HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 1965-1967r�
4
Mr. John A. Blaich
2601 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Blaich:
- August 10, 1966
The City Council at their meeting of August 8th, considered
your proposal to buy the 124.02 square foot piece of proper-
ty located behind your parcel at 1315 East Balboa Boulevard.
I am pleased to report that the Council acted with favor on
your request and authorized the staff to prepare an agree-
ment of sale.
We will be in contact with you in the near future when the
necessary paper work has been drawn up to transfer ownership
of this property to your name.
JPD /mjc
cc: City Attorney Tully Seymour
Sincerely,
JAMES P. DE CHAINE
Administrative Assistant to the
City Manager
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
is
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
August 8, 1966
SUBJECT: SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO JOHN A. BLAICH
DISCUSSION
Ij
On January 11, 1965 the City Council authorized a Charter Amendment
to sell the small 124 square foot triangular parcel of City -owned waterfront
property located southerly of the westerly 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 22, East
Side Addition to the Balboa Tract (behind 1315 East Balboa Boulevard) presently
owned by John A. Blaich (please see attached sketch). This sale was of course
approved by the voters in April, 1966.
Mr. Blaich has offered to purchase this 124 square foot parcel for
$1,188.00. This consideration is based on a unit valuation of $9.58 per
square foot, the same square footage valuation for which an adjacent parcel
was sold in August, 1963.
As the City Council agreed on January 11, 1965 to sell this parcel
to Mr. Blaich, pending voter approval of the sale, and since Mr. Blaich is
the only logical party to which this property should be sold, it seems that
the amount becomes the point in question. Mr. Blaich first offered to buy
the property in December, 1963. Because he had to wait before the City was
in a position to sell the parcel legally, it is his contention that he should
not be penalized by having to pay more than the property was worth at the time
of his initial offer.
This argument has some merit. Furthermore, his offer of $9.58 per
square foot is very reasonable. It is possible that if the small City parcel
were formally appraised it might not, standing alone, have as high a valuation
as the $1,188.00 he has offered.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City sell the property in question to
Mr. Blaich for $1,188.00, but require that he pay for all incidental closing
and recording costs connected thereto.
=Y L. HURLBURT
HLH /JPD /mjc
l a s •
June 22, 1966
E
r�
r.-
Mr. H. L. Hurburt,
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Hurburt:
At the suggestion of Mr. Seymour and Mr. Monson of your staff,
I am offering to purchase 124.02 square feet of the city owned
uplands, approved by the voters as Proposition 13 on the last
election, for a total consideration of $1,188.00.
This consideration is based upon the following:
1. A figure of $9.58 per square.
2. The property next door was transferred in August, 1963
(Escrow #202- 2071B, Bank of America, Newport Beach) at a
price of $31,000 less $8,000 for the improvements - -or
approximately $9.58 per square foot.
It is noted that I contacted the City Attorney with an offer to
purchase the small triangle in December, 1963. On January 11,
1965, the City Council agreed to sell the property to me, if
the voters approved. This was approved in the April, 1966
election. Thus, I believe it is fair to base the selling price
on 1963 values as the three -year delay was caused by circum-
stances beyond my control.
Very truly yours,
rr
J� ohn A. Blaich�
2601 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, California
JAB:ml
cc: Mr. Seymour, City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
Mr, C. Monson, Asst, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
•
June 22, 1966
Mr. H. L. lblrburt,
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Hurburt:
At the suggestion of Mr. Seymour and Mr. Monson of your staff,
I am offering to purchase 124.02 square feet of the city owned
uplands, approved by the voters as Proposition 13 on the last
election, for a total consideration of $1,188.00.
This consideration is based upon the following;
1. A figure of $9.58 per square.
2. The property next door was transferred in August, 1963
(Escrow 02$31,000 1B, Bank of America, N - -or
Newport Beach) at a
price approximately $9.58 per square foot.
It is noted that I contacted the City Attorney with an offer to
purchase the small triangle in December 1963. on January 11,
1965, the City Council agreed to sell Ue property to if
the voters approved. This was approved in the April 1966
election. Thus, I believe it is fair to base the selling price
on 1963 values as the three -year delay was caused by circum-
stances beyond my control.
Very truly yours,
John A. Blaich ''
2601 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, California
JAB; ml
cc: Mr. Seymour, City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
Mr. C. Monson, Asst. City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
August 8, 1966
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO JOHN A. BLAICH
7) TgrttgqTnu
On January 11, 1965 the City Council authorized a Charter Amendment
to sell the small 124 square foot triangular parcel of City -owned waterfront
property located southerly of the westerly 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 22, East
Side Addition to the Balboa Tract (behind 1315 East Balboa Boulevard) presently
owned by John A. Blaich (please see attached sketch). This sale was of course
approved by the voters in April, 1966.
Mr. Blaich has offered to purchase this 124 square foot parcel for
$1,188.00. This consideration is based on a unit valuation of $9.58 per
square foot, the same square footage valuation for which an adjacent parcel
was sold in August, 1963.
As the City Council agreed on January 11, 1965 to sell this parcel
to Mr. Blaich, pending voter approval of the sale, and since Mr. Blaich is
the only logical party to which this property should be sold, it seems that
the amount becomes the point in question. Mr. Blaich first offered to buy
the property in December, 1963. Because he had to wait before the City was
in a position to sell the parcel legally, it is his contention that he should
not be penalized by having to pay more than the property was worth at the time
of his initial offer.
This argument has some merit. Furthermore, his offer of $9.58 per
square foot is very reasonable. It is possible that if the small City parcel
were formally appraised it might not, standing alone, have as high a valuation
as the $1,188.00 he has offered.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City sell the property in question to
Mr. Blaich for $1,188.00, but require that he pay for all incidental closing
and recording costs connected thereto.
RVEY L. HURLBURT
HLH /JPD /mjc
=i
I.
•
O
BALBOA
7
/V 70010'00 "W
,J
m
BL vo.
30' -1�- /0
✓ .V U 2 t2
Q M.M. 4/2q O
II
LOT 8 I LOT
�R 00
: -- rRyE Poo
o j %✓r
CITE' NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY C) ,dIlfED F'ROPER-Ty
P.zYG 62� A�
.J JeA
0
RIO
OF E
rI
J
�J
wl
NOTE
REFfkENGE'% .PECORD 0� SURREY
600,e 80 04456c 46
DRAWN 41M DATE GC-;
APPROVED ' l
ASST: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E, NO 122q06
DRAWING NO. RIW' 5087-1,
N 70 ° /0'00 �W
30`
7
/V 70010'00 "W
,J
m
BL vo.
30' -1�- /0
✓ .V U 2 t2
Q M.M. 4/2q O
II
LOT 8 I LOT
�R 00
: -- rRyE Poo
o j %✓r
CITE' NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY C) ,dIlfED F'ROPER-Ty
P.zYG 62� A�
.J JeA
0
RIO
OF E
rI
J
�J
wl
NOTE
REFfkENGE'% .PECORD 0� SURREY
600,e 80 04456c 46
DRAWN 41M DATE GC-;
APPROVED ' l
ASST: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E, NO 122q06
DRAWING NO. RIW' 5087-1,
Inde.r
Y OF NEWT:
+
Nov;, ..... 2-7, 190
3. 1'ne- ,. _- interim audit : _port
independent 9itors, Stotsenberi�.
`,or the per _+ July 1, 1967 to dais-
i their exami:..c. -.n -disclosed no except l( .. st
Mo
,ity's financ.ia re:::. -is rdrr
as examined, a.<.
� received and vrc'crvd fifa4.
i
ADDITION.-i..- BUSINESS:
! 1, rr +: tanager .. ae authorized t0
`lvfwn
tGY t!n 1";-:Chase of ^71 d1:.:e lor fFi .'" `.�i
Aa=
t-'An ut v .t, Hall.
( A'
_. Changes in scope of wort. -_* rc.
I
! ° :+1ect t;._onstruct new *_: �' o�.. ;. - - t,ne ±rurtl
: king 1 )t at East Bay Avcn .ce an %! t ,gt._:n Stre
t
e appro =red; such char—es 'o p :3vj& a perm•
Motion
- -en- o-est room with additional ,:td
Ayes'
arc:air . .ural treatment to thr site a:, st awn t in P4:•
hse;:' I
i' No. ! dated November 47, 1967 asp epai ^ed +1,= the
i
Cit- staff and with estimated additional cost to the
project to be $3, 000; and the City staff was dirt�cted
to .v:irk with the Balboa merchants assut-iatior, in
determining the most appropriate parking; lot
r,peration and report back to the City C, arteil with
f.
staff recommen"tione at a subsequent instating.
!
I
3. The staff was authorized to install a five. `os: :L asphalt
ms M.:
i s deu•alk along the north aide and the nest aide of the
j+ Ayes
lifeguard Headquarters to *.he new steps to the
pier, and such work is to be accoinpt s eni bV Laity
crews within the existing budget, not t,e:ceed $500.
BUI)GF :7 AMF* DMF—NTS:
i
1. The folioeeiiig Budget Amci:dmentt .vr.ra :;ppr- -:ved:
Lion
C -34, $679. 25 increase in Budget Appropriatior.F and
i 3,..+ .. t
a decrease in Unappropriated Surplus sO. extra
I
`.6 tc
.8 In connection ith _.. n ^D6ra Py
architectural services si
i
office building behind City Hall.
C -7, $900 transfer of Budget Appropnat ?oa for
drapes for portable building behir.A o :
Unaapropriated Contingency ii.eservc to Zu13e
Appropriations, Custodial and P. S.' rot+ :i a n
:
jFixtures.
O
C1
0
0
ti
13
0
E. - 7
r.
DATE: 7 -24 -67
im
SEE CA 49
0
SUB,7ECT: Ltr dated July 17, 1967 from the
lrvine 'Terrace Home Uwnel5 HSSOClatlon
Board Directors stating they are for t]
expanded use of Irvine Terrace Park
Win lmits oF-Gr—a-nT-DFeE was re erred
to staff
SUBJECT: Parks, Beaches and Recreation (ltr filed under)
i !
CA 38
SUBJECT: Ir rinn Torrare pa�pk np6ai R,g&tP G ions
Matter referred to staff to work
with Association & come back to
am
SEE CA 49 PB &R (Filed Under)
- ?�
iCA
SUBJECT: Request for entrance sign for
DATE: 6 -26 -67
RE: Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association
SEE C a "mac 7 J r
SUBJECT:
Irvine Terrace was approved and
PWD authorized issue an encroachment
permit in accordance with plot plan
submitted.
6 0 Cn 3.V
City Clerk
February 20, 1967
CITY ATTORNEY
City Clerk
Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 6511 which authorizes
the execution of a Grent Deed to John A. Blaich and a certified
copy of Resolution No. 6510 which finds subject property unsuitable as
a public beach or park.
Also enclosed is an executed original and one copy of Grant Deed by
which the City grants such property to John A. Blaich.
I understand that it is now the policy to have the City record deeds
in which the City is the Grantor as the Grantee so often does not
follow through and does not send us the recording_ information. Will
you either see that subject deed is recorded, or return to our office
for handling.
LL:ih
Att:
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
February 10, 1967
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
Subject: Sale of City property to John A. Blaich
On August 8, 1966, the City Council authorized the sale of a
small triangular parcel of real property located on the Balboa
Peninsula southerly of Balboa Boulevard between E and F Streets
to John A. Blaich, the owner of the adjoining lot. Since the
property being sold is adjacent to the beach, it is technically
waterfront property and, therefore, a charter amendment was
necessary to authorize the sale. Such a charter amendment was
approved by the voters at the election in April, 1966.
Before opening an escrow to complete the sale, it will be neces-
sary to have the Council adopt the two resolutions which appear
on the agenda, the first being a resolution pursuant to Govern-
ment Code Section 37351 finding that the property being sold is
not suitable for use as a public beach or park, and the second,
a resolution authorizing execution of a deed conveying the
property to Mr. Blaich. The first resolution requires six af-
firmative votes for approval.
THS:mec
cc City Manager
City Clerk
Public Works Director
Finance Director
T (l S e
Tully ly Se
W( ymo�
City Attorney
COUNCIL:
-J� 6 `1
fit - � s"/ C
FILE:9_� itl
To:
From:
Subject:
i •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPAR NT
City Clerk
City Attorney
February 10, 1967
Sale of City property to John A. Blaich
Transmitted are the following:
1. A resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, will
find that the City property being sold to John A. Blaich
is not suitable for use as a public beach or park.
2. The original and two copies of a Grant Deed by which the
City conveys the subject property to John A. Blaich.
3. A resolution which,, if adopted by the City Council, will
authorize the execution of the Grant Deed.
You will note that it will require six affirmative votes of the
City Council to adopt the resolution described in item 1.
Following execution of the Grant Deed, it should be returned to
us, together with a certified copy of each of the attached reso-
lutions, in order that we may proceed to complete the sale of
the property to Mr. Blaich.
THS :mec
Atts.
cc - City Manager
Public Works Director
Finance Director
T r torne
JUUdt ;IL:
DI$�0SIT10JV-
1
C e 3,P
L_
NOTICE.IS HER! N that the
Amendment is;:, :ta'` voted on at the, W"W1,_
consolidated with tie jtatevide #mneral'44
held to the City af-Ne
w"M-4aCh on Teas
Novamber, 19661 - �
The Charter ` t is a
City Charter` -4f the City of Nstiport 86ichs by a i
1402(a), to read
Notwithstand
City Council may
owned property fr
follows :.
That portion
South Ran�gge
mridlan,.in
of Or S
the offL
Dated:
Blocks 222 and
as per map reci
Miscellaneous 1
Recorder of sa'
prolongations
Block 223 of s,
line of Lot l i
In Book 24, pal
Ws."
a+v� low-
Li@2, the
of City_ _
bed as
_A
CAR /niz
11-30-66
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
C OUNTY OF ORANGZ
DEC a I r a
on
19 �f -*� before am, the
--t9te, personally r4
Public in and for said County �&M
known to zns� t . 0 be the vice PreaW*
X S- P-r-rFL known to =*..to be the Assisti
THE IRVINE COMPANY, the a that e3iocuted the
went and known to rne to ba the,
1008 WhO executed tk*.v
on behalf of said corporation, a owledyed to aw: mat
executed the within instrument pit t.to its itawtt
Board of Directors.
STATE OF CALIFOgr"
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On Doc - 13
1%blic in and for said County an&,,ft
r.c.sarr on known to nail
.known to M
HOMES, INC., the corporation thig
_a tame ..to bgL the pirlona wh&A
of said corporation. end &cknow"'-
the within instrument pursuant tGA,
of Directors.
WITNESS my hand anCtWdal" - 4C
My Com"
me, the no
personally.
�P*
04d—** wil
o rA* that a
19"d, a Notary
-4 Wt YL
sac
t and
aft IN
4'
j]
SUr 194-AZMN
Notary Towle
I.:
State of CaMer"la.
PrInCIP11 Offfte In:
Orr-n-, County
My Com"
me, the no
personally.
�P*
04d—** wil
o rA* that a
19"d, a Notary
-4 Wt YL
sac
t and
aft IN
4'
N
_ _ a t t�. •rte
Honorable City Council,
City of Newport Beach, California.
Gentlemen and Mrs. Marshall:
4
December 21, 1966
1 �
I feel that I must register a protest to the different treat-
ment given to the Balboa Bay Club in contrast to that usually ,given
to smaller builders, developers, and subdividers. I refer of course
to the recently negotiated settlemet giving the club a variance in
return for agreeing to pay for one -third the cost of a sidewalk
across the front of the club.
C- /� -_? Y
Normal practice in this city has been for the Planning Commission
to require the property owners to pay all of the cost of full improve-
ments in connection with lot- splits, subdivisions, resubdivisions, or
anything else they can think of, such as variances.
I feel no particular animosity towards the Balboa Bay Club, but
I do feel they have a tremendous advantage over competing clubs in
the low rent they pay to the city. I believe that they pay about
$80,000 per year in rent, whereas if one assumes the true cash value
of the land exclusive of improvements to be at least $5 million, it
seems that the city should be entitled to 6% per year on the value
of the land, or $300,000 per year. No doubt the club has an unbreak-
able lease which I must assume was negotiated in good faith, but at
the same time they have the ability to pay for sidewalk and street
lights, and the City Council has means at its disposal to force the
improvements.
l Li
Sincerely
aresand
883 Dover Drive,
Newport Beach
�\yY RECEIVED Ns(,,)
I
iiir j7 7,: C
�..{ �UPJ
CIN OF
• i
SUBJECT: Grant Deed, Lots B & C, Tr 3357
DATE: 12 -27 -66
the owner,
$E: Grant Deed from The Irvine Ccnpany/ SimUyHrmPC Tnn_ and yarioug other
lessees , by which Lots B & C of Tract 3357 are granted to City.
SEE
SUBJECT: ��%
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
T
December 22, 1966
l:r 3
To: City Clerk
From: City Attorney
Subject: Resolution accepting a grant deed
Transmitted is the original grant deed executed by The Irvine
Company, the owner, and Sunny Homes, Inc. and various other
lessees, by which Lot "B" and Lot "C" of Tract No. 3357 are
granted to the City.
The attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council, will
accept the grant deed and authorize its recording.
Preparation of these documents was directed by the City Council
at their meeting on December 12. /
TU14 H. Seymour
City Attorney
THS:aem
Attachs.
cc - City Manager
Public Works Director
P B & R Director
evJ
F-1Y".14: (711V '-Linager
Shores A ration n Board of Directors, in-1-962 i,Nuvsted the.
Citv ri
gardein,� :'Jifitenance of their landscap-
the "j'�: T'. !n th. C ed ar-;i -id,iacent to
�ikcordance with e lilkhway
Pojic}'. Thek-
at that time that tie area in
T11C t
reta 4 nc-') in ctmel,! Company and, sikce
it I-I'as
to the City j 0'-Olwy purpose.5', City Paitic,pation vas
On A-tober 3, 19fiti formal request was made to: 7 the City co,ulcij tjo
-accept Zhe offer of The lrviwCompany of lots B and Cii.-Tract 3357, and fjj.---r'
asstlm9e -naintenance of that pnri1on of 0 -Arrterial paTNa),, permitted bl�
y VW'
ArT e r�,:,; !69h;i;ay Park-wiv T3Y Cot requested -,as.�&ffi led.
7F
.e as the existlng-s'prihkl* system could be converted to a
IMIil SL;ch tome —901 action, the
clock-operated automatic sx,stem.
Pecent1v the Cowain ! -v
I M , Agsociat i on converted the system to automatic
arif IN IrVl!',e Cornp�,my has -r-'ai*#ffered lots B and C to the City right-
t
;-Irposes' and he -' V 5 1 S
A sociation is requesting a ance
uest,
tt-.,e maintenance of lal'L'SLdping in the arterial parkway•
616e recommend acceptance of both lots as indiciatid on the Attached
map and further, that the City accept. maintenance of the portion. -9 Cap-
Ing aS per-atteA by the Arterial Highway Parkivay Policy. Labor c pf- I ands
the s,nb'�' square feet will ts for
11 he $4SO.00 annually and the water cost . to the
City ',:III be approximately $50.00. z. -
HU i: rxr.
Ly
Y
-Y "t.— .47
HARVEY L. HLTRLBuRT
j P
0 i
SUBJECT: Lease of iparkinv_ snaces
DATE: 11 -28 -66
$E: Lido Shops Association lease for use of D ra king 5PAa g in front of city Hxii
SEE
SUBJECT: CA-79
GLSeptember 12, 1966
TO: CITY MANAGER .c' ^iatiA2!c.T2�acri G+t ewe
FROM: Administrative Assistant_ to the City Manager
SUBJECT: SALE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF
BAY AVENUE BETWEEN 18th & 19th STREETS ((��
v
DISCUSSION:
The City has been leasing a portion of the above mentioned property to Mrs.
Josephine Fulton since May 1, 1953, and another portion to Mr. and Mrs. G. H. Sullivan
from March 1, 1952, until September 23, 1964, at which time Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Straub
took over the Sullivan lease. Both leases continue to date on a month -to -month basis at
$12.50 per month each. Both Mrs. Fulton and the Straub's own adjacent property on the
South of the respective parcels they are leasing from the City. (See attached drawing)
The City Council expressed a desire to sell this property on February 25, 1963,
and the voters subsequently approved a Charter Amendment to sell the property on April 14,
1964. On March 24, 1965, Norman W. Fleming and Ralph P. Maskey appraised the property and
found the fair market value to be $24,250; Mr. Fleming has recently informed us that the
value today is essentially the same as it was at that time, primarily due to property values
in this area remaining fairly constant in the last two years and the pattern of the current
real estate market.
While this property could be sold and developed in its entirety as one parcel,
it being zoned R -4 and containing 2,199 square feet, to allow the property to be so
developed would tend to overcrowd the hand and, with the required setbacks, would result in
the development of an undesirable structure. For example: Assuming maximum development,
existing zoning permits a duplex (one dwelling unit allowed per every 800 square feet) with
minimum four -foot sideyard, ten -foot rear yard, and three -foot front yard setbacks. The
area would be further decreased by the two required 9 feat by 20 foot garage spaces, leaving
little livable area on the ground floor and thus probably resulting in a three -story
structure with dwelling units on the second and 'third stories. The Planning Department
concurs that it would be better to create two larger lots than allow the existing lot to be
overbuilt by an intense development, resulting in a low quality structure being placed on
the property.
I have also checked with the existing two lessees and several other property
owners in the area in.an attempt to ascertain their :interest in the property. There is
complete unanimity among the property owners in the area contacted, that the present lessees
should have first option to purchase the respective parcels adjacent to their properties..
If the City did sell the property in this manner, a logical straight projection
of the property lines from Vilelle Place to Bay Avenue would result in a 1,176 square foot
parcel being sold to the Straubs and the remaining 1,023 square foot parcel to Mrs. Fulton.
The respective sale prices to each, assuming a square footage valuation on the basis of the
1965 appraisal values, would be $12,968 for the Straubs and $11,282 for Mrs. Fulton. Both
parties acknowledge this to be a fair and acceptable arrangement. This action would also
necessitate favorable action to resubdivide the property by the Planning Commission, This
could be accomplished at their October 6 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council by motion authorize the City Manager to negotiate the sale of
the property as outlined above, subject to the property being resubdivided in accordance
with the description on the attached drawing Number M- 5077 -L.
JAMES P, DE CHAINS
JPD:jdc
cc City Attorney
Planning Director
;f
BA Y A ICE.
CAsL
7"R air, R147W t,) :tn .10
33
3
149Z 0 CA'. le.9 SeC 7-YCIV
0)
ZYt=.4 C
P14 4.0 PI-4C46
S 7-,40A Z/,C . - - - - /) 1--reo. -'91,od= .
,o='Zll— 770 A/. AO 0.5.
/7 .,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Cl 7"* Y *0AP04ARANA? r10
f/ - 40A Y - 44 MiCAMIAW
DATE
KS DIRECTOR
R.E. NO.
ROBERT C. SULLY - -
ibYi VRVL[ AVENUE
F
!, CALIFORNIA
September l0 �: RECEIVED
9b. CITY CLERK 9
Honorable. Mayor and SEPI 1966 ► —
city Council'Memb'ers £ CITY OF
Newport Beach City Hai;9;- NtWPORT DFAGM
Newport. Beach, 'aliforxsia
Gentlemen:
I request your oonsideratlon to lease property
Cosd'at the xegtern
In CostaSesa
terminus. Ninete$nth Street
In . $9ie approximate forty acres is
existing dump side. yob
,
The Pui`posV of this lease would, be to establish a
mobile howing.trk;''. The proposed park is slated to include
the.folloxings'
a .recreat.ior► hall
COUNGI ressing rooms
Lt sx�ing...pool -and d
shuffle -board coyrts"
"6 4 a pitch and Putt golf course k putting green
DIS SITION: a, club house containing a. card room; ,television,
'library, and kitchen and laundry facilities
FILE: architectural landscaping, possibly to 1nolude
a small bass pond
a siz foot:_concre,te_ block wall around .property
At this time, 2 anticipate a cost of some. X700;000;
to the investora..?My proposal to, YOU .is a 20 -year lease
at 80o.00 per month for. -the first. ten years, .with there
being an i..'t ti.1 . ause,for each five-year period
thereafter, tied to the cost of living'indez.
The area at present contains 'some sand, dlrt, and
gravel that can be.'sold before- 'profiling the '.
My proposal..tn you for this material property,:
'be r 20 per
cubic yard; xould
2`will Pay all'property taxes.
! "am; available for oons>dyeeybr1nat tygyr. oonven aitce
I respectfully submit these proposals to you for
consideration. HoPing. --to hear from YOU regarding these
matters.,.! re ;in"
Yours...
Robert,'.. C; .Sall
Y.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
August 8, 1966:
TO:
CITY MANAGER
FROM:
Administrative Assistant
to the City
Manager
SUBJECT: VALUATION AND PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR LEASING CITY -OWNED PROPERTY
AT BROOKHURST AND ADAMS
DISCUSSION
On April 25th the City Council authorized this office to enter into
an agreement with Tait Appraisal Company for the appraisal of the above -men-
tioned property in Huntington Beach.
The property has been appraised and a thorough analysis of the appraisal
report reveals that the appraisal was very comprehensive and well done. The
appraiser has indicated the fair market value of the parcel to be $258,000,
considerably higher than our preliminary estimate of $150,000.
Broken down into two separate parcels, the appraisal report indicates
that the most northwesterly portion of the property, measuring 22,500 square
feet, has a value of $135,000. This assumes a service station as the highest
and best use of the corner section of the property. The remaining area of
61,500 square feet has a valuation of $123,000.
Assuming a minimum annual lease rental of six per cent (6 %) of the
fair market value, the gas station site could yield at least $675 per month
and the remaining area at least $615 per month, or a combined minimum rental
of $1,290 per month. These revenues could be increased periodically in accor-
dance with the local consumer price index, or by some other appropriate method.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the staff to call
for twenty -five year lease bid proposals for portions of, or the entire parcel.
The attached sketch indicates the separate portions of the property for which
interested parties would submit bids. These bids, in turn, would be analyzed
by the staff and the highest and best use(s) would be recommended to the
Council for approval. Lease agreements would then be formulated and entered
into between the City and those lessees the Council approves. This procedure
will allow the City to consummate new lease agreements to take effect upon
the expiration of the existing lease with Columbia Outdoor Advertising and
thus allow for the full potential of this property to be realized.
JPD /mjc
JAMES P. DE CHAINE
I.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PPOPtc-"PTY FOle LEASE
.4r 11vrc?scmo# og �wookwensr pi-Aamos
IAI AIVAMMSMAI 6EAC.Al
ZdZ— GATE
r�
WORKS DIREM
R.E. NO.U-'2
(7.S070-
Udial:
To:
From:
Subject
•
Q
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City Attorney
July 18, 1966
Removal of encroachments from Seashore Drive
On July 26, 1965, a report was presented to the City Council con-
cerning various encroachments into the right of way of Seashore
Drive within the area of the proposed improvement project between
55th and Orange Streets At that time the City Council directed
the staff to take action to clear the encroachments from the right
of way. Pursuant to this authorization the Public Works Depart-
ment notified each of the eighteen property owners to remove the
encroachments in front of his property. To date only three prop-
erty owners have complied with the City's request. We have
apparently reached an impasse in our efforts to obtain voluntary
removal of the remaining encroachments and it appears that legal
action will be necessary to complete their clearance from the
right of way. The purpose of this report is to acquaint the City
Council with the legal issues involved.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
A. Original Tract Maps.
The lots fronting on Seashore Drive within the project area were
originally laid out on two subdivision tract maps. The first
tract to be filed was the Ocean Front Tract. It was approved in
1905 and included the lots fronting on Seashore Drive between 48th
and 61st Streets. On the tract map a 10 -foot -wide strip is shown
which appears to be an alley, abutting the lots between 56th and
61st Streets. The second tract to be filed was the Seashore
Colony Tract which was approved in 1911. The tract map included
the lots fronting on Seashore Drive between 61st and Summit
Streets and shows a 15- foot -wide strip designated "Drive Way"
abutting the lots fronting on Seashore Drive. All of the en-
croachments in question are located within the two strips as shown
on the original tract maps.
B. Subsequent Street Improvements.
The City's records indicate that the first significant street im-
provements constructed by the City along the present Seashore
Drive right of way occurred in 1931. This work was done pursuant
•
To- The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
0
-2- July 189 1966
to an assessment district formed under the provisions of the Im-
provement Act of 1911 and involved the widening and improvement
of Seashore Drive between 37th Street and the westerly City
boundary. An additional 20 feet of right of way was acquired by
the City from the Pacific Electric Ry. Co. by condemnation in con-
nection with the assessment district proceeding (City of Newport
Beach v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co., et al, Superior Court No. 28144).
The following language appears in the Resolution of Intention to
order the work under the assessment district:
"For all purposes of this proceeding that certain alley
15 feet in width lying northeasterly of and adjacent to
Blocks 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 as shown upon a map of the
Ocean Front Tract recorded in Book 4, Page 12 of Miscel-
laneous maps records of Orange County, California, and
that certain alley 15 feet in width lying northeasterly
of and adjacent to Blocks 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F',
'G', 'H', °I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M' and 'N' as shown upon a
map of the Seashore Colony Tract recorded in Book 7, Page
25 of miscellaneous maps, records of said County, are
herein referred to and designated as Seashore Drive, and
the name thereof is hereby declared to be and established
as Seashore Drive and so referred to." (P. 5, Resolution
of Intention No. 702, dated August 12, 1931.)
II. LEGAL ISSUES.
A. Was the right of way claimed by the City dedicated for public
street purposes
Generally, there are two kinds of dedication of private land to
public uses Those made under controlling principles of common
law, and those made pursuant to the provisions of a specific
statute. Streets within a subdivision may be dedicated either by
compliance with the requirements of the subdivision map act or by
what is known as a common law dedication. At the time the Board
of Supervisors approved the two tract maps with which we are con-
cerned, the applicable law was the Subdivision Act of 1893 as
amended in 1901 which provided in part-
"Section 3. The map or plat so made, acknowledged and
certified shall be presented to the governing body having
control of the streets, roads, alleys and highways in the
territory shown on the map or plat, and said governing
body shall endorse thereon which streets, roads, alleys,
and highways offered by said map or plat, they accept on
0
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council -3- .duly 189 1966
behalf of the public, and thereupon such streets, roads,
alleys, and highways, only as have been thus accepted,
shall be and become dedicated to public use. .... '
The Map for the Ocean Front Tract, approved by the Board of Super-
visors in 1905, does not contain an endorsement of acceptance of
any of the streets, roads and alleys shown on the map. The Map
of the Seashore Colony Tract, approved by the Board of Supervisors
in 1911, does contain such an endorsement accepting "streets,
alleys and avenues shown thereon as public highways ". Clearly,
as to the Ocean Front Tract there was not a statutory dedication
of the 10 -foot strip shown on the map.
With respect to the Seashore Colony Tract there is some doubt as
to whether there was a statutory dedication of the 15 -foot strip
designated "Drive Way" on the map. The usual meaning of the term
drive way is that of a private road, but it is also defined in the
dictionary as "a public road for driving" (Webster's Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary). Although the endorsement of acceptance
did not specifically refer to drive ways, it is more probable than
not that a court would find that there was a statutory dedication.
Aside from the question of statutory dedication, we are of the
opinion that the two right of way strips were dedicated for public
street purposes under the rules of common law dedication. The act
of a landowner in filing for record a map of land showing it sub-
divided into defined areas separated by roads or streets will
normally operate as an express offer to dedicate to public use.
Flavio v. McKenzie, 218 C.A. 2d 549. Acceptance of a common law
dedication may be y formal act or by user. Upon acceptance, the
dedication becomes complete and irrevocable, and it cannot be im-
paired by delay in the public use of the dedicated land. Archer
v. Salinas, 93 C. 43. By showing the two right of way strips�on
t eitract maps, we believe that the owners of the tracts evidenced
an offer to dedicate. the right of way for street purposes. Our
conclusion that the City accepted the offers of dedication is based
on the following evidence-
1. Field Survey. In 1930 the City conducted a survey of the West
Newport area. __T Fe surveyors' field notes indicate that a 15 -foot-
wide alley was in use at that time which extended along the present
alignment of Seashore Drive between Summit and Cypress Streets
(West Newport Field Surveys Book No. 14).
2. 1911 Act Improvement District. As previously stated in this
report t e ity Improved and widened Seashore Drive in 1931. An
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council -4-
July 18, 1966
assessment district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of
1911 was used to finance the work. In the Resolution of Intention
to order the work there was a specific reference to the two right
of way strips shown on the original tract maps and it designated
them as Seashore Drive (see page 2, supra). The improvement plans
for the project prepared by the Public Works Department show the
right of way in question as part of Seashore Drive (see Plan No.
369, dated August 31, 1931, approved by R. L. Patterson, City
Engineer).
3. City Atlas Ma s. All City Atlas Maps show the disputed right
of way as a part ot Seashore Drive (First City Atlas Map No. 108
recorded April 4, 1918; Second City Atlas Map, dated February 27,
1931; Current City Atlas Map, dated May, 1961).
4 Countz Assessor's Map. The current Assessor's map shows the
disputed right o way as a part of Seashore Drive, indicating that
taxes have not been assessed against the owners of the abutting
lots.
B. If the right of way was dedicate blic street ur oses
hs o building as the t lost its r i te sn
berm t.S tor the encroaC lnz 1mDrovements.
A highway or street may not be used for purposes which interfere
with or are incompatible with its use as a public right of way.
A private building located in a public street is a public nuisance
and subject to abatement as such. Nerio v. Maestretti, 154 C. 580;
City of Dunsmuir v. Silva. 154 C.A. 2d 875.
"In determining whether the obstruction is inconsistent
with the public's right to the full enjoyment of the
right of way, the owner of the fee possesses no greater
rights than a stranger to the title. Nor may the abut-
ting owners consent to an obstruction so as to bind the
municipality and preclude removal of the obstruction.
The continuance of an obstruction cannot confer on the
person maintaining it prescriptive rights, or rights by
adverse possession, as against the public. Neither lapse
of time nor consent of the abutting property owners has
the effect of legalizing the public nuisance arising from
an unlawful obstruction. In exceptional circumstances,
however, the principle of estoppel in pais may be invoked
against the public, so that the court may decide the
question not with reference to mere lapse of time but
To
•
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council -5-
with reference to the particular
and justice may require." 25 Cal
Streets, Section 186.
•
July 18, 1966
circumstances, as right
. Jur. 2d, Highways and
Estoppel in pais has been defined as a right arising from an act,
admission, or conduct which has induced a change of position in
accordance with the real or apparent intention of the party against
whom the estoppel is asserted. Agmar v. Solomon, 87 C.A. 127;
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section-11J62, Subdivision 3.
Before the courts will hold a municipality to be estopped, four
requirements must be meta
1. The land must have been occupied in good faith and
under claim of right.
2. The occupation must have been in reliance upon mis-
leading conduct of the municipality.
3. The property owner must have had a lack of knowledge
or have been unable to obtain the true facts.
4. The property owner relied upon the city's conduct and
based thereon took steps materially changing his
position by constructing valuable improvements on the
property.
The leading California case in which the doctrine of estoppel in
pais was successfully invoked against a city is C ity of Los
An eles v. Cohn (1894), 101 Cal, 373. The facts n tat case
were as o lows.. In 1871 a man named Temple commenced construc-
tion of a valuable three -story building in the City of Los Angeles.
After the foundation had been laid, it was reported to the city
council by the street commissioner that the building was encroach-
ing into a public street. Upon receiving this information the
city council referred the matter to the city attorney for investi-
gation. Subsequently the city attorney made a lengthy report to
the Council which concluded that Temple was the owner of the land
thought to be a street, stating that he was entitled to complete
the building. The report was ordered received and placed on file
and a synopsis was entered in the council minutes. The building
was subsequently completed without objection by the city until
the lawsuit in question was filed twenty years later to recover
possession of the alleged street. The court ruled against the city,
stating:
"There are limits beyond which even a city in representing
the rights of the public may not go, and we think the city
•
Tog The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council -6-
July 18, 1966
in the present action has gone beyond those limits. If
the city had expressly agreed by its officers with defend-
ants' grantors, even in parol, that a certain line should
constitute the boundary line between the street and the
grantor's property, and upon the faith of such agreement
the grantors had erected a block of buildings flush with
the line of the street as agreed upon by all parties, it
would be a hard law that would allow the city to repudiate
that agreement, and destroy the grantor's property. No
court should countenance such a thing, and an estoppel in
pais will rise up in the pathway of a city to bar it and
its principal, the people, from the commission of such a
grievous wrong; and to give the acts of this city a very
limited meaning we think its conduct in the present case
at least equivalent to an oral agreement as to the loca-
tion of the true boundary line of the street."
The Cohn case indicates that a property owner seeking to invoke
the doctrine of estoppel to prevent a municipality from asserting
a claim to a public right of way must show strong equitable grounds
for relief which in that case amounted to a virtual oral agreement
between the property owner and the city. Subsequent cases show
that the courts are not inclined to deprive a municipality of any
part of its streets unless there is overwhelming evidence in favor
of the property owner.
In analyzing the position of the property owners on Seashore Drive,
we do not find the necessary elements to support the defense of
estoppel against the City. The strongest argument in their favor
is that the City, by issuing building permits for the encroaching
structures, consented to their construction in the public right of
way. However, there is no authority to support the proposition
that the ministerial action of the Building Department in issuing
a permit would in itself operate to divest the City of its inter-
est in the street right of way. It is the responsibility of the
property owner to determine the boundaries of his lot and to
correctly locate any structure built on the property within such
boundaries. If there is any doubt as to the boundaries of his
property, the owner should have it surveyed for his own protection.
As previously described in this report, the boundaries of the
right of way claimed by the City were clearly defined in a number
of public documents, including the original tract maps, the City
Atlas Maps, and the Tax Assessor's maps. When one considers the
early development of the West Newport area, it is not surprising
that mistakes were made in determining the exact location of the
To
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council -7-
July 18, 1966
property line along Seashore Drive in reliance on visual observa-
tion in the absence of precise surveys. The mere fact that the
City issued building permits for the encroaching structures and
subsequently took no action to compel their removal would not, in
our opinion, preclude the City from later opening up the right of
way and compelling removal of the encroachments.
III. CONCLUSION.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize this office to
take appropriate legal action to obtain a determination by the
courts as to the City's right to compel removal of the offending
encroachments. It is our position in making this recommendation
that the available evidence supports the view that the property
owners are not legally entitled to compensation from the City for
any damage which they may incur as a result of the street improve-
ment project.
THSsmec
cc - City Manager
City Clerk
Public Works Director
T4Y1t Seymo
Ctorney
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION
0
CITY COUNCIL
City Manager
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
August 8, 1966
SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO JOHN A. BLAICH
J -%6
V
I.-
On January 11, 1965 the City Council authorized a Charter Amendment
to sell the small 124 square foot triangular parcel of City -owned waterfront
property located southerly of the westerly 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 22, East
Side Addition to the Balboa Tract (behind 1315 East Balboa Boulevard) presently
owned by John A. Blaich (please see attached sketch). This sale was of course
approved by the voters in April, 1966.
Mr. Blaich has offered to purchase this 124 square foot parcel for
$1,188.00. This consideration is based on a unit valuation of $9.58 per
square foot, the same square footage valuation for which an adjacent parcel
was sold in August, 1963.
As the City Council agreed on January 11, 1965 to sell this parcel
to Mr. Blaich, pending voter approval of the sale, and since Mr. Blaich is
the only logical party to which this property should be sold, it seems that
the amount becomes the point in question. Mr. Blaich first offered to buy
the property in December, 1963. Because he had to wait before the City was
in a position to sell the parcel legally, it is his contention that he should
not be penalized by having to pay more than the property was worth at the time
of his initial offer.
This argument has some merit. Furthermore, his offer of $9.58 per
square foot is very reasonable. It is possible that if the small City parcel
were formally appraised it might not, standing alone, have as high a valuation
as the $1,188.00 he has offered.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City sell the property in question to
Mr. Blaich for $1,188.00, but require that he pay for all incidental closing
and recording costs connected thereto.
HARVEY L. HURLBURT
HLH /JPD /mjc
0
BAC.BOA
I _ - N 70 ° /O'4
30'
r ^�
3
7 p
o
N 70010'00"W 26, 22'
' -• rRVE Poa.
.W
30' I0'
0
51- vo.
6(!7.4t 67: /a= 20
Q M M. 41:09 Q
LOT 8 i LOT
m
0 I
o J Jury `�
a
yJ
CITY GF NEWPORT BEACH
PU3LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY 01,VJNLD Pl:JPER -FY
P�raal A�
SdIG �YOMLOt �O �,tl\M A: LSIa ,L
9
Pf
1 �
r JuJ
NOTE
REFERENCE : PECORD or 641Ry6'Y
BOOK BO P4G6 48
DRAWN I/" DATE 66
APPROVED
G
ASST.
DRAWING NO,-
WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E. NO. I2906
IW- 5087 -L
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 21, 1966 IVA
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Administrative Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: USE OF CITY PROPERTY AT 16th AND MONROVIA
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council go on record expressing its
opposition to selling or entering into any new lease agreement for any por-
tion of the above mentioned two -acre parcel. It is further recommended that
the City Council clarify the City's position on the pending proposal from
Success Broadcasting Company (KOCM -FM radio) to have their existing lease
extended, by indicating that the City does not at this time desire to approve
a lease extension beyond the November 30, 1968, expiration date and that no
additional expansion of the radio transmitting station shall be allowed at
this time. (As an alternate course of action, the City Council could exer-
cise its option to extend this lease through November 30, 1971, in accordance
with the terms of the existing agreement.)
DISCUSSION
On February 14, 1961, the City entered into a license agreement with
Success Broadcasting Company (then known as Newport -Costa Mesa Broadcasting,
Inc.) for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a radio transmitter
building facility and radio tower. This agreement was amended on December 11,
1961, to allow the company to use and expand an existing City owned building
which was relocated on subject property. The agreement was again amended on
December 14, 1964, to permit an extension of the radio tower height from 250'
to the present 320' to allow for an increase in power output of the radio
station. The current proposal to amend the lease calls for a requested lease
extension through November 30, 1975, and permission to increase the size of
the transmitting station from 600 to 1,000 square feet.
The City utilities operation temporarily abandoned part of the property
when the three million gallon water storage tank was drained on September 14,
1964. This tank has not been used since that time nor has the bulk of the re-
maining surface of the property been used during this period. Because of this
fact, it has caused many people to assume that the property has been permanently
abandoned.
I have received a number of proposals to lease or purchase a part of
or the total,parcel of property in recent months. Most of the proposals have
chosen to make use of or remove the existing water storage tank facilities.
Each proposal has been explored in depth and a few might have some merit if
indeed the City were prepared to dispose of or allow the property to be leased
by private concerns.
-2-
While the City is currently not fully utilizing the surface of the
property, it will simply be a matter of time before this will become necessary.
This facility is the only means by which the City will be able to service the
water needs in the West Newport area adequately. While the large water storage
tank is not presently needed due to the large capacity of the Big Canyon Reser-
voir, a large network of active water lines in the subject property are now
used to distribute water to the various sections of West Newport. (See attached
sketch.) Any additional private uses of this property could easily impair the
usage of these distribution lines.
In addition, as soon as the Banning and Kadane properties are sub-
divided, it will be necessary to activate the large water storage tank in
order to provide the needed additional storage capacity. At that time, it
will probably be necessary also to install additional pumping and distribution
facilities on the property. Even if this need does not arise for some time,
the large water storage tank and surrounding properties should be maintained
as a secondary facility for emergency purposes. This is the only other large
water storage facility owned by the City which can be used to supplement the
Big Canyon Reservoir or provide emergency assistance to the reservoir distri-
bution system should the need arise.
It is thus very desirable and essential that the existing water facility
network at 16th and Monrovia not be disturbed in any manner. This includes any
expansion of the radio transmitting station which could easily have a harmful
effect upon the subsurface water distribution lines which are located around
the existing radio station building.
JAMES P. DE CHAINE
JPD /mjc
Att: 1
�XCSRtvc� 1�.�.G.t�'1, C3ty���ti►acl
I i
! t�er�cnc
Ltd'
MANN i.�,� /1 i✓. 4B• '� �� �� �/ i,
b -Sys.
� •` � 5 w L
12 �
NQi 1D 4
3 1013 os�d.I
A AEri.'A7' /ON 7i9N.t/ 9 •7 '��{
a ��o
m Q t
° A00 /TIoN TO 17
Alewlaoar /YIs5,q re,4cr
•e.s .F
/O/¢
iCo 122 1
�S vc�rtZ S l 1 G: n
/6
CITY /3CQY 1 ..
.. I I
�
4P M
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
June 9, 1966
cM- 4
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO LEASE PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY AT 19th AND BAY
Mr. D. R. Dotson, 1837 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa, has expressed
interest in leasing a small corner portion of City property by the 19th
Street pier, between the seawall and buoy line. It would be his intention
to rent approximately 25 - 50 umbrellas and 20 or so paddleboards, with
the possibility of renting several kayaks in future seasons, if acceptable.
He has proposed to pay the City $1,000 per season on a three -year
lease to rent this equipment in conjunction with the City beach facility.
This would be a portable daytime operation, with equipment removed from
the property each evening. A trailer would house the paddleboards at the
location proposed.
Mr. Dotson made a similar request to the Parks, Beaches and Recre-
ation Commission on May 18, 1965, which request was denied by a split vote
of the Commission (4 yes votes, 3 absentions). However, this proposal was
made on a percentage basis, with no $1,000 per year guarantee. The applicant
also apparently did not have ample time to explain his intended operation
fully.
As you may know, he has donated approximately 6 to 8 paddleboards
each year for the last several years which have been used in conjunction
with the annual paddleboard -swim relay race at Newport Pier. He is be-
ginning his 13th season of renting this equipment at 507 Edgewater, Balboa.
Furthermore, he was the original concession holder for such equipment at
the Newport Dunes, and held this concession for five years. Both landlords
of the above mentioned establishments have indicated that Mr. Dotson is
financially responsible and is a good concessionaire.
If acceptable, he would like to begin such an operation at 19th
and Bay this summer. As the season is fast approaching, perhaps the City
Council may wish to consider this matter at their next meeting.
JAMES P. DE CHAINE
JPD /mjc
I �
POST OFFICE BOX SSS
BALBOA, CALIFORNIA
.DUNE 1, 1966
HON. H. M. ROGERS
COUNCILMAN, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEAR MR.. ROGERS:
THE BALBOA IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION WISHES TO EXPRESS ITS
THANKS TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN BRINGING TO OUR
ATTENTION THE COMMUNICATION TO YOU FROM THE CITY MANAGER
REFERRING TO THE REST ROOM SITUATION IN DOWNTOWN BALBOA.
AT A RECENT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
ASSOCIATION, DURING WHICH THIS PROBLEM WAS DISCUSSED IN
DETAIL, WITH THE AIM OF RROVIDING CONSTRUCTIVE INFORMATION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER FOR ACTION$ THE
FOLLOWING POINTS WERE SOLIOLY FAVORED BY THE BOARD:
1. WE URGENTLY REQUEST THAT NO CONTRVCTION OR ALTERATION
BE ATTEMPTED UNTIL AFTER THE SUMMER SEASON TO AVOID
DISRUPTION OF THE VIATALLY NEEDED SERVICE THIS INSTALLATION
NOW IS PROVIDING*
2. No CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN, IN OUR OPINION,
WHICH IS BASED ON MANY YEARS OF BUSINESS OPERATION IN THIS
DISTRICT, TO ANY PLAN WHICH ORES NOT INCLUDE CONTINUATION
OF THE REST ROOM SERVICE TO THE VISITORS OF THIS COMMUNITY.
MANY INSTANCES OF PERSONS LIVING AT STREET -ENOS SOMEWHAT
DISTANT FROM THE FACILITIES, HAVING BEEN ANNOYED. BY
REPEATED REQUESTS FOR THE -USE OF THEIR HOME BATHROOMS, ATTEST
TO THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING REST ROOMS WHERE LAIIGER
NUMBERS OF .BATHERS GATHER. HIGHER POLLUTION OF THE BAY IS
A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY IF NO PROVISION IS MADE NEAR THE
HEAVIER USED BEACHES*
3. WHILE THE COST OF THE FACILITIES IS NOT SMALL WHEN
CONSIDERED IN A LUMP SUM OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEAR.S.1 AS
IN THE STUDY, . A MORE REALISTIC CONCEPT IS ARRIVED AT WHEN
ONE CONSIDERS IT AS $175.00 PER MONTH,/ MORE OR LESS, AND
WHEN IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS AN EXPENSE WHICH IS
HIGHLY JUSTIFIED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ADVANTAGE TO BOTH
THE BUSINESS AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
/
a.
r- -I
u
4. WE FURTHER URGE THAT A SUPERIOR REST ROOM FACILITY BE
CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO THE PRESENT UNIT, ON LESS VALUABLE
PROPERTY THAN IS NOW BEING USED. WHEN THIS FACILITY IS
COMPLETED, THE OLD ONE CAN BE TO)IN DOWN AND THE LAND PUT
TO A MORE REMUNERATIVE USE THAN IS POSSIBLE AT PRESENT.
A SKETCH OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ATTACHED.
AGAIN, OUR THANKS TO YOU AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR
CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS.
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU OR THE CITY MANAGER OR
ANY INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO OISCUSS'THIS
OR ANY OTHER MATTER.
SINCERELY YOURS,
VC
ENC. I
14
m;
wa
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
October 22, 1965
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
• s
SUBJECT: BAY AND WASHINGTON PARKING LOT AND RESTROOM FACILITY
(Old Fire Station)
It has been brought to my attention that the above mentioned City
property could perhaps be utilized more efficiently. A thorough survey into
the problems and expenses involved with the current use of this property has
revealed the following information:
The restroom facility has alone cost the City $14,135.50 to main-
tain over the last five years, including $10,585.50 for general maintenance
and $3,550 for major maintenance and repairs. This 974 square foot structure
has recently been inspected by the Building and Safety Department and its
director has recommended demolishment of same. The Public Works Department
estimates it would take approximately $20,000 to rehabilitate the structure.
A new building of the same size could cost as much as $40,000, but would
have a much longer life. If a new restroom building were constructed on
this site, it could be better located in order to more effectively use the
balance of the lot for parking.
The adjacent parking lot is now under lease to the Balboa Improve-
ment Association. The City receives $300 per year from the Association for
the privilege of using the available 3500 square feet for parking purposes.
The Association, in return, is allowed to rent the twelve existing marked
parking spaces either to its members, merchants in the area, or to the public
generally, as it sees fit. While several of the wooden parking bumpers have
deteriorated and should be replaced, the general appearance of the parking
lot is satisfactory. There is virtually no maintenance expense involved
with this section of the property.
It would be difficult to ascertain the actual market value of this
property for parking or other purposes without having it formally appraised
by an outside appraisal firm. It has been informally appraised by several
local real estate firms as having a value of between $35,000 and $40,000.
We understand that the Balboa Improvement Association is currently
renting the parking stalls for $60 per year each. Parking meter revenue for
the Balboa business district for fiscal 1964 -65 was $6,570. This represents
an average of $65.05 per meter for the year for each of the 101 meters in
this general area. City personnel who collect meter revenue report that
the 65 metered parking spaces in the two square block area around the parking
lot and restroom, from Palm to Main, Bay to Balboa, are used at least 50%
more intensively than the remaining metered spaces in the Balboa business
district. Thus, the meters in the area closest to the property in question
should average about $100 per meter each year, or $6,500 for the 65 meters.
-2-
0
This is the most specific or detailed accounting of meter revenue available
in this area.
Of the five public restrooms on the Peninsula, this facility is the
most expensive to maintain. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
estimates it costs about 50% more than the others to maintain. However, it
does generate some revenue which partially defrays these costs. The five
restroom facilities on the Peninsula, collectively, contain 50 "Nic -O- Lock"
units which have yielded a total of $11,983 in the last five years. This
represents an average of $239.66 per unit over this period or $47.93 per
year. Assuming the 17 units at the Bay and Washington facility get average
use, the facility generates an average of $814.81 per year, or $4,074.05
for the five -year period. This compares with the $14,135.50 maintenance cost
for this same time interval. Thus, the facility has cost the City a net total
of approximately $10,000 to maintain for the last five years.
Although Police Department records do not reveal any major problems
or incidents involving the restroom and parking lot, many problems of a
minor nature are periodically reported to this office. These largely in-
volve incidents of vandalism or vagrancy.
It is my recommendation that the Council take formal action author-
izing, demolition of the restroom facility, and consider the possibility of
either converting the remaining area into additional parking stalls or secure
an outside appraisal of the property's true value and other possible uses.
This will enable us either to expand the present parking lot and lease with
the Balboa Improvement Association, dispose of said property, or maximize the
usage of the property in another way determined to be in the best interests
of the community. Perhaps you will also wish to authorize the installation
of additional parking meters in the area. The existing parking lot lease
with the Balboa Improvement Assocation may be terminated by giving 60 days
written notice of such intent if this be the Council's desire.
11��
HARVEY L. HURLBURT
HLH /JPD /mjc
1
a� 0 r .+
f Bq�
® w c� a Ro�O
F
4 0
A
qlz
Z
M
C%`1L 1
z
N
q
�
O0
O
O
O
CN
b
u'
W
�A
-r4
m
4
C%`1L 1
w
0
OCEAN
S .t
L`.
/J lzllyUE
0
-�o
0
BOULEVARO
0
z
N
q
ar'
zs'
w
0
OCEAN
S .t
L`.
/J lzllyUE
0
-�o
0
BOULEVARO
0
To:
From-
Subject
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1966
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City Attorney
Quitclaim deed to portion of Finley Avenue
The shaded portion of Finley Avenue adjacent to Newport Boulevard
shown or, the attached drawing has never been formally dedicated to
the City for public street purposes although this property has
been improved by the City and used as a public street for many
years, The record ownership of the street right-of-way is vested
in William J. Cagney.
We were recently advised by the County Tax Collector that this prop-
erty had been deeded to the State of California for nonpayment of
the 1959• -60 taxes and is, therefore, eligible for sale at public
auction. In order to clear the record and establish title to the
property in the City, we have obtained a quitclaim deed from Mr.
Cagney. After acceptance and recordation of the deed, we will
petition the Board of Supervisors to cancel all existing taxes
and penalties.
A resolution accepting the. quitclaim deed from Mr„ Cagney has been
placed on the :agenda for Council action,
THSomec
Atto
cc - City Manager
City Clerk
Public Works Director
T' \6��
Tully S N eymo
City Attorney
Iq
or
yO
c
zo
0
V \
n
FINLEY G
\ p
R/ VO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STREET EASEMENT
FOR
FINLEY AVENUE
ScatE.' J� =50'
a
�x
�vti �Qtia
ALTO
DRAWN A/M DATE
APPROVED
ASST. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E. ND. 12806
DRAWING ND. RIW 5086 —'G
•
�i�y CL�►✓`
C/
41 � Ps" p� c
•
+,;/ %i 1"'
crry ct ?K
APR 7 1966.) i
N CW OF
CALIF, EACH,
2/
1.
V;; Ci /7/ 07
Ged4j
buy ens± a
/� /
l4 OIAlrit
�rri,CyL/ oTr �y awixpvf c f ��( �/ ✓
C;ly p -a pes"�f "6, sh /J Knaw n R I' �d°ye lw� �c✓
C /4 /vt9 �l+iJ oie�y
u�Gt SE/%/ 6/ * cuctY f CfP�
i ha�c ra�f
nGrrourtiHy Srf n s
b rE� vea.
ieorr- 1
p
/,,, /IiF
valid rEasuzr ��s,rt� / ra/ru�rt'7` 744f
renmave �rF �. cdr,
C/� /L1Gnk✓�✓
/kky e Y
w Ci G1J a:P.,�ti
Zo/ Ch vY�`Gt =Sri
T Ca /iiGur�rF -y326e
0
4,
9
Mr. J. Wylie Carlyle
County Recorder
P. 0. Box 238
Santa Ana, California 92702
Dear Mr. Carlyle:
0
April 27, 1966
Attached for recordation is a Quitclaim Deed frrm William J.
Cagney to the City of Newport Beach of all right, title and
interest he may have in a portion of Finley Avenue westerly
of Newport Boulevard. The acceptance of said Quitclaim Deed
was authorized by the City of Newport Beach on April 25, 1966
by the adoption of Resolution No. 6341.
Very truly yours,
Margery Schrouder
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
0
Encl.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1966
To. The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
Subject: Quitclaim deed to portion of Finley Avenue
The shaded portion of Finley Avenue adjacent to Newport Boulevard
shown on the attached drawing has never been formally dedicated to
the City for public street purposes although this property has
been improved by the City and used as a public street for many
years. The record ownership of the street right -of -way is vested
in William J. Cagneyo
We were recently advised by the County Tax Collector that this prop-
erty had been deeded to the State of California for nonpayment of
the 1959 -60 taxes and is, therefore, eligible for sale at public
auction. In order to clear the record and establish title to the
property in the City, we have obtained a quitclaim deed from Mr.
Cagneyo After acceptance and recordation of the deed, we will
petition the Board of Supervisors to cancel all existing taxes
and penalties.
A resolution accepting the quitclaim deed from Mr. Cagney has been
placed on the agenda for Council action.
THSamec
Att.
cc - City Manager
City Clerk
Public Works Director
�l /V \6��
Tully Seymo
City Attorney
INCIL:
,_is-
_041
Iq
ZO
vCC C5 Z� ads
E
!%,v
2p v
F /NLEy yo\�<
p/l/c
CITY OF NEW
P/
A
STREET EASEMENT
I
A vr,
ALTO
10:1 --0,
DRAWN -4Z-AY-- DATE
APPROVED
ASST. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E. NO. Q426
DRAWING NO. 91W-508ig-1,
To:
From:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Clerk
City Attorney
CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1966
Subject: Quitclaim deed to portion of Finley Avenue
Attached are the following:
1. Quitclaim deed from William J. Cagney to the City of
all right, title and interest he may have in a portion
of Finley Avenue westerly of Newport Boulevard.
2. A resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, will
accept said deed.
3. A memo to the City Council explaining the purpose of the
deed, to which is attached a drawing showing the subject
property.
It is requested that this matter be placed on the Council agenda
for consideration on April 25, 1966.
THS :mec
Atts.
cc - City Manager
Public Works Director
Tully H. Seymour
City Attorney
W-14-1
Yt
el i
0 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
February 10, 1966
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 414 MARIGOLD AVE., CORONA DEL MAR
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. By motion authorize the City Manager to purchase the propeit
414 Marigold Ave., Corona del Mar for the appraisal price of
x,13
CUU,a,i.:
at
9,500.
2. By motion authorized the City Manager to enter into a one year lease
with Mrs. Annie Hughes (present owner) for the house and rear portion
of lot at 414 Marigold Ave. in Corona del Mar.
DISCUSSION:
The 1965 -66 budget contains $29,000 for the purchase of property at 414 Marigold Ave.
on the east side between the City's library and fire station ($22,000 originally budgeted
and $7,000 transferred in January budget adjustment). Purchase of this 30 foot lot will
consolidate the existing City properties and make possible future expansion of the
Corona del Mar library. Pending the possible expansion of the library the property can
be utilized for additional parking.
An appraisal was obtained from Joseph A. Mueller, M.A.I. He places the market
valuation at $29,500, it is proposed that the property be purchased at the appraised
price. The title policy and other charges would be paid by the seller with the City
as buyer paying 507 of the escrow fee which amounts to $56.50.
The rental valuation has been placed by Mr. Mueller at $105 per month for the
entire property or $80 for the portion of the lot and house proposed to be leased back
to Mrs. Hughes. The $80 rental figure excludes 70 feet of the lot which would then be
available to the City for parking at such time as it is needed.
It is proposed that the lease provide the following terms:
1. A fixed term of one year with month to month thereafter.
2. 30 day termination clause by either.party.
3. Lessee cannot sublet without the permission of the City.
4. City pay possessery interest tax (estimated at $40 for one year).
5. City provide free water to lessee.
6. City maintain the exterior of the house.
7. City retain the westerly single garage for library storage purposes.
8. City move front portion of fence 'between library and lot to enclose a
small front yard of the house.
arvey L. Hu lburt
CEM /HLH /bl