COMMUNITY COMMENTARY:Stick with the city hall plan

Regarding the editorial of June 25, 2006 entitled “Newport Council must consider new hall proposal,” I agree that the Newport Beach City Council should consider the opinions of those Daily Pilot readers who have responded to the question of whether to relocate city hall to the Newport Center Park site above the library. I also think that the City Council should reject this proposal and explain its reasoning to do so.

One of the great attractions to Bill Ficker’s proposal is that it is portrayed as a “free” city hall. Just sell the current site on the peninsula and build city hall on land owned by the city courtesy of an Irvine Co. open space dedication. However, the uses of the site above the library is restricted to open space uses by the landmark 1992 Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). This development agreement vested certain rights to development of Irvine Co. properties in exchange for open space properties in perpetuity, like the space above the library. The development agreement is supposed to be binding on both parties and immune from citizen challenges.

Another attraction of the proposed plan is that it is a more central site and situated above the flood plain so as to be above any tsunami. However, rather than a tsunami possibly happening once in a millennium, the new city hall site is likely to experience daily water seepage like the library does.

Another argument seems to be that the plan would not impact views, and any park would be impacted by noise from surrounding traffic. However, this perception is not correct based on site visits, as I suggest plan supporters actually do.

Regarding a “free city hall,” sale price of the peninsula site and cost of building at the park site are conjecture at best. Sale of the current site will depend on a general plan amendment, zone change, possible Greenlight vote, environmental report and Coastal Commission action, to name a view constraints on a sales price.

Costs of building a one-story city hall on the park site will require a general plan amendment, zone change, environmental report, costs of grading down a hill, dewatering the hill and having some sort of sump pump arrangement that will deal with water entering the city hall building on a daily basis ? sort of a daily mini-tsunami seeping into city hall like it does the library. Costs of grading and dewatering may run into the millions of dollars.

Costs should also include mitigation for loss of open space that was guaranteed by the CIOSA Agreement, an agreement that should not be taken lightly. If the open space dedication from the Newport Center Park site is taken away for a new city hall, where would the replacement open space be? How much will it cost to acquire an open space site like Lower Castaways or Banning Ranch that has the comparable public view opportunities? Is replacement open space actually for sale? Likely, the costs for land mitigation alone will be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Regarding views, Bill Ficker’s planned one-story city hall on the Newport Center Park site will rise above existing grade about 10-feet from existing ground level. Although he maintains this is below the view ordinance, it will still hurt the coastal and water views from homes across MacArthur Boulevard and also views of motorists traveling southbound on MacArthur.

Meanwhile, the Newport Center Park site offers gorgeous coastline and water views from atop the park where the city hall is planned. As confirmed by the walk I took with Ficker and his wife a few weeks ago, the noise is minimal, separated by height and distance from the road noise. People should actually walk the park to confirm this, and imagine that they are sitting and lying on green turf lawn, as planned for the park. It truly is a tranquil oasis from the hubbub of surrounding intense urban activity.

Thus, I do not believe the new city hall proposal is really for free and has many complications that will result in a time-consuming and expensive process that details the true costs and the reality of losing unique park space that is needed in this part of town. The Newport Center area is deficient in park space by almost the exact amount provided by Newport Center Park.

Finally, the City Council should abide by its agreements and keep the faith with the people. It made a commitment in 1992 to approve a development agreement in return for open space and circulation improvements. It is bad public policy to abandon an agreement and take open space dedication to use as a development project while selling off land already owned and developed as a city hall complex on the peninsula. It would be a breach of faith and reflect badly on the ultimate validity of any development agreement entered into by the city.

If the City Council wants to have a timely new city hall, which it says is sorely needed, it would be best to stick with its current plan. Changing horses in midstream would simply draw the process out into a lengthy analysis to corroborate claims made and alternatives needed, such as environmental reviews, Greenlight elections and mitigation sites for open space replacement. Likewise, I think it would be most responsible of the Irvine Co. to honor the CIOSA Agreement, as the agreement was made in good faith and applied to both parties equally.

It virtually is the 11th hour in the development of the Newport Center Park. I think that most people will appreciate and love this park, and should see the plans as envisioned for the park before passing judgment on a proposal that has many hurdles and challenges ahead. It would be a travesty to lose the unique Newport Center Park based on unsubstantiated claims and perceptions that have yet to be shown valid.