POL POSITION:Unite and move forward now on City Hall

The location of City Hall is an issue that has needlessly divided our community like no other.

Some close friends, supporters and community leaders have embraced the plan to write into the City Charter that City Hall must, forevermore, be placed on land reserved for Newport Center Park. I have listened to their concerns and they base this position on three considerations: One, the time has come to resolve the location of City Hall and this place is as good as any; two, since we already own the land, the cost of building City Hall here must be substantially less than other locations; three, a park at this location would not be a valuable addition to our city.

I believe my friends, while well meaning, are wrong on all three points.

The recent DMJM study has documented that City Hall could be constructed at the current OCTA transit station site, one block from Newport Center Park, on a parcel much better configured for an administrative building. This location would have better traffic characteristics, allow for a more functional building, would provide better parking and transit access and could be underway in a matter of months.

For those who believe we need a City Hall at Newport Center, this is an ideal location. The OCTA site requires less excavation and has better drainage than the park site.

In fact, the 6-acre upper portion of the park site is required to remain natural because it serves as a drainage arroyo for the homes above.

The OCTA site would avoid these problems and could be under construction much sooner than the park site. As indicated in the DMJM study, the minimum amount of land required for city hall is 3.7 acres. The Ficker initiative provides only 2.8 acres, not enough for a functional City Hall and smaller than the existing 3.9 acres.

On the issue of cost, newspaper columnists have said the park site enjoyed a $21 million advantage over OCTA. The DMJM report proves that to be demonstrably false.

While one would expect the cost of a 7-acre city hall and transit center to be more than a 3.7-acre City Hall-only project, the comparison does not tell the whole story. The General Plan requires the replacement of park land if the park site is used. This will add at least $9 million to the cost of the park site. If land zoned for commercial or residential is necessary to be acquired, this cost could mushroom to more than $28 million.

The loss of the private sector donation would cost $600,000 in addition to the $100,000 in special election costs for the first election (Because of how it is drafted, the initiative proponents acknowledge multiple elections may be required to comply with Greenlight before construction on the park site could actually commence. Consider the predicament if one election passes and one loses).

Some of the proponents of taking Newport Center Park have claimed the current City Hall site can be turned into a park, avoiding the need to buy additional land. This approach is even more disadvantageous to the taxpayers because the current location could be sold for $25 million to $30 million, offsetting the cost of City Hall construction and generating economic revitalization on the peninsula.

Even with the cost to move the OCTA facility, there is no clear advantage to the park site. Finally, the OCTA site results in the public owning a very valuable 4.7 additional acres in Newport Center.

Next, let’s address the issue of open space. The voter-approved General Plan directs the development of the park and provided for an additional 450 units to be built in Newport Center. Under our new park fee, these units will generate approximately $12 million in park fee revenue that can only be used for parks. The cost of this fee will be built into the price of their homes. I believe it is only fair to provide a real park for these new residents in light of the financial burden they are shouldering.

By using park fees, the cost of Newport Center Park will have no effect on the city’s general fund.

This will not be a “weed park.” Direction of the Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission, as well as the City Council, will result in a green grass open area, suitable for sunset weddings, picnics, office gatherings or family reunions. Restrooms, parking and a tot lot will make this a popular location to view the ocean and enjoy our community, or provide overflow parking for the library.

Frankly, I reject the proponents claims that we have “too many” parks and open space areas in our city, and I reject as cynical and disingenuous the claim that grass and planter boxes on the roof of City Hall, along with antennas and air vents, are the same thing as a real park.

Ficker himself says “Our initiative isn’t to develop a park.” Make no mistake about it; there is no park in the “City Hall in the Park” plan.

On the question of trust, I believe it is important to keep faith with the residents of Harbor View, Corona del Mar, Irvine Terrace and the Newport Center area who are expecting a park at this location.

In the 2006, election, the voters themselves mandated the development of the park when they passed the General Plan.

Finally, let us discuss process. This is an effort by an uncompromising group to end run the council and move the City Hall site one block. The initiative violates the General Plan, CIOSA agreement, Greenlight, PB&R; recommendations, council direction and spirit and purpose of our park in-lieu fee program. Is this really in the best interests of the people? Should we really be spending $100,000 on this election and dividing our city unnecessarily over this?

The council has acted and we should unite as a city and move forward now on City Hall and the park. The OCTA site provides a cost-effective, centrally-located City Hall and keeps faith with the community for a first class park. Please join in refusing to sign the initiative or go to www.parksarepriceless.org to remove your name from the petition so that together we can keep striving for a better Newport Beach.

is a Newport Beach city councilman.