HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-03; City Council; 5601; Request for commitment of sewer capacityA- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1
P Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE : October 3, I978 C. Atty.
AGENDA BILL NO. Sb 0 /
DEPARTMENT : Pub I ic Works -4- C. Mgr.
J Subject :.
REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT OF SEWER CAPACITY
Statement of the Matter
Covington Brothers, developers of CT 73-24 (Tract #7996), have requested
that City Council allocate to them capacity at the Encina Water Pollution
Control Facility on a priority basis as it becomes available. The basis
for their claims is that 'they are in a "unique" situation involving, per
their claim, a "contractual obligation" between the developer and the City.
The attsched staff report discusse's the issues and their claims in more
detai I.
Exhi bits
1. Letter from Covington Broth3r.s dated September 7, 1978
2. Staff report from Public Works Administrator dated September 25, 1978
Recommendat - ion
1. That Council deny the request for special consideration.
2. That Council refer the question of finalled maps with uncompleted con-
.struction to +he Sewer Committee for consideration in developing al lo-
c3t i on procedures.
Council Action:
,
:10-3-78 Council continued the matter to the Adjourned Regular Meeting
10-10-78 Council concurred with the app1icant"s request and continued .the
to be held October 10, 1978, a.t 7:OO P.,M.
matter to the meeting ofaNovember 7, 1978.
Agenda Bill No. 5601 Page 2
Council Action (Cont'd.)
12-5-78 Council denied the request of Covington Brothers for special consideration with regard to sewer capacity.
Council then directed staff to return to Council with a report to include information as to the steps necessary and the costs involved in order to refine the Lowry Report re satellite treatment plants in the City.
Mbiling Address:
P.O. BOX 3128
FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92634
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS'
LICENSE NO. B-1 217304 '
hold the kry lo your future housing needs
245 1 E. Orangethorpe Fullerton, California
Telephone (714) 879-01 11 RECEIVED
September 7, 1978 SEP 8 7978
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Carlsbad, Ca 92088
Attention: Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager
Subject: Request for an agenda item to appear before City Council relative to sanitary sewer service Tract
7 9 9 6 Covington
Dear Mr. Bussey:
In accordance with our previous discussion with you
and Mr. Ron Beckman, we by this letter, request an
opportunity to appear before the City Council at its meeting
September 19, 1978 to submit a request for special consideration
€or sewer service to our development Tract No. 7996. Attached
is a copy of our psoposed statement.
Thank you €or your courtesy in this matter.
Very truly yours,
VBarrfi/merman Vice Pr sident
BDZ : dh
J. ANDREW SCHLANGE AND ASSOCIATES
CONSULTANTS
P. 0. BOX 561
CHINO, CALIFORNIA 91710
(714) 627-8169 (714) 628-1538
J. ANDREW SCHLANGE
PRESIDENT
September 5, 1978
Honorable City Council
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen:
Covington Brothers owns approximately 60 acres of land
located in the City of Carlsbad situated at the southeast
corner of the 1-15 Freeway and Poinsettia Avenue, on which
they propose to construct three hundred townhouse units in
accordance with the city approved Specific Plan 122-A.
This project,initiated in 1973, had received all City
Planning Department and Coastal Commission approvals. The Tract Map (7996) was recorded; necessary bonds posted; conditions of City Ordinance 9434 were being complied with; development plans were submitted to the City Building
Department and the developer was rapidly progressing to
construction, when in February 1976, the Coastal Commission
reconsidered its previously approved Development Permit No.
F0859 and filed suit against Covington Brothers in San Diego Superior Court.
After extensive litigation, Covington Brothers, on December
22, 1976, obtained a Superior Court ruling, which found that Covington Brothers had complied with the Coastal Commission requirements and that Covington Brothers was entitled to
proceed with this project without further interference from or approvals of the Coastal Commission or any successor in
interest thereto. However, the Coastal Commission appealed
the Superior Court ruling to the Fourth Appellate Court of Appeal, where on November 3, 1977, "Upon request by counsel
for appealant,the appeal was dismissed with prejudice."
Upon notification of the dismissal in November 1977, Covington
Brothers, again proceeded with this project only to be informed
that the City of Carlsbad had, on April 19, 1977, adopted a
A
Honorable City Council
Page 2
September 5, 1978
building moratorium, because of a lack of sewer treatment
capacity, except for certain capacities required for building permits in process, governmental projects, and certain city contractual obligations.
It should be understood that Covington Brothers in initiating
this development complied with each requirement outlined by
government and only proceeded to subsequent phases of the development based upon reliance of such approvals. This
fact is obvious when the procedures used by the developer are reviewed. As a result of the developers reliance on
such approvals, including the issuance of the Development
Permit No. F0859 by the Coastal Commission, and approval of
City Ordinance No. 9434 by the City Council (in effect a
unilateral contract) Covington Brothers proceeded to finalize purchase of the lands to be developed and to expend con- siderable sums of money for engineering and development plans. Council approval of the Specific Plan as outlined in
City Ordinance 9434 leads one to believe that upon approval
of the Specific Plan, the City has adequate capacity in its
public facilities to serve the needs of the approved develop-
ment, and that such capacity is reserved for a given period
of time as stated in the conditions of the approved Specific
Plan. This concept is clearly defined when considering the following information excerpted from City Ordinance and Policy:
A. City Ordinance No. 9434 - Section 2 Findings
"The approval of amended Specific Plan 122A is justified
by the following finding:
1. The project meets the requirements of the General
Plan Land Use Housing Element for Density and
Clustering of Units.
2. The project meets with City's Public Facilities
Policy
3. The project complies with all standards of the P-C Zone. "
In this regard we specifically make reference to Section 2
sub-paragraph 2, as stated therein. (The project meets the
City's Public Facilities Policy)
Honorable City Council
Page 3 September 5, 1978
B. Public Facilities Policy City of Carlsbad
The Public Facilities Element further sets forth as a
policy statement that "Before giving approval to zoning,
rezoning, development or redevelopment proposals, the
public health and safety and the general welfare of the
community and all its citizens require that the proponent
of any such action shall present evidence satisfactory to the City Council that all necessary services and facilities will be available concurrent with need."
The acceptance and satisfaction of the conditions set forth
in Ordinance No. 9434 by Covington Brothers, in effect creates
a bilateral contract to perform on the part of Covington
Brothers and the City of Carlsbad. In this regard, Covington Brothers did record the Tract Map 7996 on August 5, 1974, and
posted the following Non Revokable Performance Bonds:
I. City of Carlsbad
a. $40,000 - Traffic signal light at the intersection
of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte
b. $230,000 - Subdivision improvements including street
paving, etc.
c. $6,500 - Subdivision monuments
11. Carlsbad Municipal Water District
a. $114,000 - Water supply system
b. $30,000 - Pressure reducing station
c. $65,000 - Relocation of portions of existing water system
Covington Brothers has entered into an agreement with Carlsbad
Unifed School District which obligates the developer to submit
certain payments to offset impacts on the local school building
program, and has dedicated a 15 ft. sanitary sewer easement
across a portion of their property.
In addition to the approximately $500,000, the developer is
obligated to, as shown hereinabove, Covington Brothers has
expended an additional $500,000 because of the delays caused
by the Coastal Commission litigation.
Honorable City Council
Page 4
September 5, 1978
The governmental approvals, allowing the Tract Map to be
filed by the developer and Covingtons reliance on the
City's ability to perform in accordance with the stated Public Facilities Policy, allowed unsubdivided lands to
be subdivided resulting in new appraisals and a 200%
increase in taxes paid, The City of Carlsbad portion of Tract 7996 tax bill has amounted to approximately $6,000/
year since 1975.
The magnitude of the hardship is only heightened when one realizes that all that is pending for this development to
proceed is the final plan check for correction of changes
as required by the City and the issuance of the necessary
building permits.
Sewage treatment capacity requirements for this development
are expected to amount to a maximum 72,000 gpd based on a
three-year construction schedule as shown on Table I. On the basis of a twenty-four hour period, the average flow would amount to only 50 gpm or the equivalent of the maximum
flow rate of a one inch domestic water service connection.
A review of the wastewater treatment plant capacity with
staff of the Joint Powers Authority seems to indicate that of Carlsbads' 3.43 mgd plant entitlement at the Encina facility there exists approximately 500,000 gpd of available capacity. These figures are based on the following infor- mation:
Carlsbad entitlement of Encina Plant 3.43 mgd
Current Carlsbad flow (June 1978) 2.70 mgd (Flows for period July 1977 to June 1978
See Table 11)
Carlsbad allocation of 850 EDU .23 mgd
Available capacity 0.5 mgd
On the basis of this information and considering the unique
circumstance surrounding this project, we would request that the City assign the necessary capacity to serve this develop- ment at the earliest possible time. Such consideration is
justified to correct the inequities and financial hardship
which has been placed on this developer through no fault of
his own.
While it is recognized that a moratorium on new sewer connect-
ions may be necessary within the City and that Carlsbad will -
Honorable City Council 4
Page 5
September 5, 1978
be required to stipulate to the conditions of Vista Permit
A-15-76 (Coastal Commission), it is our opinion that such conditions do not and should not apply to this development,
Regarding Vista Permit No. A-15-76 wherein the Coastal
Commission conditioned its approval for expansion of the
Encina Waste Water Treatment Plant to the acceptance by all
parties not to serve the steep slope agricultural areas we by reference to our letter dated April 3, 1978, assure you that our project is excluded from such restriction as
Covington Brothers has a valid Coastal Commission Development
Permit.
In summary therefore, it is our request that due to the unique
circumstances surrounding this development and in recognition of the contractual commitments on behalf of the developer and
the City, special consideration by the Council is necessary to
alleviate the hardship endured by this developer.
If the City has existing unallocated capacity in the Encina
Waste Water Treatment Plant, such capacity as is necessary
to serve Tract 7996 should be assigned to this development.
The continued delay in providing service to this development
places excessive hardship and injustice on this developer not endured by any other developer in the City of Carlsbad.
Your assistance in setting forth a satisfactory solution to
this matter is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
c. President
JAS:djb
PHASE
I
I1
I11
IV
V
VI
TABLE I
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
NO, OF
UNITS
ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR
WASTE WATER CONSTRUCTED
FLOW gpd
53 10, 600 1978/79
54 10,800 1978/79
49 9,800 1979/80
43 6,600 1979/80
49 9,800 1980/81
45 9,000 1980/81
293 56,600
In addition, seven models to be constructed in 1978-79
with an additional flow of 1,400 gpd.
TABLE I1
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
CARLSBAD TO ENCINA
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Date
July 1977
August 197 7
September 1977
October 197 7
November 1977
December 1977
January 1978
February 1978
March 1978
April 1978
May 1978
June 1978
Average Daily Flow/Remarks
2.60 mgd.
2.63 mgd.
2.22 mgd.
2.40 mgd.
2.10 mgd.
2.90 mgd.
3.60 mgd./Wet weather period
3.50 mgd./Wet weather period
3.30 mgd./Wet weather period
2.40 mgd.
2.70 mgd.
2.70 mgd.
. A
MEMORANDUM
TO : City Manager
FROM : Pub I i c Works Admi n i strator
DATE : September 25, 1978
SUBJECT: COVINGTON BROTHER'S REQUEST FOR SEWER ALLOCATION
The request from the Covington Brothers is to be, in essence, first in I ine if
any capacity is determined to exist at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility.
This request is based on the supposition that a "contractual obligation" exists be-
tween the City and the developer. This obligation, according to their logic, is
based on their compliance with the Public Facilities Element at the time of approval,
the recordation of the tract map and the deposit of nonrevocable bonds guaranteeing
the development. Their position is also based on the assumption there is plant ca-
pacity at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. This latter assumption will
be discussed in greater detail in a report due to be presented to Council on Octo-
ber 17, 1978.
With regard to their claim of "unique circumstances," that claim is based on
the contractual commitments entered into by the developer and his contention that
City approvals are, in fact, a form of "contractual obligation." The developer im-
plies these obligations have been impeded from being fulfilled because of the City's
sewer moratorium, which went into effect well after the project was approved, but
prior to final adjudication of their disagreement with the California Coastal Com-
mission. A fact that should not be ignored here is the delay in implementation on
the part of the developer. The map was recorded in August, 1974, whereas, the
Coastal Commission's reconsideration occurred in February, 1976. If the developer
had conformed to the schedule of completion within the first year, he would not have
been subject to the Coastal Commission action. His delay and the subsequent Coastal
Commission action put him in a position not unlike several others in the City
(CT 72-21, Tanglewood; CT 73-23, Hester; CT 73-49, Unit 2, Palomar Airport Business
Park; CT 74-22, Papagayo, Units 2 - 5) who have recorded subdivisions, but cannot
proceed with construction until sewer capacity is available. As a point of infor-
mation, there has been discussion with the developer's representative concerning
the possibility of constructing a package treatment plant in conjunction with the
project. Staff has discouraged this approach as not being in conformance with
Council's indicated wishes of having an approved basin plan and an acceptable pro-
gram of development prior to allowing specially designed systems.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
It is recommended that the request for preferential treatment be denied and
that staff be instructed to report to the Sewer Allocation Committee the number of
final maps without sewer capacity so that the committee may consider that issue when
preparing its recommendations to Council regarding future sewer allocations.
Ronald A. Beckman, P.E.
Pub1 ic Works Administrator
RAB: VEB