HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS6 - Correspondence From City Manager Regarding Cliff Drive ParkCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
April 9, 1973
STUDY SESSION
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: CLIFF DRIVE PARK
Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the Parks, Beaches
and Recreation Director concerning Cliff Drive Park. As indicated
in the memo, additional information will be available at the study
session. I am sure the Council realizes, but it should be emphasized,
that the values as contained in the Director's memo are rough esti-
mates only. These figures are not based on any reliable appraisals.
The staff will be prepared to illustrate the parcels with
a map during the study session and further review this with the City
Council.
RLW : mm
Attachment
Qtvett (7wtsl,
ROBERT L. WYNN
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PARKS, BEACHES RECREATION DEPARTMENT
April 9, 1973
TO: ROBERT L. WYNN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PB F R Director
SUBJECT: CLIFF DRIVE PARK
Reference: Your memo of March 27, 1973
In preparation for a report to the City Council at the Study Session of April 9,
the following information is provided.
We have not been notified by the County as yet whether the $200,000 appropriated
by the County from Revenue Sharing Funds can be used for acquisition of the
church site or the six privately owned lots, or both. A meeting that had been
scheduled for this purpose on Friday afternoon of March 30th, was canceled by
the County. It is quite possible, however, that this question will be answered
prior to the 9th of April.
After two meetings with the new property owners of the six lots easterly of the
two City -owned lots, it is apparent that they do not wish to voluntarily sell,
but would rather build homes. This means that if the City acquired the lots,
it would have to be through the process of condemnation. I would guess that
the minimum cost per lot would be $75,000 now because of all the improvements
that have been made during the past year. The appraisal the City had done on
the lots is old and out of date. My guess is that the six lots would now have
an appraised value of a minimum of $450,000.
If the Badham Bill is successful, the church site, which is nearly twice the
size of the six lots, would be available for $420,000. The price per square
foot for the church site is $5.33, compared to an estimated 510.00 per square
foot for the six lots.
The PB F R staff is preparing some site plans for both the six lots and the
State property. These will be available at the next Council Study Session.
Perhaps the City Council can decide at that meeting whether to pursue acquisition
of the private lots or the State property. After the investigation that I have
done during the past week, I favor the State property for the following reasons:
1. The site would be available without the need for condemnation (subject
to the Badham Bill being successful.)
2. The cost per square foot would be half that of the six private lots.
3. The State property has a much larger flat area that could be developed
for usable park purposes.
CALVIN C. STEWART
CCS:dm