Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - City Hall Reuse Proposals - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Posted Item SS3 - April 23, 2013 Brown, Leilani From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:17 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Comments for City Hall Re -Use Study Session on April 23rd Categories: Leilani For the record. From: Everette [mailto:everette phi Ili psCalyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 8:17 AM To: Campbell, James Cc: Webb, Dave (Public Works); Kiff, Dave; mhenn527(dhotmail.com; Petros, Tony; Henn, Michael; molassesboyc@roadrunner.com Subject: Comments for City Hall Re -Use Study Session on April 23rd Dear Mr. Campbell, I am not able to attend the study session, but I have the following comments SUMMARY: I am asking the Staff to recommend Vote "None of the Above" for Newport Beach City Hall Re -use Proposals and to make a Staff Proposal to preserve the land for future public use �K.�wli!ii���re�r•�Iw�� I have been interested in the future of the city hall site since the day it was proposed to move city hall. I was anxious to review the proposals. Ironically, there are two missing proposals 1) preserve the site for the future and 2) using the property to continue to serve West Newport like is has for decades. Some background, as I understand what has happened - when the city announced plans to move to Civic Plaza between Fashion Island and MacArthur, residents of West Newport Beach were told by their then councilman not to worry about the former site. It would be kept public and in public use. However, a large scale redevelopment was then proposed to combined the adjacent Pavilions property and Lido Village into one large cooperative design with developers "borrowing" parts of the public land of the former city hall in order to "complete the project" and this opened the door for other "re -use" like a hotel and condos. The residents of West Newport Beach were promised a new community center at the Industrial Way Public Works Yard as compensation for giving up this important piece of public land and promised public access to what will be essentially private properties leased on public domain. The current status as I understand it - The owners of the Pavilions and Lido Village have now scaled back. There will be no major redevelopment. The old Pavilions will become a West Marine Superstore, so there is no reason for the residents of West Newport to contribute their valuable property to developers. Why are the other private properties not developing? Because it is the wrong time. Why is there private development proposed for the former city hall site? Because someone can get access to land in Newport Beach for below market prices and make an unusual profit at the expense of the residents of West Newport Beach. In addition, the proposed site of the West Newport Beach community center on Industrial Way may not be available due to special permits the city has for site usage. The Proposal from City Staff that is missing and the one that I would like to see - Why not leave the site for a future need? The area is surrounded by three story buildings and some of the few high rises in Newport Beach. It is among the most densely populated sections of Newport Beach. We can remove the old buildings from the city hall site, leave the former City Council Chamber for community meetings and for local theater. Low maintenance drought resistant plants and trees can be planted and a few picnic tables can be set up on the property after the old buildings are removed. West Newport will change during the next 20 years. More two story homes will be replaced by three stories, and Banning Ranch will either be open space or a combination of more than a 1000 houses and new retail and even a hotel. None of the current proposals give West Newport the ability to respond to our community's changing needs in 20 years. City government is suppose to be planning at least that far ahead. Where is the 20 year proposal? Vote no on the current proposals and ask for a twenty year plan instead. This property must be kept for public use. It belongs to the residents of Newport Beach and is very valuable today and even more valuable tomorrow. Everette Phillips West Newport Beach McDonald, Cristal From: Sent: McDonald, Cristal Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:13 PM From: Mike Henn [mailto:mfhenn(a)verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:22 PM To: Selich, Edward; Rush Hill; Nancy Gardner; Daigle, Leslie; Tony Petros Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brandt, Kim; Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Nice to see you again at the LICA meeting Forwarding this public input on City Hall reuse. Mike From: Cook, Edward [mailto:ewc(o)mccarthvcook.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:51 AM To: Michael Henn Subject: Nice to see you again at the LICA meeting Dear Mike, ut�r9� 1� %'-J "'fr7s !OA I wanted to thank you again for attending the LICA meeting two weeks ago and for your kindness in taking a note to addressing the street speed markings which are needed once Via Lido Soud and Nord are slurried. We are in absolute fear for our four children with the traffic speeds on Soud and Nord and will be helping LICA with other measures but this is a great start. It makes a world of difference to know that someone in a position of authority cares and takes the time to follow up. I know you have precious grandchildren to protect as well! I regret that I am on a plane to the East Coast today a I was very excited to attend the hearing on the City Hall site. I wanted to share with you my gratitude for your efforts on this project and to let you know I am ever more convinced that a boutique hotel use for this historic and strategic site is the highest and best use. I have read all the proposals and have become both excited and wary. I'm excited because the Council has the opportunity to jumpstart the renaissance of the Peninsula and Lido Village with the hotel proposals and wary because I found it startling that only one apartment proposal was made and sorry to say but a very poor one at that (from a use /planning /massing and architectural standpoint). Also, a very uninspired and frankly extremely disappointing design from McClarand Vasquez. I was also struck that not one of the "A" team multi - family residential developers proposed for this site (no Irvine Apartment Communities, Lennar, Essex or many others). Notwithstanding the Conextant site investment, the Shopoff Group is a relatively unknown land entitlement /syndicator group with a very limited development track record and Wolff has no local ties /experience. A strange team with a very limited local resume. They also have no Coastal Commission experience other than what they have hired and this proposed use will definitely be protested by the community to the Commission. If the City Hall site was a viable apartment site, I would have expected 5 -15 proposals similar to recent sales in say Costa Mesa (the Fifield site) where 15+ offers were received and numerous other recent trades. This is a major red flag. More importantly, apartments will create a dead zone for the most important development site perhaps ever to come to market on the Peninsula. Ground level retail in apartment projects is a notoriously unsuccessful use and the 15,000sf of added to an already challenged retail submarket will not bring life to this project. In my 30 years of experience in commercial real estate including being involved in the planning of major communities such as Playa Vista and many public /private developments, my best advice to the City is to look very hard at the sponsorship and track record of the developer. I have personally seen many key sites (in particular those where municipalities have worked hard to attract hotels for vibrancy and long term tax revenue) sit fallow in the hands of incapable development teams. The Sonnenblick /Rose proposal in particular has those weaknesses. They have almost no track record of successful hotel developments. The Auberge operator is a great flag but will have no substantial economic interest in the project. Also, from a developer perspective, I am highly skeptical of the subterranean parking and the room rates for this off -water location. The good news is that you do have a highly credible proposal with a proven development team and operator with the RD Olson boutique Lido House hotel. Their more conservative underwriting and better understanding of the market are apparent in almost all facets of their proposal. As a citizen and taxpayer with expertise in this field, I excitedly endorse this hotel proposal. I also support the City's 'investment' in the boutique hotel (vs. perhaps more cash upfront and /or guaranteed by the apartment proposal). Now is the time to invest in the long term vibrancy of the Peninsula and the opportunity for long term superior economics through hotel taxes and retail sales that the hotel will generate. The comparison and contrast of a hotel vs. apartments could not be more stark. The City of Manhattan Beach supported the boutique Shade Hotel on a central location in their Manhattan Village and it has literally transformed the city center and jumpstarted the vibrancy of what was a dowdy bar area. It is also a social core for Manhattan Beach teeming with life and activity and economic impact. It's a great planning model for Newport except that you have the opportunity for 130 rooms vs. 30 rooms on a much smaller site and thus your impact should be that much greater. Lastly, the City Hall site is the only site that has the scale for a truly successful boutique hotel. Lido Village cannot support a hotel of the same scale and even though studies show the market can support two hotels, real estate experts are highly skeptical about the viability of a Lido Village hotel. Thanks so much as always for your ear and your public service. All the best, Edward Edward W. Cook III Co- President McCarthy Cook & Co. ewcAmcca rthycook. com www.mccarthycook.com Orange County Office Metro Center at South Coast 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 590 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 427 -1849 Direct (714) 913 -6900 Main (714) 913 -6901 Fax Los Angeles Office The Atrium 2301 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 4170 El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 341 -4816 Direct (310) 297 -9300 Fax San Francisco Office China Basin 185 Berry Street, Suite 150 San Francisco, CA 94107 (415) 543 -3838 Main (415) 543 -1623 Fax �'NC41L AG n DA �d liB d� ia`:.iu tJ' Rieffi, Kim From: Denys Oberman [dho @obermanassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:26 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: City Hall Site Reuse- Request for Economic proforma and Benefit Information as submitted with Proposer RFP Responses Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Categories: Leilani PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD TODAY. Thank you. -. w J� Regards, ± �a m Denys H. Oberman, CEO ��Vp OBER AN fl N shologv on9:InorlclPl Aavhen OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors (� 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 _ Irvine, CA 92612 w J Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(a)obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. From: Denys Oberman [ mailto :dhoCabobermanassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:04 PM To: curryk(cbofm.com; 'Edward D. Selich'; Gardner, Nancy; Mike Henn; rush hill; IeslieidaigleCabaol.com; Petros, Tony; 'Kill, Dave' Cc: Harp, Aaron; Teilani Brown' Subject: City Hall Site Reuse- Request for Economic proforma and Benefit Information as submitted with Proposer RFP Responses Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential PLEASE ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE. Mayor and Council Members: We appreciated the thoughtful presentations made in response to the City's RFP for Hotel and Apartment potential reuses on the 3300 Newport Blvd. city hall site, along with the insightful questions posed by the Council at the City Council Study Session yesterday afternoon. The public provided the Council with a strong, consistent show of support for the Hotel use, with a number of residents weighing in In support of the RD Olson team proposal. This project is of critical importance to the revitalization of the Lido Village /Penninsula area , and the integrity of the neighborhood.lt also provides a significant enhancement to the overall economic vitality, brand and long -term attractiveness of Newport Beach as a whole. The right mix of uses will either drive the success, or accelerate the erosion, of the Lido Village area as a desirable,economically successful Destination for visitors and residents. In order to have a clear understanding of the various Proposals, and subject to the requirements of the Brown Act concerning public disclosure, we hereby request that the Proposers' actual submittals indicating Economics,Assumptions and Benefits be made available for public review and comment. We appreciate that city staff may generate its own reports, and also obtain a third party review, and look forward to seeing those as well as soon as they are completed. Given that the Proposers who responded to the RFP have each already submitted their proposals and reports to the City, we expect that these can be provided without delay. Thank you for your attention. We look forward to continued participation, and to a successful outcome forthe Community and the City. Denys H. Oberman MBA MA Urban Planning Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO f4OBERMAN Strategy and Finondal Advhmrs OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476 -0790 Cell (949) 230 -5868 Fax (949) 752 -8935 Email: dho(oo-)obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.