HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-05; City Council; 5998-7; 1st revision-2nd phase sewer allocations4
'.. mm t
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The City Council at its December 18, 1979 meeting, directed its Sewer,Comrnittee to report back with a recommendation on a method to allocate the remaining EDU's in the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System. A summary of the Committee's January 11, 1980 meeting and its recomrnendat4ons are contained in the attached City Enqineer's memorandum dated January 25, 1980.
EXHIBITS
City Engineer's memorandum to City Manager dated January 25, 1980.
First Revision Second Phase Sewer Allocation.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the method of allocation and distribution of EDU's and
direct City Attorney to pre2are required documents.
Council Action:
2-5-80 Council approved the allocation and directed the City Attorney to prepare the documents approving allocation of EDU's as recommended with the inclusion of 1-11.
Council agreed that the sewer subcommittee be retained to provide continuing recommendations on future sewer allocations.
Council directed that any future sewer availability resulting from recalculation of allocated EDU's, that the sewer subcommittee recommend a system of points and criteria which will give some preferential treatment to those applic nts who have all other discretionary approvals and/or who may Rave proceeded or applied unsuccessfully
in previous phases of allocation, retaining a portion for rer-~ur
c
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Engineer
DATE: January 25, 1980
SUBJECT: FIRST REVISION SECOND PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM
As directed by the City Council at its December 18, 1979 meet- ing, the Sewer Committee met on January 11, 1980 to prepare a report for the City Council to recommend a method to allocate all EDUs remaining in the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System. Methods of allocation that were considered included a (1) lot- tery system, (2) revision of the present system by allowing current applicants to update their applications and to give ad- ditional points for accomplishments and status of project, and (3) to change the current distribution percentage according to the remaining qualified applications by category. The latter system was recommended as the best procedure to expeditiously allocate the remaining EDUs to the categories that have quali- fied applications. Staff provided the Committee with the status of allocations which specified that 189.6 EDUs remained to be allocated (plus 50 for Community Facilities, 20 for Con- tingencies, 80 for Redevelopment and 242.7 for Discretionary purposes). For the 189.6 EDUs remaining, there are qualified applications for 176 EDUs for Single Family Residential (great- er than 4), 575 EDUs for Multiple Family Residential and 325.2 EDUs for Industrial New. All other categories had no qualified applications for EDUs to bring before the Council at this time. Staff will expeditiously process requests as received and eval- uated.
The Committee established that approximately 28.5% of the re- maining EDUs be allocated to the Single Family Residential (greater than 4) and to the Multiple Family Residential cate- gories (54 EDUs each) and approximately 43% be assigned to the Industrial New category (81.6 EDUs).
As staff processed the applications, it was discovered that S35, S57 and S28 equaled 68 EDUs which is recommended, This is 14 EDUs over the recommended quantity for Single Family Residential (greater than 4). The next qualified application in the point standings is S45 for 35 EDUs. M10, M49, M67, M5, M62, M30, M56, M75, M19, M23 and M54 equaled 58 EDUs for Multi- ple Family Residential which is recommended. This is 4 EOUs over the recommended quantity. The next qualified application in the point standings is M66 for 12 EDUs. 122, 124, I1 and I25 equaled 54.4 EDUs for Industrial New which is 27.2 EDUs less than the recommended quantity, but the next qualified ap- plication in the point standings is I19 for 46 EDUs. Attach- ment ''A" sets forth the categories and the application stand- ings therein for all remaining qualified applications. It is
-2-
recommended that the 9.2 EDUs that remain after the above allocations be put into the discretionary category for dis- tribution by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. At- tachment "B" provides the status of the First Revision Sec- ond Phase Sewer Allocation System after the foregoing allo- cations.
A report is being prepared and will be provided in the near future setting forth the current status of the original Encina capacity and First Phase Sewer Allocation System EDU issues.
LE: JNE: VEB
STANDING t'
ATTACHMENT "A"
(68) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (greater than 4)
STANDING
i APPLICANT NET REMqINING
NUMBER PO I NTS EDU'S EDU S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-
M10 24.00
M49 24 00
M67 23.75
M5 23.50
M62 23.50
M30 23.25
M56 23.25
M75 23.25
!I1 9 23.00
M23 23.00
M54 23.00
12 M66
13 M34
14 M59
15 M27
16 M3 1
M32 17
18 M68
19 M2 1
20 M37
21 M60
22 M63
23 M22
23.00
22,75
22.75
22.50
22 50
22.50
22.50
22.25
22.25
22.25
22.25
22.00
1.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 2
NULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (58 1
8
4
50
46
1 45
43 2
10 33
7 26
19 7
3 16
12
8
4
4
8 -0-
12 -1 2
5 -1 7
9 -26
6 -32
2 -34
14
-58 10
11 -69
-88
-115
19
27
15 -130
-146 16
ATTACH 14 E N T ?age 3
I' A I'
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (cont'd)
APPLICANT NUMBER NET REMqINING EDU S EDU S STANDING PC) I NTS
21 .50 14 -1 60 24
25
M5 1
M2 8 -168 21 .oo
26
~~
M48 21 -00 20 -188
-208 21 .oo 20 27
28
M70
M15 -221 20.75 13
29 M38 20.25 23 -244
-264 20.00 20 30
31
M76
M28 -266 19.50 2
~~
M40 2 19.50 -268
-270 19.50 33
34 '.
2 M52
M58
~~
19.50 6 -276
35 M65 19.50 2 -278
-296 18 36
37
M72
M6
19.50
19.25 3 -299
39 M7 19.25 -302
-305 19.25 3 M64
M7 1
39
40 3 -308 19.25
41 M74 19.25 35 -343
-349 6 42
43
18.50
18.00
M3
M3 5 24 -373
-382 9 M13 44
45
17.75
17.75 9 M14 -391
-421 16.50 30 M33
M45
46
47 16.50 10 -431
ATT A C H M E N T Page 4
I' A I'
f
PO I NTS
15.00 16
EDLi ' S
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (cont 'd)
NET REMqINING EDU S
-447
I APPLICANT I STANDING NUMBER
I 48 M4 I 49 I M77 I M50
ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 5
-
APPLICANT
NUMBER
I 22
I 24
I1
STANDING
1
Pr3 I NTS
20.3
20.3
19.7
2
.3 7
16.4 4
16.4
-0-
5
3.9
43.9
6
-134.6
-1 78.. 5
7
5.2
82
8
9
-188.8
-270.8
10
1 1 r'
+---/++
18.3
I 11 I 17.5
I 12 I 13.7
I 10 I 13.4
I 13 I 13.3
I 21 I 8.3
(54.4)
I I NET REM9INING EDU ' S EDU S
11 I 43.4 I
20 I 23.4 I
%I
37.6
-46 I
-93.1
-130.7
I I
5.1 I -183.6
ATTACHMENT "6"
STATUS OF REMAINING EDUs AFTER RECOMMENDED ALLOCATIONS ON FEBRUARY 5, 1980
Remaining EDUs
Single Family Residential 0 (greater than 4)
Single Family Residential (less than 4) 0
Mu1 tiple Family Residential 0
Commercial Office 0
Commercial General 0
Industrial New 0
Industrial Expansion 0
Community Faci 1 i ties 50
Contingency 20
Redevel opment 80
Di s cre t i onary 251.9
TOTAL : 401.9
FIRST REVISION SECOND PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION
Sinale Familv Residential (areater than 4)
Application Appl i cant I s General
Number Name Loca t i on
Assessor's
Number EDUs
s35 Ke v a n e/ S pra g ue E/S ECR 450' S/O 167-230-24 & 25 14
Chestnut & ECR
s57 Lyttl e N/S Mtn. View 203-010-13 & 14 19 N/O Ocean Street
S28 G1 eason/NewPort W/S ECR between 215-051-06 & 07 35
Shores Alga & Arne1 TOTAL : 68
Mu1 tiPle Familv Residential
M10 Grosse
M4 9 Fehlman
M67 Biller
W/S Garfield between 204-142-21 & 22 8
Maple & Acacia
W/S Garfield at 203-141-12 & 13 4
N/S Beech
N/S Juniper Between 204-232-07 1
Carlsbad Blvd & Garfield
M5 Wheel er/Fol ey W/S Garfield between 204-251 -09 2
Hemlock & Juniper
M62 Doan
M30 El sner
M56 Edwards
M7 5 Ri torto
M19 Kerwood
S/S Walnut btwn Lincoln 204-132-14 & 15 10
and Was hi ngton
E/S Li ncol n between 204-062-08 7
Pine & Walnut
E/S Carlsbad Blvd btwn 204-121-15 7
Walnut & Sycamore
S/S Chestnut btwn AT&SF 204-150-09 3 R.R. and Lincoln
N/S Chestnut btwn AT&SF 204-132-05 4
R.R. and Lincoln
M23 Behrendsen S/S Juniper & Garfield 204-251-12,13 & 14 4 btwn Carlsbad Blvd & AT&SF R.R.
M54 Morris W/S Ocean St. btwn 203-234-01 & 02 8
Grand & Elm TOTAL : 58
-2-
New Indus tri a1
Application Appl i cant I s Number Name
I22 Ni chol as
I24 McReynol ds
I1 McDowell
I25 Agatep
General Assessor's Location Number
E/S Paseo Del Norte 211-040-19 & 20
S/O Palomar Airport Rd
btwn Palomar Airport Rd and Poinsettia
S/S Palomar Airport Rd 211-030-25 btwn Avenida Encinas and I5
S/S Palomar Airport Rd 212-040-25
E/O Laura1
E/S Paseo Del Norte 21 1-040-1 2
EDUs
11
20
7
16.4
TOTAL : 54.4
Discretionary to be issued as determined by City Council . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2
GRAND TOTAL: 189.6
%!. L
w %I
H zl Zl
H 4 E W cc
LL 0
z 0
I- < 0 0 -l
J 4
W
W
I- m
cc 0
W u3
hr-0- u3 ml-N h
I-w*- FCUN
1111
HWHW
v) =>
W n
L L
0, waJ > -> 0 -0
c, mc,
ll- cc aJ ccaJ 2 OJ
eo-=$
W WNO Fml-
...
I I La L ON 0 II I
H
.. U -0 aJ S c, ru
(0 3 Lo c N
v) .r
I-
7
W I
cc
d Ln I zz
aJ Y
(0
W t-
I
v)
2 a, -0
v) =>
W
v) wv) *a I-u mx W cc os
n
-r
ea3
WOCO 60-
..
7
I m L
7 0 I I
H
v) 3
WaJ > eo Low v- +aJ O-I
ne
.. -u aJ
W I-
ul
In In
0, u X W
c
-r-
cn
I e
H
>, EI aJ -0
WlLLlAM h. DAlJf?NEY
NICIIOLAS C, OAWCI<C
.*
. .'
9 * .. .,
lU
. L.
1973' ,
i 1,
Ca.r-I.sSad, California 92003
RE: The Highland Company
(Tanglewood Developinen t )
Dear Les: ..
I am directing this correspondence to you at the
.' .. suggestion of the City Manager.
My repxesectation invoIve's the above referenced Compmy and is with regard to the Tanglewood Development,
c .I By way of background, the Master Plan was origi.na3ly
processed by Larwin in 19'7%.
Hy clients, The Highland Company, purchased the pro- ."
ject from Larwin in 1977 at a time when stixe 57 units had
already been built by Larwin pursuant to the approved Master Plan and applicable tentative maps. ,.
In addition, my clients acquired some 14 incomplete
.mode:! s .
Since that time, my clients have completed the 14 modcls
and 151 additional units for a total, of 165.
occupied pursuant to an approved plan a.nd relevant maps. In other words, there are:222 units in placc and
Two Hundred sixty-four units, or more than half thc project rema ins approved but incomp?lei;c and' incapable of completion in light of thc present; scwcr moratorium.
After appcnring on be~in~f of thc client at t'fi~?. (:ouncil Mcckinc; of bIovcml.>cr 20, 1979, il; bc.cmc: apparent to nw th7t
\
..
rc z
.c
n
City Engineer City of Carlsbad Dccembcr 11, 1979
Page Two
.- .'.
8'
there exists some impediment to the continued development of this project, even beyond the scope of the sewer moratorium.
, In short, I found it difficult to understand how some 10.75 points to which it appearet? The Highland Company was entitled were not allocated and that that failure to allocate
b7as based on the fact that The h'ighlar!d Company had either not completed Elm Avcnue, or satisfactorily bonded for its
completion.
,up as an. example of "how not to do things", in deliberations
of the Council with discretionary apprdva'is of similar pxo-
jects
. In oqder to attempt to clear the air and give my clients a reasonable chance of avoiding bankruptcy, I, have deciBed to
make one other attempt at an administrative solution to
a serious problem.
absolutely nothing to do with the processing of the 1972 plan. They purchased a presumably valid plan and map in 1977 and paid substantial dollars for what they thought was a
right to develop.
In addition, the Tanglewood project continues to be held
-. -
3: am sure you can understand that my ciients had
Accordingly, 1 cannot believe that any reasonable person
would seek to penalize The Highland Company for what is perceived to have been an error in judgment made by a City.
Council in 1972.
To my .knowledge, Thc Iligliland Company has satj.sfic<l the building requirements of the City of Carlsbad and. has cooperated in every respect .since they became iiivolvcd in the proj cct .
You will obviously take cxccTtion to that statement
bascd qn thc fail-ure to construck Elm Avcnuc.
&
Every person involved must. hawe been aware cf that fact zinc? :
of the F~.ct tha-t the ul'tirna t& cons-true tl.on woul.6.. o11I-y occiir as
normal iacnments of constrcction were pexini.ttcd.
Ilowever, and to the extent. that. th.e Cit.y"s vika1 inteI--estr;
rcxpire the construction of that portion of Elm Avcn~ie which we
are addressing, my clients will.. ccnstyuct it-. pro,.T.iding they are
peimiitted to build 5% units.
. . Fifty-two units arc requi:red. .because under the deve%oper' 3 agreement wi'ch t.hc Owner's Association, 52 lots is the 11ex-L increment of annexation, and an alloca$ion of 38 EDU ' s woul.d
res31 t in a construction of 38 units, but an. obI.igcsti.o;i on ttie part
of the dcvt.foj?er to for 5'2 lots to the oW~~cr's Associat.ion,
' In.'short, and to smmarize, the Tanglewood Project .is 6
rEality and it littLe serves any purpose to point to it as a
"xistake" . 111 thc event that the C.ity had no intc.iition to
honor whatever cormitncnt xas generated by tllc approved hap,
shou1.d have told The ITirjhlaiid Company lief ore it pal-chased .-:lie
project from Lamin.
Given the fact that we are where we are, it is ii? the
best intcrcs;;ts of City and dcvclopcr to work tocjcth;.r for thc kcst:
po s s ib 1 e s r3 1 u ki on.
be
Wi3
. Along made in a
s in fact
I would he more than hn1)py to mcct wit3 you at any time in
order to ciiscxiss this letter. si nc& r c 1 y ,
n , TO: City blanaglcr
PROM :
On Ncveinber 20 ; 1.9'79 O~li Comnunications requested and was qrantcd.
55 EDUs from the Council reserve. On January 2, 13E0, the Cormcj-1
approved the aI.lo;:ation of 3.73 EDUs to the Aquaculture Zarm on ::he kgua I-Iedionda Lagooli.
The Council has received a request for sewer allocatioii from the
rem ining re ~VL? froin the I-IIGHLRND CC.MPI'&JY, The Highlc1nd Company unsuccessfull..y r;pplic,:7 for 38 EDUS (application S-19) under t412
Phacje. IL Aj.lc,c$.t ion System. They have been ab1.e to comylete sniy
222 unit:; of a. 4 136 unit subdj.visio!i a:id liavi? experienced proS1en.i~ in comp:!eting some of the rcyui.red pub3.j.c improvexents dwr! to the imp.?ss.jhili.ty of yeneratifig fufids by building and sell-ing hoilles.
hey have reyuer;tc:d 52 EDUS as thc minimrun nuinber of units thzy must
build to generate funds for the coinpletion of Elm Avenue.
..
m
.. r
%
t
I I 0
Residential I Commercial / tnvestrnenlsl
Properly Management ' I
Serving Los Angeles, Orange end
I
North San Oiogo Countlcs I
!
Real Estate CQ~~XIY
L - -I___.--
L . ~~..-..
if the water ttble was still at !.hekI.h foot. level.
have the wnter'tsble at least five fwt below the bottoa of the ;een:*pe pit,
which is nine :'eet deep.
the propcrtv, i.3.no:it one ycnr ap, m3 the hve1 m,s at lk feet, at that time. . Mow, since tyc wetcr lcvel is on1;r thrw f'etrj, belotr the hotton of the nit this
berones a w-lter 2.c ..lity conl.rol groblcrr nne f.hc her.lt,h dcqmrtmcnt, wi 3 1 not
jssue a smti c nermit. This ~idc'liti.on:tl tcctjny: of t.hc writer 3.ewf. WRS scntrothi.ny:
' whi ch nobody mnt i,onetl :IS 1wiw :I notcwt,i; nl proh.7.w or ri?quirinr P\ri.hcr study
nt time of construction. Powcvcr, it IU~T-T; :;*.we to .re RS to why the hcnlth
depnrtment ~mu3 rl wish to rm suci! n t~st api 13. I ,jn.:t wish I hnd knwn that
this pot,enti.al problcn existed 80 I cc,u!.d have better nrotccted ry inveqtment.
At this tip to not be ab3.c to coeletc this proJcct wou3.d create n severe
financial hardship on ITC because a?' lorn comitnlent.s I have mrrrle. It would
take 5.6 EDU's to comrletc this p~ojeet now.
ux13er cer.t?i.n ci. rcumtnr;ces the counci.2 ~ny allocate sever pernits. T olso
would app'rerriate the councils considerntj on of the additional benefits which
would be deri.ved if this VroJect, were built at-this tine. First of all. it
helps to prorote inner city p,rowth md would Rot cranti- my extraordinary expense in tinc or labor for thc city c,incc the exi<tjhy sewer lines rtm Qlonr
The -pronert;jr if; lochted only a, stone's throw fran cS.ty
hall, an :iT'Ca in which tSeye arc TIO vacianc.i.cs i.n any of the cxistj.nrr of'fice
spaces. This w&ld indicate a stranr &rend for consumer services in the
imedintc nrea for' the citizens of Corlsbnd. FurthcrM,-c this size nro,lect
would crentc npproxinately 36 addttiocal jabs for Carl sh3.d resiRcntn. Naturally, the city wou1.d receive a,ddit€on%l tax revenues, as well
A;?par-ntly they n&ed to
This water t3Slc jig.? hecn testad nrior to p-y nijrchn.,.;in,~
It is my understandinc t?i=t
*
'
. side this nroperty.
e
*
' In clooin~, I would like to Just n~y thank you for kind.considerat4on'oP
thl.s req,ucst and my help or supl-hrt you cn.3 Five se.would be veY? 19uch
..
.. .. ..
1
.. - c
i
On 14cvemSe.r 20 , 1979, Oak Communicatio& requested mci was grant.ed
55 EEUs from the Counzil. reserve. On January 2, 1980, the Council
approved the dlocation of- 3.73 FDUa to the Aguaculturc Fariii on the
Agua. .€ieciicrida iagoon ..
The Council has +:ecei~~ed! a request for s~wer n’-location. frcm the
remaining resi~i?vc fm;n PI0 FIC3 NORTH. The Pi0 Pic0 Xorth office
bu:i.idl(-ng hiis been kimwn to thc CitIy Engineering Depar t.ment sirice
.Septcmbci, 1978, -?!hen the City ad6ressed a letter to the County
Hea1t.h Department. asking for a.n evaluation of a sept2.c tank system.
Evj~clerikly the propzrty chanqed hands j.11 June, 1979 prj.or to %.he final
approva1. of a septic tank system by the Health Departwznt . Since the
Hea 2- th Departmcnt reviews eilgineering reports indcpr-.ndcn-Lly Gf the
Cit17 Eiigi.nccriny !~epar.”;m:?r!t I we were not aware of any problems wj-th
the proposeci sept:i.c tank systern until. last week, is proposed for the corner of Pi0 Pico 2nd Stratford.
‘Phe office buiidi ng
LE :mint
IC- --4 * h ..
Torrey Enterprises, Inc. - 3300 N. Torrey Pines Court * La Jolla, Califoda 92037 - (714) 455-9550
HAND DELnmRED
Mr. Lester Evans City Engineer City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Sewer permit applications
1-12 and 1-13
Dear Mr. Evans:
February 6, 1980
RECEIVED
PFR 61980
CiTY OF CARLIZAD Englneeriilg Department
With regard to the above referenced sewer permi- applications pending on the Second Phase Sewer Allocation Program, we respectfully request to be given a top priority status in the consideration for sewer allocation.
The property to which the applications 1-12 and 1-13 relate are leasehold properties located at the Palcaw Airport. application covers construction of a 14,000 square foot, enclosed metal hangar and a 2,000 square foot office.
construction of a 18,000 square foot, enclosed metal hangar and a 2,000
square foot office.
to be approximately $300,000 t~ $350,000, and for each office, approximtely $80,000.
The 1-12
The 1-13 application covers
Oonstruction costs for each Wgar are estimated
Consistent with our desire to provide substantially upgraded services and mch needed facilities at Palorcar Airport, the following
additional impravements are also conteqlated:
1) 84,000 square feet of hard paving and landscaping for total construction costs of approximtely $80,000;
--.
2) rehabilitation and paving of existing older hangars for total costs of approximately $30,000.
. *.
L
m. Lestermans
' February 6, 1980
Page Tbm
We appreciate any special consideration that could be directed
to the above referenced sewer pemcit applications:
Sincerely,
TORRFYAVIATION, LTD.
A California limited partnership
By TQF?REX ENTERPRISES, PNC.
General Partner
Vicki L. Schraner
Vice President Administration
vs