HomeMy WebLinkAboutG-4 - Surplus 40.26 Acre City Property at West End of 19th Street�G V.G17,
,e (&2�;�rZAC4T - F NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NOV 8 1971 November 8, 1971
By 'the CITY COUNCIL Study Session Item 5
CITY OF k"WP nT' BEACH Agenda Item G4
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: SURPLUS 40.26 ACRE CITY PROPERTY AT WEST END OF 19th STREET
RECOMMENDATION:
Refer proposed mobilehome park site development standards report
to Planning Commission for study and endorsement.
DISCUSSION:
In January,1953, the City acquired title to the subject property
from Edrah Race Capron for use as a sanitary landfill for $35,000, utilizing
powers of eminent domain. From 1953 until approximatley 1965, the property
was utilized jointly with Sully Miller Contracting Company as a sanitary
landfill and sand and gravel borrow pit.
As a result of an April, 1966, study prepared by Engineering Science,
Inc. of Arcadia the City discontinued the landfill operating since this practice
depreciated the land value and a county operated landfill site was available
in Coyote Canyon. In August, 1968, a more detailed investigation was conducted
by Wilsey and Ham of Arcadia to determine the development potential of the site.
In April, 1967, the parcel was appraised by Cedric A. White, Jr, MAI, to
determine the fair market value and the highest and best.use of the property.
Mr. White established an approximate fair market value of $400,000 to $485,000,
or $10,000 to $12,000 per acre, based on a land lease for twenty -five years,
with all development burdens to be borne by the lessee.
The results of these combined studies led to the conclusion that
the City should dispose of the property since it was surplus to municipal
needs. A detailed staff evaluation of potential uses of the property was
presented to the City Council on September 25, 1970, as part of a thorough
review of municipally owned real estate. The City Council, by unanimous
action, instructed the City staff to prepare specifications for disposition
of the property with the sale to be conducted by the City staff. Proposals
- 2 -
were presented for lease or City development and operation of the site as a
mobilehome park similar to the Marinapark. However, the City Council deter-
mined that it wished to dispose of the property on a fee - simple basis.
City regulations are not in existence governing the construction
of mobilehome parks. The surplus landfill property is now zoned unclassified.
Parks are permitted in C -1, C -2 and the UL or unclassified districts, subject
to the securing of a Use Permit.
In order to attract maximum investor interest in the property, it
was determined to be advisable to prepare a set of site development standards
which would first meet City approval before being submitted to prospective
purchasers. Upon Council authorization, the City entered into an agreement
with Development Design Associates of Costa Mesa for the preparation of these
standards. They should be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and report. While there may be other uses to which the property could be put,
it would be advisable to first explore this alternative since it appears to
represent the highest and best use and would be a compatible land use for
the neighborhood.
Upon further study, the City may also wish to indicate to prospec-
tive purchasers its willingness to consider detachment of the property and
annexation to the City of Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa County Water District
and Costa Mesa Sanitary District can provide services to the property and it is
contiguous to the City of Costa Mesa on three sides. These should be matters
which the potential purchaser can evaluate.
It may be possible to offer the property for sale within sixty days,
based on Planning Commission concurrence with the proposed standards.
P'6'J ;L. w
ROBERT L. WYNN
RLW:PFB:sh
cc: City of Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Costa Mesa County Water District
Sanitation Districts of Orange County
September 27, 1971
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
I. ADVANTAGES
1. Large revenue source
2. Requires a low level of municipal services.
3. A well planned development could create a park -like
atmosphere along Santa Ana. River, additional beach
parking and improved Water circulation in the
Greenville- Banning channel.
4. Fulfill a basic power need.
5. Possible sale for 40 acre city -owned dump site.
II. DISADVANTAGES
1. Standard ecological arguments and inherent opposition
to nuclear power plant.
2. Thermal pollution*
3. Proximity to Newport - Inglewood fault.
4. High concentration of overhead power lines and
switching gear.
5. In July of 1965 the City Council by Resolution No. 6202
opposed a nuclear powered plant easterly of Corona del Mar..
*According to some scientists, thermal pollution may
be an advantage.
seph T� evlin
blic Wbrk Director
D /bg
September 27, 1971
Page Two
Subject: Nuclear Power Plant
Attached are copies of a brochure showing the reactor of Gulf General
Atomic that Mr. Randolph claims to be the best one available on
today's market.
Also attached are some "pro" and "con" arguments prepared by the staff
before the meeting with Mr. Randolph.,
The staff has contacted Southern California Edison regarding their
position. They are maintaining a conservative position of neutrality.
Edison does agree with Mr. Randolph in the seriousness of the power
shortage.
Mr. Randolph would like very much to have the city's reactions. His
mailing address is P. 0. Box 845, Corona del Mar 92625; telephone
(213) 463 -8058.
This material is for Council information only and is not intended to
be an agenda item.
L
ROBERT L. WYNN
RLW:JTD /bg
Atts.
- e
IA40
A n a / -.. `-- JCS -��� �.I `i 1 °�.�.�l��f�; ".✓+
Rt �if 1
�i. rl � yc��. g i,1 _ j_ i _` � �I`1�,,.•_ ,�. �%_ s � AU ,- �1 - -�.�
L t s t
ill �`�,�_: ��-� � , ✓•C ���\'�� Q •\ ; '� S ! r°/ —•�'l j �� ✓
� � 1
o
4
Qg
!
1