HomeMy WebLinkAboutProperty Surplus - Beacon BayCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
JUN i. 1y70
By the CITY COUNCIL
CITY, of NEwa®gT BEACH
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FRCM: City Manager
SUBJECT: BEACON BAY PROPERTY
May 18, 1970
SS Item N6
In January the attached preliminary analysis of alternatives avail-
able to the City with respect to the future use of the City -owned Beacon Bay
property was received from the firm of Development Research Associates and
forwarded to the City Council for information purposes. Partially as a re-
sult of the Balboa Bay Club election held during the preceding week, this
matter was never formally reviewed at any Study Session or regular Council
meeting subsequent to the submittal of the report.
Development Research Associates was advised in writing in January
not to spend any more time-on this project until given further notice from
the City. Approximately $1,900 of a $5,000 appropriation had been paid to
DRA up to that point and completion of the study has been held in abeyance
until such time as the City Council expressed itself to desire a more thorough
documentation of the long -range alternatives relative to the use or. disposition
of the property. You will note that the preliminary documentation of alterna-
tives includes a recommendation on Page Five of the report that the City
retain the services of an appraiser to document the current values of the
property as it relates to those who have any financial interest in the Beacon
Bay community. Such an appraisal may necessary if the City intends to
take any action at this time regarding the future use and /or disposition of
the property. This would also be particularly desirable if the electorate
is to inevitably be asked to decide what the ultimate disposition of the
property should be. It is estimated that a full appraisal of the property
would cost approximately $10,000.
Whether any further effort should be undertaken with regard to the
property in question at this time is a matter which the City Council will
have to determine. It would seemingly be. desirable for the City Council to
express itself on the following two questions:
_ 2 -
1. Should the City proceed further with the firm of Development
Research Associates to complete the economic analysis which
that firm addressed itself to in late 1969, or should that
contract be officially terminated in view of the recent lease
extension request withdrawal by the Beacon Bay Community
Association (copy attached); and
2. Should the City have the Beacon Bay property formally appraised
as a means of assisting the City in making decisions regarding
the alternatives which have been set forth in the preliminary
DRA report, ie. trade the property for Civic Center property
at Newport Center, etc.
The City staff will appreciate some direction on this matter one
way or the other in order that this project will not be further held in limbo
and in order that desired actions by the City Council can be reflected through
appropriate expenditure projections to be set forth in the fiscal 1970 -71
municipal budget.
HLH:JPD:sr
Atts .
HARVEY L. HURLBURT
To- The City of Newport Beach January 16, 1970
1903.02
Attention: James D. DeChaine
Assistant City Manager
From: Development Research Associates
Subject: ANALYSIS OF THE crry'S ALTERNATIVES WITH RESPECT TO
RESOLVING INHERENT LEASING PROBLEMS ON THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS THEIR BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
METHOD OF APPROACH
To determine the ' various alternatives available to the city with respect to the
subject property, the following approach has been taken:
0 Study and review of the present Beacon Bay lease between the
city and the lessee.
0 Analysis of the 1967 appraisal covering the subject property.
o' Investigation of the objectives of the Beacon Bay Community
Association.
0 Review of the sections of the City Charter pertinent to the extension
of leases on City property.
o Review of the sections of the State Constitution in addition to
pertinent adjudication relevent to the sale, grant, or trade of
tidelands.
o Analysis of existing and potential land uses for the property.
0 Analysis of the subject property as a possible investment for a
developer.'
Memo to The City of Newport Beach .
Page Two
January 16, 1970
i
OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES
Our analysis has resulted in the categorization of four distinct groups which
have an interest in the subject property. These groups include The City of
Newport Beach, The Beek family, The Beacon Bay Community Association,
and The Irvine Company. On the basis of preliminary surveys, we have
investigated each group's expressed objectives with respect to the property.
Table 1 delineates these objectives for the reader.
i
i
TABLE 1
OBJECTIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
The City, 1. As a lessor, realize a fair return on the
Beacon Bay Leasehold.
2. As a landowner, realize a maximum return
on the property it owns.
3. As a municipality, prevent deterioration and
promote the public's welfare in the subject
area.
The Beeks 1. As the master lessee, maximize profits from
subleasing lots in the Beacon Bay leasehold.
2. As an investor, maximize return on invest -
ment.
Beacon Bay Community
Association
1. As individual homeowners,. extend the length
of the lease so as to qualify for necessary
financing.
.2. As an association, achieve autonomy by
becoming the master lessee, or provide
for individual homeowners leases.
Irvine Company 1. As a residential developer, gain access to the
water for its property directly to the north of
the subject property.
2; As a developer, acquire additional land to
increase the value and marketability of its
present holdings.
. = 't ".�- '�'.s."d'�� "'z "' F �. 5_.k� sue• �_ _� c-=- � �r _s. ...
Memo to The City of. Newport Beach
Page Four
January 16, 1970
An analysis of the objectives'of each group (see Table 1) assists in an under-
standing of their alternatives. The alternatives open to each group, as can be
seen in Table 2, act to deter the entire group from arriving at mutual satisfac-
tion. I
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
The City 11 Establish value and proceed to negotiate an
extension on all or part of the Beacon Bay
leasehold.
2. Let lease expire and subsequently hold, sell
or trade subject property.
3. Purchase all or part of the master lessee's
interest so as to -accelerate control or transfer.
The Beeks 1. Maintain status as the master lessee.
2. Establish value of it's interests and completely
or partially sell such interest.
Beacon Bay Community 1,, Establish value of the leasehold and proceed
Association to negotiate with the Beacon Bay lessor and/
or the master lessee.
2. Establish value of the master lessee's interests
and negotiate a purchase.
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Five
January 16, 1970
TABLE 2
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
1. Promote condemnation proceedings on the
easterly portion of the Beacon Bay Leasehold
so as to subsequently secure access to the
water from the City.
2. Purchase or trade for any available land in
the subject area.
3. Negotiate with master lessee and the City
for water access within the framework of
existing leases,
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
We believe an ,analysis of the City's alternatives to be pivotal in creating mutual
satisfaction for all involved. Primarily, the City, must determine its course of
action.
In any•event, a new appraisal of the subject property should be undertaken.
Recent developments have tended to invalidate the original appraisal analysis.
Not only will the appraisal contribute invaluable input in arriving at the disparity
between the value of the City's yearly return on the lease and what in fact the
City presently receives, but it could serve as a basis for part or all of the
subject property's sale or trade.
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Six
January 16, 1970
o Appraisal of Master Lessee's Position (Beek)
o Westside Addition
o Bayfront Sector
o' Interior Sector
o Yacht Basin
o Fee Value of Land
o Westside Addition
o Bayfront Sector
o' Interior Sector
o Yacht Basin
o Impact on Beacon Bay land value if Bayside Drive is relocated,
making existing Bayside Drive into a cul -de =sac.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The previously recommended appraisal will provide key data for our analyses
of the full range of alternatives open to The City of Newport Beach. However,
we believe the following considerations should be stressed at this point:
o A trading of tidelands for uplands will be necessary to effect a
possible sale_ of the residential portions of the subject. However
we believe that this consideration must be treated as a separate
alternative.
o Alternatives for renegotiating the current lease should be fully
analyzed.
o Public usage of the Yacht Basin should be considered. Acquisition
of the current lease interest prior to expiration of the lease is
a relevant alternative.
o Eventual public usage the residential areas should be considered
as an alternative.
o An equitable lease renegotiation could be effected independently of
and prior to any possible sale of all or a portion.
MCClark:jg
. s 37S
r \
�qf .
F &ETAVII.
3D ONA 'Lij-1;
January 27,-1970
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager
City of Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Harvey:
I am not going to waste your time or my breath discussing further a possible
extension of the Beacon Bay lease. The citizens of this community earlier,
this month pretty well expressed their feelings on the matter.
However, if you are still interested in exchanging the Beacon Bay land for
a community center location with Irvine Company, I may be able to be of some
help. In discussing the possibility with some people at Irvine, I find that
they would be willing to make such a trade. As a matter of fact, there is
some enthusiasm for such a trade. At.the same time, there Is some apprehension
on their part regarding some of.the items involved.
If you have some time in the next couple of weeks, why don't we discuss it,
My office is now located adjacent to the Orange County Airport. My phone
c
number, is 540-5045. , Please, give -me a -all at your convenience.
J
Yours very trulyi
Al
a Donald W. haw
Beacon Ba Co unity As clation
DWS/le'.
V�
4
..T6;qpitqne&,666-_1411 : �;
.CITY OF NTWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
January 22, 1970
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: BEACON BAY PROPERTY
Attached you will find a preliminary analysis of some of the
alternatives available to the city with respect to the future use of the
city owned Beacon Bay property. This analysis is intended to be a prelim-
inary progress report by Development Research Associates which has been
studying this property for the past two months.
You will note that in considering these alternatives they have
recommended 'on Page Five of the memorandum that the city retain the services
of an appraiser to dociment the current values of the property as they relate
to each of the various parties who have a financial interest in the Beacon
Bay camnunity. It is my firm belief that such an appraisal will be necessary'
before the city is able to take any action regarding the future use and /or
disposition of the property. In my opinion this appraisal should not simply
be an updating of the George Hamilton Jones appraisal performed in 1967 for
the Beacon Bay Community Association, but rather a separate appraisal under-
taken as soon as possible by a different appraiser retained by the city.
This is particularly desirable in view of the inevitable involvement of the
voters in the community who must be asked to decide what the city is to do
with this property.
I have taken the liberty to check with Cedric White to determine
his availability to undertake this assignment and what the probable cost
of the appraisal would be. Mr. White has estimated that it would cost in the
vicinity of $10,000 to undertake the type of appraisal needed to provide the
information needed to assist us with any future consideration of the alter-
natives summarized in the DRA progress report. It would be my recommendation
that this matter be reviewed with the City Council during the study session
next Monday. While it would take many months to complete this appraisal,
Mr. White has indicated that a meaningful determination on the economic
impact upon the Beacon Bay property by the development of the Promontory
Point property by the Irvine Company could be made within thirty days as
a part of this appraisal effort, or at a cost not to exceed $500 under a
separate contract.
JAMES P. DeCHAINE
JPD:sr
Attachment
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May 1$, 1970
SS Item N6
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
In January the attached preliminary analysis of alternatives-avail-
able to-the City with respect to the future use of the City -owned Beacon Bay
property was received from the firm of Development Research Associates and
forwarded to the City Council for information purposes. Partially as a re-
sult of the Balboa Bay Club election held during the preceding week, this
matter was never formally reviewed at any Study Session or regular Council
meeting subsequent to the submittal of the report.
Development Research Associates was advised in writing in January
not to spend any more time on this project until given further notice from
the City. Approximately $1,900 of a $5,000 appropriation had been paid to
DRA up to that point and completion of the study has been held in abeyance
until such time as the City Council expressed itself to desire a more thorough
documentation of the long -range alternatives relative to the use or.disposition
of the property. You will note that the ,preliminary documentation of alterna-
tives includes a recommendation on Page Five of the report that the City
retain the services of an amraiser to document the current values of the
property as it relates to those who have any financial interest in the Beacon
Bay cammtmity. Such an appraisal may be necessary if the City intends to
take any action at this time regarding the future use and /or disposition of
the property. This would also be particularly desirable if the electorate
is to inevitably be'asked to decide what the ultimate disposition of the
property should be. It is estimated that a full appraisal of the property
would cost approximately $10,000.
Whether any further effort should be undertaken with regard to the
property in question at this time is a matter which the City Council will
have to determine. It would seemingly be desirable for the City Council to
express itself on the following two questions:
- 2 -
1. Should the City proceed further with the firm of Development
Research Associates to "iromplete the economic analysis which
that firm addressed itself to in late 1969, or should that
contract be officially terminated in view of the recent lease
extension request withdrawal by the Beacon Bay Commnmity
Association (copy attached); and
2. Should the City have the Beacon Bay property formally appraised
as a means of assisting the City in making decisions regarding
the alternatives which have been set forth in the preliminary
DRA report, ie. trade the property for Civic Center property
at Newport Center, etc.
The City staff will appreciate some direction on this matter one
way or the other in order that this project will not be further held in limbo
and in order that desired actions by the City Council can be reflected through
appropriate expenditure projections . to be set forth in the fiscal 1970 -71
municipal budget.
HLH:JPD:sr
Atts.
m
E._.- alJi P1:
4� M k Q P -
MEMORANDUM
To: The City of Newport Beach January 16, 1970
1903.02
Attention: James D. DeChaine
Assistant City Manager
From: Development Research Associates
Subject: ANALYSIS OF THE CITY'S ALTERNATIVES WITH RESPECT TO
RESOLVING INHERENT LEASING PROBLEMS ON THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS THEIR BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
METHOD OF APPROACH
To determine the various alternatives available to the city with respect to the
subject property, the following approach has been taken:
o Study and review of the present Beacon Bay lease between the
city and the lessee.
o . ` Analysis of the 1967 appraisal covering the subject property.
o Investigation of the objectives of the Beacon Bay Community
Association.
o Review of the sections of the City Charter pertinent to the extension
of leases on City property.
o Review of the sections of the State Constitution in addition to
pertinent adjudication relevent to the sale, grant, or trade of
tidelands.
o Analysis of existing and potential land uses for the property.
o Analysis of the subject property as a possible investment for a
developer.
,- 2�y:"
,, RBSSARCH. ASSOCIATES
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Two
January 16, 1970
OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES
Our analysis has resulted in the categorization of four distinct groups which
have an interest in the subject property. These groups include The City of
Newport Beach, The Beek family, The Beacon Bay Community Association,
and The Irvine Company. On the basis of preliminary surveys, we have
investigated each group's expressed objectives with respect to the property.
Table 1 delineates these objectives for the reader.
RSSEARCH ASSOCIATES
The City
The Beeks
TABLE 1
OBJECTIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY.LEASEHOLD
1. As a lessor, realize a fair return on the
Beacon Bay Leasehold.
2. As a landowner, realize a maximum return
on the property it owns.
3. As a municipality, prevent deterioration and
promote the public's welfare in the subject
area.
1. As the master lessee, maximize profits from
subleasing lots in the Beacon Bay leasehold.
2. As an investor, maximize return on invest-
ment.
Beacon Bay Community
1.
As individual homeowners, extend the length
Association
of the lease so as to qualify for necessary
financing.
2.
As an association, achieve autonomy by
becoming the master lessee, or provide
for individual homeowners leases.
Irvine Company 1.
As a residential developer, gain access to the
water for its property directly to the north of
the subject property.
- :2.
As a developer, acquire additional land to
increase the value and marketability of its
present holdings.
t
w¢
,e''''',
�4e` \e�111. ;6
= Maenni;
MVM,OPMBNT AESHA.ACH ASSOCIATES AaM '.i131111
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Four
January 16, 1970
An analysis of the objectives of each group (see Table 1) assists in an under-
standing of their alternatives. The alternatives open to each group, as can be
seen in Table 2, act to deter the entire group from arriving at mutual satisfac-
tion.
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
The City, 1. Establish value and proceed to negotiate an
extension on all or part of the Beacon Bay
J leasehold.
2. Let lease expire and subsequently hold, sell
or trade subject property.
3. Purchase all or part of the master lessee's
interest so as to accelerate control or transfer.
The Beeks. 1. _ Maintain status as the master lessee.
2. Establish value of it's interests and completely
or partially sell such interest.
Beacon Bay Community
Association
rw
1.
Establish value of the leasehold and proceed
to negotiate with the Beacon Bay lessor and/
or the master lessee.
Establish value of the master lessee's interests
and negotiate a purchase.
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES.
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Five
January 16. 1970
TABLE 2
(Continued)
ALTERNATIVES OF THE GROUPS
RELATED TO THE CITY'S BEACON BAY LEASEHOLD
Irvine Company .
1. Promote condemnation proceedings on the
easterly portion of the Beacon 'Bay Leasehold
so as to subsequently secure access to the
water from the City.
2. Purchase or trade for any available land in
the subject area.
3. Negotiate with master lessee and the City
for water access within the framework of
existing leases;
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
We believe an analysis of the City's alternatives to be pivotal in creating mutual
satisfaction for all involved. Primarily, the City must determine its course of
action.
In any event, a new appraisal of the subject property should be undertaken.
Recent developments have tended to invalidate the original appraisal analysis.
Not only will the appraisal contribute invaluable input in arriving at the disparity
between the value of the City's yearly return on the lease and what in fact the
City, presently receives, but it could serve as a basis for part or all of the
subject property's sale or trade.
Information especially necessary includes:
o Appraisal of City's Position
o Westside Addition
o Bayfront Sector
o Interior Sector
o Yacht Basin
{ TEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Memo to The City of Newport Beach
Page Six
January 16, 1970
o Appraisal of Master Lessee's Position (Beekl.
o Westside Addition
o Bayfront Sector
o Interior Sector
o Yacht Basin
o Fee Value of Land
o Westside Addition
o Bayfront Sector
o' Interior Sector
o Yacht. Basin
o Impact on Beacon Bay land value if Bayside Drive is relocated,
making existing Bayside Drive into a cul -de -sac.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The previously recommended appraisal will provide key data for our analyses
of the full range of alternatives open to The City of Newport Beach. However,
we believe the following considerations should be stressed at this point:
o A trading of tidelands for uplands will be necessary to effect a
possible sale of the residential portions of the subject. However
we believe that this consideration must be treated as a separate
alternative.
o Alternatives for renegotiating the current lease should be fully
analyzed.
o Public usage of the Yacht Basin should-be considered. Acquisition
of the current lease interest prior to expiration of the lease is
a relevant alternative.
o Eventual public usage the residential areas should be considered
as an alternative.
o An equitable lease renegotiation could be effected independently of
, and prior to any possible sale of all or a portion. ,
MCClark: jg ..� �.;..,.;
/,er�nre� ii'c
. ,p ;?•.- rr�;,�..,t ;. _x 3N�,,,!.`. ,_arc,_,�.y_� .x:DBiVELOPMENT.RESEARCH ASSOCIATE8,44MII�����
DONALD F S ITEAW t�ly>J�r_r� 1�!hrl�✓ \fin %w�
January 27,1970 '
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager `
City of Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd. F
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Harvey:
1 am not going to waste your time or my breath discussing further a possible
extension of the Beacon Bay lease, The citizens of this community earlier.
'this month pretty well expressed their feelings on the matter.
However, if you are still interested in exchanging the Beacon Bay land for
a community center location with Irvine Company, I may be able to be of some
help. In discussing the possibility with some people at Irvine, I find that
they would be willing to make such a trade. As a matter of fact, there is
some enthusiasm for such a trade. At.the same time, there is some apprehension
on their part regarding some of.the items involved.
If you have some time in the next couple of weeks, why don't we discuss it.'
My office is now located adjacent to the Orange County Airport. My phone
..number, is 540 -5045. Please give-me a call at your convenience.
Yours very t&aw
Donald W,It Beacon Be
0WS /le
11y
7901 Blake Avenue a 'Los Angeles. Collfornia 90039. a Arco Code 213, Telephone, 666 -1411
- .. u .. ♦,�,..___ sI1J. -..��_ 1.w - W�_� lk_i */._ML__,.. MAL - ♦___ /'..J_ VIA --- !.w'ew.e
May 25, lE70
Mr. Richard S. Stevens
Bice President
Balboa Bay Club
1221 west Coast 1;iglnjay
Newport Reach, California 92660
Dear Dick-
Your interest .u,d comments on City -ovmed properties is appreciated. I apologize
for being slow in answering - I arm getting organized.
The City does have a complete file of all City - owned properties. A st:uty has
been wader way for some time to establish the best long -time use of. these
parcels. A year or so ago the priority of this activity was advanced. The
assistance of the Costa Mesa - Newport Beach Realty :bard was obtained to increase
the productivity of the old &.mip site in West Newport and the City - owned property
in Ihuitington Reach. As a r,:.sult, the property i:: I:u:itington ,:each was leased,
but M jectiC�,s from the City of Huntington Bead° has required a re- examination
of this situation. We are now considering the possibility of selling this
property.
Lindsley parsons has been active in promoting legislation for th -a capping Of
non - productive oil wells. '11he completion of this will put us in a 1x;sition to
make more profitable use of other properties in 1Wtin „ton Beach.
We are also actively following the opportunity to make productive use of the
old dump site.
Your interest is ;greatly appreciated and any suggestions will be welcome. If
you wish further information, please contact Harvey and ne.
Very truly yours,
E. F. HIRT11.
Mayor
EFH:pg
cc: Harvey L. lfuriburt
City Manaffer
AY CLUB
1221 WEST COAST HIGHWAY . NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92660 / (714) 5482211
May 6, 1970 RECEIVED
MAY.; 197p
cy11
mayor
The Honorable E. F. Hirth City Of New Pert
Mayor, City of Newport Beach Beach
Newport Beach, California R' Tl /\ `
Dear Ed:
The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to the status and
progress of the inventory and master planning of all city -owned
property. As you know, during our recent election the Daily
Pilot based its lack of endorsement to our cause upon the pri-
mary point that the City was condr$ting such a study and that a
decision should. not be reached. with respect to long -range
utilization of the property until after this study was completed.
As you may recall the Pilot also stated, in effect, that such a
study was long overdue and that the City had been delinquent in
not tackling this assignment sooner. I am certainly not seeking
to blame anyone for the past; however I'm most concerned that
this study be moved forward with a high priority. I'm sure that
the City Council doesn't want to make any decisions with respect
to extension of the American Legion lease or the Beacon Bay
lease until the results are in.
As one of the key leaders in the development of the Newport
Tomorrow program, I know that you share my concern for the
rapid development and execution of the master plan. I would not
only like to offer our services in this direction but to request that
we be included in the discussion and. study so that our problems
and viewpoint may assist those making the decisions in reaching
their conclusions.
ncerelpy��,
and S L ns
Vice President
cc: Mr. Harvey Hurlburt
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Assistant City Manager
/� n'
March 4, 1969
SUBJECT: PARTIAL LIST OF CITY PROPERTIES WHICH COULD RECEIVE
MORE EXTENSIVE USE (EXCLUSIVE OF BEACON BAY AND BALBOA BAY CLUB)
Nam 'Of Property Location of Property Present Use
City Dump Property Extension of 19th and Abandoned borrow pit and
Whittier, Newport Beach refuse area. This 40 acre
parcel previously used for
City dump and gravel mining
operation. Dormant at
present time. Development
proposals to be solicited.
Webber Oil Lease Bouchard and Hamilton This 4.8 acre parcel
Property Huntington Beach encumbered with oil lease
dated 1951. Lease dominates
central 2.5 acres of property
until such time as oil is
no longer produced, despite
1971 tentative expiration
date. Estimated current
revenue from oil production
is $550 per year.
Brookhurst and Southeast corner of This 1.99 acre parcel formerly!
Adams Property Brookhurst and Adams used-as supplement to City
Huntington Beach water system. Presently
being used for outdoor bill-
board advertising purposes
with approximate return of
$550 per month. Pending
outcome of updating of
appraisal report, long -term
lease(s) to be negotiated for
use of entire property
assuming abandoned water wells
can be placed underground
and.access assured by easement.
(continued)
City Manager Page 2
March 4, 1969
Name of Property Location of Property
Present Use
Abandoned Sewage Northeasterly of Newport
This 7 acre parcel is former
Treatment Plant Shores Residential
site of City sewage treatment
Community, Adjacent to
facility. No use at present
Santa Ana River and
time. Among possible uses
Orange County Flood
which have been discussed
Control Channel
is a possible interim out-
door pistol range to serve
needs of Police Department
until new police building
is constructed.
American Legion 15th and Bay Avenue
Present lease with American
Property
Legion expires 1976. Possible
uses of property at that time
include conversion to public
beach, development of City
marina, expansion of Marina -
Park trailer facility, or
extension of lease with
American Legion.
West Newport Water 16th and Monrovia
This 1 acre site holds two
Property
abandoned water storage tanks
and a number of miscellaneous
structures previously used
by the water division. In
addition, the property has
an extensive network of active
underground water lines which
serve the West Newport area.
One of the two water storage
tanks is useable and will be
in operation as an equalizing
reservoir as the West Newport
area becomes more intensely
developed. This property is
also being used by KOCM Radio
and Newport Cablevision for
radio and CATV transmitting
facilities. The KOCM lease
also provides for a small
storage and transmitting
building. The Public Works
strenuously objects to any
other use of the property which
would interfere with the exist-
ing water lines and future
water uses of the property.
JPD;ep JAMES P. DE CHAINE
w.
VORONAEFF REALTY CO.
ARE CODE (714) 646.1200
1515 WESTCUFF DRIVE - UI-M -205
i
JU-
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFOR �•_
iJ / )
March 27, 1969 ✓ �
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt
City Manager F
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660 %
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
I am President of Voronaeff Realty Co. in Newport Beach. I specialize
in selling large investment properties.
Why has the City of Newport Beach selected Coldwell Banker Company
to exclusively represent the City of Newport Beach in real estate
matters?
Do any elective officials, appointive officials, or City employees own
stock in Coldwell Banker Company? Options to purchase stock in Coldwell
Banker Company should be disclosed, if any, and also future purchase of
Coldwell Banker Company stock should be prohibited by any elective
official, appointed official, or City employee of Newport Beach if Coldwell
Banker Company has exclusive representation of Newport Beach.
All realtors should be allowed to present their clients' offers on City of
Newport Beach property that is for sale or lease. This would allow the
citizens to benefit from the best offer. Coldwell Banker Company would
only be exposing property to their clients, and clients of other Orokers
would not be exposed to it.
It is not a standard procedure for cities or owners of large investment
properties to give exclusive right to sell to one broker or company, as
large properties need broad exposure. A city should not give an exclusive
right to sell to one broker or company.
The City could advertise the property, take offers from all brokers and
also retain the right to sell or lease directly without a broker. Dealing
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt
March V. 1969
Page 2
with all brokers would insure the highest sales price or lease amount
to the City.
U the City needs expert advice to market the property through all
brokers, I would disqualify myself from selling or leasing any property
owned by the City of Newport Beach, and offer my time free of charge
as a consultant to the City of Newport Beach.
Sincerely.
�
Don Vorov
naeiff. I - SRA
DV:mw
cc: The Mayor, City of Newport Beach
4.: The City Council, City of Newport Beach
/Veaposd a444on - Me" / o"d al Rea&&%%,
401 N. NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92660 TELEPHONE 646 -1671
April 7, 1969
TO: CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FROM: NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS
SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S SURPLUS PROPERTIES.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
J. PETER RARRETT
PRESIDENT
CHARLES S. DREYER
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
CHARLES F. COLESWORTHY
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT
JAMES B. WOOD
SECRETARY.TREASURER
JOE CLARKSON
CURT DOSH
ARTHUR E. GORDON
WILLIAM C. RING
PERRY ZIMMERMAN
GLENN MARTIN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
EVALYN RUNING
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
The Directors of the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors submit
the following recommendations and suggestions:
1. It is suggested the City solicit consultation and market-
ing proposals from other firms and /or individuals with
reference to the disposition of surplus properties of the
City of Newport Beach.
2. Should the City so desire, the Board of Realtors will
appoint a committee to assist in evaluating and /or analyz-
ing proposals submitted.
3. It is suggested that all properties should be submitted on
an Open (bid) basis, and the broker or brokerage firm sub-
mitting an offer acceptable to the City should be paid a
commission in accordance with the schedule of commissions
published by the Los Angeles Board of Realtors.
Respectfully submitted,
,:: n ""j�
J. Peter Barlett, President
Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa
Board of Realtors
SIrI,QN:'
FILE
LV
w� fl
�fi ' &
REAL ESTATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
John T. Boyd, Jr., Realtor.
Business Address: 3629 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, Tel: 675-5930
Residence: 1600 Warwick Lane, N.B. ri'el: 548 -4743
William D. Clark
Business: Goosen & Clark, 4500 Campus Drive, N. B. 546-2055
Residence: 2421 Sierra Vista, N. B. 548-2564
Curt E. Dosh, Realtor.
Business: .1730 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach 642 -6472
Residence: 1606 Santanella, Corona del Mar 673-3468
R.C. Greer, Realtor,
Business: 3355 Via Lido, Suite 205, N.B. 673-9300
Residence: 1127 Berkshire Lane, Newport Beach 646-7980
Robert S. Hirsch,
Business; Coldwell, Banker a; Co., 2200 East Coast-Highway. 675 -2000
Residence:. 2105 East Balboa Boulevard, Balboa 675-2047
Richard Kimble,
Business, United California Bank, 2712. West Coast Highway 646 -2431
George Hamilton Jones, M.A.I.
Business: 3471 Via Lido, Suite 207 673.6733
Residence:. 904 South Bay Front 673 -3427
ALTERNATES:
Robert Fleming, Realtor,
Business: 3700 Newport Boulevard 675-2464 `
Residence: 2003 Baja, Newport Beach 644 -2158
G.E. "John" Semple, Realtor
Business: 2515 East Coast Highway, CdM 675-2101
Residence: 572 Seaward,Road, Corona del Mar 673-4969
EX- OFFICIO:
J. Peter Barrett, President, Realty Board.
Business: 1605 Westc.li'ff Drive 642 -5200
Residence': 231 Kings Place 548 =6646
Glenn Martin, Executive Officer, Realty Board
Business: 401 North Newport Boulevard 646 -1671
Residence: 4807 Cortland Drive 673-4038
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
C O N F I D E N T I A L
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
L:
9_
k
"X 'v w w
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF REALTY FIRM ASSIST ITY REAL ES MATTERSi
j
As instructed by the Cit o cil, the staff has pre red is orica l
information on the Brookhurst and Adams property and has met with the NewportCPLI�c
Harbor Costa Mesa Realty Board Executive Committee. I will review these matters
herein and outline possible courses of action.
April 4, 1969
STUDY 'SESSION
AGENDA ITEM 7
I think it should be kept in mind that the City Council was anxious
to proceed at an early date with the leasing or sale of certain City properties
in order to maximize net revenue which might be accumulated for civic center
financing purposes. On this basic premise, I feel that the City Council took
the proper approach. However, if it is considered important to appease some
of our local realtors for public relations purposes, then there are definitely
other courses of action which should be followed.
Contrary to what some of the realtors in the community may contend,
there are not many firms which have in house capability of providing appraisal
information services, conducting their own economic market feasibility studies,
and preparing extensive land use data necessary for any meaningful analysis
and organized program of evaluation. While there may be a few well- qualified
firms in the Newport Beach area with this capability other than Coldwell Banker,
and while it is possible that the City could have chosen another firm, addi-
tional time would have been lost in the process without any offsetting technical
or economic advantage to the City. Several of the responsible realtors in
the community with whom we have talked during the past two weeks have agreed
that Coldwell Banker and Company is a very capable firm and has the talent
within its organization to very capably assist the City with this project.
Many of these realtors also recognize that much of the negative reaction from
• few of their colleagues is predicated upon the conclusion that they may lose
• possible commission on the leasing transactions if Coldwell Banker and
Company is retained on an exclusive basis. As the letter of proposal from
Coldwell Banker and Company indicates, they "agree to share commission with
any licensed real estate broker acceptable to you (City), it being under-
stood, however, that Coldwell Banker and Company shall not be obligated to
accept as its share less than one -half of the regular commission rate." This
clearly provides for the sharing of commissions in such instances where any
given realtor in the community submits a firm lease proposal on behalf of a
qualified client for which that particular realtor is acting on an exclusive
basis. Should that particular client submit one of the most favorable lease
proposals, there is an excellent opportunity for that particular real estate
broker to share with Coldwell Banker and Company any real estate commissions
involved.
Mayor and City Council Page 2 April 4, 1969
Jim DeChaine met with the Executive Committee of the Newport Harbor
Costa Mesa Board of Realtors on Tuesday, April 1. It was a very friendly
session with none of the approximately ten members present reflecting any
signs of hostility or bitterness during the meeting. Members present recog-
nized that it is merely a handful of their over eight hundred member repre-
sentatives that have expressed any major opposition to the City retaining the
services of a single realty firm to assist with the project. While many other
realtors have obviously sided with their colleagues, many are not as concerned
as long as the end result is the most economically advantageous to the City.
At this meeting, it was learned that Pete Barrett, President of the Board,
had made contact with Mr. George Coffin, one of approximately thirty so- called
real estate counselors in Southern California, for an outside independent
reaction. While Mr. Coffin apparently indicated that it was perfectly accept-
able to utilize the services of a firm such as Coldwell Banker and Company,
it was his suggestion that the City probably should have solicited bid proposals
from other qualified realty firms in the area before making any decision to
retain the services of any one particular firm. Mr. Coffin suggested that it
might be well for the City to consider allowing the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa
Board of Realtors to establish a Committee which would call for and review
these proposals submitted to the City for consideration. Mr. Coffin indicated
that the real estate market should be saturated with information pertaining
to these proposals and that all proposals should be considered on an open bid
basis. Mr. Coffin apparently suggested that if a firm like Coldwell Banker
was used, that it be retained on an over -ride basis, i.e., the City pay them
a separate commission for the analysis work which they would undertake and
thereby enable all realtors in the area to have an equal opportunity to sub -
mit lease or sale proposals on a non - exclusive and full commission basis for
consideration by the Committee which would be established by the realty board.
If a firm such as Coldwell Banker and Company was not retained, it would likely
be necessary for the City to retain the services of a qualified M.A.I. appraiser,
another firm to conduct economic feasibility studies regarding the marketing
of the properties, and a variety of other services that would result in addi-
tional cost to the City. During Monday's Study Session, Pete. Barrett and
possibly others will be reviewing Mr. Coffin's suggestions and other informa-
tion discussed by the Executive 'Committee of the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa
Board of Realtors. If the City Council is inclined to have various lease
proposals considered by a Committee to be appointed by the Newport Harbor
Costa Mesa Board of Realtors, a project coordinator would have to assist the
Committee with the solicitation and analysis of proposals submitted. This
project coordinator could be a member of the City staff and /or another out-
side consultant which would work with the City on a fixed fee basis. Mr.
George Coffin has apparently suggested that his paid services would be avail-
able if desired.
The overwhelming interest and concern on the part of most realtors
in the area centers around the City property at Brookhurst and Adams in Hunt-
ington Beach. It is estimated that during the past four years, the staff has
received up to approximately thirty calls per month, and that at least 350
calls were received during the past twelve months. Most of these inquiries
have been by telephone, although about ten per cent have either come from
realtors who have dropped into the office or expressed their interest in the
Mayor and City Council Page 3 April 4, 1969
property in writing. Exhibit "A" attached lists the individuals and organiza-
tions on record which have expressed their interest during the last four years.
You will note that many of these have contacted the City between three and ten
times each during the last four years. A second list, marked Exhibit "B ",
reflects the written proposals received for development of the Brookhurst and
Adams property during the last four years. In prior years, these numerous
inquiries and proposals have not been discussed with the City Council each
time one has been received because no firm policy decision had been made by
the City Council to either sell or enter into a long -term lease agreement
for the use of this property.
A third list, marked Exhibit "C", indicates realtors who have alleged
that they represent Roy Sakioka, owner of the adjacent acreage slated for a
possible area -wide shopping center complex. Mr. Sakioka is one of the individ-
uals who has a strong interest in this property. A copy of a letter from Mr.
Sakioka dated December 2, 1965 is also attached for reference. In addition, we
have on file a more recent plot plan which proposed to purchase a portion of
the City's property and exchange a portion for property owned by Mr. Sakioka
at another location. In a conversation with Mr. Sakioka two weeks ago, we
attempted to learn exactly which realty firm or firms on the list were act -
ing on his behalf in conjunction with negotiations with the City. We were
advised that the only agent on the list with whom he wished to deal on this
matter was Mr. Sam Keyes. When questioned as to whether any of the other
realty firms listed in Exhibit "C" were representing him, he firmly responded
in the negative. This is mentioned because of a recent contention of Jack
Mullan that he is an agent for Mr. Sakioka.
Mr. Mullan and others have also recently contended that the firm of
Coldwell Banker is not a friend of the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa Board of
Realtors, does not give fair consideration to lease or sales proposals sub-
mitted by other realtors in conjunction with clients they serve, and had a
recent falling -out with The Irvine Company. From information gathered to date,
we have not been able to substantiate any of these allegations. In fact,
members of the Executive Committee of the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa Board of
Realtors spoke quite highly of the firm of Coldwell Banker and Company. It
should also be noted that the general membership of the Board of Realtors
elected Bill Farnsworth of Coldwell Banker as its President for 1967. In
addition, through recent conversations with Al Auer of The Irvine Company, we
have learned that Coldwell Banker is one of their few good commercial property
brokers and that The Irvine Company has had a very good relationship with this
organization for a number of years. While Mr. John E. Murphy, President of
the Irvine Industrial Complex, indicates that the exclusive arrangement which
they had with the Coldwell Banker firm was allowed to lapse in 1967 as a result
of new merchandising techniques being used by the Irvine Industrial Complex
which did not lend themselves to an exclusive listing at this time, Coldwell
Banker did perform a very satisfactory service for the Complex and continues
to be retained by The Irvine Company to merchandise numerous commercial proper-
ties on the Ranch.
It would appear that the City Council can move in one of several
directions in resolving this matter. It can retain the firm of Coldwell Banker
and Company to provide the realtor services needed. This would probably pro-
vide the most economical advantage to the City.
Mayor and City Council Page 4 April 4, 1969
The second approach which the City Council may wish to consider would
be to allow the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa Board of Realtors to appoint a spec-
ial Committee to call for and review proposals to lease or purchase the City
properties. This would entail additional time and expense, as noted above,
but would provide a satisfactory means of appeasing some of the realtors in
the community who have become disturbed at the prospect of the City retaining
any particular firm to assist it with the leasing or sale of City property.
A third approach would be to allow other qualified realty firms to
submit a proposal similar to that made available by Coldwell Banker and Company.
The City Council could then select the firm or firms which appear to be the
most qualified to undertake the assignment of conducting the appraisal studies,
economic market feasibility studies, compile land use data, etc. prior to solic-
itation and analysis of lease or sale proposals. While this approach might
appease those realtors who are now disgruntled, it would, of course, delay the
project and result in revenue losses. I think it would also be fair to assume
that Coldwell Banker would emerge as the most competent in terms of broad in-
house technical capability and greatest access to potential purchasers or
tenants.
If the City Council decides to move in some direction other than to
retain the immediate services of Coldwell Banker, it is suggested that the
Brookhurst and Adams property not be made a part of the package and that the
staff be allowed to handle this parcel directly.
The Brookhurst and Adams property was allowed to remain as part of
the Coldwell Banker proposal for two reasons: 1) It was assumed that they
would move rapidly and obtain a tenant at an early date, thus maximizing
revenue from this source,; and 2) it was concluded that Coldwell Banker, as
specialists in the commercial and industrial realty field, would be capable
of negotiating the highest revenue lease on the property as opposed to what
might be accomplished by City alone. If we are to experience delays, we lose
the advantage of number one and if we are going to end up with a bidding
arrangement or a group committee arrangement we will lose the advantage of
number two. This being so, there would be no logical reason for the City
paying a realtor's commission since there would be no economic advantages
to justify it.
HARVEY L. HURLBURT
HLH /JPD:ep
enc.
EXHIBIT "A"
LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
EXPRESSING WRITTEN OR VERBAL INTEREST
IN BROOKHURST AND ADAMS PROPERTY DURING LAST FOUR YEARS
1. Jack W. Mullan, Realtor
2. Laura H. Klein, Realtor
3. Hal H. Collins of E. L. Bensen Realty
4. Curt Dosh
S. C. W. Goode
6. E. L. Bensen, Realtor
7. Chris Lindley
8. Bob Alleborn
9. W. R. Bennett (Rinker Development)
10. Jim Mackle (Coldwell, Banker $ Company)
11. Elton Burnett (Walker $ Lee)
12. Joe C. Curry (Currand Realty)
13. M. L. Ruth
14. Mrs. Margaret Lightfoot
1S. Albert A. Sparliss (Coldwell, Banker 8, Company)
16. Rich Pomeroy (Jack -in- the -Box Restaurants)
17. Ken Harris, Realtor
18. Neil H. Durkee (Land and Industrial Properties)
19. Robert L. Unger
20. Andrew Johnson (Realononics, Inc.)
21. Lefty Murdock (The Most Company)
22. Vic Blurton (Coates and Wallace)
23. Dr. G. J. Camaras
Exhibit "A"
Page 2
24. John E. Marr (Coldwell, Banker 8 Company)
25. Lindsay P. Garnett (W. Ross Campbell Company),
26. Glenn Rice (W. Ross Campbell Company)
27. Gardner L. Hoch (R. A. Rowan $ Company)
28. Mr. I. Eric Sundt, Rotronic Corporation (Service station - car wash)
29. C. W. Warren (Shepherd 8 Tupper, Inc.)
30. George D. Buccola Investment Company
31. Joseph P. Hudson (Park Gate Realty)
32. Harold B. Jepsen ( Jepsen Realty)
33. Thomas T. Rousselot, Humble Oil and Refining Company
34. Mr. Dickey, Humble Oil and Refining Company
35. John J. McCloskey, Jack -in- the -Box Development Corporation
36. Adele S. Sprague (Prindiville Realty)
37. A. 0. Hedblom, Mobil Oil Corporation
38. H. S. Ebersole (Realtor), Edwin G. Hart, Inc.
39. Herbert N. Lightle, George Taber Company
40. Kenneth D. Hinsvark, Attorney
41. Richard A. Meredith, The Meredith Company
42. Robert Wheeler (Real Estate)
43. Mr. Verner Eichholtz (Realtor)
44. Bertram Haymes, D.D.S.
4S. Golthea Sisson, L. J. Swift 8 Associates
46. Victur Blurton, Manager, F. M. Tarbell Realty
47, Reg Wood, Reg Wood Company (Realtors)
48. Jerry King, Deane Bros.
49. Sherman A. Smith (Real Estate Development and Investment)
50. Richard Marshall (Bensen Realty)
Exhibit
A!
Page 3
51. David M. Garland, Attorney
52. Charles Franklin (Realtor)
53. Gerald Lance, Gerald Lance Realty
54. E. M. Schilemann, Strout Realty
55. Dean Royce, Percy Goodwin Company
56. Roger S. Watson, Scottco, Inc. (Engineers, Developers)
57. Martha Holt (Realtor)
58. Thomas J. Doyle
59. Bill Miller (Bill Miller Realty)
60. Ed Bach
61. E. V. Kadow, Fountain Valley Land Company
62. E. W. Harvey
63. Arnold Podsade
64. Dan Donahue, Coldwell, Banker $ Company
65. Charles Lotz, Security First National Bank
66. Mark Sullivan (Realtor)
67. William D. Clark, Goossen $Clark Associates
68 Hiram DeFries, Shell Oil Company
69. Fred J. Barbour, Commercial Real Estate Broker for A. J. Pellegrini
70. Steve Boyce (Realononics)
71. E. Clark Beaumont (Realtor)
72. George Salata
73. Samuel W. Murdock, Attorney
74. Bernie Svalstad, Real Estate Representative, Foo�naker, Inc.
(Jack -in- the -Box) oration
75. Eric L. pridonoff, Rite Engineering $Manufacturing Corp
76, Shirley Meunier, Calhoun Realty
Exhibit "A"
Page 4
77. N. J. V. V. Green
78. William A. O'Connor
79. L. S. Mack, Benson Realty
80. C. R. Morgan, The Morgan-Morf Companies
81. Sam Keyes (Realtor)
NOTE: Many of the above individuals and organizations have contacted this
office between three and ten times during the last four years.
In addition to those noted above, there have been numerous addi-
tional verbal inquiries made without specific names being left
for the file.
EXHIBIT "B"
WRITTEN PROPOSALS RECEIVED ON BROOMMT AND ADAMS PROPERTY
DURING LAST FOUR YEARS
1. Roy K. Sakioka (Long -term proposal)
2. Columbia Outdoor Advertising (Short -term proposal)
3, Whitaker Sign Company (Short -term proposal)
4. Ken Harris, Realtor, on behalf of Gulf Oil Company and Jack -in- the -Box,
Inc. (Long -term proposal)
S. Southland Corporation (7/11 Grocery outlet) (Long -term proposal)
6. Willis J. Clemmons, Carter Sign Company (Short -term proposal)
7. Mr. I. Eric Sundt, Rotronic Corporation (Service station - car wash)
(Long -term proposal)
8. Mr. J. F. Fleming, Humble Oil & Refining Company (Long -term proposal)
9. Mr. Thomas T. Rousselot, Humble Oil $ Refining Company (Long -term proposal)
10. Mr. McCloskey, Jack -in- the -Box, Inc. (Long -term proposal)
11. Mr. Robert H. Beadle, Southland Corporation (7/11 Grocery outlet)
(Long -term proposal)
12. Mr. A. Hedblom, Mobil Oil Company (Long -term proposal)
EXHIBIT "C"
REALTORS ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING ROY SAKIOKA
1. Jack W. Mullan
2. Verner F. Eichholtz
3. Sam Keyes
4. Mrs. Margaret Lightfoot
S. Reg Wood Company
a
PACKING Hausa 646.1197 OPP= TRLRFRGNEs 545.8611
{*6.1905
SAKI®KA PALMS
GROWER. AND SHIPPER
14850 L SUNFLOWER AVL
OANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA
December 2, 1965
Xr. Harvey L. Hurlburt, City ilanager,
City Hall, City of Newport Beach,
Newport Beach, California.
Dear Sir:
The following proposal is herewith submitted to the City of Newport
Beach by the undersigned, whose principal headquarters and offices are located
at the address indicated above, for the following purpose, to wit:- To acquire
by leasehold, that unimproved parcel of land, situated at the Southeast Corner
of Adams ,Avenue and Brookliurst, in the City of AuntirZton Beach, County of Orange,
State of California, the dimensions of said parcel being approximately 300' x 3001,
under the following gencral terms:
(1) I will enter into a leasehold acreement as lessee, with the City of
i?ewport Beach as lessor, coverin; tiie above described parcel of land,
for a term of twenty -five (25) y -arm, the rental of subject parcel
to be based upon six- percent (65) of the fair market value, said
fair zarket value to be determined by appraisal, or by such method
as would be fair and equitable to the parties concerned, and rental
to be paid to the City, either monthly, quarterly, or at the City's
Option.
(2) The City shall retain all right, title, and interest in and to the
oil, mineral, and water rights, and further, in the event of a water
emer -ency during the term of tlie' lease, the City shall have the right
to install underground facilities for the purpose of augmenting their
water supply, since it is not contemplated that any major improvement
will be erected on the subject parcel.
(3) I gill agree to take over and honor the contract or contracts present-
ly in force, by and between the City and the present lessees, relating
to the signs presently affixed on the subject parcel, until the period
of time as set forth in said contracts terminate.
Summary* I believe that the major aspects of this proposal such as: (a) rental
based on fair market value, (b) Retainment by City of oil, mineral
and water rights, (c) Water emergency clause, are the focal points
around which the City's interest revolves. There are, of course,
the usual standard clauses, concerning which I am sure will be
amicably resolved at a meeting which can be set at a date convenient
to you.
Looking forward to your early reply, I am,
Very respectfu your //,
a�1
1 K. Saki Oka
Realtor
COUNCIL ACREAGE, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
S TI : -n/ i l0 ` 4600 CAMPUS DRIVE - SUITE svx 200
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 82660
FI ) .e N(i � t ��.t Y COUNCIL y (714) e4• �a
.(sJwJ FW''JV�" G. �1�.� �i
v
DISPOSITION: i
AV
>u Mdtic� �C, 1969 ( L „
y �taEi. FILE:
Ctty o unt 1` Ui �:r t ;' c �' L z
Ctty of Newport4each Wit, I „} ; �
Ctty Hall _ J
Newport Beach, Californt
Gentlemen: Ewa ✓Gi;,n�i J4r
To my amazement and cha gran, I arrived home from a hard day at
my Realty 9,fftce, located to Newport Beach, to be confronted by
a headline to the Datly Ptlot that reads, "City Signs Ftrm To
Cash In On Properttes ". It could be shortened to read "Ftrm To
Cash In ". I am amazed at the Natvete of people to postttons of
public trust to enter Into contracts blindly and obltvtous to the
rights of other people concerned.
I. as well as many, many other Newport Beach Real Estate Brokers
have dealt to Real Estate to this area, have paid our business
tax, plus all other taxes, to the Ctty of Newport Beach, have
spent much of our earnings wtthtn the Ctty of Newport Beach and
have, over the years, done our best to Improve the Image of the
Ctty of Newport Beach, such as serving on ctvtc commtttees and
other commtttees wtthtn the Chamber of Commerce and other groups
for the tmprovement and betterment of the area, and I mtght add,
wtlltngly and without monetary compensation. Personally, I have
matntatned an offtce and residence to Newport Beach for over
sixteen years. I have dealt wtth a good many properties to the
Ctty, as have my colleagues. Furthermore, I have never heard
of a public body, supported by the electors and taxpayers, con -
tracttng wtth ONE farm to handle their properties for sale or
lease.
The newspaper article goes on to say that the contracting Real
Estate Firm has had an offtce to Corona Del Mar since 1961. It
fatled to mention that thts is merely a branch offtce of a main
offtce to Los Angeles County. What type of thtnktng could go
along wtth the Idea that one .firm could do a better ,job for the
Ctty than to Itst the properties wtth all Brokers and Brokerst
Offtces to Newport Beach, allowtng them the opportunity of sub -
mttttng sattsfactory offers to the Ctty of Newport Beach for
approval or rejectton. The article also states that this firm
has this client or that client. Would you believe all of the
cltents they mention happen to be cltents of all Brokers to Nero -
port Beach and elsewhere and tt mtght suprtse the Counctl to know
that the Real Estate Brokers to Newport Beach have other cltents
to their portfoltos that the contracting ftrm has never heard of.
Just what has thts "All powerful" ftrm done for the Ctty of New-
port Beach, compared to all of the other Real Estate ftrms to the
Ctty combined?
Realtor
ACREAGE, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
4800 CAMPUS DRIVE -. SUITwx2 200
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 82660
(714) 546-6414
PAGE 2.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Ctty of Newport Beach has
spent some Ctty funds for feastbtltty reports on the best us of
some of the properties tnvolved and then they hand a carte blanche
contract to one ftrm tnstead of an open sales listing to all
Brokers to Newport Beach.
It is my thinking and I belteve that of the majority of the Brokers
to thus area that tt is not necessarily the firm tnvolved, but
for ANY firm to receive such preferenttal treatment from a Ctty
Counctl is highly unethical. Personally, I regard this aotton
as wholly trregular to addttton to being unethical and creates
an extreme low for any governtng body. By virtue of this action,
tt would appear to elevate the contracttng firm to the htghest
posttton of Real Estate Sales and Servtce to the Ctty, whtch is
erroneous.
Stnce when has any professional been htred by the Ctty wtthout
ha vtng to prove thetr supertortty over all others? Stnce when
does the Ctty wrtte blank checks?
I would Itke to remind the Counctl that this is not your own
personal property tnvolved. .These properties belong to all of
the taxpayers, tncludtng all Real Estate Brokers Itcensed to do
business to the Ctty of Newport Beach.
Stnoerely,
Ru s FDRDY REALTOR �7
RF: of
cc: Newport Barbor -Costa
cc: Datly Ptlot
Mesa Board of Realtors
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .T. . .
t �
IX
...r
ry
I�n:��i. M'urkN IIirC¢I06
Ulhcr
r�r
LJ
i7
f
<:VUmill�ral ��� `�I
❑r
I
3. aA, y
(2 --W-41
warrem w. �bboms
real' estate investments
March 21, 1969
Co. COMMERCIAL • INDUSTRIAL . ACREAGE
City Council of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Gentlemen:
Suite 200 • University Plaza • 4500 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660 • (714) 546.9040
.i N.gr�CiTy �,, •. .�e '
The article in Wednesday's Daily Pilot on the exclusive list-
ing given to Coldwell Banker for various city properties is
sickening. The million dollar free publicity given to Cold -
well Banker has cost me thousands of untold dollars in future
commissions. The unwarranted prestige given that firm by vir-
ture of your unjust action and the extolling newspaper article
will affect many of my customers and potential customers deci-
sion on doing business with Coldwell Banker rather than me,
this you can be sure. You have elevated their reputation at
the expense of every Realtor in Newport Beach.
The damage you and the Daily Pilot have done to those in our
profession is appalling, inexcusable and shows the little re-
gard, and contempt you must hold for real estate businesses
in this city.
Yours very truly,
WARREN W. GIBBONS CO.
?; / i�
Warren W. Gibbons
WG /ad
COPIES SENT TO:
tlnn rl:er
1'lor net
1'uMli. Wr,k: Director
P inonlny lhi eou'
nOther
G
C�.�cW
`!
✓� 7ri
GL,%1
L�P�� r •. 7
i
( 4 Z � Lt I