HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Lido Village Conceptual PlanningCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 22
January 25, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
James Campbell, Acting Planning Director
949- 644 -3210, icampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Lido Village Conceptual Planning
ISSUE
The City has been participating in a conceptual planning effort for the Lido Village area
that is located between Newport Bay, Newport Boulevard and north of 32 "d Street. On
January 11, 2011, the City Council considered two updated alternative concepts during
the afternoon study session. The discussion primarily focused on re -use of the existing
City Hall site. Based upon the feedback at the prior meeting, Alternative 5B would be
the recommended final conceptual plan.
Provide additional input to the design team and staff on re -use opportunities for the
existing City Hall site and larger Lido Village concept plan, and if appropriate, approve
Alternative 5B as the final concept plan.
DISCUSSION
On January 11, 2011, the design team presented two alternative draft concept plans.
The City Council discussed re -use opportunities for the City Hall site. Both plans
included a community services center, an open space plaza that would be connected
with a linear open space element with the possibility for a canal system, housing and a
reconstructed fire station. Both plans also incorporated a potential 18,000 square foot
land swap between the Duda property and the City Hall site.
Lido Village Conceptual Planning
January 25, 2011
Page 2
The City Council was generally pleased with the revisions and progress made to date
and the Council developed a consensus on the following points:
1. Acceptability, in concept, of the proposed open space greenbelt with potential for
a canal to the Bay through the City Hall site and larger planning area.
2. Shared access with Duda property at the Finley signalized intersection.
3. Favorable to a Lot Line Adjustment to "square off' the City Hall site ( "Land Swap"
with the Duda property).
4. Favorable to a mechanism where property owners can be "made whole" for
dedicating land for the proposed open space greenbelt canal system or other
public benefits (i.e. public parking).
5. Favorable to further study of increased height limits to facilitate a better project
while protecting public views.
6. No retail on the City Hall site that would negatively compete with nearby retail.
7. Community service center needs further discussion of its size and potential use.
8. Housing component needs further discussion as to the type and density.
Staff and the design team are seeking Council guidance on any of the items above, but
in particular the last two items. Staff has prepared the following questions to assist the
City Council in the discussion.
A. Should there be a Community Service Center building?
1. If no, what other uses could be considered?
2. If yes, how large should it be? (Newport Coast CC is about 16,000 SF)
3. If yes, what elements should be provided?
i. Gymnasium
ii. Stage
iii. Catering kitchen
iv. Class rooms - multi - purpose rooms
v. Gallery/reception space
4. If yes, are there opportunities to close or modify uses at other similar facilities,
such as:
L West Newport Community Center (15th Street)
ii. Marina Park Community Building
iii. Lifeguard Headquarters at Newport Pier
iv. Branch library at Balboa
B. Should there be a housing component?
1. If no, what other uses should be considered?
2. If yes, should it be:
i. Senior affordable housing
ii. Senior market -rate housing
Lido Village Conceptual Planning
January 25, 2011
Page 3
iii. Senior assisted living
iv. Market -rate housing for all ages
v. Affordable "workforce" housing for all ages
vi. Some mix or combination of the above
3. If yes, how many units? (This may relate to size of Community Center and
housing type)
Next Steps
Staff and the design team request that the City Council provide input and direction on
the following:
1. Conceptual plan refinement or approval if appropriate
2. Early development of design guidelines to reflect the intent, scale and features of
the concept plan
3. Land swap with Via Lido Plaza
4. Preparation of a Specific Plan and possible General Plan Amendment(s)
5. Preparation of development agreements with landowners
6. Need for continued community involvement and study
Environmental Review
Approving the Lido Village Conceptual Plan is only the endorsement of a planning
process and /or feasibility study to guide possible future actions that the City has not
approved, adopted or funded. The Concept Plan would not be regulatory documents
and would not have a legally binding effect. This activity is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15262 of
the California Code of Regulations.
Taking the "next steps" such as the land swap or the preparation of regulatory
documents (specific plans or development agreements) will necessitate the preparation
of environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA.
Public Notice
This agenda item has been noticed in accordance with the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meeting). The item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting
which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Lido Village Conceptual Planning
January 25, 2011
Page 4
Funding Availability
Funding for this current conceptual planning effort has been equally shared between the
three major stakeholders: the City and the owners of Lido Marina Village and Via Lido
Plaza. No additional funding is requested. Depending upon the City Council's direction,
staff will prepare a detailed work program, including schedules and a budget
amendment for authorization at a subsequent meeting.
Prepared by: Submitted by
+�C _
mes Campbell,
Acting Planning Director
lC
Dave Kiff,
City Manager
Harris, Lillian
From:
Kiff, Dave
Sent:
Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:11 AM
To:
City Clerk's Office
Cc:
Campbell, James; Collins, Tim
Subject:
Mr. Tuckers E -Mail
From: Larry Tucker [mailto:tucker @gtpcenters.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:39 PM
To: Henn, Michael
Cc: Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; rush @hillpartnership.com; Kiff, Dave
Subject: Existing City Hall Site
Hi Mike,
I attended the Study Session January 11 concerning the current City Hall location and surrounding properties. I have
spent the last 30 years as a shopping center lawyer and developer, so I would like to make some observations about what
I heard. I will limit my comments to areas where I feel I have some expertise to offer.
First of all, a combined planning effort is obviously the preferred approach. But the more owners who are involved, the
more time consuming the process could be as each owner understandably tries to promote a plan that works best
financially for him. Ultimately, the CECA aspects of the project will require a sufficient amount of detail to get to a project
description, which is the technical starting point in the analysis of any development. The more properties that are looped
into the same approval process, the longer it might take. My experience has been that picking a date on a calendar to
complete design tasks with a lot of owners involved may not promote the best design as schedule would assume priority
over quality. Unfortunately, design is an iterative process and the design elements will be complete when they are
complete, not necessarily by an artificially set date, although having a timeline goal to shoot for is helpful.
As for the part of the overall plan that purportedly needs to be accomplished in the near term, I would submit that nothing
should be done that could detrimentally affect the City parcel. The only thing I heard that needs to be addressed sooner
than later is providing assurances that the Duda property and the City Hall site will be reconfigured into rectangular
parcels so that they can be efficiently planned and utilized. But I am not sure that actually recording a lot line adjustment
in the next few months is the mechanically best way to address the need for certainty in the configuration of the parcels.
Here is why. By changing the land ownerships while the City continues to operate City Hall, a part of the City Hall
operation would be on Duda's land, and vice versa. Existing easements over Duda's land (for instance I believe the
building at 503 32nd Street has a parking easement over a portion of Duda's land) will have to be dealt with. And any
encumbrance Duda may have on land that will go to the City will have to be released of record, and instead relocated to
Duda's new legal description. Easy to describe, but if Duda's land is encumbered, it would involve a consent of a third
party, followed by a new title policy and an amended deed of trust at a minimum. And if the property exchange occurs
while City Hall is in operation, there may also be easements for underground utility and facilities that will need to be
created or addressed. Because of the above, the easier approach in the short term perhaps would be an agreement to
complete a lot line adjustment when City Hall moves to Newport Center, and identify how the other issues (like the ones I
have identified) are to be resolved, prior to or upon the City's move. In other words, if the actual land exchange is
deferred until the City moves out, that may make the transaction simpler. Of course, there may be other more effective
ways to address these technical issues, but figuring out the issues and how to resolve the legalities will take some time.
And it may affect the planning process. These technical considerations may already be underway (they weren't
mentioned at the meeting), but if they are not, getting a very experienced real estate lawyer on board should move up the
priority list. While I have found the City Attorneys office to be very capable, I am not aware of what their experience is in
real estate matters of this type.
As for Duda's request for an agreement by the City to not use the City's property for retail purposes, I would not
recommend doing that. I believe the City will find that what Duda probably intends to ask for is not that the City site be
zoned for uses other than retail, but rather, Duda will probably be looking for a recorded restrictive covenant that runs with
the City's land, long term and perhaps in perpetuity. This is so Duda and his tenants have no competition for shop space.
Of course, if I were in his shoes, I would ask for the exact same thing. But retail projects are often developed adjacent to
other retail projects and they don't get deed restrictions on uses on adjoining properties. In fact, in my centers, I am often
asked to give exclusive use clauses to specific tenants, which I do reluctantly grant from time to time, but frequently I don't
own all buildings in a project, so the tenant is obviously not granted an exclusive over buildings I don't control.
Accordingly, I don't see a need for the City to grant such rights to Duda. If the City takes that position, what will Duda do?
Not redevelop his property if it otherwise makes sense to do so? However, if this is something the Council feels it wants
to do, I would suggest that the restriction have a sunset provision so it goes away in say 3 years or some other limited
timeframe. Duda will have a new anchor user and should not need a restriction to be able to lease out a refurbished
center with abundant parking. In other words, I do not believe that not getting a retail restriction from the City will be a
deal killer.
The Council came to the right conclusion on retaining the access into the City's land off of Newport Blvd. Both properties
need that access. If there is not an existing easement and maintenance agreement with Duda, there should be one. That
agreement should designated which owner will have the responsibility to physically maintain the access, insure against
injury or casualty, and provide payment for those maintenance and insurance costs is shared in some specified fashion.
It sounds to me like the elevated walkway is dead. The architect was focused on the views from the walkway, but I was
more curious about what it would look like to a person under the walkway. With ADA requirements, expensive elevators
or land consuming ramps would be required. But the part that made even less sense to me was the walkway going in
front of Duda's new building. Retailers are fixated on signage, and I had to wonder where the retailers' wall signs would
go with a walkway across the building frontage. And some residents of the proposed new housing would look out their
second story windows to see ... people on the walkway looking back at them! I belabor this point to emphasize that
conceptual plans are opportunities to air out concepts, not all of which make sense. The new City Hall process took a
long time to get to a plan that actually addressed all of the issues, and the design of this area of town may take longer
than one would think, especially because there is not just one owner to please.
I would also take a hard look at the canal idea. It would seem that it could involve Resource Agency permitting that could
mean a fair amount of analysis to get permits (and therefore, time), and would cost a fair amount to build, not counting
complications of running a canal through private property. Of course, the City has time, so for CEQA purposes, it could
analyze "with canal and without canal" alternatives and decide later.
Hope my comments are of help. If you or any other Council members have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks to all of you for your service!
Best regards,
Larry Tucker
(949) 251 -2045
January 22 ,2011
Mayor Henn and Council Members
Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach CA
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
13RNklbEe"... �-1I
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Subject: Revitalization and Redevelopment of Lido Village area-
Mayor Henn and Council Members:
:.a
5imo 2
V� o_
I am a longstanding resident of the Peninsula/Lido area. 1 relocated my home to Newport
Beach to live in a clean, healthful and safe beach community. I looked forward to being
in a residentially oriented community with neighbors sharing similar lifestyle and values.
Over the past seven or so years, I have noticed a marked deterioration of the area that the
City has recently been characterizing as "the Peninsula zone "(Balboa Peninsula and
adjoining West Newport, Lido Isle, other islands, and Lido Village).This deterioration
has manifested itself in both physical and socioeconomic fashion.
The Village used to be a multi -use commercial and marine /recreational area used on a
frequent, consistent basis by the regular residents of Lido and the Peninsula - -- also
guests and tourists visiting Newport Beach whose destination was a beautiful ,upscale
total- experience beach resort.
The Lido Village area has deteriorated to the point that there are almost no remaining
viable commercial uses - - -and the area is now a destination dominated by those spending
time there to congregate, smoke ,litter and loiter. The combination of this effective
"ghost town", and challenging infrastructure aspects makes the Lido Village
revitalization a complex project ,requiring a holistic integrated approach to be successful.
I applaud Mayor Henn's initiative in getting a conceptual plan on the table, and the
Council's willingness to consider alternative Use strategies.
As a committed stakeholder and one with urban renewal expertise, I have been an active
participant in the public process to date associated with development of a "Concept Plan"
for redevelopment of Lido Village, including the current City Hall site.
I believe that several of the concepts on the table have merit, notably ,acknowledgement
that key commercial Anchors need to be committed to in order to drive the theme and
success of surrounding complementary uses. A luxury boutique hotel, and an upscale
specialty market (Duda) have been identified, and are excellent foundations . These
foundations will provide valuable amenities and services to residents and visitors -- -and
economic benefit to the City. Developers of these anchor need to be actively recruited,
their vision solicited, and plans facilitated by the City.
M
0
1�
i
0
While enthusiastic about developing a Vision and making it a reality,I have some
significant concerns associated with both the process, and the direction of our City
leaders.
1) Lack of understanding of the community demographic surrounding Lido Village-
There appears to be a lack of understanding of the residential community surrounding
Lido Village, and its role in making the area a sustainable, commercially successful
destination. The regular full and part-time residents in the Lido and Peninsula area used
to regularly patronize the market, retail shops, restaurants, and marine and entertainment
establishments. In the current planning effort, this group is the "forgotten constituency ".
What is the profile of this forgotten group? Family homes ranging from low of $600,000
to over $10 million in value, with median home value in the $2 million range -- -even in
these tough times.
Who are these people? Single and family professionals; executives; retired teachers and
others; and entrepreneurs. These are people that USED TO SPEND MONEY and time in
Lido Village - - -and now avoid it. These people have progressively
Resigned themselves to substituting their cherished Lido Village neighborhood
experience with having to get in the car and driving to access a decent market,go out to
eat, see a movie, or simply walk around with their friends and guests in the village and
along the waterfront.
This forgotten demographic is prepared to immediately embrace, and spend money and
time in, an area that is attractive to them, and has the mix of products and services they
desire. LISTEN TO THEM, LEARN FROM THEM - - -and THEY WILL DRIVE THE
ECONOMIC SUCCESS and Brand restoration of this Newport Beach coastal area.
Why is this important? Research shows that the most successful resort-type areas have a
combination approach to uses and their management that gracefully and successfully
accommodates both a regular higher -end residential, and a vacation tourist population.
Both of these group are of critical importance to making a resort town remain attractive
and economically sustainable over time, in addition to being a world class resort
destination. This approach considers planning and City facilitation of multiple
complementary uses and achieving "stickiness" so it is not a single shop stop.
Examples---- - - - - -- Aspen, Carmel, Sarasota, Monaco,Santa Monica. In these cities, the
City has bent over backwards to make the town pleasant,clean and accessible —for both
their residents and visitors .
2) Compatibility and Synergy of Uses-
In order to be successful, it is important that uses be as complementary to, and
compatible with, both one another in this tight area, and the surrounding community.
Institutional -type uses will be the kiss of death to an area such as Lido Village in its
efforts to revitalize. If such uses are earmarked in the City concept or plan, it will be
extremely difficult to secure the enthusiasm of commercial,hospitality or retail
developers that are focused on a demographic such as the residential and family
vacationhere. Examples of uses that will potentially degrade and detract from the
character and desired vision of the area include:
- Affordable housing
- Medical/health care /treatment facilities
- Counselling facilities
- Universities
- "Community service" centers
We already have excellent medical facilities at the Hoag campus and offices close by.
We have a concentration of other institutional -type uses,and do not need any more.
There may be a place for some form of residential or mixed use;however, the level of
density and other requirements make housing such as seniors housing something that is
probably more appropriate in East Bluff or back bay,for example.
The Village does need some open space for "lingering ".This space should be in the
middle,not on the exterior fringes of the Village area,other than possibly some along the
waterfront. The City has historically been reluctant to enforce its ordinances to protect the
integrity and attractiveness of its open spaces along the coast. A rigorous enforcement
policy will be necessary if the area is to be successful.
3) City Orientation and Need for Facilitation-
The City has taken a combative, overly restrictive approach historically with a number of
the land owners and investors seeking to develop in the Lido/Penninsula/coastal area.
This approach does not create a foundation for successful collaboration, or
redevelopment success.The City cannot do this alone - - -we need the input and active
contribution of private partners with demonstrated success in resort environment
development and redevelopment.
The inherent site and infrastructure complexities need the benefit of experienced
partners, and a City willing to cooperate.
Please do not rush into a plan for the City Hall reuse without carefully considering the
entire area, and understanding critical success factors. The commercial anchors need to
be established and the right private partners facilitated for this important revitalization to
be successful.
Sincerely,
Denys H. Oberman
Resident and stakeholder
Brown, Leilani
From: Linda Klein [Ikleinl4 @roadrunner.comj
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:07 PM
To: Michael Henn, Curry, Keith; Kiff, Dave; Hill, Rush; Gardner, Nancy; Daigle, Leslie; Rosansky,
Steven; Selich, Edward; Brown, Leilani
Subject: RE: PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF LIDO VILLAGE
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Mayor Henn and Council Members
I am writing to all of you because I am alarmed and deeply concerned about what can only be viewed
as a rush to judgement regarding the redevelopment and revitalization plans Lido Village, the
gateway to the Peninsula. The current pace with which you are proceeding on this very complex
project, and accompanying lack of adequate research, lack of input from professionals with strong
success records in the area of redevelopment and revitalization, as well as a the lack of a collegial
approach which necessitates an integrated and highly cooperative effort which must include all the
Lido Village property owners, really defies understanding.
A strong successful Lido Village Plan is the ONLY thing the future will judge us on. That it was done
at warp speed will result in embarrassment, not kudos. Let's slow down, respect the process, and
produce and outstanding well thought out and well grounded result. Thus far we have some
promising ingredients for a successful new Village - the outstanding ideas of a specialty market, high
end boutique hotel, our wonderful Lido Theater, park and open space areas, a high end residential
component to complement the visitors and existing homeowners who will make the area economically
successful. The ingredients of this new Village are very interdependent economically and must be
selected very carefully and with expertise, not fanciful guesswork and wishful thinking.
The current Lido Village, as you know, is a wasteland. I have lived in this area for 10 years and
witnessed its rapid demise - the place is eerie and unsafe, now replete with loitering characters. I
lived on L.A.'s westside before during and after the Third Street Promenade reached completion. It
went from an unsafe and very unsavory blighted area, to a wildly successful economic and social
venture.
Newport Beach has what it takes to bring together the talent and expertise and planning to make our
city's Lido Village swell the ranks of winning and outstanding redevelopment and revitalization
scenarios that are revered far and wide. In the short time we have studied the possibilities, there have
been wild swings that included a "sober university," canals, skyways and overhead walkways, and
just about everything else. Our thinking and development on this important gateway to the Peninsula
and the best use of the city property is immature, incomplete and not at all grounded.
Let's be absolutely sure that we have created a well thought out plan that will not only work, but that
will put us on the map for exceptional and visionary work in redevelopment and revitalization. We
need to get this right.
Sincerely,
Linda Klein Formuzis
Harris, Lillian
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:11 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Campbell, James; Collins, Tim
Subject: Mr. Tucker's E -Mail
From: Larry Tucker [mailto:tucker @gtpcenters.comj
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:39 PM
To: Henn, Michael
Cc: Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; rush @hillpartnership.com; Kiff, Dave
Subject: Existing City Hall Site
Hi Mike,
attended the Study Session January 11 concerning the current City Hall location and surrounding properties. I have
spent the last 30 years as a shopping center lawyer and developer, so I would like to make some observations about what
I heard. I will limit my comments to areas where I feel I have some expertise to offer.
First of all, a combined planning effort is obviously the preferred approach. But the more owners who are involved, the
more time consuming the process could be as each owner understandably tries to promote a plan that works best
financially for him. Ultimately, the CECQA aspects of the project will require a sufficient amount of detail to get to a project
description, which is the technical starting point in the analysis of any development. The more properties that are looped
into the same approval process, the longer it might take. My experience has been that picking a date on a calendar to
complete design tasks with a lot of owners involved may not promote the best design as schedule would assume priority
over quality. Unfortunately, design is an iterative process and the design elements will be complete when they are
complete, not necessarily by an artificially set date, although having a timeline goal to shoot for is helpful.
As for the part of the overall plan that purportedly needs to be accomplished in the near term, I would submit that nothing
should be done that could detrimentally affect the City parcel. The only thing I heard that needs to be addressed sooner
than later is providing assurances that the Duda property and the City Hall site will be reconfigured into rectangular
parcels so that they can be efficiently planned and utilized. But I am not sure that actually recording a lot line adjustment
in the next few months is the mechanically best way to address the need for certainty in the configuration of the parcels.
Here is why. By changing the land ownerships while the City continues to operate City Hall, a part of the City Hall
operation would be on Duda's land, and vice versa. Existing easements over Duda's land (for instance I believe the
building at 503 32nd Street has a parking easement over a portion of Duda's land) will have to be dealt with. And any
encumbrance Duda may have on land that will go to the City will have to be released of record, and instead relocated to
Duda's new legal description. Easy to describe, but if Duda's land is encumbered, it would involve a consent of a third
party, followed by a new title policy and an amended deed of trust at a minimum. And if the property exchange occurs
while City Hall is in operation, there may also be easements for underground utility and facilities that will need to be
created or addressed. Because of the above, the easier approach in the short term perhaps would be an agreement to
complete a lot line adjustment when City Hall moves to Newport Center, and identify how the other issues (like the ones I
have identified) are to be resolved, prior to or upon the City's move. In other words, if the actual land exchange is
deferred until the City moves out, that may make the transaction simpler. Of course, there may be other more effective
ways to address these technical issues, but figuring out the issues and how to resolve the legalities will take some time.
And it may affect the planning process. These technical considerations may already be underway (they weren't
mentioned at the meeting), but if they are not, getting a very experienced real estate lawyer on board should move up the
priority list. While I have found the City Attorneys office to be very capable, I am not aware of what their experience is in
real estate matters of this type.
As for Duda's request for an agreement by the City to not use the City's property for retail purposes, I would not
recommend doing that. I believe the City will find that what Duda probably intends to ask for is not that the City site be
zoned for uses other than retail, but rather, Duda will probably be looking for a recorded restrictive covenant that runs with
the City's land, long term and perhaps in perpetuity. This is so Duda and his tenants have no competition for shop space.
Of course, if I were in his shoes, I would ask for the exact same thing. But retail projects are often developed adjacent to
other retail projects and they don't get deed restrictions on uses on adjoining properties. In fact, in my centers, I am often
asked to give exclusive use clauses to specific tenants, which I do reluctantly grant from time to time, but frequently I don't
own all buildings in a project, so the tenant is obviously not granted an exclusive over buildings I don't control.
Accordingly, I don't see a need for the City to grant such rights to Duda. If the City takes that position, what will Duda do?
Not redevelop his property if it otherwise makes sense to do so? However, if this is something the Council feels it wants
to do, I would suggest that the restriction have a sunset provision so it goes away in say 3 years or some other limited
timeframe. Duda will have a new anchor user and should not need a restriction to be able to lease out a refurbished
center with abundant parking. In other words, I do not believe that not getting a retail restriction from the City will be a
deal killer.
The Council came to the right conclusion on retaining the access into the City's land off of Newport Blvd. Both properties
need that access. If there is not an existing easement and maintenance agreement with Duda, there should be one. That
agreement should designated which owner will have the responsibility to physically maintain the access, insure against
injury or casualty, and provide payment for those maintenance and insurance costs is shared in some specified fashion.
It sounds to me like the elevated walkway is dead. The architect was focused on the views from the walkway, but I was
more curious about what it would look like to a person under the walkway. With ADA requirements, expensive elevators
or land consuming ramps would be required. But the part that made even less sense to me was the walkway going in
front of Duda's new building. Retailers are fixated on signage, and I had to wonder where the retailers' wall signs would
go with a walkway across the building frontage. And some residents of the proposed new housing would look out their
second story windows to see ... people on the walkway looking back at them! I belabor this point to emphasize that
conceptual plans are opportunities to air out concepts, not all of which make sense. The new City Hall process took a
long time to get to a plan that actually addressed all of the issues, and the design of this area of town may take longer
than one would think, especially because there is not just one owner to please.
I would also take a hard look at the canal idea. It would seem that it could involve Resource Agency permitting that could
mean a fair amount of analysis to get permits (and therefore, time), and would cost a fair amount to build, not counting
complications of running a canal through private property. Of course, the City has time, so for CEQA purposes, it could
analyze "with canal and without canal" alternatives and decide later.
Hope my comments are of help. If you or any other Council members have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks to all of you for your service!
Best regards,
Larry Tucker
(949) 251 -2045
301 A000RA RD. STE. 260 C
X22{ I-z5�1�
January 24, 2011
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
To whom it may concern,
As a business owner and tenant of Via Lido Plaza, I give my support to the
comprehensive plan to revitalize Lido Village.
We please ask that you approve the master plan as quickly as possible, so that the
owners of Via Lido Plaza can move forward with their plans to redevelop.
Regards,
Lyndon Golin
President
CHAIRMAN
Douglas McCaulley
Regional Tax Managing Partner
Deloitte Tax LLP
Jesse Bagley, Vice Chair
President/CEO
Interior Office Solutions
Damon Bennett
VP, Business Development &
Partnerships
Kelley Blue Book
Steve Derkash January 24, 2011
Director Analyst
UBS Global Asset Management
Benjamin R. Du
Du Family Foundation To Whom It May Concern:
/ Boys Hope iC Hope
Grzpni. I.vrAo",I- "YnE. 5aaGff2.
Ashley Fisher
Community Volunteer As a frequent visitor of Via Lido Plaza, I give my support to the comprehensive
Garth Flint
CEO plan to revitalize Lido Village.
Beacon Pointe Advisors
Heidi Hall As Executive Director for Boys Hope Girls Hope, I ask that you approve the master
General Partner
HBR,LLC p as quickly as plan uickl possible, so that the owners of Via Lido Plaza can move forward
Kristi Hansen with their plans to redevelop. Our charity has had events in the plaza in the past,
Vice President Interactive and welcome the redevelopment plan in order to heighten awareness and increase
LehmanMillet
Mark C. Johnson visibility of our program.
Chairman & CEO
Mark Chapin Johnson
Foundation
Beth Cheeseman Kearney
Employment Law Associate
Hodel Briggs Winter LLP
Roger T. Kirwan
President
Woodside Credit
Diane Lannon
Community Volunteer
Cameran Lindee
Tenant Advisory
CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
Sandra L. Mitchell
Community Volunteer
Theresa C. Morrison Sincerely,
President
William J. Cagney Trust
Patrick Murphy
Associate Robin Sinclair
Stradling Yocca Carlson Routh
James B. O'Neal, Esq. Executive Director
Partner
Rutan & Tucker LLP
Mark Schechter
Partner
Estate Watch, Jewelry & Loan
Mitch Shatzen
Executive Vice President
Woodside Credit
Mark Smalls
VP. Chief Marketing Officer
JAMS; The Resolution Experts.
Keith Webster
Director
Credit Suisse
Robin Yoshimura
Director
Credit Suisse
1041 W. 18th Street, Suite A101 I Costa Mesa, California 92627 1 Phone S (949) 515 -8833 1 Fax 4 (949) 515 -88441 Tax Io :36- 3734433 1 N w�
FRASER.
DATE: January 24, 2011
TO: City of Newport Beach — City Council
FROM: Jennie Fraser Heilnke
President
RE: Via Lido Plaza / Lido Village
Dear Newport Beach City Council
SERVICES
I am writing to you regarding the redevelopment of the Via Lido Plaza / Lido Village area. I am
a business owner in the area and my company has leased space in the Lido Plaza Griffith
building since the 1970's. During this time we have seen a lot of changes to the immediate area,
but most important is the decline of the Lido Village area.
We would very much like to see this area of the city thrive and therefore, support the
redevelopment of the area. As a business owner and tenant in Via Lido Plaza, I give my support
to the comprehensive plan to revitalize Lido Village.
I would like to ask that you approve a master plan as quickly as possible so that the owners of
Via Lido Plaza can move forward with their plans to redevelop. I believe this will benefit the
entire community and attract high quality tenants and visitors. It will also provide a quality
location for shopping, dining and recreation for the residents of Newport Beach.
Best regards,
Fraser Heinke
3471 Via Lido, Suite 207 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • (800) 228 -6779
(949) 675 -5262 • Fax (949) 673 -8795 • License #0534606
NEWPORT HOSPITAL CORPORATION
XF
January 10, 2011
City of Newport Beach
City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR LIDO VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to show my support for the proposed development and comprehensive
plan of the Lido Village. I have lived and owned businesses in Newport Beach,
namely the Lido Village area, for many years. I believe the area is under utilized and
both business and residents alike would greatly benefit from the proposed
development. I would like to see this happen expediently as it is my belief that any .
development in the Lido Village would greatly enhance the quality of life for tenants
and residents.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 949- 375 -4131.
Resp ctfully,
J
ian H. y e resident
LUFFIt
Ij 611
Januaiy 7, 2011
Dear City Council,
We have been supported by the Fritz Duda Company for the pas',
tweive years. Most recently they hosted an event at the Lido
Plaza to benefit the estimated 100,000 Southern Californian's
diagnosed with lurpus. These men, worner, and children count on
this fundraiser to assist them living with his life threatening
r r(l)"
illness.
By expeditiously approving the redevelopment project for Lido
17A fi'EAAT 2 FAS 11 UJAER
Plaza, you will also be supporting the thousands of families here
in Orange County affected by Jupus. Lupus international has a
(AeIMR RJOEIRI; f'S
long standing relationship with the Fritz Duda Company, They
have continued to give back to their community and remain
committed to doing so.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I assure you, Lupus
International fully supports the comprehensive plan to revitalize
Lido Village. We ask you to please approve the plan as quickly as
possible, so that the owners of Via Lido Plaza can move forward
with their plans to redevelop.
If have I can be reached at 949/278-
K,ph G�ll,-iq—\!A),
you any additional questions
Rok
1646.
Best wishes.
Ni, - ",ID.
Roixr; }l P0,11;r" 'M D'
M
4",
RO-1. MA
diriSfiuEt'M. Kelly
Executive Director
ill, MI)
M1
SM
strategic Pe" Advisors
BL.AFNE Busty
ce LLC 01175854
TEL 949.640.6678 EXT. i£
January 11, 2011
Newport Beach City Council
CIO City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: PROPOSED LIDO VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dear Council:
I would like to express my earnest support of the most current proposal to redevelop the Lido
Village trade area. I am a native of Newport Beach and a current resident of the Balboa
Peninsula and believe a revitalization of Lido Village is long overdue and is necessary for all the
residents of Lido Isle, West Newport, and the Peninsula.
The timing of the proposed redevelopment seems especially ideal, considering the
redevelopment Catellus is performing to the Newport Beach Shopping Center at the intersection
of Newport Blvd. and 32 "d St. The Lido Village area serves as a very visible threshold for all the
residents of Newport Beach, as well as the hundreds of thousands of tourists, that visit our
wonderful beaches each year.
The Lido Village area has languished with chronic vacancy for far too long, which is a shame
given its proximity to the bay and the ocean. It is an area that, if properly redeveloped, should be
a jewel in the City's crown. The proposed revitalization is well deserved of such a special, yet
underutilized area.
Best Regards,
STRATEGIC RETAIL ADVISORS
Blaine Bush
=IPC'
IPC INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION
M Investigative and Protection Company
January 10, 2011
City Council,
As part of the business community of Newport Beach and in particular Via Lido Plaza, I would
like to encourage the immediate approval for the revitalization of Lido Village. It is an active part
of the retail and business community which is an essential for future growth and current
stability..
With redevelopment we bring new life to the area, a higher quality of tenant, and better services
to the people that work and live in our community. It is our desire to make this a healthy, safe
and enjoyable place for our residence, tenants and visitors.
Should you have any questions please contact me
Joe Zderadicka
Regional Manager
IPC International Corporation
310 - 628 -2108
IN MCMONLGLE
GRO.uP
January 7, 2011
To: Newport Beach City Council
Newport Beach, CA
Ref: Support for the Redevelopment of the Via Lido Village area
Dear Mdme /Sirs,
As long time residents of Newport Beach and as equally long -time practicing business professionals in
the city, we are writing to give support to the approval of a master plan for redevelopment of Lido
Village. We feet strongly this will benefit the community as well as business owners and will create a
fresh beginning and a new, much needed aesthetic to this specific area, which now looks tired and not
too enticing to consumers.
We feel strongly as practicing real estate brokers and long standing advocates of this beautiful
community that this revitalization will be a positive boost to our local economy and a very pleasant,
attractive change to a most valuable area on the Bay.
Sincerely,
Marcia Brashier
Senior Broker Associate
i
Jim Brashier
Vice President, Branch Manager
01 A
6 AfA
j - 'A 1 ! " ' j % Q q " , Z�
i, t A. t Its k zovi a Who 3. U I I -� 400; 51 to!" A -,
!i ;hy -upp"n ho WAVAPTINA A i1 w Y' I fix '044C Too bc my Q! W -&'i
higwy Few numend W You qpjw-,c ibc it siei pjau 04 yidwy I y at y"'Wh; 0) it, t Not At parn
to UK M a z a can inov(; o)n€ rd wid plaoti W, rr-kk"6op
Bey Rega"K
Ma-it Moore
Tran�ac6ovl scrvicc'�
Grubb & Ellis Compawy
U, AN i8w)3
pg "RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA
Lido Village Land Reinvestment Plan
Background
• City of Newport Beach: The city is planning to develop its City Hall parcel into a mixed use
of civic structure(s) and multi - family residential. According to the consulting accountant
the property if resold after completion could gamer the city approximately $50 million
dollars. The city is averse to selling this project and /or land for legacy reasons.
• Lido Marina Village: The owner's of Lido Marina Village (currently Vomado) have had a 30
year challenge with development investment in the property because 5 of the 7 waterfront
parcels are owned by other entities. Efforts to assemble these parcels have been
unsuccessful, and development plans stalled. Should one ownership entity take ownership
control of the entire 3+ acre site and secure highest and best use entitlements, the land
value would be enhanced exponentially.
Recommendation
o The City of Newport Beach should "trade up" their land ownership position by selling the
city hall parcel upon achieving the estimated $50 million developed value and purchasing
the Lido Marina Village property — plus the additional 5 waterfront parcels. The purchases
would be made at fair market prices and other forms of compensation only the city could
actuate. Any monies left over from this "swap" should be used by the city to purchase
additional contiguous properties along Via Lido - creating the largest assemblage possible.
Rationale
• Land Ownership: The city will continue to be a landowner in the Lido Village area. Only in
this scenario they will own the "Crown Jewell" of Newport Beach — one of the largest and
most strategic sections of waterfront property in Southern California.
• Financial: Being fiscally responsible, the city will leverage it's ownership position in the city
hall parcel and trade up to a property that once assembled will be worth significantly more
than its purchase price. The city will exponentially increase its current land equity value.
• Highest and Best Use: With the city in charge of entitlements to the their own Lido Village
property they can pursue and achieve the highest and best use of the project — and the
marina. The property will be primed for a developer to invest a significant amount of
capital ($100+ million) to build out an amenity -rich 200 -250 MSF mixed -use project, which
maximizes the location's potential for both residents and visitors.
• Income: Once completed the Lido Marina Village project could earn the city $2 -3 million in
lease income, slip income and room tax. These monies would go a long way to help the
city of Newport Beach with its community plans, fiscal commitments and related budgets —
over a very long period of time for generations to come.
• Schedule: Years 1 -3: Entitle and build residential on the city hall parcel; structure a
purchase option with Vornado to close upon sale of the built -out city hall property;
negotiate and contract to purchase the 5 waterfront parcels; complete the Lido Village
entitlements; begin work on the marina; select a developer. Years 3-5: Purchase the Lido
Marina land parcels and have the developer build out the project.
B. Quentin Foster, CA Broker #00877652 — Quentin @crcincome.com
CRC Income Properties / 125 42"' Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 / 949.722.7800
e
1
f
! g
t
4 Qr
V �r
er q4
J
�j- �
fr �.N fV•Y
� � n
\6, TRA a P
�O
S
a
V N lV
J
S � �
3�y �nQ
\y
.� A ,fEo
4
cm 2
N�wpof
Lido Marina Village AP #423 -121 & 122
r
4
m.
�N
N
2
�O
S
a
V N lV
J
S � �
3�y �nQ
\y
.� A ,fEo
4
cm 2
N�wpof
Lido Marina Village AP #423 -121 & 122
go
$ o
r
N
�
�
v s'
r
N
S N_
S �
J
1
J
V
f
C
Q
J_
go
$ o
r'
Central Newport Beach Community Assoclation
PO Box 884 Newport Beach CA 92661 -0884
www.CentralNewporLOrg
Date: January 25, 2011
To: Mayor Henn, Members of the City Council
From: Central Newport Beach Community Association
C0:0
N
Subject: City Council Meeting January 25, 2011, Agenda Item 22 — Lido Village
Conceptual Plan
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the plan to re- vitalize Lido Village. All residents
of the peninsula - -not just those in the immediate area - -would benefit from stable quality
businesses in Lido Village. Revitalization or redevelopment of this area is long overdue.
Our Board of Directors provided comments to the previous study session, and since that time we
have had the opportunity to talk with additional residents of both the peninsula and Lido Island.
We recommend the Council take the following actions regarding the City Hall site:
• The Council should delay a decision on re -use of the City Hall site until additional
outreach to the community is accomplished and other alternatives have been considered.
• Ultimate use of the site must support the sustainability and success of adjacent resident -
serving businesses, as well as the needs of the overall peninsula community.
• If necessary, move forward with lot -line adjustments with the following provisions:
Retain the access easement from Finley along with any other access rights needed to
preserve access to the City Hall site from Newport Boulevard and
• Do not commit to development restrictions on the City Hall site (e.g., no retail
development) so as not to limit the value and utility of the property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to being able to provide input as
this plan progresses.
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Louise Fundenberg, President
20110125 Lido Replan Letter.doe
DO ^
C)
M
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: James Campbell, Acting Planning Direc�
Date: January 21, 2011
Re: Agenda Item 22, January 25, 2011
Lido Village Concept Planning
Attached is a copy of Alternative 5B. The design team will be making a brief,
but more detailed presentation of this plan at the meeting.
CC: City Manager
City Clerk
1
S
LIDO VILLAGE
CONCEPT
PLAN
CITY
COUNCIL
PRESENTATION
wl
1 -25 -11
Tim Collins
TC Collins & Associates
a
J
J
�L /CpI�M�
Consensus Noted - City Hall Site Re -Use
• Beach to Bay Connection
• Residential Element for City Hall Site
• Compensate adjacent ownerships for any taking of land/ diminished use to Q
allow for public benefits - preserve connections
• Height limit variance will be considered as a trade -off for other public benefits. J
• Lido Village Center warranted -subject to programming.
• Proceed with lot line adjustment with Via Lido Partners, allow new retail/
grocery site plan expedition.
• Retain joint use / access on Finley Avenue.
Further Definition/ Community Outreach Needed
• Type of housing and sizing of Lido Village Center -quantify costs vs. Revenue
generation potential.
• Return to 1125111 City Council meeting with analysis and recommendations.
• Build More Consensus.
1 {eiim'„
� 1
■k
t
Define Sizing of Community Village Center
■
• Study of current facilities and operational requirements
• Review of proposed facilities and potential for merger. Starter vs. Nonstarter.
• Incorporate historic and or cultural components
• Special event facilities and potential revenue opportunities.
• Compatibility with entertainment venue.
WE
a
J
�L /CpI.M�
Selecting a residential housing type
• Age restricted vs. Retirement
• Luxury for rent vs. Young Professional.
I`
• Recommended segmentation of housing types
• Further study needed.
• Residual site footprint available for residential.
a
J
�L /CpI.M�
_�. ■
1�I
NEEM
R ■r C' I
Selecting a residential housing type
• Age restricted vs. Retirement
• Luxury for rent vs. Young Professional.
I`
• Recommended segmentation of housing types
• Further study needed.
• Residual site footprint available for residential.
a
J
�L /CpI.M�
i-
�l
Addressing fast track projects - Via Lido Partners, Marshall Dev.
and Olen Prop.
• Vial Lido Partners - Lido Plaza
• Marshall Development - 3355 and 3388 Via Lido.
• Entitlements and next steps.
L
a
J
Todd Larner
►1.1J_._ /:1
Architecture and Planning
a
J
J
�L /CpI�M�
J
MARSHALL D
MIXED-USE: OFF/ RES
. owm.run
OIEN CORP.
MID RISE RESIDEMIAL
J I; J J J JIAIS�
J , � J ) V ' J J•
i'
J J
♦ r (Zr�__ _- _ 11 N t J J J
x �� ♦ —yam. tt �.�I,�J ' �-J-"i �J �' j# �♦ J
—J
1114,N0
J`- J ♦ J♦ J r J r, J r r i r i
FrEm
ALTERNATIVE 5B s® +", WWx„
VIEW: LOOKING SOUTHWEST
Shaded area indicates building that may exceed the existing 35' height limit
1
i
J
l-
a
ALTERNATIVE 5B MASSING C mm'l 1A1p
ovEwww�Lwi
OOLUTIONY-
ALTERNATIVE 5B MASSING C mm'l 1A1p
ovEwww�Lwi
OOLUTIONY-
CFNR R
BLDG 13.M
STF 93.10E
O5 At
� 1
I
+ ND EMCHANGE
rrCy�: �. ��� "�.�liirii� • •�
\1
FRO� VMIBNG
ffi IWE JV -MQ CNB
ANDUWD21n 071 T[
CANAL PROMENADE/ PLAZA .,Es
Considered program options.
Recreation and Entertainment Activities
• Training rooms for low intensity, floor exercise
(mommy & me and seniors i.e. yoga- multi -
generational classes)
• Exterior amphitheater for arts/ theater/ music venue.
• Catering kitchen/ food service facility to support
Village special events, charity events utilizing the
adjacent open place/ plaza
• Registration and orientation- youth sports
• Arts center for physical and performing arts
• Social gatherings
• Indoor basketball/ volleyball court for adult club/ team
sports
Public Safety
• Base for bicycle officers, command center for 4th of
July enforcement.
• Information Center on Emergency Response /Tsunami
Warning
Education
• Public Meeting/ Classroom Space (free to non -profit
organizations; all others pay rental) University
extension classes (for free)
• Wellness/ Dietary care- including culinary and nutrition
classes/ demonstrations
Healthcare and Fitness
• Physician speakers- Program Series (for free -
rental)
• Hoag Community Outreach/ Education: Physical
fitness, mental health, preventative medicine
education and presentation of preventative care
_
options and practices
City Hall Annex
• Visitor information/ services resource center
(maps, calendars, rental info, etc.)
• Payment center (for residents accustomed to
paying tickets, utility bills, permit renewals)
• Mayors Office Hours
Other Considerations
• Don't duplicate or compete with Marina Park or
Oasis Senior Center
• Minimize intensity of use
• Find efficiencies from combined use; shift from
less central/ obsolete facilities
• Podium building with parking
underneath ± 40 spaces
�aE`w"°gr
7 �
)or
± 3,300 S.F.
i
IM
t
1 '
LIDO P mvcawwc «t ,
lOLYTIGN� +.
Cl
Total Building
± 14,700 S.F.
r r .
Offices
Gallery
Director
Men's
Flex
Meeting
Room #4
i
Storage °N
Deck
i
i
i
i
i
_ Multi- Purpose
Meeting Room #1
Kitchen
Meeting Room #2
Meeting Room #3
Second Floor
± 11,400 S.F.
LIDO VILLAGE CENTER ,, *�TTT7
5
Cl
LIDO VILLAGE CENTER , ,,�
Dave Kiff
City of Newport Beach
About West Newport Community Facilities
a
J
J
�L /CpI�M�
Needed Tonight: IIL
• Early discussion about key West Newport /Peninsula community facilities 0I.-
• General guidance - a conceptual look at city facility elements.
Needed in February - March:
• A solid community and Council discussion about programs /facilities:
• Programs at WNCC -> Lido Village CC? J
• Some programming at MPCC -> Lido Village CC?
• Could WNCC be leased for housing?
• Staff to come back with refinements and recommendations at Study Session.
• More specific guidance - more detail as to programs, re -use of key WN/
Peninsula facilities.
���MJ
Newport Coast CC
WIN (15th Street) CC
Marina Park Sailing Center
Marina Park CC (2 stories)
Lido Village Center
3.07
16,835
1
2/4
Stage
small gym, tot
0.86
12,000
1
5
lot, showers
Boat bay, cafe,
-
11,100
No
1(918 SF)
seatingfor
cafe, kitchen.
2 offices,
-
10,200
No
1/3
conference
1/2
room, catering
kitchen
Current CH
site is —4
15,000
TBD
TB
TBD
90 $ 442,000
42 $ 85,000
—50 Possible small
profit center
50 $200K to
$250K
Il -Al
$150K to
$450K
Cl
COMPARING NEWPORT MACW'S COlr4WJ91TY CENTRW
WEST NEWPORT CC
J
Volleyball
Basketball
Art
Culinary Kids Camp
Preschool 101
Language
Teen Programs:
• Leadership
• Manners
• Karate
• Skateboarding
Pet Training
• Puppy Kindergarten
Yoga
Pilates
Core /Ab
Jazzercise
Dance
• Salsa
• Bollywood
• CPR
�4 Wm"A-4
u•s�
i
a
9
-- _
DECK
pgm b'(0 i . FM. Y
DN
ON �x/66� §qb dbd6 TM $TO.
MARINA PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
G
LOBBY
& =0Z,
J
6�j
M
k
\ �Ae
11
Yi
H
11
n
bT0
�
6FG. LgMY
MI I'
W t
DRYS
W
�
V
/ � — ice""
\�
♦tL:
eioehLUF _
1
u
9
-- _
DECK
pgm b'(0 i . FM. Y
DN
ON �x/66� §qb dbd6 TM $TO.
MARINA PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
G
LOBBY
& =0Z,
J
6�j
What size and scope for the community facility?
• Recommendation: "Lido Village Center" of 151000 SF. OL,
• If gym included, allows closure of WNCC, move WNCC programs to Lido
Village Center.
• Programs TBD but complimentary to Marina Park Community Building. j
• Short term deferral of specific programming discussion. J
• Rough Net Cost = about $160K- $20OWannually
• $750K costs offset by $555K revenue
• Includes small operational savings associated with
closing WNCC ($�85K)
• Numbers better if.
• MP CC not fully - staffed ($100 -150K)
• WNCC property leased for housing ($ TBD)
o�.
I-
Other options:
• Option B: Smaller (9 -1 OK SF), centered around meeting space (no gym
- would mean keeping WNCC because gym programming needed).
• Option C: Larger (20K SF), including banquet room:
• Would delete banquet facility from MP CC.
• Increases parking challenge at site
ter -
r
�1
C-41
j
J
W,
04
*woo
+. a7
C-41
j
J
W,
04
• Number of units that the site can accommodate is
impacted by:
• Size of community facility
• Parking
• Fire station location
• Decision points:
• Age- restricted v. not.
• Market rate v. workforce v. mix.
• Rough goal for # of units
j
J
�L /CpI�M�
k
Recommendation: 01,
• Tonight:
• Set general parameters -Square Footage, for example.
• Direct staff to, with Public and Council input.
J
• Have a more robust public programming discussion
regarding West Newport /Peninsula facilities
• Examine Fire Station alternatives
• Propose a plan for public consideration Feb -Mar
i
Recommendation:
• Tonight:
• Approve Concept Plan (5b)
• Prepare design guidelines for overall site.
• Mandatory until incorporated into J
Specific Plan.
• Analyze Costal Commission impacts with new
marina configuration. Determine charter boat
parking impacts.
• Prepare specific plan.
• Prepare and act on VLP -City Land Swap.
• Restriction on retail in CH site?
■► Redevelopment Area Pro 2 rams
Alternative #5A
Land Owner /Land -Use sF /LF /Units
City Hall Site
Senior Rentals 100 units
Workforce Housing -
Live- Work/Residential
Commercial -
Vornado
Retail - Main
Boutique Hotel
Marina SliDS - Lineal Footage
40' Slip
60' Slip
80' Slip
Miscellaneous
Duda
Commercial - Lido Plaza
Marshall
Commercial - Office
Residential - Apartments
Residential - Mixed Use
Olen
Residential - Mid -rise
89,472 sf
640
If
900
if
400
If
60
if
2,000
If
105,724 sf
9,500 sf
60 units
2 units
20 units
Alternative #513-1 Alternative #513-2
SF /LF /Units /Roams SELF/Units/Rooms
60
units
60
units
(LW) 20
units
(Resi) 20
units
-
if
4,000
sf
105,550 sf 105,550 sf
80 rooms 80 rooms
1,120
if
1,120
if
880
If
880
If
450
if
450
if
2,450
if
2,450
If
105,724
sf
105,724
sf
9,500
sf
9,500
sf
60
units
60
units
2
units
2
units
20 units 20 units
2 THE CONCORD GI OUP
■► Redevelopment Area Varues
Alternative #5A
Land Owner/Land -Use Built Value value Isllylsl
City Hall Site
Seniors $400,000 /du 38.0 - 42.0
Workforce housing $325,000 /du - -
Live -Work $800,000 /du -
Residential $600,000 /du -
Commercial $400 /sf -
Vornado
Retail - Main $400 /sf
Boutique Hotel $600,000 /room
Marina Slins - Lineal Footage
40' Slip
$25 /if
60' Slip
$30 /if
80' Slip
$38 /if
Miscellaneous
$38 /if
Vornado Total
Duda
Commercial - Lido Plaza
iC : 1 l 1
34.0 - 37.6
34.0 - 37.6
1.1 -
1.3
1.9 -
2.1
1.0 -
1.2
0.2 -
0.2
4.2 -
4.8
38.2 - 42.4
$400 /sf 40.2 - 44.4
Marshall
44.3
45.6 -
50.4
Commercial - Office
$400 /sf
3.6 -
4.0
Residential - Apartments
$400,000 /du
22.8 -
25.2
Residential - Mixed Use
$1,500,000 /do
2.9 -
3.2
29.3 -
32.4
Olen
Residential - Mid -rise
$1,500,000 /du
28.5 -
31.5
Redevelopment Area Total
5174.2 - $192.7
Alternative #513-1
\'clue ($11 NIs)
18.5 - 20.5
15.2 - 16.8
33.7 - 37.3
40.1 -
44.3
45.6 -
50.4
85.7 -
94.7
2.0 - 2.2
2.4 -
2.6
1.2 -
1.4
5.6 -
6.2
91.3 - 100.9
40.2 - 44.4
3.6 -
4.0
22.8 -
25.2
2.9 -
3.2
29.3 -
32.4
28.5 -
31.5
$223.0 - $246.5
Alternative #SB -2
\'clue ISMMsI
18.5 - 20.5
11.4 -
12.6
1.5 -
1.7
31.4 -
34.8
40.1 -
44.3
45.6 -
50.4
85.7 -
94.7
2.0 - 2.2
2.4 -
2.6
1.2 -
1.4
5.6 -
6.2
91.3 - 100.9
40.2 - 44.4
3.6 -
4.0
22.8 -
25.2
2.9 -
3.2
29.3 -
32.4
28.5 - 31.5
$220.7 - $244.0
3 THE CONCORD GROUP
i► Cit
Hall Site VaIes
Pronertv Tax (101 %x 18 %)
Retail Sales Tax
Total Recurring Revenue
Estimated Land Value
City Hall Ground Lease
0.18% 0.07 - 0.08
1.00%
$0.07 - $0.08
20% of total value
10% of land value
$7.6 - $8.4
$0.8 - $0.8
0.06 - 0.07
$0.06 - $0.07
$6.7 - $7.5
$0.7 - $0.7
0.06 -
0.01 -
0.06
0.01
Alternative #5A -w-
Alternative #5B -1
- Alternative #513-2
City Hall Land-Use
Built Value
SF/Units Value($MMs)
SF /Units
Value(SMMs)
SF /Units
Value(SMMs)
Seniors
$400,000 /du
100 38.0 - 42.0
- -
-
Workforce housing
$325,000 /du
- -
60
18.5 - 20.5
60
18.5 - 20.5
Live -Work
$800,000 /du
20
15.2 - 16.8
- -
Residential Flats
$600,000 /du
-
- -
20
11.4 12.6
Commercial
$400 /sf
- -
- -
4,000
1.5 - 1.7
Total
100 $38.0 - $42.0
80
$33.7 - $37.3
$31.4 - $34.8
Pronertv Tax (101 %x 18 %)
Retail Sales Tax
Total Recurring Revenue
Estimated Land Value
City Hall Ground Lease
0.18% 0.07 - 0.08
1.00%
$0.07 - $0.08
20% of total value
10% of land value
$7.6 - $8.4
$0.8 - $0.8
0.06 - 0.07
$0.06 - $0.07
$6.7 - $7.5
$0.7 - $0.7
0.06 -
0.01 -
0.06
0.01
$0.07 -
$0.08
$6.3 - $7.0
$0.6 - $0.7
4 THE CONCORD GI?,OUP
i► Gi
Total Value
5B -1 58 -2
■ Workforce Housing
❑ Residential Flats
$9
$8
$7
$6
N
$5
v $4
2
M
> $3
$2
$1
$0
5A
Land Value
5B -1
5i3 -2
5 � HE CONCORD GI?,OUP
$45
$40
$35
$30
N
$25
d
$20
m
>
$15
$10
$5
$0
5A
■ Seniors
❑ Live -Work
■ Commercial
5B -1 58 -2
■ Workforce Housing
❑ Residential Flats
$9
$8
$7
$6
N
$5
v $4
2
M
> $3
$2
$1
$0
5A
Land Value
5B -1
5i3 -2
5 � HE CONCORD GI?,OUP
i► Ct Hall Si
$80 -
$70
$60 -
c $50
0
0
$40
c
w
w $30 -
z
$20
$10 -
$0
Annual Tax Revenue
5A
❑ Property Tax
5B -1 513 -2
® Retail Tax
$900 -
$800
$700
$600
0
00 $500
v
$400
v
$300
$200
$100
$0
Annual Ground Lease Revenue
5A 513 -1
MIN
6 THE CONCORD GI OUP
Village Sense of Place
�d Introduces gateway /icon elements
5d Adds both active and passive open space
a( Broadens mixed use (entertainment and hospitality)
52( Enhances resident and visitor experience
Fi( Adds outdoor social, recreational and living spaces
u( Provides for conversion of obsolete retail and office space
u( Improves Pedestrian circulation
N( Provides needed /balanced housing products
2f Enhances public waterfront access and experience
u( Upgrades streetscenes and shopping experiences
5� Opens waterfront view corridors
Other Benefits
R( Allows for Integrated Planning and Phased Implementation
2( Preserves City ownership while unlocking value
2( Addresses village parking deficit
R( Addresses General Plan Goals — Pedestrian circulation — connection to Mariners Mile
2( Shows potential of public - private partnerships
r
a
J
�aE'rr"°gr
YG ®�