At a Newport Beach City ad hoc committee meeting, staff presented the city’s August request for proposals for Lower Castaways and said only one firm, Burnham Ward, submitted a response. Burnham Ward’s proposal described roughly 14,000 square feet of commercial space, replacement of the existing seawall and new public amenities; the developer estimated total project costs at just under $25 million with Burnham Ward covering about $7.4 million and the city covering the roughly $17.5 million balance. Staff’s pro forma projected annual gross revenues near $1.2 million, operating expenses of about $455,000 and a net operating income the presentation listed as roughly $740,000. Under the proposed lease terms, a 5% share of gross revenues would yield an estimated $60,000 a year to the city.

The presentation prompted questions about financial feasibility and procurement. “So the city puts in 17,000,000. He puts in their company puts in 7, and we get 60,000 a year,” a committee member said, summarizing the numbers staff had given. Committee members and staff noted the RFP was intentionally broad; several council members suggested a narrower approach or splitting the effort so the city provides infrastructure (stubbed pads and utilities) and private operators bid to build and operate smaller commercial uses.

Public commenters urged preserving water access and the park character. Resident Wade Womack said the site is “currently a city park” and warned that large-scale commercialization could crowd out public use; he also voiced concern about perceived conflicts of interest involving the developer. When Womack raised that perception, Mayor Stapleton responded directly: “It was not.” Other residents suggested a modest coffee kiosk or a small takeout vendor rather than a large restaurant, and some proposed a historical exhibit or small museum to honor the site’s founding role in Newport Beach.

Staff presented two city-led concepts developed with landscape architects. Option A includes a circular/roundabout parking layout with about 73 stalls, a restroom, playground and passive lawn; option B is a dead-end parking layout with roughly 75 stalls, shelters and similar amenities. Staff estimated all-in costs (construction, environmental work, permitting and soft costs) at about $16.4 million for option A and $15.9 million for option B. Dave Webb, who introduced the concepts, noted constraints including a major waterline easement and entitlement hurdles that could affect stairs or other bluff-face work.

Committee members debated scale and activation. Several members favored a hybrid model: city-built pads and parking with one larger restaurant pad (committee discussion referenced about 3,500 sq ft as a target) and a smaller coffee/takeaway pad near Pacific Coast Highway to provide morning and evening activation while preserving launch access in the mornings. Supporters argued that modest commercial components could increase long-term city revenue and shift maintenance obligations to operators; critics warned that a large restaurant and new parking demand would reduce space for hand-launch users and add traffic at peak times.

Seawall condition and cost were flagged as significant concerns. A public commenter noted Burnham Ward’s earlier proposal called for raising and replacing the seawall; staff and members said the seawall’s structural condition and any required height increase would be a major expense and need detailed study.

Rather than making a decision on awards or approvals, the committee directed staff to prepare a revised concept plan that incorporates the committee’s feedback — including stubbed pads for one or two commercial uses, parking adjustments, historical/interpretive elements and clearer RFP parameters — and to return to the committee with a site drawing and refined cost estimates at a follow-up meeting expected in mid-January. The committee also approved the consent item to accept the Sept. 18 minutes at the start of the meeting.

No formal action to award the site or to enter into an agreement with Burnham Ward was taken at this meeting. Staff and council members said a tighter scope and more-specific RFP or parallel RFPs for operators could attract more bidders and protect public access.

Next steps: staff will return with refined drawings addressing parking, entitlements, seawall assessment and an approach for pads/operators, then present the concept to the committee in mid-January.