness, usefulness, and the capability to be maintained. Each donation
considered for inclusion in the City park public improvement and street system will be
subject to established limitations and guidelines for the particular area.
POLICY
A. Acceptance of donations of cash or tangible items
1. Based on the value of the donation, appropriate City staff will review the
acceptability of any donation and determine if the benefits to be derived
warrant acceptance of the donation.
2. Criteria for evaluation includes consideration of any immediate or initial
expenditure required in order to accept the donation, the potential and
extent of the City's obligation to maintain the donation, and the
community benefit to be derived from the donation.
B. Types of Donations
Donations may be received in the form of cash, real, or personal property.
Restricted donations are those donations that the donor specifies for a particular
City location or purpose. Unrestricted donations are those donations that are
given to the City for unspecified use.
1. Cash Gifts
a. Donation of cash or items valued at below $10,000 may be accepted
by the City Manager. However, any donation considered a park
facility improvement that would result in an installation of a
permanent fixture in the parks must be in compliance with section
B -4 of this policy, Park and Street Improvement Donations.
1
B -17
b. Donations of $10,000 and above may be accepted by the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Commission.
C. Gifts of funds may be designated for restricted or unrestricted use.
d. Gifts of funds accepted by the City imply no other obligation
besides using donated funds for the specified purpose.
2. Trees
Tree donations add beauty to City parks and facilities. Trees may be
donated and installed at parks and parkway locations recommended by
the General Services Director and approved by the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission. The minimum size of tree donations must be 24"
boxed containers unless waived by the Commission.
a. Tree donations are limited to specific species and limitations
identified in the City Donation Catalog.
3. Benches
Bench donations may be donated and installed in different areas of
placement including parks, streets, along the beachfront, within villages,
commercial districts, neighborhoods, on a specific island, etc. The Parks,
Beaches, and Recreation Commission, with the assistance of General
Services staff, shall designate the type, style, design, and placement of
City-owned benches on City property.
a. An inventory of designated benches and available bench locations
will be maintained in the City Donation Catalog.
b. Donation requests must be submitted to the General Services
Department and meet the following requirements:
i. Bench donations along a city street, beachfront or other
public right of way will require the approval of the General
Services Director.
2
_1_1
B -17
ii. Bench donations within a commercial district will require
notification of, and an endorsement from, the local business
association, if applicable.
iii. Bench donations for parks and facilities within a residential
community will require notification of residents and an
established homeowners association or common interest
development, when applicable, within 300 feet of placement.
4. Park, Public Improvement, and Street Amenities
Other amenities such as drinking fountains, tables, and other equipment
that will improve public places in parks, in and /or around public
buildings, streets, walkways, and trails may be donated to the City.
a. Other amenities that may be donated will be identified in the City
Donation Catalog.
b. Donation of public amenities valued at below $10,000 may be
accepted by the City Manager.
C. Donation of public amenities valued $10,000 and above may be
accepted or declined by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission.
d. Donations to be installed on public sidewalks shall meet the criteria
described in Policy L -15 Encroachments on Public Sidewalks and
approved by the Public Works Director and General Services
Director.
C. Naming Rights
Donors may receive naming rights on capital improvement projects for which
any donation matches or exceeds 75% of the total budgeted cost for the area
benefiting from the donation. All such donations will be submitted to the City
Council for acceptance of the donation and the name to be applied to the project
in keeping with City Council Policy B -9 — Naming of City Parks & Facilities.
3
191WA
D. Sponsorships
Special Events are recognized as fundraising activities. Where donations or
sponsorship of a special event will require some form of recognition, and, in
order to provide recreational opportunities, corporate or organizational sponsors
may be recognized by use of logos and name on event banners and signage.
Signs and literature at all such special events would be at the discretion of the
appropriate Department Director. The size, scale and location of corporate logos
and names should not dominate the event facilities or area. Corporate logos
and /or names should not be displayed in a manner that would, in any way,
suggest the endorsement of the Department or the City. All signs must comply
with the City's existing sign code and Council Policies B -3 and B -8.
E. Right to Decline
The City of Newport Beach reserves the right to decline any donation if, upon
review, acceptance of the donation is determined to be not in the best interest of
the City.
F. Special Privileges
Making a donation or co- sponsoring a special event does not entitle a
sponsor /donor to any special privileges other than those stated in this policy
such as recognition, plaques or displays at events, unless otherwise agreed upon
and approved by the Department Director or the City Council when
appropriate.
G. Gift Donation Catalo
The Recreation & Senior Services Director and General Services Director shall
review and present to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission periodically
the City Donation Catalog containing ideas for public donations.
H. Acknowledgements
1. Letter of acceptance of donation will be sent to donor.
2. In some cases, recognition of donations may be given at Commission or
Council Meetings.
3. Plaques are reserved for donations meeting the following criteria:
F1
zlq
a. Donors providing donations valued at $1,000 to less than $3,999
may elect to provide a dedicatory plaque not exceeding 2" x 6"
with a name designated by the donor preceded by one of the
following: "Donated by ", "Donated for', or "In recognition of ".
b. Donors providing donations valued at $4,000 or greater may elect to
provide a dedicatory plaque not exceeding 5 "x7 with name, date and
dedication wording not exceeding 25 words. Plaque content must be
approved by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission.
C. Donors providing donations valued at least $1,000 that recognize
individuals or organizations that have provided distinguished long
term and /or significant service to the City may include a
dedicatory plaque not exceeding 5 "x7" with name, date and
dedication wording not exceeding 25 words. Individuals can
include City employees with 25 or more years of distinguished
service, as determined by the PB &R Commission.
d. Plaques are at the expense of the donor, the City will assume
ownership and maintenance of the donated item and plaque
however, the City does not assume replacement costs due to
vandalism or theft. Plaques will remain on a donated item during
its useful life. The City reserves the right to remove and /or
relocate the donated item.
e. Plaque information will be entered on the Gift Donation Catalog
application form and ordered by the City.
Adopted - May 9, 2006
Formerly G -5
5
30
6 -6 -07
CIOSA Provisions for Newport Center Park (Newport Village)
The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) is a
development agreement between the City and The Irvine Company (Company),
which was executed in 1993. In connection with the City's approval of
entitlement for the Company to develop several parcels, the Company agreed to
assist with financing of circulation improvements and to dedicate nearly 150
acres of open space. Among the dedicated open space sites is Newport Village,
the 12.8 acre parcel now referred to as Newport Center Park.
CIOSA provides that the open space sites are to be dedicated subject to Open
Space Dedication Conditions included as Exhibit "F" to the development
agreement. Most of the conditions deal with easements, mineral rights and the
like. One of the conditions is a covenant that "...the parcel will be used
consistent with PC Texts..." The Newport Village Planned Community shows the
Newport Center Park site, and the site north of San Miguel Drive and south of the
OCTA site, with a land use designation of Open Space. The permitted uses are
"Open Space, including public parks." The Statistical Analysis indicates that 17.3
acres are designated Open Space, and a 4 acre public park is contemplated by
the General Plan in the area north of the Library and south of San Miguel Drive.
All of the 17.3 acres were designated as Recreational and Environmental Open
Space in the 1988 General Plan, and the text refers to a 4 acre neighborhood
park with the precise location to be determined.
Newport Center (Service Area 9) Park Needs
Table R1 Parkland Acreage Needs in the General Plan Recreation Element
shows park needs, existing park acreage and deficit/excess of parkland for each
of 12 Service Areas, as of June 2005. Service Area 9, which includes Newport
Center, had a park need of 10.9 acres, existing parkland of 19 acres, and an
excess of 8.1 acres over need. Council member Selich discovered an error in
these numbers, in that not all existing housing had been included in Newport
Center. Staff reviewed and adjusted the table for the entire City, including adding
information for Newport Coast, and the revised table is below. The total City park
need is not changed, but minor adjustments occur in each Service Area based
on a more accurate distribution of dwelling units and population. The existing
park acreage numbers are still under review by Planning and Recreation and
Senior Services staff, and there may be additional minor adjustments when this
review is complete. With the correct population for Service Area 9, the excess of
existing over needed park acreage is reduced to 5.1. It should be noted that this
excess is as of June 2005, without the construction of 450 additional dwelling
units allowed in the 2005 General Plan.
31
* Newport Coast includes public and private parks, including 14 acres of Newport Ridge park dedicated for public use upon City acceptance.
I.-e nvate- Newport Coast Park Area is 58.1 ac. Newport Coast parks use and maintenance are subject to the terms of the Pre - Annexation Agreement.
"" eficiUexcess acreage if no additional parks and no additional housing units are built.
83,120 x 5 ac, per thousand = 415.6 ac.
c Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach
open space, 136 acres of open space land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined amount of water open space in the Upper Bay
and Newport Harbor.
Park Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements for New Residential
Development in Newport Center
The Subdivision Code establishes requirements for park dedication or payment
of fees in connection with new residential development. Newport Beach requires
five acres of park land per 1,000 residents anticipated in the new development.
Section 19.52.050 allows the decision making body (Planning Commission for
tract maps and Zoning Administrator [formerly Modifications Committee] for
parcel maps) to determine whether land, fees or both are required. Land
dedication may be required only if a park site is shown within the subdivision in
the General Plan Recreation Element. If a park site is not shown, or if the
proposed subdivision contains 50 or fewer lots, the payment of in -lieu fees is
required.
Through approval of the General Plan in 2005, 450 additional residential units
are allowed in Newport Center. The only park site in the area shown in the
Recreation Element is Newport Center Park, which has already been dedicated
31
Park Acres
Park Acres
'�, Active Beach
Combined Park/
2 Deficit ( -J
Service Area
Needed
Existing
Recreation Acreage
Beach Acreage
i Excess +
1. West Newport
647- 62.5
9.1
34 -
43.1
- ---- .-
21:6 -19_4
.._......
2. Balboa Peninsula
25.5266
:-
6.5
__..._ -
44
- - --
50.5
+250 +23.9
3. Newport Heights /Upper Bay
. -. -.-
64-3 60.5
50.2
.. -................ ..
0
_._...
50.2
-9 4.10.3
....- .._9 ......
4. Santa Ana Heights
........
3:2 7
-....
....
6.8
......... .. - -. _..
0
-__ .........
6.8
}3.6-0.2
_.... .....-
5. Lower Bay
,
47319
.
0.1
0
t
_..__
0.1
-17 -2 18.9
....
6. Balboa Island
.................
47 -.817
.__....__.
0.3
_ _ - ._
1
...
1.3
466 -15.7
7. Eastbluff
..__ .
34-3 32.5
:_.._..
..
71.0
......
0
.....
71.0
.....
+39:7 +38.5
8. Big Canyon
44416.3
0
_.. -
0
......
0
- 13.9.16 3
- ....... .... ... ...
9. Newport Center
.- _.._..
40.8 24 55
4810 4
..... -..... r. ..
08 8
_.
4919.2
*8-4 -5.3
--
.__......
1 . Corona del Mar
__ .._
444 461
......
; 23 .9
. ..................................
11.4
.
35.3
_..__
44-10.8
1 . Harbor View
71-256.6
; 99.5
....................
0
99.5
....
+27 3 +42.9
._..
1 . Newport Coast*
.:...
5047
58.1
_.._
0
50 58.1
+11.1
Totafs
415.6 a
! 38r�4335.9
90.4 b
3x64435.1
+19.5-
38 -8*
* Newport Coast includes public and private parks, including 14 acres of Newport Ridge park dedicated for public use upon City acceptance.
I.-e nvate- Newport Coast Park Area is 58.1 ac. Newport Coast parks use and maintenance are subject to the terms of the Pre - Annexation Agreement.
"" eficiUexcess acreage if no additional parks and no additional housing units are built.
83,120 x 5 ac, per thousand = 415.6 ac.
c Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach
open space, 136 acres of open space land in the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined amount of water open space in the Upper Bay
and Newport Harbor.
Park Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements for New Residential
Development in Newport Center
The Subdivision Code establishes requirements for park dedication or payment
of fees in connection with new residential development. Newport Beach requires
five acres of park land per 1,000 residents anticipated in the new development.
Section 19.52.050 allows the decision making body (Planning Commission for
tract maps and Zoning Administrator [formerly Modifications Committee] for
parcel maps) to determine whether land, fees or both are required. Land
dedication may be required only if a park site is shown within the subdivision in
the General Plan Recreation Element. If a park site is not shown, or if the
proposed subdivision contains 50 or fewer lots, the payment of in -lieu fees is
required.
Through approval of the General Plan in 2005, 450 additional residential units
are allowed in Newport Center. The only park site in the area shown in the
Recreation Element is Newport Center Park, which has already been dedicated
31
to the City via CIOSA. The City could not require dedication of other park land in
Newport Center without amending the Recreation Element to identify a park site,
or entering into a development agreement with a residential developer.
Therefore, it is likely that fees will be paid for new residential development.
Sections 19.52.060 and 19.52.070 indicate how the amount of park land or fee
should be determined. The average persons per dwelling unit, based on the
most recent Census (2.09), should by multiplied by the number of dwelling units.
Assuming all 450 units are developed, the total population would be 941, and the
park dedication requirement would be 4.7025 acres. At the currently established
fair market value of $2,500,000 per acre of land, the total in -lieu fee payments
that can be expected from Newport Center residential development is
$11,756,250. This amount could be reduced if the Planning Commission were to
approve credit for private recreational facilities in a project. Credit may be
granted only for active recreational facilities, such as playfields, tot lots,
swimming pools, and trails that connect to public trails outside the development.
The maximum credit that may be approved is 20 %. If the maximum credit were
approved for development of 450 units, the in -lieu fees would be reduced to
$9,405,000.
Money from park in -lieu fees may be used only for developing new or
rehabilitating existing park facilities which serve the subdivision, or if sufficient
land is available, for improving that land for park purposes. If the City Council
decides that the Newport Center Park site provides sufficient park land for new
Newport Center residents, the in -lieu fees could be used to improve the park.
General Plan Land Use Regulations
Newport Center Park
The 2006 General Plan designates the 12.8 acre CIOSA site (Newport Village),
as well as the 4.5 acre site north of San Miguel Drive, as Open Space, Table
LU1 provides that, "The OS designation is intended to provide areas for a range
of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and enhance the community's
natural resources." The Recreation Element's description of Open Space says
that it "includes passive and active open space areas which do not function as
public parks but do provide open space relief. Such areas may or may not be
open to the general public." The Glossary defines Open Space as, "Any parcel
or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, designated,
dedicated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment." Policy R1.9 in the
Recreation Element directs the City to provide additional park and recreation
facilities, with development of Newport Center Park as a passive park shown as
first on a list of six park sites. Finally, Newport Center Park, is shown on Figure
R2, Proposed Park and Recreational Facilities. Staff believes that development
33
of a passive park at the Newport Center Park site would be consistent with the
General Plan.
If the City wishes to locate City Hall at the Newport Center Park site, an
amendment to the General Plan would be needed (unless Robin says City
projects don't have to be consistent with the GPI. The Land Use Element
would be amended to change the designation of all or part of the site to Public
Facilities, which is intended to provide for government facilities, among other
uses. Table LU1 provides that density /intensity limits are not applicable to this
land use category, so the non - residential development thresholds of Charter
Section 423 would not apply to this amendment. The trip generation threshold of
100 peak hour trips would apply, and staff believes this threshold would be
exceeded and voter approval of the amendment would be required.
Likewise, relocation of the OCTA facility to the Open Space designated site north
of San Miguel Drive would require a General Plan amendment to change the
designation to Public Facilities. There would be no density /intensity limit and the
trip generation threshold would apply. In this case, staff does not believe that
100 peak hour trips would be generated, and this amendment is not likely to
require voter approval.
OCTA Site
This site is designated for Public Facilities, and City Hall would be a permitted
use. Because density /intensity limits are not applicable, a General Plan
amendment would not required. The trip generation threshold applies only when
the General Plan is amended, and would not apply to locating City Hall at this
site, so voter approval would not be required.
34
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
May 22, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Recreation & Senior Services Department
Wes Morgan, Director — 949- 644 -3157 — wmoroan((Dcity.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Park Design Elements for Newport Center Park
RECOMMENDATION
The PB &R Commission recommends that City Council designate Newport Center Park
as a passive park and that the park amenities include: benches, picnic tables, turf
areas, parking and a restroom. The Commission approved this recommendation 5 -0.
DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2007, City Council directed the PB &R Commission to consider park
design elements for Newport Center Park. On May 1, 2007 the PB &R Commission
reviewed possible park uses which included active and passive design elements. The
• PB &R Commission concluded that passive park uses are best suited for Newport
Center Park. Specifically the Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff
to include the following elements in the Phase 1 park design:
1. Parking
2. Restrooms
3. Benches
4. Picnic Tables
5. Small Passive Grass Areas
The Commission believes that the design goal for this section of the park should be the
creation of a place where individuals or groups can come and stay for a few hours in a
peaceful and comfortable setting,
Prepared & Submitted by:
Wes Morgan, Recreation & enior Services Director
Attachments: 1, December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes
2. January 2, 2007 PB &R Staff Report & Minutes
3. February 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report & Minutes
• 4. March 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report & Minutes
5. May 1, 2007 PB &R Staff Report & Minutes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 12, 2006 —7:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION - Cancelled
AE1234 ETHICS TRAINING - 4:00 -6:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION - 8:00 p.m.
A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT
B. RO LL-CALL
G
D.
E.
F.
G.
a
Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry,
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Mi
Gardner
CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council
- Pastor John
Henn
Pro Tem Selicb, Mayor
Daigle, Council Member
Harbor Lutheran Church
Library Foundation Prese tion of Check - Tom Edwards, President of the Library
Foundation, presented the Pity with a check for $121,650.
Member Webb welcomed Troop 746 from the Latter Day Saint& Church who are
on their citizenship merit badge.
Council Member Curry noted that contributing to the McFadden Square Project is tax
deductible.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich requested that a future agenda item relative to a phased development
of Newport Center Park come back before Council no later than January 23rd. Council
Member Webb requested that the staff report include the feasibility and cost of a soccer field
in the upper area and that the sports organizations be contacted relative -to the need for
active fields.
LJ
Mayor Rosansky announced that the Operation Christmas Toy Drive will be held on •
December 14th from 1 M. a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Volume 57 -Page 866
;k-
o m
TO: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
FROM: Wes Morgan, Director
SUBJECT: Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan
Item 7
January 2, 2007
(2)
The following is a 6 -year chronological history of the planning for the Newport Center Park site.
Staff requests that the Commission review this summary. The City Council is considering moving
forward with this project.
The following is excerpted information from a Staff Report to Sharon Wood re: Background
Materials for Joint Meeting with PBEtR dated January 2, 2002
Newport Village Site
On June 2, 2001, the City Council appropriated $35,000 to develop a conceptual plan for the
Newport Village site, and referred the project to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission. After several public forums, the Commission approved, on November 6, 2001, the
following list of components to be included in the design of the passive view park.
No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or a natural looking material
• This park will not be a destination park (i.e. a park where groups meet for all day events
• such as picnics, reunions, etc.)
Natural look, but user friendly
Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential use of night lighting
Security Lighting - only what is required for safety '
• Develop parking options
— 25 spaces, 50 spaces and 100 spaces
— consider improvements to existing onsite library parking
provide cost estimates for grading /parking options
— provide alternative off -site parking solutions
• Develop two concepts -
- with more turf
— with less turf
• Consideration for the environmentally sensitive areas
Benches, no picnic tables
• List /survey potential users
Parking analysis of library
Small amphitheater / outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people
• Landscaping should consider flowers /trees, location and size, for view protection
• Drinking fountains
Garden like area
Consultant shall also research funding opportunities
2. PARK DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE (From City Council Report dated July 19, 2006)
Throughout 2DD1, the PBftR Commission oversaw an extensive community outreach process
• where input from the public was sought on this parcel of property and the type of ocean
venue it would be. This outreach led to a concept plan for a passive park to include:
— a meadow area
— some sort of seating area for small gatherings
— an area of native plantings
— additional parking for the library.
3
Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan
Page 2
This plan was well received by the various stakeholders, including SPON, and the
environmental interests, surrounding neighborhoods, Board of Library Trustees and the PB &R •
Commission.
January 2, 2002 — City Council held a joint study session with PB &R discussing potential park
sites. The Jamboree -PCH park site (now named Back Bay View Park) was determined to be
the first priority, with Newport Village the second priority.
May 14, 2002 — Newport Center site update from Steve Badum during study session, Council
directed staff to develop site plans, take it to the PB &R for a recommendation and bring
back to Council for approval. — —
• May 17, 2003 — Budget review, Steve Badum proposed Newport Center Park conceptual
design with budget of $120,000 from CIP.
February 10, 2004 — Joint Meeting with Council and PB &R to discuss community -wide park
sites, deed restriction restricting site use for park site only — no action taken.
• June 22, 2004 — Council approved $128,950 contract with Hall ft Foreman, Inc. of Irvine to
begin Newport Center conceptual park plans.
• November 16, 2004 — A preliminary concept plan for the park was approved by the PBl3R
Commission.
January 25, 2005 — Concept plan was presented at study session. The Council's input was
favorable. At this meeting an offer was made by a member of the community to, with the
Council's permission, gather a group of interested citizens to assist in raising funds needed
to move forward on the development of the park. In January 2005 the preliminary cost
estimates for the park were $1.2 M, and these estimates were over a year old and based on •
a concept plan. The citizen committee had a goal of raising S1M of what was needed. The
Council accepted their offer to raise the funds.
June 2005 — A committee of 10 led by volunteer Bernie Svalstadt met a total of 15 times
from February to June to develop a fundraising plan, marketing materials including a web
site and prospect lists in an effort to raise the $1M. This committee was staffed by Marie
Knight and Bob Stein. The committee was ready to roll out their plan and begin the public
fundraising but was put on hold when a potential donor surfaced.
June 2005 — Staff was contacted by a member of the community interested in assisting with
the funding of the park. After several meetings, he stated his desire to donate the entire
$1.2 M needed.
June 14, 2005 — Council named the park — Newport Center Park. At that time staff
indicated to Council that a resident had expressed interest in making a donation in exchange
for naming rights. The Council indicated that they would be amenable to this and directed
staff to further pursue the issue.
• June - August 2005 — Staff, Hall ft Foreman and Council Member Selich met with the
prospective donor to discuss the park site, concept plans and development of the final
construction documents. In addition, staff worked to obtain more accurate cost estimates
for the completion of the park as well as implementation of the concept plan for the
formally landscaped and meadow portions, the native planting areas and the borders of the
park.
September 27, 2005 — City Council approved the PSA with Hall It Foreman, Inc- for the park
design services in the amount of $158,500 to complete the park design plans. •
u
�`,
,:. a {r
.\``
\!
Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan
Page 4
11
E
11
to
ReJiew of the Newport Center Park Development Plan
Page 5
Parks, Beaches F& Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 2, 2007- 7pm
Page 3
Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the donation of a 24" ToZ by M que
Faure to be planted at CdM State Beach. Motion carried by acclamation
Request by Newport Beach Little League. Recreation Manager Sea that staff
recommends that the Commission approve the request by Newport Beae (NBLL) to
install a batting cage between fields 1 and 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Par to say that
demands for field use continues to rise with increased pressure on th he available —
fields and that this will provide increased practice opportunities for ms and provide three teams
to practice at the same time while increasing the use of the fiel y 33 %. He went on to say that
Recreation staff met with Parks and Maintenance and NBLL select the best location. Staff has
notified the public that live within 500 feet of the locati y postcard of this meeting and noted
that NBLL will be responsible for all associated costs a hat the two trees in the location would be
replaced with a different type of tree within the par .
Keith Banning, NBLL stated that the ad raised the money a couple of years ago but that this
batting cage would be extremel elpful with team practice and will free up soccer fields for
their use and urged approval the Commission.
Jan Vandersloot encour ed staff to transplant those existing trees to another location.
vfnsued regarding the nets for the batting cages and was assured by NBLL that they
responsible for those.
Motion by Commissioner Ruzicka to approve the installation of a batting cage between fields 1
£t 2 at Bonita Canyon Sports Park with at( costs covered by NBLL. Motion carried by acclamation.
Review of the Newport Center Park Development Plan. Director Morgan stated that at the
December 12 City Council meeting to bring back the Newport Center project and would be discussed
again that the January 23 meeting. He went on to say that at that meeting they would review the
complete plan and specifications would be seeking approval to go on as planned. He stated that as
the discussion moved forward the Council asked for some consideration for soccer fields. He noted
that staff has moved forward and has provided information to all with a 6 year plan of the
development of the site. He stated that it is up to the Commission as to a motion of how to advise
the City Council. He stated that staff are the facilitators and in fairness, to all, that it is staff's
intention to study the soccer field component as requested by City Council. He went on to say that
that these minutes would be provided as part of the Public Works staff report to Council.
Commissioner Allen stated that she had walked the site and reviewed the pictures but noted that if
this site were to be a soccer field that it would require a lot of grading off the top and a lot of fill at
the bottom to flatten the site out because it now has a 70 -80 feet grade from the library to the crest
of the hill and would lose the view if it was to be flattened. Director Morgan agreed.
Commissioner Brown agreed that there does seem to be enough room if it were to graded to place a
soccer field but was concerned that the Commission has tried to use active parks as multiple use
11
U
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 2, 2007 - 7pm
Page 4
facilities and does not believe that there would be room enough for a soccer field and three Little
League fields and does that address the shortage of fields within the City. Director Morgan agreed.
Director Morgan stated that he does not want to get into design of the park or ruling out specific
activities but that screening and fencing would be required to have a multiple use field. He stated
that City Council.has specifically asked staff to look at a soccer field.
Recreation Manager Levin stated that the site is a parcel of land located north of the Newport Beach
Library and south of San Miguel. He reviewed the pictures of the site with the Commission.
Chair Garret opened the public discussion.
Tom Moulson noted that those were great photographs and that the Commission should get a
sense of what a lovely passive park it could be and always imagined that this location would be
that. He stated that the City has a Teflon City Council that has trouble sticking to its decision
and was concerned that he had to keep coming back to discuss the issue over and over again
when he believed that it had been decided. He noted that there are many other people that
could not make it tonight that believe that Newport Center Park should only be used as a passive
park not a sports field. He urged the Commission to convey to City Council that many people do
object to this change in direction.
Jan Vandersloot stated that this location has always been categorized as a passive park. He
• stated that the community has been working on this park for over 10 years with that assumption
and that it is time to have closure and recommended that the Commission urge the Councit to
approve Newport Center Park as a passive park.
Bernie Svalstad stated that in March 2005 he was the chair of a committee tasked to raise $1.2 M
for this park site with at least 16 people on the committee and City staff and no one ever
mentioned anything about this site being used as an active park. He stated that since then
because .of procrastinations and problems that a $600,000 donation was lost and noted that if
something does not happen soon that he believes that will be lost also. He stated that the park
estimates have risen from $1.2 M to $2.2M and possibly more and that costs continue to go up as
procrastination continues. He went on to say that the City has spent a lot of money on plans as
they changed and so urged the Commission to recommend to City Council that Newport Center
Park be used as a.passive park.
MaryAnn Soden stated that this park should only be a passive park and that there is no synergy
between the library and the possibility of a soccer field and would undermine what is a jewel in
the community. She went on to say that a soccer field would not be very useful to the Newport
Center community and that the money should be raised to make it a beautiful passive park.
Hugh Logan from Seaview Community and stated that when this item came before the City
Council, it was between a City Hall and a park and the Council spoke unequivocally that it would
be a park site and the sense of that meeting was that it would be a passive park. He stated that
there should be a balance between natural, active and passive parks. He stated that because of
the unique view and vista from this location is perfect as a passive park. It would be nice to
• have more active parks but this location would be difficult to make it a multi sports site. He
stated that since 2000 this park has always been a passive park. He urged the Commission to
convey to the Council that it remain a passive park.
Parks, Beaches it Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 2, 2007 - 7pm
Page 5
Chair Garret closed the public discussion.
Commissioner Trapp stated that traffic and parking is an issue now and noted that anything such
as an active park would make that even worse.
Commissioner Lugar stated that after reading the Citp "Council minutes he was astounded that
there would be such a plan to make it an active park after all this time.
Commissioner Brown added that whenever possible that active parks should be located in
neighborhoods. He noted that he is still excited about the amphitheater to be used by the library
as a readers' theater which is part of the plan for that location.
Motion by Commissioner Allen to urge approval by City Council to move forward as soon as
possible to develop the Newport Center Park site as a passive park. Motion carried by unanimous
vote.
Chair Garrett thanked staff for bringing this to the Commission in such a short time span.
COMMITTEE REPORTS -
arks- Will look forward to meeting to get the Newport Center Park going and following that the
c mittee will be actively working on Sunset Ridge, MarinaPark and Newport Coast Park but hopes that
there 'll be money allocated by City Council to move forward on Newport Center Park sooner then
•
later. Ch ' Garrett asked about MarinaPark. Director Morgan stated that Council has reviewed a concept
plan and inc ed that in the October 3 packet. He noted that it would address a variety of needs in the
community but t e` project has its own timeline because of the residents that still live there and such.
He did not that Coffin it will be scheduling a meeting with the Commission to discuss park priorities
sometime soon.
RSS- Nothing to report.
Budget - Director Morgan state at a committee meeting will be set for the middle of March with a
meeting.
AD - Hoc
—Youth Sports Liaison - Nothingto repo
— Community Services Awarc%- Superinten t McGuire stated that staff had received a submission
from the OASIS Travel Group and a one for nah Dean. Chair Garrett stated that he sees no
problem with awarding two awards on the same nig Superintendent McGuire stated that we have
not done the formal recommendation of these submissi yet - which will be brought forward at the
next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for nbriinations.
Commission directed staff to agerKize the criteria for nominal' ns of a Community Service Award
and the nominations for approval at the next meeting.
Other
—Santa Ana River Vision Plan- Commissioner Lugar asked to be removed fro that Committee. Chair
Garrett asked to be listed as an alternate.
— Memorial Committee - Director Morgan stated that Council Member Curry is settin p a meeting.
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS -
• Director Morgan - Nothing to report.
•
• Director Harmon - Thanked the Commission for the Facility Inspections and that it was a bit h
to Maintenance Division.
is
so
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 23
February 27, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum
949 -644 -3311 or sbadum @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Office of the City Manager
Homer L. Bludau
949 - 644 -3000 or hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE
PROCESS TO DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK
ISSUE:
p Should the City Council proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport
Center Park Phase 1 or should the Council maintain the Newport Center Park site as an
option for a City Hall location until such time as.Council makes a firm decision on a City
Hall location?
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the bid
package for Phase 1 of the Newport Center Park, (See Selich items for proposed
action) and determine whether a soccer field will be a component of the park plan
or
2) Take no action on park development until such time as the City Council
determines a final location for City Hall.
DISCUSSION:
Park Development History: The concept of having a park in the general vicinity of
what is now the Central Library site has its origins as early as 1990, when a 4-acre park
was publicly discussed. Since 2000, the most recent park concept envisioned a parking
area behind the Library, passive park area just to the north of this parking lot with .low
water ornamental landscaping, turf, a small amphitheater area, and a. very modest
native vegetation refurbishment at the north end of the site adjacent to San Miguel
/I
Newport Center Park
February 27. 2007
Page 2
Drive. A cost estimate was prepared in November 2004 based on preliminary drawings
with costs estimated at $1.1 million. Since that time, various amenities have been
added to the design concept including an enhanced circular arbor area, landscaping
enhancements along the perimeter of the park on Avocado Avenue and San Miguel
Drive, and an enhanced vegetation area was proposed for the north area of the park.
In September 2006, a new construction phasing was proposed. The proposed revised
phasing was based on a sketch and follow -up conversations with Councilmember Ed _
Selich and an unnamed donor. The first phase (Phase 1) would construct the passive
park area (including the Circular Arbor area and landscaping edge treatment along
Avocado Avenue) in the center of the site. Two new elements would be added to
Phase 1:
• a 30 -space, on -site parking lot with access near the intersection of Avocado
Avenue and Farallon Drive, and
• an extension of the park area to the south to the existing top of slope. This
portion of the park would be sacrificed when grading for the library parking lot
(Phase 2) commenced.
The second phase (Phase 2), would construct the parking lot behind the library as well
as the stairway and ADA ramp to the circular arbor structure. Grading for the parking
lot would demolish about 65,000 square feet of park constructed under Phase 1.
The third phase (Phase 3), would construct the enhanced vegetation area and adjacent
landscaping edge treatment as originally proposed in November 2005.
In September 2006, a revised cost estimate was prepared to address the current
design concept. A conceptual plan with proposed phases and a detailed cost estimate
is attached for more information.
Phase 1, Passive Park Central Area $1,420,000
Phase 2, Library Parking Lot $1,569,000
Phase 3 North Park Area 764.0
Total estimated cost = $3,753,000
Approximately $200,000 is currently budgeted for the final design and preparation of
Plans, Specification and bid documents. Additionally, an unidentified donor has
committed to providing the City $600,000 towards the park construction in exchange for
naming rights. All work on this project is currently suspended and awaiting direction
from City Council as to the park funding priorities regarding this park, Sunset Ridge
Park and Marina Park.
At the February 13, 2007 meeting, Councilmember Webb requested that staff
investigate the possibly of adding an active soccer field .element into the park. The
addition of a soccer field would require the following: 0
/1
Newport Center Park
February 27, 2007
Page 3
N 1) Additional grading would be required to provide a level playing field that would be
recessed in an effort to provide natural barriers and separate it from the adjacent
roadways.
2) A small restroom will be needed because of the extended presence of event
participants versus the short term passive use.
3) A larger parking lot (from 30 to 60 spaces) will be required to accommodate event
participants and the changeover/ overlap of successive games. _
The additional cost to add an active element to the park is estimated at $476,000. The
attached exhibits show one potential configuration for a soccer field.
Recent Avocado Site Park Planning History
June 2, 2001 — City Council appropriates $35,000 to develop conceptual plan for site,
referring project to PB &R.
November 6, 2001 — PB &R approves /recommends following components to park site:
No concrete or asphalt paths; use decomposed granite or natural looking material
Park not to be a "destination" park where groups meet for all day events, such as
picnics, reunions, etc.
Natural look, but user friendly
Protect views of surrounding neighborhoods including only essential night lighting
Security lighting — only what is required for safety
Develop parking options for 25, 50 and 100 parking spaces
Develop two concepts — one with more turf, one with less turf
Consideration for environmentally sensitive areas
Benches, no picnic tables
Small amphitheater /outdoor reading area for 30 -50 people
Landscaping should consider flowers/trees, location and size for view protection
Drinking fountains
Garden -like area
2001 — PB &R does extensive public outreach meetings seeking and obtaining Input on
what elements the park should contain.
January, 2002 — City CouncilIPB &R joint meeting discussion of park priorities; Back Bay
View Park was determined to be first priority, with Newport Village (Center) second
priority.
13
Newport CenterPark
February 27, 2007
Page 4
May 14, 2002 — Study session update from staff on park site. Council directed staff to_•�
develop site plans, take it to PB &R for recommendation, and bring back for Council
review.
May 17, 2003 —'In budget review, Public Works Director proposes Newport Center Park
conceptual design budget CIP project of $120,000. CIP approved with budget adoption
in June.
February 10, 2004 — Joint CounciVPB &R meeting, discussion of park sites
June 22, 2004 — Council approves $128,950 contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. of Irvine
to begin Newport Center conceptual park plans.
November 16, 2004 — Preliminary concept plan for park approved by PB &R
January 25, 2005 — Concept plan presented at Study Session, with favorable response
from Council. Council accepts citizen group offer to raise $1M of estimated $1.2M
needed (estimate already one year old).
June 2005 —Volunteer fund raising committee meets 15 times from February through
June to develop fundralsing plan; when potential donor surfaces, plan is put on hold.
June 2005 — Potential donor contacts City staff. After preliminary meetings, donor
states his desire to donate $1.2M needed for project.
June 14, 2005 — Council names park site "Newport Center Park" and expresses interest
in donor obtaining naming right to the park.
June - August, 2005 — Councilmember Selich, staff and Hall & Foreman staff meet with
prospective donor to discuss concept and plans.
September 27, 2005 — Council approves contract with Hall & Foreman, Inc. for
$158,500 to complete park design plans.
December 13, 2005 — City Council forms City Hall Site Review Committee, votes to
exclude the Newport Village site from Committee considerations.
May 23, 2006 — City Hall Site Review Committee reports findings to Council
July 25, 2006 — Bill Ficker gives proposal for City Hall at Newport Center Park site;
Council reaffirms previous vote to exclude park site from consideration.
September, 2006 — New three -part phasing plan for park proposed by Councilmember
Selich; latest park development estimate of all three phases is $3,753,000 (without
soccer field).
14
Newport Center Park
February 27. 2007
Page 5
February 13, 2007 — Councilmember Selich. asks staff to place Newport Center Park
authorization on agenda for appropriation authorization to proceed with development;
Councilmember Webb asked that staff include the option of a soccer field component.
Councilmember Selich asked the following actions be presented to City Council for their
determination:
1. Approval of construction of the park per the currently approved City Council
concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle
phase first.
2. Acceptance of the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase
in exchange for naming rights for the entire park, with the provision that other
naming opportunities will also be available.
3. Conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding
for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids.
4. Direct staff to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase
as soon as possible and put them out to bid.
ZONING DESIGNATION
The site is currently zoned as "Planned Community" in our General Plan. This
designation's permitted uses are limited to open space, including a public park. City
projects must be consistent with the General Plan.
Submitted by:
wr�orr.
Badum 'Homer L. Bludau
s Director City Manager
r]
is
City of Newport Beach .
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
direct the City Clerk to record the Resolution with the Orange County Recorder-
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, C ember Daigle, Council Member Gardner
L.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Charles.Griffm p that the property located at the northeast corner of Campus and Bristol
North wo a suitable location for City Hall and that the property could probably be acquired
t eminent domain.
IZONTIN-WED-RUSIN08
23. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK (Y00- E0071.
Mayor Rosaneky.explained the procedures that would be followed for this agenda item.
City Attorney Aaron Harp responded to Bernie Svalstad's point of order concern and Council
Member Webb's response that discussion about where City Hall should be located was not
the focus of tonight's discussion.
City Manager Bludau stated that the issue regarding tonight's public hearing item is
whether the City Council should proceed with the design and eventual construction of the
Newport Center Park Phase I or, whether Council should maintain the Newport Center
Park site as an option for a City Hall location until such time as Council makes a firm
decision on a City Hall location. He provided a PowerPoint presentation in concert with
staffs report that provided a detailed history of the park site planning and included maps,
diagrams and a coat summary of the proposed project.
Public Works Director Badum spoke about how the concept and design has progressed and
changed over time and how the estimated cost has increased from $1.2 million about a year
ago to over $3 million today.
Mayor Rosansky recalled that the cost was $1.4 million at the time the donor brought forth
his offer of $1.2 million to complete the park and that the City would contribute $200,000
toward completion.
Council Member Daigle wanted to know if the donor requested additional improvements for
the $600,000 donation, and if so, the value of the enhancements and how they have affected
the overall budget. Public Works Director Badum moved forward with his presentation to
show the costs of improvements and indicated that the original concept did not have a
parking lot. The difference between the northern area and the revised design for the passive
park account for the difference in estimated costs of enhancements_ Public Works Director
Badum confirmed to Council Member Daigle that the additional $600,000 donation is offset
by the design enhancements.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he was involved in proposing the enhancements as a direct
result of input and that the donor was not entirely responsible for the enhancement cost
increases. The original cost was not based on a set of plans.
Mayor Rosanaky stated that although the original estimate was not based on a set of plans
Council took its action based on the original estimate.
Volume 58 - Page 60
r-1
/I.
•
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Public Works Director Badum agreed with Council Member Webb that there could be a cost
savings if the City were to move forward with the entire project rather than phasing the
project and that the second phase would result in removal of a large amount of landscape
material.
In response to Mayor Rosansky, Public Works Director Badum responded that late last year
and again at the February meeting Mayor Pro Tern Selich requested the proposal be brought
back as a phased project.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich explained that the details of the donation have not been worked out
with the donor but believed that he expected his contribution would be based upon the
completion of Phase I within a reasonable period of time_ One of the action items on the
agenda this evening is to consummate the agreement.
Council Member Webb recalled that the agreement would allow naming rights so that the
concept under the CIP budget was a $1.7 million contribution for a total project cost of $1.9
million with the City contributing about $200,000. According to current estimates the
$600,000 additional contribution would require the City to contribute 85 percent.
Mayor Pro Tern Selich concurred with Council Member Henn that the fundraising would not
he limited and further stated that the idea for naming rights was to allow other major
contributors to have naming rights as well, although he was not aware of any at this time.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan indicated to Mayor Rosansky that he had
been with the City for four months and had visited about 40 of its 64 parks. Approximately
two-thirds of the acreage is passive and the demand for park programs is very strong. The
City is always trying to enlarge the inventory and there are other needs that could be met,
especially for youth. The City owes approximately $3 million on Sunset Ridge
Park. The potential development design consists of an overlay of two baseball fields and two
soccer fields with estimated construction costs of $6 to $7 million, which is not currently
budgeted for. He felt the athletic organizations would welcome a discussion about
additional active park space. Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded
to Council Member Daigle that he would assume the General Plan was responsive to and in
line with community needs and desires. Prior to tonight's meeting he reviewed the
Recreation Element and felt it was very fair and he would keep the Sunset Ridge Park and
Newport Center Park in the first priority positions because there are approximately 6000
kids that need to be accommodated during each season. He indicated that generally cities
do not have enough park space.
Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the current General Plan designation for the
site is Open Space and would require a vote of the people to change the designation. She
stated that the City's standard is to provide 5 acres of parks and open space for every 1000
residents. Currently there are 10.9 acres needed for Area 9 and there are currently 19 acres
available. The West Newport area requires 64.7 acres and the active park acreage plus the
beach area totals 43.1 acres, leaving a deficit of 21 acres, exclusive of Sunset Ridge
Park.
Library Director Katsouleas reported that the library parking problems are legendary and
when the building was originally designed it was intended to he part of a complex that
included a museum. that would provide additional shared parking. Programs are limited
due to lack of parking and they lose out on programs because of it.
Volume 58 - Page 61
J
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Webb said he was concerned with whether the Council should look at
•
funding a passive park outside of what was authorized in the CIP. He displayed a photo
array of the park inventory and pointed out the views from many of the existing parks. He
felt that the City's money should not be used for passive parks when there was such a dire
need for active parks and he could not support moving forward with a passive park north of
the library.
Council Member Gardner said this site was deeded in perpetuity as open space. Three
differe,ILCity Councils have turned away proposals for this site and she felt the City should
stand by its promise to the residents.
Bernie Svalstad supported the park because the public voted to approve the park and not
the soccer field. His committee spent a lot of time fundraising and he felt that in spite of the
fact that half of the value of the donation had been lost there would be sufficient donations
to complete the project.
Allan Beek said the site designated as open space would be a good place for a park and a
very poor place for a city hall.
Tom Collister urged Council to not approve the site for a park site because it is a high traffic
area with safety concerns that would render it inconsistent with the surrounding
commercial area.
Larry Tucker said he is here to promote good decision making and urged the Council to not
make a decision tonight and further explore finding the beat possible location for city hall.
He said he believed the Park Plus plan was innovative.
Tom Moulson felt the Council had a moral obligation to support recommendation #1.
•
Shirley Conger supported a passive park above the library and believed the city hall should
be developed nearby on a different site.
BJ Johnson said that the Corona del Mar Residents Association voted in favor of the park
and felt the City Council should move forward with Phase I tonight. She encouraged the
City to place Council Member Webb's park presentation on Channel 3 to encourage park
usage.
Greg Sullivan supported a park and felt traffic generated by a City Hall on the site would
Promote safety concerns and result in additional taxes to the residents.
Jim Robertson thanked Mayor Rosansky for his Park Plus Plan about the most logical site
for city hall and acknowledged that an earlier Council may have adversely acted to preclude
city hall from this site. He urged Council to vote no and to consider other options for the site
based on the best interest of the City and its residents.
Ron Hendrickson felt the Council should postpone this decision and move forward to
consider the site as the new city hall location.
Barry Allen said that 61 individuals signed a petition this evening in favor of saving the
park and felt the Council should move forward with Mayor Pro Tem Selich's proposal.
Wendy Brooks felt the Park Plus proposal was the perfect solution for the site
Don Udall supported the park and felt the City should keep its word.
Norm Witt supported the Park Plus concept as a win -win solution and urged Council to take •
Volume 58 - Page 62
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27,2007
• no action on the park development tonight.
Joe Garrett supported the park and supported the Park Plus program as a win -win solution
that would provide a crown jewel.for the community.
Scott Calder said he supported the Park Plus proposal and could not understand why when
a better idea was presented the Council would not give it full consideration.
Mary Barrett Blake asked Council Members to open their minds, listen to the residents and
support the Park Plus Program because it would create an incredible community center site.
Novelle Hendrickson supported the Park Plus program and took exception with portions of
staffs report because there was never a public hearing on'the matter during regularly
scheduled City Council meetings.
Val Skom encouraged approval of Phase I and pursuit of the OCTA as a site for city hall.
Gladys Wolcott said this Council voted for a park and asked Council Members to keep their
word and build the park.
Debbie Stephens said this site has always been designated as a park site end the Council
should move forward and build the park.
Dick Marowitz offered his full support to the Park Plus.program that he believed made fiscal
sense. He urged the City Council not to take a vote on this issue until full study of a city .
hall and park was completed.
Hugh Logan urged the City Council to vote yes on Phase I.
• Jack Croul felt the site was not suitable for a park but that it would work well for a city hall
and the site could include a 9 -acre park.
Dan Guggenheim supported the Park Plus proposal and encouraged everyone to consider
the possibility that the City could have both a new city hall and park because it would fulfill
the needs of past and present Councils and provide value to all residents of Newport Beach.
Craig.Batley urged the Council to delay making a decision, study the matter and continue
the debate.
Gene O 'Rourke felt the issue before the City Council was that it should wait four months to
make a decision about whether the site should include a city hall and park.
Marcia Dossey supported the shared use plan proposed through the Park Plus program and
asked the City Council to vote no on tonight's proposal.
Richard Cabin was opposed to considering a city hall on the site and urged Council to vote
yes and proceed with Phase 1.
Larry Porter said the City Council should proceed with construction of the park.
John Moftakhar felt a municipality should be flexible in its decision- making process and
believed it would be cost prohibitive to hold a special election for a city hall at the site.
Jo Vandervort encouraged the Council to delay its decision and not be pushed into making a
decision at this time.
• Mike Johnson said he was in favor of moving the current city hall site and liked the concept
Volume 58 - Page 68
l9
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
of efficiency of economies proposed via the Park Plus program.
John Heffernan said he was part of the Council who voted in 2005 to remove this site from
consideration for City Hall and he now realizes he made the wrong decision. He spoke in
support of a mixed -use option with the park and city hall at the location and urged the
Council to study it further.
Leonard Lane asked Council to keep its commitment and move forward with the park
James Turner supported the Park Plus program.
Barbara Birney felt everyone could be satisfied with a mixed -use of the site.
Bob Shelton believed it was never a mistake to take time to consider all options. The most
important promise would be to withhold a vote until all sides were fully vetted and
considered.
Debra .Allen said she supported speakers who asked the Council to keep their promise to
build a park and the problem with a mixed -use proposal was that the city hall would take a
big chunk out of the middle of the grassy area.
Dr. Jan Vandersloot, speaking on behalf of SPON, said this site was designated open space
and limited to park use and therefore the City Council should keep the public trust and
develop the park.
Dr. Jack Skinner believed that the proposed dual use has merit and should not be so quickly
dismissed this evening.
u
Helen McGruder said the City Council has a duty to serve the entire community. The •
Council should take no action until it commits to a final location for a city hall.
Nancy Skumer.said sbe would not support a plan to override a promised park unless a far
superior plan were proposed and she would like the opportunity to review a full proposal for
a mixed -use on the site and urged Council to postpone its decision for four months.
John Connelly felt it was reasonable, practical and responsible for the Council to consider all
options and to do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents-
Christine Carr felt the Council should move forward with the park
Steve Brahs, member of the Site Selection Committee, said he felt there was no better site
for a city hall and a vote for Phase 1 would prohibit further consideration of a city hall on the
site.
Tim Brown said he strongly supported a passive park on the site and believed it was a clear
recommendation of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission.
Bill Ficker presented 250 signatures in support of asking the City Council not to proceed
with the park design and construction until the city hall issue is resolved. He indicated that
Me plan includes having a park and city hall on the site and an urban park on the current
city hall site.
Charles Griffin wanted the City Council to move forward with Phase I and said the obvious
location for city hall was the airport industrial area-
Laura McCant said a good architect could design the site to accommodate a city hall and a •
Volume 58 -Page 64
r1I
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
• park and that it was fiscally responsible to build a city hall at that location.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich said after listening carefully he came to the conclusion that the easy
way was to continue the matter and the right way to handle this situation was to move
forward with the park. He said one of his fast tasks when he joined the City Council was to
build this park and said there are plenty of options in Newport Center for City Hall.
M ti y.Mayor Pro Tam- Selich to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans
and specifications for the bid package for Phase I_f the Newport Center Park as follows: 1)
approve construction of the park per the currently approved City Council concept plan, with
the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the middle phase first; 2) acceptance of
the $600,000 donation towards construction of the middle phase in exchange for naming
rights for the entire park, with the provision that other naming opportunities will also be
available; 3) conceptual approval to amend the FY 2006 -07 budget to increase the funding
for the park from $200,000 to $400,000, subject to final construction bids; and 4) direct staff
to complete the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and
put them out to bid.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich clarified that his motion did not include the consideration for a soccer
field.
Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan noted that neighborhood residents and
library patrons would most likely utilize the passive park and the amenities would dictate
the types of uses. Mayor Rosansky said he has not seen a conceptual plan, therefore it
would be difficult to vote on the issue. Access would include a 234 -foot switchback ramp
that would climb 30 to 40 feet from the library to the top of the hill.
• Council Member Webb said that a large area of manicured grass would. require a great deal
of maintenance. He asked if a soccer field was located in the area would there be more use
and Recreation and Senior Services Director Morgan responded that there could be four
teams at the same time during practice days and a soccer field would draw more individuals
than a passive park use.
Public Works Director Badum reminded Council that the conceptual enhanced plan was
shown during staffs report and that about 70 percent of the plan was complete. Public
Works Director Badum responded that the direction to staff was to include benches and not
picnic tables, no lighting, more turf and parking spaces to accommodate the library.
Public Works Director Badum explained that phasing was an idea that was brought up late
in the game and that there was no construction plans for phasing.
In response to question; about redesigning the park, Mayor Pro Tem Selich said he believed
the Commitment the Council made previously was in accordance with the proposed
conceptual plan.
Council Member Webb said the reason the Council is taking time to consider this proposal is
because this is a passive park that would require a substantial amount of money that could
be used to construct active parks. He felt the Council should be very concerned about the
cost benefit ratio of a passive use that is by definition not a destination park and for the
Council to approve Phase I it might be wasting considerable capital.
Substitute motion by Council Member Webb to take no action on park development
until such time as the City Council commits to a final location for a new city hall.
•
Volume 58 - Page 65
11
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27, 2007
Council Member Daigle said she recognized the passion and commitment by park
proponents, however however given the uncertainty about the cost and phasing as well as competing
priorities, she recommended this matter be tabled until June when the Council could look at
its budget for the ensuing year.
Council Member Curry spoke in opposition to the substitute motion and said that during his
campaign he clearly stated his position that he would support the park_ He said he was
disappointed with the. leadership tonight because the community has been. needlessly
divided. It comes down to whether the Council would support the park and put the City
Hall at another location. This is a matter of trust going back to 1990 and he is Committed to
having a park at this site_
Council Member Henn said he read and considered every email and felt it was his mandate
to consider all issues and input throughout the evening. He stated that it is too early to
conclude what is the best location for City Hall since it is a complex issue that deserves a
great deal of consideration. No matter where it goes the cost is likely to be $50 million or
more. He rejected the notion that people who live near Newport Center Park are somehow
acting in a selfish and narrow manner and their views are to be discounted and said that
anyone who lives in or near any project that involves intensive land use are entitled to
express their views. After viewing the parks with Council Member Webb it was clear that at
least half were not often visited and `bang for the buck' is not the decision rule. He spoke of
integrity and stated that the Council needs to act with integrity over time and the first point
is that this site has been envisioned as a passive park for 15 years or more. The second
commitment is that the City just completed and endured a hard fought election and the
voters approved a General Plan for the first time in 25. years. The General Plan included a
vision for open space and parks and was a balanced plan that should only be changed for the •
highest standard. He indicated he would vote for the original motion and against the
substitute motion.
Mayor Rosansky explained that his questioning of staff was an attempt to elicit information
that has not been before the public. Although he had previously voted to keep City Hall in
its current location, after reviewing his actions he was willing to correct them if they were
not appropriate at the time. The General Plan says that the City has a surplus of passive
parks and if the Council is to consider its limited resources it should look at economies of
scale. He spoke of the Councirs fiscal responsibilities. He indicated that he is a proponent
of parks and a proponent of a park in this location and nothing has been said tonight about
not building a park at this site. Thousands of residents use the Library on a regular basis
and according to the director there is a huge need for additional parking. He reiterated who
the basic users of the park would be and noted that there is no direct connection between the
proposed park and the library except a long upward winding ramp or staircase. In reference
to the time it has taken to build this park, he noted that the land was dedicated in 1992 and
if there was such a great need for this park it would have been built 10 years ago and people
would not be asking to put City Hall, senior apartments, etc on the land. Mayor iiosansky
said he is Chairman of the Building Committee and the committee has looked at many sites
and the bottom line is that none of those sites panned out. Referencing past promises and
the commitment to keep them, he noted that on May 27, 2003 and again on February 8,
2005, the City Council voted 6 -1 to keep City.Hall at its current location. He explained that
the City Council is not keeping that promise because there is new information that has
indicated there might be a better location for City Hall. He felt the only promise was that
there would be nothing else on the site. The site review Committee looked at more than 20
sites and most people feel that the site in question is the best site for City Hall. However, it
is incumbent upon this Council to not move forward with funding of this park tonight when
there is a clear need for use of these funds in other areas of the City. •
Volume 58 - Page 66
as
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
February 27,2007
• I Council Member. Gardner took exception to Mayor Roeansky's characterization that a
positive decision on this matter was "politically expedient."
Council Member Daigle asked if any consideration would be given to changing the phasing
so the parking lot would be built first.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selicb, Council
Member.Webb, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosanaky, Council Member Daigle
The Council recessed the meeting at midnight and reconvened at 12:10 a.m. with all
members present.
PUBLIC HEARING
IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUSTMENT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF
AND BOB HENRY PARK 1100 - 20071.
Jan Vandereloot felt the City should get part of the money from the park in -lieu fees and
• felt i as perfectly reasonable for the City to increase the fees paid by the homebuilders.
Motionh ouncil Member Webb to continue this item.
The motion carri by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member enn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council ber Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
M. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY L ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES -None
N. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA" STATUS- RENORI
22. IL ANN]NG COMMISSION GENDA FO EB .AR122, 2007.1100-20071 - No oral
report provided.
P. CURRENT BUSINESS
S26. COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING EQUIPMENT; BUDGE ENDMENT 1100 - 20071.
Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that this is a recommendaUo hat the City invest in
cameras and editing equipment to continue the City's programming a Time- Warner
has contributed $400,000: Cox $600,000, and Time- Warner will provide -year ongoing
support for $90,000 to $100,000 per year_
• Volume 58 - Page 67
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
"RECEIVED ���IAGE DA
PRINT ED:"
M;
Agenda Item No. 17
March 27. 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Robin Clauson. City Attorney
(949) 644 -3131 or rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS
DECISION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007 TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO
DEVELOP PHASE 1 OF NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE
PROJECT BACK TO THE PARK, BEACHES AND RECREATION
COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ISSUE:
Should the City Council rescind its decision to proceed with the design and eventual,
construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 and refer the project back to the Park.
Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB&R) for reconsideration?
RECOMMENDATION:
If desired. rescind the City Council's decision of February 27. 2007 to proceed with the
design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park Phase 1 including the City
Council's decision to: (1) proceed with the preparation of plans and. specifications for the
bid package for Phase 1: (2) approve construction of the park per the approved City
Council concept plan, with the addition of the upper parking lot in phases with the
middle phase first: (3) accept the $600.000 donation towards construction of the middle
phase in exchange for naming rights for the entire park: (4) approve. in concept, the
amendment of the Fiscal Year 2006-07 budget to increase the funding for the park from
$200.000 to $400.000. subject to final construction bids; and (5) direct staff to complete
the construction documents for the middle section phase as soon as possible and put
them out to bid.
DISCUSSION:
On February 27. 2007. the City Council directed staff to initiate the process to develop
Phase 1 of Newport Center Park. Copies of the staff report and meeting minutes from •
the February 27, 2007 meeting are attached hereto.
_•
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 2
Just prior to the February 27, 2007 meeting, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp
received an inquiry whether Park, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Deborah
Allen had a possible conflict of interest. City GIS staff prepared a map showing that
Commissioner Allen's residence was located 375 feet from the Newport Center Park.
Mr. Harp informed Commissioner Allen of this in the morning of February 27, 2007. Mr.
Harp was present at the Council meeting on February 270' in my place as i was out of
state on bereavement leave. When I returned, I looked into the impacts a potential
conflict of interest would have on actions already taken by the City Council and the
PB &R Commission and determined that an alleged violation of the Political Reform Act
could subject the PB &R Commission and City Council actions and decisions related to
the park's design and development to a legal challenge.
Specifically, the Political Reform Act (PRA) provides that an official may not make a
decision, participate in the making of a decision or in any way attempt to use his or her
official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has
reason to know he/she has a financial interest. The prohibition from using the official's
position to influence a governmental decision, according to a publication by the Attomey
General, "was intended to ensure that public officials do not act indirectly to affect their
private economic interests by utilizing their official status or activities. It specifically
includes attempting to affect any decision within the official's own agency or any agency
• appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency". Conflicts of
Interest, Office of the Attorney General, page 22..
When a decision involves another's real property located within a 500 foot radius of an
official's real property, the official's real property is presumed to be directly involved in
the decision. Real property directly involved In a decision is presumed to be a material
financial effect on the official unless the decision will have no financial effect, "not even
a penny." Unless the official establishes by a reasonable, objective method that there is
no financial impact on their real property interest they are expected by the regulations to
step down and not participate in the decision, or use their position to influence another
body of the same agency in making a decision.
I have provided the above regulations to inform the Council and the public of the basic
provisions of the PRA and regulations that apply. Given the potential conflict of interest,
the February 27, 2007 and /or decisions and recommendations of the PB &R
Commission could be subject to legal challenge by a resident under the Political Reform
Act.
Environmental Review: This is not a project under CEQA.
•
Newport Center Park
March 27, 2007
Page 3 •
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Prepared & Submitted by:
Robin Clauson,
City Attorney
Attachments: February 27, 2007 Staff Report (Agenda Item No. 23)
February 27, 2007 Meeting Minutes (Agenda Item No. 23)
is
•
City Council Regular Meeting Page 8 of 12
Action Agenda
• Planning Director Lepo reported on the following Planning Commission agenda it s for
March 22, 2007: Variance No. 2006 -003 for 709 Kings Road; the valet /parking management
plan at 1370 Bison Avenue; Use Permit No. 2006 -038 for the Wine �Galle , a report on
parking in -lieu fees; and a CIS application update.
The Council recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m. with all members pr ent.
XIX. CUR_ R_ ENT BUSINESS
18. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FO OMPREHENSIVE REWRITE OF
THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 20) AND NNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET
AMENDMENT (I00- 20071. /
Staff Report
Associate Planner Ramirez st ed that the purpose of the budget amendment is to acquire
monies for a rewrite of the oning Code and CEQA Review.
i
Motion by Coun dt Member Daigle to a) approve the PSA with Hogle- Ireland for the
Zoning Code Rp,,4rite and CEQA Review; and b) approve a budget amendment (07BA -061)
- transferrin `$632,420 from the unappropriated General Fund reserve to a new Planning
Departjntlnt Account, 2710 -82932 Zoning Code Rewrite.
e motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
• III. CONTINUED BUSINESS
17. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO RESCIND ITS FEBRUARY 27,
2007 DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP. PHASE 1 OF
NEWPORT CENTER PARK AND REFER THE PROJECT BACK TO THE PARKS,
BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 -100-
20071.
Staff Report
City Attorney Clauson noted that this matter was brought about as a Parks, Beaches and
Recreation (PB &R) Commissioner was discovered to have a potential conflict of interest due
to the proximity of her residence to the subject property and whether the alleged violation
might result in a lawsuit to rescind the Council's previous decision.
Debra Allen, recipient of the alleged charges, said the charges were absolutely false. Upon
advise from Assistant City Attorney Harp she contacted the Fair Political Practices
Commission and was told there would be no conflict of interest as a citizen and PB &R
Commissioner with her speaking on this matter at the February 27 City Council meeting.
She was very disturbed that the City had left the impression via a press release that she
had a conflict of interest and felt that her reputation had been irreparably damaged as a
result. She furnished the City Council with a copy of a certified appraisal that indicated her
property value would suffer no financial impact as a result of the Council's decision.
Barry Allen provided four documents testifying to the fact that this matter would have no
affect on Debra Allen's property. There is no conflict of interest by a PB &R Commissioner
and the threat of a lawsuit is merely to get the City to overturn its decision so that further
consideration can be given to placing city hall on the site. He encouraged the City Council to
vote no on this agenda item.
27
http:// newportbeach .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id =477 4/24/2007
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 9 of 12
Elaine Linhoff was upset by Tom Johnson's article in The Daily Pilot and asked the Council
to stand by its vote and move forward to develop the park.
Wendy Brooks wanted Council to consider placing a new city hall and park next to the •
library because it would better serve the needs of the community and its residents.
Shirley Conger felt the Tom Johnson article was an attempt to divert attention from the
City Council's decision.
Allan Beek thanked the Mayor for clarifying the issue at hand and recommended the
Council remove this item from the agenda or vote no.
Tom Moulson found the entire issue laughable.
Karen Twingah said she won't speak about how shabbily the City treats its volunteers or
how little effort it takes to come up with perceived conflicts of interest. As a resident of
Newport Beach she lives 1.8 miles from the park and anyone who speaks in support of
proceeding with the building of the park should be heard and the Council should proceed
accordingly and support its constituents.
Bill Ficker asked the Council to put this matter on hold and research alternative options
because the park is one of the lowest priorities in the City's General Plan.
Dick Nichols urged the Council to reconsider this matter and give the City time to consider a
better plan for the property.
Barton Beek felt it would be wise for the Council to reconsider this matter and give the
residents more time to consider this decision by better educating the residents and putting •
the matter to a vote of the people.
Mike Johnson said he has been involved with parks for many years and served on the PB &R
Commission in the 1970's. He felt that the project site should be re- designed as a people -
friendly park similar to the park in West Newport Beach.
Garrett Smith felt that Debra Allen deserved thanks for her years of volunteerism but
should not be singled out because there are many individuals and groups that volunteer
their services to the City. He felt the only fair way to resolve this matter was to let the City
continue to research the area for the best use and finally put it to a vote of the people.
Jack .Croul requested the City Council reopen the issue of whether a park should be built on
the 12 -acre site because it is clear the residents are divided on how the property should be
used.
Hugh Logan was confident that Council would fairly review this issue and move forward to
protect the site as a park.
Bob Shelton felt the real issue was whether or not the decision was the right decision and
urged the Council to reconsider the site for joint use.
Evvy Compton asked Council to rescind its decision and reconsider using valuable City
funds on a project that people would use.
Lucille Kuehn urged Council to rescind its motion, refund the donor's money, revisit the
issue and bring forth a better solution for use of the site_ •
Phil Arst complimented the Council Members who voted to protect public parkland. The
http:// newportbeach .granicus.com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =16 &clip id=477 4/24/2007$
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 10 of 12
real issue is where to locate City Hall and in his opinion, this site would not be suitable.
• Nancy Skinner asked Council to return the matter to PB &R because it would be helpful for
the citizens to better understand the proposed design concept for the park.
George Schroeder felt the only issue was whether the conflict of interest applied and once
determined the Council should move forward accordingly.
Ron Hendrickson believed the City was not short on passive parks but was short on active
E parks. Therefore, this 12 -acre park is not needed at this time and this issue has not been
1 properly analyzed. It would be unfortunate if the City did not consider a small portion of the
I property for a city hall.
Jan Vandersloot said that although this decision was not about Debra Allen he asked that
before the Council vote tonight it verify whether she has a conflict of interest and whether
the Council could ultimately uphold its previous vote.
City Attorney Clauson responded to Council Member Webb that the accuracy of the GiS
maps are to within five feet and reiterated that it is not the Council's responsibility to
determine whether there is a conflict of interest.
Council Member Curry said that based on the Counsel's input he would recommend
rescinding the vote and returning the matter to the PB &R Commission for developmental
review of the park design and careful review of the potential conflict of interest involving
Debra Allen.
Motion_by. Council Member. _Curry to rescind the City Council decision of February 27,
2007 and refer the matter back to the PB &R Commission for 30 days on a de novo basis to
• consider the design of the park and to report back to the City Council. After discussion the
motion was amended to direct the PB &R Commission to report back as soon as possible,
however within 60 days.
Substitute motion by Maypr.Rpsansky to rescind the City Council decision of February
27, 2007 to proceed with the design and eventual construction of Newport Center Park
Phase 1 and refer the matter back to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in
order to conduct a full public outreach effort.
The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Webb
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Council
Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
Noes: Mayor Rosansky
_._.__._.._... ........... . .._..............._...._ ............__._.....- ..._,_...
XIX. ..__. ENT. BUSINESS (contd).
19. LEGISLA ELATING TO GROUP HOMES [I00- 20071.
Staff Report
• _
Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that Senator Harman ddresses homes owned
by the same owner and that the original intent of the 1ROC was to increa distance to
1000 feet and felt the 1000 feet should apply between facilities and did not limit it
219
http:// newportbeach .granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php ?view „id =16 &clip id =477 4/24/2007
0
F
n
$4UR49"
TO: Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
FROM: Wes Morgan, Director
SUBJECT: Newport Center Park Phase I Design Elements
• Item 9
May 1, 2007
(3)d
The Newport Beach City Council has directed their Parks, Beaches ft Recreation
Commission to conduct a public meeting regarding the design plan for Phase I of Newport
Center Park, Active and passive park uses are to be considered by the Commission in this
design. This meeting is to include input from the community followed by recommendations
from the Commission to the City Council specifying which park elements the City Council
should include in Phase I of this park development.
Attached are related public documents which pertain to the history of this park site.
1. December 12, 2006 City Council Minutes
2. January 2, 2007 PBftR Staff Report ft Minutes
3. February 27, 2007 City Council Staff Report ft Minutes
4. March 27, 2007 City Councit Staff Report ft Minutes
5. Public Notice Postcard ft City Press Release for May 1, 2007 PBftR Meeting
6. Recent Correspondence concerning Newport Center Park.
•
•
30
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches ii Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 5
Newport Center Park Phase 1 - Commissioner Allen stated that she had a brief statement to
make which she noted was essentially the same statement that she made at the April meeting.
She went on to say that there has been a charge or a claim by some that she has a potential
conflict of interest on this property and noted that she has had a survey done and an appraisal of
her property and that she firmly believes that she does n t have a conflict. However in the
interest of the good of the order for the Commission believes that she has become a
distraction and has too much respect-for the Commission ontinue in that position and stated
that she would recuse herself from the discussion.
Commissioner Allen excused herself from the meW anN4IQmfiL she would return at the
beginning of the next item.
Director Morgan stated that he would be reviewi by the issue was before the commission and
what needed to be done in order to send it tC
He went on to say that he has
worked as hard as he could by reviewing the eo he Council meetings of February
and March where different actions were t he at he has reviewed the official
minutes and has worked with the City Attorn exactly what it is that the City
Council wants the Commission to do beginning toni ed that at the Council meeting of
March 27th they considered their action of February t was about the Newport Center
Park and what it should be in terms of it relates toots. Commission's recommendation.
Director Morgan stated that it was a rd as a passive park following this
Commissions action. He stated that vari o ns the Council has now asked this
Commission to take a fresh look at what ents this park should include and stated that
it was his understanding looking at the ote of March 27th that the purview of this
Commission tonight is to look k elem on that 12 -acre park above the library which
would be phase 1 of Newpo Park. D or Morgan stated that the Commission will
receive a variety of comme and t they are [come. He stated that those would be read
into the record and forwa to th with the recommendation of the Commission
regarding the park desi lemen He stated that the City Attorney has given
clearance that this is w Co l wants from the Commission. He stated that in looking at
the Council's action of Marc at he had been asked where does the Commission begin, he
noted that staff and Cit Attorn termined that it should begin with the Council meeting
of December 12, 2 d th hat meeting the Council asked the City Manager to
move forward wi ase devel ment of Newport Center Park and that 4 items were
listed in terms ishing plans getting it out to bid and so forth; and to bring that back to
Council by Jan 23rd. He note that had been all that was said then this Commission would
not have gott [ved on Janu 2 because the work was all done with years of planning and
input and voting City C it had signed off on a lot of things that are included in the
packet in .terms of t a ve been gone on over the years; but there was additional
Council direction to look uses perhaps a soccer field. Director Morgan stated that with
that issue it was returned to he Commission's area to look at to see if the use should be
changed from passive to active. He stated that Commission looked at it on January 2 "d because it
needed to be back to Council by January 23rd. He stated that eventually it was heard by Council
on February 27th and then for a variety of reasons that everyone is familiar with, .and that it was
decided on March 27th to start fresh with what was done on January 2 "d at this level and to take
a new look at the park development and whether it should be passive or active. He noted that
there were recommendations that this issue go even farther back then January 2 "d but in the end
after going back through the video and reviewing it word by. word on several occasions that it is
staff's opinion that the work for the Commission is to look fresh at the action taken on January
2nd
31
Parks, Beaches li Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 6
Commissioner Brown asked for a point of clarification and stated that going back to the meeting
of January 2 1d he noted that the action taken by the Commission was more then just that
Newport Center Park is a passive park. He reread the motion of January 2 "d - he stated that the
motion wos mode by Commission Allen to urge opprovol by City Council to move forword os soon
as possible to develop the Newport Center Pork site os o pqssive park. He stated that he would
like to make that point now that it was more then just a rdDrnmendation of a passive park but
moving forward as a passive park as soon possible. Aff
Chair Garrett that if there are people here to talk al
park site he stated that it should be noted that
Commission votes because that has no bearing on
Commission can consider. He stated that if you w
would be listened to but would not become a poi
Chair Garrett opened the public discussion
We action
to make a
discussion.
Bill Ficker stated that the directions are pre
Commission's time but that most everyone knowsIM
and that there are some wonderful opportunities for y
would be more discussion on this a oes by
presentations that have to do with t
here on the Peninsula as an urban si a sta
Commission.
Jim Warren stated that
recommends that this rer
has been a park for nine i
would recommend that si
everyone sees it as fresh]
should be signed as a pa�4
City Hall should be built on the
no difference on how the
not part of what the
omm eQardinQ that issue it
that he would not take any of the
about the development of that site
IMLe reference. He stated that there.
want to leave some copies of
rand the opportunity to use the site
respectfully submits those to the
from the park site and that. he strongly
�occer field; no lights on it and noted that it
ie only parks in the City without signage and
it it is a park.. He stated that because of that
a new idea and that it is a park and that it
Barry Allen stated he Newport MabLE rk is not appropriate for ball fields because there are
two busy streets on an t is the reason that the Commission has rejected that
suggestion before at gaily i o way to keeps balls off the road since there are not
fences that cou a built high gh to keep them in not to mention how high a soccer ball
could be kicke a stated that r a real danger and no one wants that. He stated that the
other issue is ading of the is not practical and would be very expensive to build any
kind of a soccer to flatt t out would cause some site line problems and stated that
having any kind of a is practical but suggest that the Commission consider that
additional amenities be a the parks, such as restrooms located near the parking lot that
would be built along with the rary; since it is the only area where permanent lighting would
be and the library people could open the restrooms in the morning and close them at night and
would keep park users from using the restrooms in the library; give consideration to a few more
benches, picnic tables and thing like that in the area to encourage people to come to the area
not only for purposes of sitting, reading, contemplating, looking at the flowers and grass, but
also to sit down at some place other then the amphitheater and be able to have a lunch and if
we scatter these things around the park it would encourage people to use it since this site has
such a spectacular view and it would be shame to harm that view. He thanked the Commission
for doing such a wonderful job in developing the park.
1
•
u
Parks, Beaches Ft Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 7
• e
E
Mark Arblaster stated that his family enjoys the passive parks in the City and noted that there
are an ample number of them; but what the City does not have enough of is active parks
specifically soccer fields and noted that if there were a soccer field at that side it could
alleviate a lot of the pressure that is put on soccer volunteers trying to schedule places for the
kids to play. He stated that there are many places to enjoyA view and why cant you enjoy the
view while Watching your child play. He urged that C ission to make it an active park
specifically for soccer.
Karin Tringalli stated that she lives in the Cameo Iffmun suggested that this is the
opportunity for the Commission as well as the City really cre el and that there are
active parks and passive parks but there is not w many great cite ve and that is a real
jewel of a park and that the original design p ps with some modifications that have been
submitted would really accomplish that. She u the C mission to keep it as a passive park
with additional amenities.
Tom Moulson stated that he does not believe nything new that could be said on this
subject so he stated that he was here when the r ndation was made, impressed by the
quality of debate, and respect the integrity of the Com nd trust that they will keep their
minds open and that nothing has chan that you will and the recommendation back to
City Council to keep it as a passive pa
Bernie Svalstad stated that he was the o t r of the fundraising committee that consisted
of about 16 members that was approved Council to raise funds of $1.2. M for Newport
Village which is now calleaNeCente He stated once the name was approved a
donor called and so that we of put up because it was thought that the
negotiation would be com nths; did not happen and the Council did not
consider that and so the now hopefully he is still willing to donate
$600,000 and does agree it as a passive park and agrees with Mr. Allen
that amenities should b has talked to a couple of Council Members and that
they would like to have som benches, etc.
Jay Baker stat/th en to f these m eetings to discuss the park and understood
that the park e a e par and urged that the Commission approve Mr. Allen's
reco . endatiadditiona nities be added to the park. He stated that the City should
move forward n work on t site immediately.
Bernie Svalstad s at ther a 12 -acre park that is just about to start construction up in
Newport Coast that
TM
Vtha pany is building and that the City is not paying a dime for and
that it would be comple 09 and that it would include ball fields, soccer fields, very
active park and is not more mile or two from the Newport Center site and that the City is
not very involved in it and construction should begin soon and should allay some of the problems
of not having a active park in this area.
Caroline Logan stated that the most beautiful cities have central parks very similar to the one
• that is being proposed for Newport Center Park and that these parks are not for sweat and tears
in competition but rather for serenity, quiet and the personal experience of sharing a peaceful
and quiet place near the center of town and please preserve our Newport Center Park as a
passive park, a non - competitive park for our citizens.
Eli]
Parks, Beaches it Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 8
Novel Hendrickson stated that she was here that she believes that we are here today to redo
your meeting of January 2nd and that she received some handouts other then what was given out
originally and wondered if these new plans had been discussed or it they had been discussed at a
meeting because she, had been able find any evidence of tha in any of the minutes and that this
handout was different then the one that was shown in 200M a Council Study Session and then
shown again in 2006.' AF
Chair Garrett stated that this has been an evolvingfflubjWd that many of the plans are
conceptual and probably what will be sent to Counc' pen the vote goes will change
from what they are today.
Ms. Hendrickson
planning.
Chair Garrett stated that this is up to the
these plans that are recommended to the
Ms. Hendrickson stated that they really never
1999 on this piece of land and has fo hn
during Study Sessions and really neve
park to the public to have a public hea wl
2002. She stated that this never happen
this could be under the radar all this time.
that was ever approved at a pubjjjWaeeting
stated that she read in the 9WF5qWat a t
Policy B -17 for the Council that amini
that this park does not hav it has
any input since 2005 in a f this.
Chair Garrett stated that
publicly noticed meeting
Ms. Hendrickson
of those meetinc
Chair Garrett
about 90% finished with
will either approve or disapprove
ecaOIqQWthing that she had studied since
jally the y Council has only discussed this
Warly on in the development of this
by Council Member Heffernan in
s not know who or what staff member or how
it on to say that the only thing she could see
City Council was the naming of the park. She
dous amount of time was spent on Council
park and the possible donation. She stated
.d change so that the Commission has not had
rily true since the Park Development Committee is a
discussions took place there.
them that there are not minutes
Ms. Hendricks state s d review them then because it is very disappointing to the
public since they trust th 71 ommission knows and reports what is going on and when it is
found that the City Council n r really approved this or brought it for public comment then it
has been developed by the Park Development Committee and that the last time it was voted on
was November 16, 2004 on the Newport Center conceptual plan and that is was set in motion to
have the CIP to grant them $128,000 and then later in September another $58,000 for the plans
that have been development and only a peak was given in 2006 and that it is amazing how this
comes out and report that the point of the whole thing is that the Library is supposed to get the
parking first and under phase 1 they don't.
39'
•
is
U
Parks, Beaches li Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
• Page 9
•
•
Director Morgan stated that he would not debate on whether parking for the library is supposed
to be first of what is second or third. He stated that he does know what the direction is for
tonight. He stated that when it comes to the fine points of Newport Center Park phase 1, that
what is going on tonight is very important and will influence the outcome of what the concept
will become once a final plan is approved. The things that a being discussed tonight such as a
restroom or a place where it is more for a destination for ics rather than for individual use
will be extremely valuable and will be tbnsid'ered by the until when they direct staff on the
next steps to take place. He stated that Public Works w' t put plans out for bid until Council
has signed off.
Commissioner Brown stated that his recollection
questioned whether minutes are kept. A
Director Morgan stated that these meetings
eventually they are in the minutes of the Com
Commissioner Brown stated that he knows th
least three different times while he served on the
that official minutes were not being done but that he
were .reported at the Commission m . He st
accurate regarding the last time it
that it issues have not realty been disc since
Director Morgan stated that on
review of the costs was disco
course no vote was taken at tl�
Jim Warren stated that
in the Fire Conference
were advertised and th
Jan Vandersloot stated
SPON is a city -wide
and very involve
that
are noticed and
every Commission meeting and
have been discussed for this park at
ee. He stated that he was not aware
khat the discussion of the Committee
he believes Ms. Hendrickson is
I„the concept in November 2004 and
Park Development Committee meeting that a
council members were in attendance. But of
past three separate public meetings that were
in the Council Chambers. He stated that they
for himself as well as SPON. He went on to say that
ig 350 families and that SPON has been instrumental
of this park going back to 1992 when the CIOSA
Agreement calle r this site t dedicated as open space by The Irvine Company. Which did
happen and th ty accepted it pen space and the concept of a passive park was actually
first broache ouncil Memb om Tompson in 1997 and since then SPON developed a
concept plan w presen to the City and the current plan is largely developed on
SPON's plan which is -wi organization and at the, annual meetings over the years has
been discussed and sever ,tation have been made on the park and what else could have
been put on the park such as s for housing; the cultural arts center and all this time there have
been fights and now we are fighting about putting City Hall going there. He stated that there
has been a lot of activity related to this park and recalled that there have been several
presentations made at Commission meetings on this park site regarding eh design and several the
committee level. He stated that he personally sent out notices to have people come and express
their opinions. He stated that the public has been aware and that now certain members of the
public are coming down lately because they don't like what is happening here and want to see a
City Hall at the site and so are going back and trying to find or poke holes in the process and
that is what is happening now. Mr. Vandersloot stated that it is not because they are interested
35,
Parks, Beaches £t Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 10 •
in what kind of park is there but they don't want to see a park period they want to see a City
Hall and that is not the mission of the Commission, but the mission is to decide whether it should
be passive or active park and encourage that the Commission stay by previous commitments and
that the Commission has done a good job in analyzing the site and come up with a very good
plan and noted that he is not opposed to additional ameni ies but that in the natural areas it
should be natural with trails and signage. He urged the Co ssion to stand by their convictions
and move forward with the same recommendation.
Hugh Logan stated that there are two basic thoror
panoramas. He noted that one of them is New
Boulevard as you come over the hill and suddenly
is breathtaking and brings visitors, money and is a
park. He.stated that if it goes active and that y
City that it does not seem to be worth it conSM
time a soccer balls flies out into MacArthur B
that it remain a passive park.
Chair Garrett closed the public discussion
Commissioner Trapp stated that she
needed and would answer come cor
park very long and believes that the
Commissioner Lugar stated that he also
have facilities for people to g th
support it as a passive park b
en up the City and the glorious
ba st-" nd the other is MacArthur
re harbor d out. He noted that it
e thing and a ct place for a passive
one field to the ones already within the
hWirading and cannot imagine the first
rQed the Commission to recommend
i Barry AM's suggestion that restrooms are
ould do if they plan to stay at the
FMIWc tables is a good idea. •
Mr. Allen and architecturally that unless you
not gather and so it makes sense that we
Cities be added so people will visit the park.
Commissioner Brown stat hat he ry strongly that Newport Center is not an
appropriate site for an a e park es that. He stated that active parks should be
established within neig ds are easily accessible for families. He went on to say that
he views that area as a com area and that if we create a active park there that since we
have a shortage of active park s it is important the land have multiple use and that this
site could only acco a so ld and would not answer any shortages that we have
now. He stated t e is c d abo safety if it were an active park there. He stated that
he does not su this site active site however he noted that everyone realizes that
there is a nee r active parks believes that since we are in a climate where we look at
how much m have to spe nd that he has some trouble agreeing that funds should be
used to build an sive par r which we have a dearth of those already and ignoring the
fact that we need a d the notion that we have an active park in Newport Coast
already being built but n t it would not serve the interest of the west side where there
are no active parks at all. Co issioner Brown stated that his concern is not whether this should
be an active park but rather that our motion that was passed in January was that the City begin
construction on the site as soon as possible and noted that he no longer feels that way, He
stated that is why he would like to have a unanimous vote on this of having is as a passive park
but does not believe he could support a motion that would include recommending that Newport
Center be constructed as a passive park with an inference that would probably come as full bore •
ahead. He stated that he would point to the General Plan and that the park is a low priority in
the update and that this park has been discussed for years and now we are talking about ways to
encourage use of the park. He stated that what he is asking the Commission to consider is that
•
•
•
Parks, Beaches if Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
May 1, 2007 - 7pm
Page 11
we recommend that Newport Center Park is an appropriate site for a passive park but that it not
be a priority and that other priorities would serve the interest of many more residents of
Newport Beach then this particular site at this particular time.
Commissioner Lugar stated that priority is not an issue that is before the Commission to discuss
Chair Garrett stated he personally agrees that amenitie ould be added and could mitigate
some concerns of those of the park not being used. He ed that there is a shortage of soccer
fields within the City but that this site would not answ ncerns.
Motion by Chair Garrett to recommend to City
as a passive park and that additional user amer
additional turf areas and a restroom. Motion ca
Ayes:
Absent:
Recuse:
Brown,
Ruzicka
Allen
gr that New t
rto include benc
by the following vote:
Park be designated
»c tables, parking,
3)