Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-12-16; City Council; 550-1; Lake Calavara'. - c THE - CITY OF First Supplement to AB 550 Agenda Bill No. Referred To: //- (4) -* - CARLSBAD, C A L I F'O R N I A - Dater December 16, 1971 Subject: Submi tted By: Lake Cal avara City Manager ~ ~ Statement of the Matter See attached sheet. Exhibit Staff Recommendations I s. , AB NO. Date: December 16, 1971 City Manager ' s Recommendation . That the City Council instruct the City Manager and City staff to work cooperatively with representatives of the County of San Diego, Parks and Recreation Commission, and any other interested individuals or groups to explore those alternatives concerning Lake Calavara that preserve the rights of the water system customer and the recreational interest of North County,and to keep the Council informed of progress as it occurs. 10-28-72 - As of this date, matter tabled. -2- First Supplement to AB 550 December 16, 1971 Subject: Lake Calayara Statement of the Matter As the City Council is well aware, this subject has been of consider- able interest not only to members of the City Council but to various residents of the community. The purpose of placing this agenda bill before you is to receive some policy guidelines from the City Council in terms of directing any staff research on Lake Calavara. We hope that the recent distribution of the park bond questionnaire by the Parks and Recreation Department will give some indication as to gen- eral public interest in Lake Calavara as a possible park site. This was one of the questions in the questionnaire. We would like to present to the City Council seven possible alterna- tives in regard to the Lake Calavara property as follows: 1. Sale for land deyelopment. It is possible to sell Lake Calavara for land development, and use revenues derived therefrom to redeem present outstanding water bonds. However, sale of this property would, in my opin- ion, take from the community a priceless asset and, therefore, could not be recommended. It should be recognized that due to lack of road access and public utilities, this property at pres- ent would not be worth the amount some have indicated. 2. Sale of a portion for land development. This is more feasible'than the first alternative as it will allow the City to retain a portion of the property most suited for recre- ational purposes. However, it suffers from the same problems in- volved in the first alternative, namely, a lack of access roads and public utilities. 3. Sale to the County for park purposes. This alternative would preserve the lake as a public recreational asset and still allow financial benefit to accrue to the water sys- tem. It is, therefore, well worth considering; however, its func- tional consideration may be limited by a lack of County funding. This alternative would generate an on-going additional revenue source for the water system but would have the same drawbacks as alternative #1 in that it would remove the possibility of use for pub1 ic recreational purposes. 4. Lease for land development. 5. Lease of a portion for land development. This alternatiye has the same merits as the secgnd alternatiye but would provide an annual recurring income for the water system rather than a lump sum and still make available to the public use of a por- tion of the property for public recreational purposes. This alternative would allow development of Lake Calavara as a 6. Leased to the County for park purposes. Statement of the Matter [cont'd.) -2- December 16, 1971 major recreational resource but would not generate any income for the municipal water system. It would, hqwever, proyide for re- tention of Lake Calavara for emergency water storage and distri- bution within the municipal system, 4 not inconsiderable consider- ation in case of some natural disaster affecting our important water supply. Availability of this water and storage for fire fighting purposes would have a most favorable impact on our fire rating and enhance the fire insurance costs of all residents and business concerns in the community. 7. Retention for future City development as a recreational facility. This alternative suqqeSlts that the present status of the property as undeveloped raw jand be continued and at some future date'the" City undertake development of the property. While in the overall sense desirable, this alternative could not be recommended as it would entail substantial expenditures for a project that is re- gional in use and in function. In considering these seven alternatives, it is recommended to the City Council that we actively pursue the possibilities of alternatives three, five, and six. Even with a $1.00 a year lease to the County for park development of a portion of the property, the revenues to be antici- pated for the remainder of the property should be equivalent to those derived from a lease of the property in its present condition. In effect, our $1.00 a year lease for a portion of the property would sub- stantially enhance its value by providing access in utilities plus an attractive setting for the balance of the property if it is placed for poss i bl e 1 eases. The lease is suggested as a consideration because it would provide an "evergreen" source of revenue to the Water Division rather than a one- time sum. The value enhancement provided by the County would have no detrimental effect to the water system but the customer would have a favorable recreational use to residents of North County. Of course, sale to the County would certainly take care of most of the problems, but we are not aware that this is a viable alternative at this time as Previously stated. Mr. Johnston has indicated that he will arrange for a County staff presentation as to their desires regarding this property to the Parks and Recreation Commission and request that members of the City Council and Planning Commission attend if possible. This will give us all a better background in considering this subject. The general tenure of our recommendations are that we endeavor to pro- tect the property owner's interest, that is, the water system customer and the general public interest of North County residents. These seem- ingly incompatible considerations upon close examination are not really incompatible given our present set of circumstances.