HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-18; City Council; 5921-2; OCCIDENTAL LAND MP-133 POINSETTIA & I-5-<
3
P h
a) .rl 2
I-l 8 c)
a
8 5 +I
3 B 3 4
1 u
g
+I
(d
113
Icr
.u
3.
RE
rlu a$ g 4
e&
53 Sd
cv
I
rl
IJ-7
00
co
I
.. z 0 E : a
z 3 0 0
* CIT'.~~~F CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL
AB#K%w!%~ TITLE. DEPT. H
~~~.5/18/82 POINSETTIA & 1-5 CITY AT ' OCCIDENTAL LAND MP-133
DEPT,; c' M. CITY M(
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That: Council approve the offer of Occidental Land to resolve i:
concerning MP-133 and direct City Attorney to prepare document: imp]-ementing this decision,
The actions to be taken include:
1) Agreement releasing Occidental from any obligations conceri
railroad overcrossing, sewer reimbursement, in return for
payment of $274,000 less $35,000 sewer deposits.
2) Agreement requiring Lusk to pay for bridge approaches
($841,000) and granting 725 units credit for park-in-lieu
fees.
3) Resolution abandoning 3.95 acre site under Park Abandonmen
Act and calling for bids.
4) Motion authorizing staff to process development plans with
the MP-133 area.
BACKGROUND :
This is an extremely complicated issue which has been the subjc
of various actions since 1969. The essential facts are that C
Council approved a Master Plan for development of 383 acres in This happened before the Coastal Act, before Prop 13, before tl City required Park-in-Lieu fees or Public Facility fees. The current situation is completely different from 1973.
Today Occidental has sold or optioned all of the land. Other developers now wish to revoke the old master plan. They are willing to pay park fees, public facility fees and comply with
current planning requirements. The City staff agrees that it is best to wipe the slate clean and start over.
The problem we have is that certain agreements were made in pa years which need to be revoked or modified. The letter from
Occidental dated April 21, 1982 proposes a clean-up solution ti
the problem. I have negotiated with the parties and recommend
that Council approve the Occidental proposal as modified by th
report .
RZZILROAD BRIDGE : --"
In 1973 Occidental entered into agreement with City to build a
over the railroad at Poinsettia. The agreement was modified i
1974 and Occidental paid the City $199,000 to build the bridge
The bridge was never built because the Coastal Commission deni
a permit. The agreement expires July 2, 1984. At that time
Occidental is entitled to a refund.
Page 2 AB?# f e e
. MTG.-~~ Dept. C.M. TITLE: - Occidental Land MP-1.3 Poinsettia & 1-5 -
RAILROAD BRIDGE : Con ' t .
Occidental is now offering to pay the City $274,000 (which includes t:
-
$199,000 on deposit) and the City will build a 2-lane bridge in two y(
Lusk Builders have agreed to pay for the 4-lane bridge approach estiml
to cost $841,000.
So the proposal is that Occidental and Lusk will pay for the railroad
bridge and City will design and construct within two years.
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT :
Occidental was required to build an oversize sewer line to serve the
master plan area plus the area between Poinsettia and the Batiquitos Lagoon. City agreed to create a sewer reimbursement district to rep< Occidental about $200,000 in oversize costs. The City now holds $35,'
in deposit which was paid by Seaport. The reimbursement district has
never been formed because of disputes over cost and the legal and adm
istrative burden of forming a district. Each new house would pay abo.
$50 for sewer oversizing.
Occidental has offered to take the $35,000 now held by the City and
eregothe creation of a reimbursement district.
PARK LAND:
The major unresolved issue concerns a 3.95 acre parcel which was
dedicated to the City in 1973.
In 1979 City Council adopted an agreement which states as follows:
Ira) Of the 3.95 acres, 2.126 will meet the parks requirement associated with a maximum development of 390 units on
Master Plan parcels 12 and 13 (Lusk). The remaining 1.824
acres is dedicated toward meeting other public purpose
requirements including but not limited to Fire Station sites,
open space, or such other purposes as determined by the City.
Occidental claims that the 1.8 acre parcel was originally intended to
used for credit against park requirements. Occidental is now request
the Council to make that finding.
The City Attorney who wrote the 1979 agreement believes the 1.8 acre
parcel was not intended to be considered as credit toward park requirements.
I have reviewed the minutes of the Council meetings on July 17 and
August 7, 1979, as well as several reports and letters on this issue.
In my opinion there is no clear statement as to the intent of the
City Council concerning the 1.8 acre parcel. I believe Occidental di
expect to receive park credit as indicated in Agatep's letter of
May 10, 1982.
-
-2-
0 Page 3
TITLE : - Occidental Land MP-133
AB' #-: e
= ,'
Poinsettia & 1-5 MTG. 5/18/83
__1____1 DePt. C.M.
PARK LAND Con't.
I am also sympathetic with the City Attorney's interpretation of the
1979 agreement. A careful reading of that agreement indicates that
the Council made no commitments as to the disposition of the 1.8 acre
SO we have a situation where the Council must decide whether the 1.8
acres may now be used to meet park-in-lieu requirements or whether thi parcel belongs to the City with no strings attached.
My recommendation is that Council find that the 1.8 acres may be used
to meet park obligations for the Lusk property (37 acres between the
railroad and Carlsbad Blvd.)
If this finding is made then the 3.95 acre parcel would satisfy 725
single family dwelling units for the Park-in-Lieu fees.
390 units = 2.126 acres
335 units = 1.824 acres
Any units above 725 on Lusk property would have to pay the current Park-in-Lieu fee.
DISPOSITION OF 3.95 ACRES
The City no longer desires to own or use the 3.95 acre parcel.
received an appraisal indicating a market value of $400,000.
I propose the Council declare the land surplus and call for bids.
We expect to receive bids from the adjoining property owner but not
at the $400,000 level. The developer points out that this parcel
is obligated to pay the agricultural subsidy fee imposed by the
Coastal Commission of $26,000 per acre. He, therefore, feels the la1
is not worth the appraised value.
PENDING DEVELOPMENTS
On January 28, 1982 the Council at staff's request put a freeze on processing development plans within the master plan area. This was
done in order to put pressure on Occidental in order to resolve the
issues addressed in this report. If Council acts on the present
proposal then the freeze can be lifted for 9 developments.
ALTEEJXAT IVES
All parties are anxious to reach agreement.
gained by further delay. long standing dispute.
proposed solution is advantageous
We ha
There is nothing to be
The city has much to gain by settling this Considering all issues as a whole, I believe
to the city.
- 3-
Page
i TITLE: Occidental Land MP- %
Poinsettia & 1-5
0 .nD tt
MTG, '5/18/!82 -. Dept. CM ---
If Council wishes to consider other alternatives, the following could
be reviewed.
A. The City Attorney believes the city has an enforceable agreement
which requires Occidental to build the railroad bridge. We could
bring suit to force construction.
B. Another alternative is to create the sewer reimbursement district
as originally contemplated and reimburse Occidental over time.
C. We could dispose of the 3.95 acre parcel by negotiation as
proposed by Occidental.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the recommendations are acceptable, the parties will be affected
as follows:
-
CITY will have
$274,000 for bridge
$821,000 for approach
$400,000 + - or 3.95 acres
OCCIDENTAL will have
$35,000 sewer reimbursement
---
LUSK will have
725 Park-in-Lieu credits
EXHIBITS:
A. Map
B. Occidental letter dated 4/21/82
C. Aqatep letter dated 5/10/82
D. Agatep letter dated 9/19/78
E. City Attorney memo dated 5/6/82
F. Occidental letter dated 11/30/81
G. Holzmiller memo dated 12-18-81
H. City Attorney memo dated 12-4-81
I. Beckman memo dated 5-3-82
J. Pacesetter Homes Inc. letter dated 4/8/82
K. AB 5921 dated 8-7-79
-4-
-5- '. ... . -- .
.- ..
e
9 P.Q. Box ? 9601 @ 21 00 S.E. Main
!wine, California 927'1 4
(71 4) 957-7804
B
April 21, 1982
Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
This proposal is in response to City correspondence of February 1982, March 15, 1982, and April 16, 1982. It represents the re of meetings with you, Mr. Biondo, Mr. Beckman, and our successo in interest. The proposed settlement takes into account the fo
lowing:
POINSETTIA OVERCROSSING
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT
PARKS
I feel that it is relatively simple to implement, and that it i
equitable to all parties involved. The proposal, if accepted,
result in cash payments to thecityof approximately $400,000.
POINSETTIA OVERCROSSING:
Occidental will deFosit a total of $224,003, including deposits
presently held by the City (City estimate) for the bridge struc
ture. The approaches will be secured by improvement bond poste on behalf of John D. Lusk in the amount of $750,873 (City esti- mate, less mobilization charge and deposits to date). The City will be responsible for design services.
that: The City will agree
a) the Lusk ownership or its successors will not be
required to participate in further bridge construc-
tion within the original MP-133 area:
b) construction will commence prior to January 1, 1983,
subject only to obtaining necessary Coastal Commission permits;
C) Lusk will only be required to participate on a pro-
rata share of the at grade Poinsettia Lane 1nterSeC-
tion with Carlsbad Boulevard.
-6-
0 Mr. Frank Aleshi 9 e
Page 2
-I ‘April 21, 1982
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT :
Occidental will not require the City to collect sewer reim-
bursement fees within the original area covered by MP-133.
Occidental will take full responsibility for collection of original expenditures relative to sewer oversizing in this area. The City will return to Occidental all amounts col-
lected to date, plus interest earned. The City will agree not to issue permits for development within the Master Plan
area until Occidental has notified the City that sewer reim= bursement has been paid by the applicant.
PARKS :
Occidental, and/or its assigned successors in interest, will
pay $343,360 to the City at such time a development plan is
approved for the subject 3.95 acre site or the Lusk parcels,
whichever occurs first. At that time, the City will return the 3.95 acre site dedicated for parks and other public purposes in 1979. The City will grant credit for 740 units of park fees. It is understood that the development rights
on the 3.95 acre site will be determined by the General Plan
and Zoning of Record at the time this agreement is consummated.
In addition, Occidental will pay the City $27,840 in return
for 60 additional park credits.
parks credits may be assigned to Lusk and drawn upon by Lusk
agree that if development of more than 800 units is approved,
park fees will be paid at the rate in effect at the time develo
ment exceeds the total credits granted under this agreement.
This will allow Occidental to settle with the City and its
successors in interest.
The City will agree that retroactive application of PFF and
park fees to developments approved or undertaken prior to
the effective date of this agreement is not an issue involving
Occidental.
I am prepared to execute documents for Occidental Land to effectuate this proposal at your earliest convenience. I am requesting a meeting with you on Friday morning at 9:30 A.M.
to discuss how we can allow our successors’ application to
proceed while documents are being drawn to finalize this
The City will agree that all
as development occurs to a maximum of 800 units. Lusk will
proposal a
-7-
. 0 . Mr. Frank Aleshi t e
Page 3
*I 'April 21, 1982
In closing, I feel that this is a proposal that all involved
will find acceptable to resolve these long-standing issues.
Very truly yours,
OCCIDENTAL LAND, INC.
Ph ~~~~~
K. M. Wasmann
Executive Vice President
KMW/b
CC: Hon. Ronald Packard, Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
V. F. Biondo, Esq., City Attorney, City of Carlsbad
R. E. Beckman, Assistant C.M., City of Carlsbad
D. X. Winton, Esq.
-8-
, a e
*i
May 10, 1982
Frank Aleshire, City Manager City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUEJECT: OCCIDENTAL, 3.95 ACRE PARK SITE INFORMATION
Frank,
Our negotiations on the Occidental dedication of the 3.95 acre park site has been clouded by the facts behind Occidental's offer to the City in 1973. You requested information from Occidental that would substantiate our claim that the tatal 3.95 acres was always intended for parks and not parks and
general public purpose.
The purpose, therefore, of this letter is to provide additiona
information to support Occidental's position relative to the
subject site.
The site was originally dedicated to the City in 1973 for un-
specified purposes. In 1978, on behalf of Occidental, I
requested the following:
"The City would agree that under the present City of Carlcb
occidental Land, Inc. to the City of Carlsbad for Park pur
poses will satisfy the asticipated Park Land obligation fo
future residential development on APN's 214-150-17 and
214-150-18"; attachment #l.
Park-in-Lieu Ordinance, the 3.95 acres of land deeded by
Subsequent to my request, a report outlining options available
to the City was prepared by Jack Henthorn (then a City employe
According to that report, the original dedication was sufficie
to meet the requirements associated with 740 residential units
However, the repzxt noted that at the time of dedication, Lusk
had only requested 390 units, requiringr approximately 2.2 acre
of ?ark land. This brought up the question of the disposition of the 1.8 acre site.
2956 Roosevelf Street @ Post Of$ce Box 590 0 Curlsbad 0 CA 92008 @ [714] 434-1056
-9-
* , City of Carlsb 4 a rrariK Alesnire, =ity Manager
, May '10, 1982
Page 2 -,
According to the Henthorn memo to the City Manager of June 6,
1979 (attachment #2), several discussions took place with the
City Manager and City Attorney regarding the site and the
amount of credit. A determination was made that the credit would be limited to the original 390 units requested by Lusk in 1973.
Occidental would not agree to only 390 units of credit in ex-
change for the entire 3.95 acres. The compromise was to
dedicate 2.2 acres of the site as park land, and 1.8 to genera
agreement form, accepted by all parties, and executed on Augus'
20, 1979.
After the execution of the agreement, Occidental approached tht
City to attempt to respond to the City's letter stopping procei ing of applications within the Master Plan area. As a part of
this effort, Occidental requested that the City determine that
the 1.8 acre llsurplusl' parcel be designated for park usage, brj
ing the total credit for the 3.95 acres to 740.
The basis for this request is the August, 1979 agreement, para-
graph (a) which allows the City to determine use of the 1.8 aci
site. This approach was deemed appropriate in light of paragr; (c) which states that the City may require additional land, fee
or combination thereof for development of more than 390 units c
the Lusk parcels.
In addition, the City Attorney's interpretation of the 1979 agr
public purposes as determined by the City. This was put into
-
rnent, dated December 4, 1981 (.attachment #3), states that the
designation of the subject property (1.8 acres) is as consisten
with a park as it is with open space, or other City uses, such
a fire station. The memo then states that "all of these facts
are consistent with the 1979 agreement which designates part of
the site as park land and part as a fire station site". It is Occidental's contention that although the agreement does mentio fire station site, it also mentions open space or other public
purposes as determined by the City. Since a determination has
never been specifically made by the City, Occidental is simply questing that the site be determined to be park land and that credit be granted for 350 units. Following such determination, Occidental would request that the total 3.95 acres be returned equivalent in lieu fees.
-10-
0 r L aii~ nitfaiiLir, I)' Ly 1"ldrldyer City of Carlsba
% ,May '10, 1982 *. Page 3
Since future development would pay PFF, the City would still
be able to fund a fire station in the vicinity at a more
acceptable location, from the estimated 2,300,000 in revenue
potential from Occidental Master Plan area developments.
Respectfully,
THE AGATEP CORPORATION 63L
Donald A. Agatep,
President
DAA/JH: eg
Attachments
cc: Ken Wasmann Occidental Land
-11-
44 b 0 0
THE AGATEP CO.
P.O. BOX 590
-\
CARLSBAD, CAL. 92008
7 29-897 3
September 19, 1978
Mr. Paul Bussey
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Re: Clarification of the status of Occidental Land, Inc.
Park Dedication Requirements for Assessor Parcels
214-150-17 and 214-150-18, North and South of proposed
Poinsettia Lane extension between Carlsbad Blvd. and
A.T.&S.F. RR right-of-way, Carlsbad. (APN 214-171-23,
Exhibit A)
Occidental Land, Inc. deeded 3.95 acres August 6, 1973 to the City of Carlsbad for Park purposes (copy of Grand Deed attached). The
Park land dedication occurred during the processing of CT 73-11 and SP-114, a proposed 390 dwelling unit development filed by
Occidental Land, Inc. and John D. Lusk & Son in May, 1973. The 3.95 acres were located East of 1-5 and deeded to the City of Carlsbad to fulfill the proposed Lusk project's projected Park dedication requirements stipulated by MP-133 (Occidental Master
Plan), chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and Carlsbad
Ordinance No. 9190 (6). The land deeded by Occidental is a portior!
of the approximately 12plus acres designated by MP-133 for re-
quired Park dedication. The pro-rata dedications were to be grante
as each development within the boundaries MP-133 received its
final map approval. Master Plan 133 was approved January 1, 1970 and is illustrated in Exhibit B.
On September 11, 1973, Occidental and Lusk reauested that CT 73-11
and SP-114 be tabled to allow more time for project redesign and
the City's resolution of the Poinsettia Bridge overcrossing issue; the project was never reactivated and new project plans have not
been processed for the subject site.
At present, Occidental and Lusk request the City's written clari-
fication of the status of the 3.95 acres deeded by Occidental for
Park purposes under MP-133. As a result of discussions on this
matter with the Planning Department, we feel the following pro-
vision is a reasonable way to evaluate the 3.95 acres with respect
to any future residential development and the respective Park requirement for the subject parcels.
-12-
0 0
IC
Page Two, Letter'to Mr, Paul Bussey, City Managerf City of Carls regarding Occidental Land, Inc, Park Dedication, September 19, 1
The City would agree that under
the present City of Carlsbad Park-
in Lieu Ordinance, the 3.95 acres of land deeded by Occidental Land,
Inc. to the City of Carlsbad for
Park purposes will satisfy the an- ticipated Park land obligation for future residential development on
APNs 214-150-17 and 214-150-18.
We would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully, k
Donald A. Agatep
Planning Consultant
DWj j Att,
-13-
0 0 -.
-?!EM0 RAN DuE --------__
TO : City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
DATE: May 6, 1982
RE : Comments on Memo; Oxidental Agreement
YOU have asked for our comments on a memorandum dated April
28, 1982 regarding a proposed. agreement with Oxidental. The overcrossing and the sewer reimbursement proposals don't involve any legal issues. Beckman can advise as to whether or not the proposal is sufficient to get the job done.
The park land matter is a problem. Your memo should re-
flect that we have a valid and legally enforcable agreement that gives us the land in return for 390 units of park credit. The
park land is not linked to or related with the bridge or sewer
reimbursement. Oxidental is simply asking to renegotiate a deal
they made in 1979. Any council discussion on this matter should
begin with the 1979 agreement. However, we can see no reason why the City should agree to renegotiate in a way that costs us
money.
As you know, Oxidental's problem rises from the fact they have made a very bad agreement with Lusk and they want to get
out from under it by getting us to assume their responsibilities.
Ron indicates the property is worth approximately $400,000. Giv-
ing it back in return for $343,000 of park fees hardly seems in
the City's interest particularly when we can expect that Oxiden-
tal will almost immediately sell the property to Dwight Spiers
for an amount equal to or more than what they are giving usI
risk of fee increases to us.
Furthermore, agreeing to Oxidentals request means to shift the
In my opinion, the 1.824 acres is ours and it was given as
part of the developers' public facilities obligations. The value
of the land is substantially less than the public facilities fee
for the properties that are already developed. In my opinion, there is no doubt that the 1.8 acres was not for park purposes.
The agreement clearly gives a maximum of 390 units and if any more are developed by Lusk the City may require the payment of additional park fees. The agreement also states that the pro-
perty is to be used for a fire station site or "other public
purposes" which obviously modifies fire station site and doesn't
refer back to parks which have already been dealt with in an-
other section. We think we should leave parks out of our set-
tlement with Oxidental and proceed as soon as possible to solve
the remaininq problems.
-14-
m e 0
.I\
Most of our previous discussions in regards to the parks
site has turned on the business aspects,
however, are legal ones and there is no way that we can give Oxidental what they want. First, there is no vehicle to ''prepay" park fees. Prepayment is not consistant with the
Quimhy Act or the Subdivision Map Act.
City Council to make the decision whether or not to take fees or land for each particular subdivision at the public hearing at the time of tentative mar, aproval. If the decision is to
require the payment of fees they are paid at the time the map
is finaled based on the value at that time of the property being subdivided.
The real problems,
The lab7 requires the
The only alternative to that is a procedure in our Muni- cipal Code for use in the Planned Community zone which provides
for land banking which is an advance of park in lieu obligations
but not a prepayment. Each individual subdivisions obligation is determined at the tentative map stage based on current orgi- nances and values which may then be paid out of the advance we already hold. Any deficit is paid by the d-eveloper. Oxidental is not suqqesting that. Noreover, their properties are nendingr
a rezone out of the Planned Community zone so that alternative procedure could not be used in any case.
Second problem is, as I previously outlined in my memoran.: dum to you on this matter, that part of the land has been dedi-
cated for park purposes. As such, it can only be disposed of after compliance with the requirements of the Park Abandonment
Act which include public hearings.
that by agreement or otherwise avoid compliance with the act's
procedures. park problem many months ago, 1 thought I had explained while we were sympathetic it was simply not possible for us to get
there from here because of the two legal problems.
There is no way to prejudge
When Oxidental suggested we help resolve theil:
Please let me know if you need any further advice,
Very truly yours,
\!
VINCENT F. BIOMDO, J9. City Attorney hi
VFB/ars
-15-
0 . -, occIDenT.dL T$
21331 VENTCIFI:. KWEVARD, SK!QDWN: s,c),L!=C>k!A c'3$+ . 2
' _'
November 30, 1981
~np~-r~~ ,.;.It; 'L1 u i ,a{ u--
? i , I. rzr'7 3tL > .-,.. :
C/T\{ P.T i-?-i --' Mayor Ronald C. Packard 1200 Elm Street ur L;', L . .-.
Carlsbad, California 32008 Deyetoprnentai ser\ii<
Subject: Carlsbad/Oxy Bridge Agreement
Dear Mayor Packard:
As you know, Occidental Land previ-ously comitted to the
mutual effort to construct a bridge over the ATSF Rail- road by virture of agreements and amendment dated August 14, 1973. tingent upon approval by other governing agencies. Implementation of the agreements has been con-
kcent land use decisions by the California Coastal Commission
z.nd the City of Carlsbad appear to now make it possible to earry out the intent of our agreement.
The basic agreement requires that the City will secure the nxessary permits for the bridge construction and, inasmuch
6s the plans and specifications have been approved by the City,
we therefore request that the City of Carlsbad proceed to obtain
the permits from all agencies having jurisdiction.
The present agreement, as amended, provides for the City ta pay fcr 25% of the cost of the bridge and for Occidental to pay
-. - 1- il y si,_ , 4( the cost anti construction r?f the bridge
+"* -irT st~cture, exclusive of approaches , to be approximately
57c9 $009.
iijth our past harmonious association in mind, we would like to
move ahead and work out a mutually satisfactory means of fu1-
fifiing th2 obligations of the agrement.
Please advise as to your recommended course of action. ,
5253,!:C3, ??us fnteinest, tp,vard the cost of the bridqe. Ot3e~s ., - 7 r 3 - A. 1 P ,- q,j 7 ,q 3 - c. v.
rzac:?es, ?resent engineering estimates silg5est a cost of
President
?,I: b -16-
cc: Ken !Jasmann
,< 0 e .*
M EM0RAi;lDU M rl I - ..* L. . . -_ r.. .
-,-e-\. j c tf 1.5 .;;- - d ti, DATE 2 December 18, 7981 'etieio2~en ta~ S$rvice
TO : Prank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM :
SUaJECT: OCCIDENTAL PARK LAND
Michael Holzrnifler p Principal Planner \&
I have reviewed our files on the Occidental properties and find
nothing that would conflict with the memo from the City Attorney to the Parks and Recreation Director dated December 4, 1981 COE-
cerning the Occideiltal Land park site. There is, howevery one
item in the memo which needs to be clarified, This item is con-
tained on the last page (Page 91 of the memo and concern the re- cent General Plan Amendment for the Occidental properties, The
Open Space designation of these properties was not removed from
the General Plan. Rather, it was reduced in width to be
consistent with the reconmendations of the revised Parks and Recreatior? Zlement which will be considered in the near future and wk-iick recomends an open space ''corridorrP through the properties, T5e intent was to leave enough width so that it
could be mads to connect with open space areas on either end of
the pro?erzies, It was assuiaed by the Planning Department that
since tho revised Parks and Recreation Element was to be
considere5 $7 the City Council in the very near future, it was not necessary to process a separate, additional revision to the
Parks ail5 Recreation Zlernent,
As is i.r_?iclat$d in the City Attorney's memo, two properties
within tks OcziZental master plan area have developed, or are in
the proc?ss of developing; the Lakeshore Garden i-lobilehome Park and the Plaza Builders subdivision, Public fscilities fees were
?.ot paid ~2 Ei:>?r oRe of these 2evelopments and no park dedi-
,>7J-:n7 .-- -.>-.->- -=,. vv-Av,- j- -,-+--\ .-COS -ere abtair,ed on the mobil5hnme park. Ye
agree ~7;zr: f>? Zizy Ac-Lorney that L?: the grzviously 2,edicated
3.95 2~x2 2arce.l of land is given back to Occidental, the city
:night warit to reqtlire the payment of park fees and public facil- ity fees for the two developed properties with an agreement to
pzy fees for ail the renaining undeveloped properties.
.,..
n' ere is one additional item of information which I discovered ir
reviewing our files and which should be considered in the overall
discussion of park land and open space for the Occidental proper- ties. AltE.cuqh it bas not developed, a final map exists on the
property located at the northeast corner of Poinsettia and Paseo
del Norte which is indicated as Parcel 1 on tne attached Master Plan Exhibit "A", One of the conditions of approval of this map
-17-
Y
..
1‘ a 0 ..\
required the dedication of an additional 7.8 acres of park/open
space land adjacent to the existing 3.95 acre dedication, The dedication was to be made prior to the issuance of any building permits for the map. It is our understanding that the developer
has no intent to develop according to this existing final map anc
has, in fact, submitted a new tentative map €or this property.
This item, however, should be taken into consideration on any
determinations made concerning t3e park dedication/open space
issue at this location and perhaps the existing final map should be rescinded in conjunction with those determinations.
The Occidental properties have a very complex history involving
nwerous, overlapping past discretionary approvals, A goal worth
pursuing would be to renove all the previous, outdated approvals
and require each undevelop2d property to stand on its own in terms of meeting city requirements such as park and public
facility fees when these properties come in for development in
the future. However, we would not want to do anything which would jeopardize the city’s position in agreements which have
already been made by Occidental concerning items such as the
Po;nset”,;a raflroad crassing and other public improvement matters. This should bn discussed thoroughly by all the departrnercs involved including Parks & Recreation, City Attorney,
Engineerizs and Planning before any decisions are made. It is
suggestee kat a ceeting be set up to discuss this with
representzzi-Jes from all the involved departments.
HJ H : ar
12/18/8 :
-- cc: Zacis dzgman, Planning Director
Ron SeLcm? ‘_F-_ - ACM/Dzvelopmen . - - - ------- t Vrr:.ar ;3innZo, City Attorney
Daars 3radstreet, Parks & Recreation Director
I--- - -_ .-
Attazhme3Ys:
7- r c -I 3’ :i 0~11 . tJ7”t:,‘f L*J :l- i. ?“-3- -
-:tm r3 ::z:s .; ?ec..azi~n Director
-18-
e 0 .-
HEMQRANDUZ
December 4, 1981 T-3
-4 77' p T I TI j7D DATE:
7.0: Park and Recreation Director
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: OCCIDENTAL LAHD PAm SITE
A-LidL4ii-d
Developrnentai ~ery~ces
The City of @ar%sbad owns 3.95 acres of land east of Interstate 5
and north of Poinsettia Lane,
The property was conveyed to the City in 1973 by Occidental and in
conjunction with theis efforts to develop a portion of the
Occidental Land Master Plan (MP-733) o Occidierrtal Land, thair succ~ssors in interest, and individuals holding options on
portions of the property (hereinafter "Developers") have
requesteii that the City deed the land back to the Developers. You indiczke it is your recommendation and the recommendation of
the Park ani! Recreation Commission that the site is not suitable
for dovelosaent as a city park and that you favor the reconveyacce, k.~ agenda bill was prepared by your department to present the nattrr to the City Council for a policy decision.
have rev%;.wed khe agenda bill, This memorandm is to give you
tle results of that review.
~ispositlex sf City property in General:
There arr t nuabcr of state laws which govern disposition of city
property. In general, Government Code Sections 37358 and 37351
The Iaeatian grf the praperky is -shown OR the map marked Exhibit A, attached hereto,
-
We
=>>-e -,~:,crFze x:?+ ~i.2:~ to dis9,ose of city pmperty far the comm
,?Z?3zL'I, __ -3 :Liz 3,oinion thak Fr, ?.ask czses ??lac aPanS a sale - -_ _. -
c)r Lease &it fazrxiarkst valile, usually detersined by an -l?graisal, with 2ublic bids, In addition, the Government: Code requires that the Planning-Comissisn of the City report on whether zr not the location, purpose and extent of the proposed
disgosition is in conformity with the adopted general plan,
Further, Governnent Code Section 54222 requires the City Council
to find that the property is.not suitable for park and recreational purposes, Section 54222 also requires the city to nake a written offer of the property to the redevelopment agency
at fair market value for the purposes of low or moderate income
housing, The requirements of all of these laws must be satisfiec
prior to the disposition of any city property, including -. the
-19-
,' , .. 0
.x
Bark and Recreation Director -2- December 4, I981
hw imposes additional constraints on the disposition of park
property e
Discontiriuance-of Parks:
The California-Government Code Title! 4, Biv. 3, Part 2,
Chapter 9, Sections 38400 through 38510 contains a detailed set
. of laws governing the discontinuance of parks, The first: of the three articles that make up Chapter 9 deal with parks that were
dedicated by the original. town, map or plot, (Section 38400 et
clearly not applicable to the property in question, The second
article deals with land that has been w,..dedicated or placed in park use by such city,..,," . (Section 38440 et seq,) The City may not dispose of such lands without: a public: hearing and
! ?:. ! apppaval ... hq!.:;.thAn~v:Vgters"., at,a+spesial election,
-.j.- fairly.& considered to be a city park; that is, they acquired that status either by deaidoprnent, special designation, actual
public us2 ar sonic combination of those factors. The third sirticle is entitled,"The Municipal Park Abandonment Law of 7939-"
{Section 33501 et seq.) This law allows.the City Council to
ilbandoned s ?ark and sell. the land if it finds that (1) the land has not been-used by the public for park purposes; (29 that no
one out si25 the city has supplied the consideration for the acquisrtim or' the park; (3) that no public funds-have been expended to imprme the land as a park; and (4) that the Sand is
. Occidental site. As we will discuss in the next paragraph, the
seq,) We will, not: discuss that part of the law since it is
It is QUP opinion
C~L- ::. .that this portion of the law only applies to lands that can ._ i _I \,
..
not appmriate., convenient or necessary for park puqyxses (i
1 {Sectim 3S50f) In order to proceed under this law the City
~ouncii =.:-st first adopt a resolution of intention describing thc ?ark and setti~g a time, at least thirty days thereafter, for a
public h?zriz$ on khe matter, (Section 33503) The resoltation
must be ~~blisked in a newspaper of general circulation and a"L
least four copies of the resolution must be conspicuowsly posted .z? -05 22~2 Z.')~R '30 feet intervals along the boundaries of the
7 e2r;<+ Ir+z=iz.r* ,620+j A:.t t,7~ kine stated in .~2e resolution the
Zit~ Cot.~ac~.i a~sz thn hear th? rnatt?r, 2ass-on any obj2ctions
from .khe 2;"53ii=: Lo the abandonment cf 6he park and either sdstaii
"ha sb4ections to "Le disposition, if any, or overrule the objwtions, iz th?e Council sustains them, the proceedings
. terminate and the City Council, cannot reconsider the rriatter agaii
for at least six months. (Section 38505) If there are no
objecticns 3r if the objections are overruled the City Council i:
tkerz ir? a pcsitLcr! to make a derision whether or not they can
four findings, the City Council may then proceed to dispose of
the property. The special limitations on the disposition of
property acquire; with bond funds or by assessment district procedures do not apply to OUT situation,
..
.I - .-. - . .. - ,-
i -c
Lr L
make the fous findings, (Section, 38506) If they can make the
-20-
0 0 *-
*%
\
Park and Recreation Director -3- December 4, 1984
Character of Property in Question:
The process that must be followed in disposing of the Occidental site depends on whether or not it constitutes a park and if sot
what kind? Geal with a suggestion by the developers that the conveyance of the property to the city was premature or somehow the result of an error or mistake of fact. finds, the conveyance could simply be rescinded without the
. necessity of going through the above process, Our PrevFew of the
facts indicate that the mistake rationale has IIQ merit, we will now discuss the facts which have led us to thak conclusion,
1979 City-Occidental Agreement:
This is not the first time the City of Carlsbad has been asked tcr
"clarify" the status of the property in question, By letter,
Occidental Land and John D. Lusk, asked the City to clarify the
status of -Lk 3.95 acre site. The letter reflects that the 3-95 acres were i2eded ts the City on August 6, 1973 by Occidental
Before undertaking that determination, however,. we
If that is so, and the Council SO
- dated Septesnber 49, 9978, the Agatep Company, on behalf of
and, Inc, rp .I- for park purposes."
Fie- Agate?, In the letter; states further that,
't'se ?;ark land dedication occuked during the processing
Zevslopsent-..to fulfill the proposed Lusk project's
zzrk dedication requirements stipulated by XP-433. 1 the Park-In-Lieu Fee Br3inance of the City of Carlsbad)",
- m- u- .--% -1 23-11 and SP-114, a proposed 390 dwelling unit
Agatep's le=terr continues,
z L-h __-_ 1 ;anif de&& Sy Occidental, is a yrtion sf the
- --.,- -u-3x~xac~l:~ 12t acres Cissignaced by >!?-? 33 for _-
Z~SX~Z~ ;ark ddicacion I The pro-raz?d dedications
ii~re t=, be granted as each development within the
hmdaries of M?-133 received its final map approval,"
FIL ;,-e LUS~ 2roject had been withdrawn and never reactivated, The
p;?rpose of :<re Agatep's letter was to ask that,
=the City would agree that under the present City of
Carlsbad Park-In-Lieu Fee Ordinance the 3-95 acres of land Ceded by Occidental Land to the City of Carlsbad
for park purposes will satisfy the anticipated park lant
obligations for future residential development' (on the
L~sk parcels) .m
-21-
0 e
Park and Recreation Director -4- DeCHTIbeP 4, 9981
In response P-o the letter the Planning Department and Jack Benthome prepared a detailed report to the City Council seeking to clarify the matter. (Agenda Bill 5921, July 77, 1979) The
City Manager, at' that time, recommendated tu the City Council
thak the Ciky agree with MP. Agatepk request since the original dedication was made in good faith (albeit prematurely) to meet
the park requirements for the Lusk project. As a result of that recommendation the City Council directed staff to return with the
appropriate documents- That was accomplished at the August 7, 1979'meeting (Agenda Bill 5921-Supplement 1) and the City Council.
by a 4-1 vote (Councilman Skotnicki in opposition) adopted Piesolution ~0,5874. ??his res~lutian found that the city and Occidental had intended to utilize the alternate parks procedure for planned cornunities which is now in "the Carlsbad Nunicipab
Code notwithstanding the'fact that the provisions had not been enacted at the time of the dedication, (You recall that those
sections were added to the code to accommodate La Costa to allow
park land dedicated in one portion of a master planned comunity, to satisfy thd parks obligation of a subdivision located in another psrtion' af that planned community, 1
City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No, 5875, approved an
zqardi2cj z2s park site, Me have attached, as Exhibit B# the
Agenda Bill, Resolution No. 5874, Resolution No, 5875 ana the
arks Agreonerrt, dated August 20, 1979, These should bs
carefully reTriena3. We will discuss the terms of the agreement later in tnis memorandum as they b9ar on the City's disptxitiorf
In addition I the
agreement btween the City sf Carlsbad and Occidental Land
of the p?Yqlr?y-
The letter fm;il Mr, Sandy, or' the Agatep Company, dated Augrasi= Yg
1981, w'nlzi xas t'ne occasion for the preparation of your agenda
bill, is zot ccrupletely accurate in its recital of the €acts of
the ~ilatkez- ~t r,egLects to mention the agreement and its terms and in2icmzss %>a< t'ne park dedication had no relationship to
_n ?r ,Q v i 0 us :>-
I , .-r. - 231r :-' - - _--- _---- aa'r have Seen true ?Tior :c? ?97S, it is . ,-->I- * -- ,.31'rt-'.' - :zzz T13Y SlnL'P ?he Cl"y-Occi2snkai 'ark 1.gdasarneEt
pr"ovF3d 31c proposed development of the subject
=. -?.a- .- --
yak3s clear t5at rhe land- wasdzdicaked Zor park purposes an6 was
EQ be kei& 3a accaunt-to sat:is€y &he parks obligatiocs 05 ?he
~usk parr2~s,
Gccidentzl nastzr pian area and the Lusk parcels which were the
occasion of the 1979 agreement, (The Planning Department was
unable to provide us with the official exhibit to the approved
masker plan bat it a2,pears the developer and the City have used zxttibit C and we will adopt it €or purposes of this memorandum.)
The report prepared by Hr, Henthorne, Mr. Agatep's letter, and our QW~I review oE the files all suppart= a conclusion that the
wz hzve attached, as Exhibit C, a nap showing khe
-22-
0 0
1
Park and Recreation Director -5- Beeexher 4, 798'1
conveyance was made in furtherance of development under the
Occidental Master Plan and that it did not result from some
inadvertent mistake.
Determination on the Status of the Land:
As indicated above, the letter from the develaper*s
representative indicates that the property was deeded to the- City for park purposes. Of course we must. also look at all of the
other relevant facts before making our judgment, (Ir, that
regard, you should know that the principle reason for the delay in my preparation of this memorandum was the difficulty we had in ascertaining the facts of the matter, .This project was approved in 1969 and the City's recardkeeping system leaves sonething to
additional information fron you and the Planning Department, Of necessity, we must rely in part on then for most of the facts,
are only eccurate insofar as the facts upon which they are based
are accurzke.) The most important fact is that the 1979
City-Occ25ental agreement states that 2,126 acres of the 3,951 acre site Is ?ark land which is available to satisfy ths park
obfigatiai sf ilp to 380 units on the Lusk parcelsl Plaster Plan ~arcels -2 sild 73. (See Exhibit C) If development results in .
nore thar- 343 urzits, additional park Sand OK fees will be required 2x5 if it results in less than 390 unitsl the City is
still entf-~1& to keep +the 2.126 acres and is IIQ~ required to give: any excess credit to other developments within the master
plan,
The agreeneck also provides that the remaining 3,824 acres is
convey& 2s ?art of the overall master plan responsibility for
P aubfic ~z~oscs including but not linited to fire statim sites
ar,d othez Clty prpsscs~ The 1973 deed for the property is
--.,>a-3ca*-
- far qitner3tl ?L?tnLcL3al
-be desired. We have Mr. Henthorne's report and have received
The legal reasoning and conclusions offeced in this memorandum
-_ -:. - -:?? aqreement. x C33'P 02 tke deed is 3ttac';ted
he site is identified or! the Bark and
- _i -.1-,.
,-.-.?P
a. - ZS s.<hiLlS-= 2- -.- gr3;lZS kh2 FKSperkY -. ~urgses, 'inere is 110 specific restriction' or reference in che 2eeci 50 ;ark purposes, 22creation eiesent of the general plan as an open space area. fiowevert t%e elextent does not contain any identification for
arks sites, All of the City parks and open s2ace areas are
idzntifiid in the same way on the element as open space or green
areas. Therefore, the designation for the subject property is
as consis'lent with a park as it is with ogen space or other City
uses? szch as s, fire station, The Occidental Master Plan
(Exhibit C) shows the area in question as a portion of a larger
elementary school site. You have indicated to us that a
specific plan and nap for the area may identify it as an
P
-23-
e 0
b%
P~rk and Recreation Director -6d er 4, 1981
* elementary and junior high school sits. Rowever, wB find
. evidence in the correspondence and documents relevant to this project that the site was to serve as a combination fire
stakion/park, All of these facts are consistent with the 1979
agreement which designates part of the site as pazk land and part
as a fire statim site,
The City MsLnager and Planning Director <Mro Agatep) who handled this matter were pioneering in the sense that the city had no established procedures for dealing with planned cxqpnunities in 1969, As a result, some of the developer8s obligations were contained in "understandings" based on oral i?iscussions or
correspondence, payment to the school district pursuant to that type of an arrangement which was the first instance of the City and a -developer cooperating with a school. district to mitigate the
effects from a residential development, The conveyance a€ the
fire statlon/;?ark site by Occidental in 1973 seems to us to have
been similar to their earlier payment to the schm% district; that is, La satisfaction of a part of the basic "understanding"
between "As developer 3rd the City Manager and as part of the
cverall mast=?r plan agproval process between a developer and the city.
For instance Ir Occidental made a substantial east
8ased on 33. o€ these facts, it is our opinion that 2,424 acres of the si52 vas deeded to the City for park purposes pursuant tQ
the reqrnk=zents of the City and the master plan approval and
that tha ?z=rg,erty is park land, it is also cLe-acg however, tkatr
it has nexez Seen used by the public as a park and it has not
been dev&=?ed in that regard in any wayI It is, therefore, our
opinion tkzt the Gartion of the Government Cde requiring an
election ?=For 'lo disposition does not apply. &%at we think doe apply is -3% ?ask Abandonment Act. Based OR the facts as we kn0
xecuired 53 dispose of the site. The property was dedicated to
:>% +:izr ZZ~% z_i-arr3 YQFJ "0 funds =rea outside c%=izens; iz-ivalve6
~t '?,as not
&en dnvelc3y2 as a park, Finally, yair and the Parks and
. 3ecreatim Commissicm recornmended that it is imt an appropriate site for a park. In preparing your revised agenda bill to
present t;22 situation to the City Council, it is our advice thal you indicate that if the City Council wishes to accept your
recommendation and dispose of. the property in same manners that
they instruct the staff to return with the necessary resolution of intentioiz setting the matter to public hearing and direct yo1
to do the nec2ssary posting and publishing, Prior to the hearii you should satisfy a11 the general requirements for the disposa of City land as outlined at the beginning of this memorandum- -.
Lhem, va r?!k?ik the City Council could make all of the findGislgs
Las -7 -7* ____ ;.-.-. ,erJ~:t~3n, L~ nas n~t bean used as a ?ark,
c - -- ~
-24-
0 0
Parks and Rzcreat;om D;feckoY -74 D@cr@rnb@rc 4, I984
_L - -_ the public hearing, if the City Council then determines to
proceed with the disposition, a second agenda bill would be
required asking us to prepare the necessary documentsp including a resolution authorizing the disposition and a resolution
rescinding the 1979 Occidental-City Park Agreement. It will also
be necessary for the City Council to determine the terms of the
disposition,
Terms for Disposition:
The developer has offered to pay park fees far the remaining undeveloped'propertiesp plus ten percent in return for the 3-95 acres, Before making your recommendation on that pr~p~sd., 1.
think we should discuss the matter further with the City Manager
in light of the 1979 agreement. It seems to me that agreement
should certaininly serve zs the starting point in evaluating the
daveloper*s proposal, The agreement provides that only 2,126 acres of ?he 3.95 site is €or parks and that it only satisfies
the Parks' requirements for the Lusk properties (390 out of
agproxisately 1,2'50 units), State law and city ordinance would
require t;?? Zeveloger to pay park fees €or the balance of the - sroject, :<e cave some difficulty understanding how an offer to
pay what cze is already otherwise legally obligated to pay constitutzs z5essake consideration for 3-95 acres of land. Ten percent CT tae fegs fS20,OOO) is probably substantially below thi market ;.z,-e of 232 property,
As your ztt3rseyst we itre obligated to point out the City*s rights ~;ces :';le existing agreement,
3, WE? 332 2,426 mrss of the site in return for UP to 390 unit
- ..
They are as follows:
of --- =LC fees which would otherwise be paid as a result of
d2~plspienk 03 ?he Lusk pzreels,
-% -. 33 S;ICZ~S 573 ::oc 7.o~ si~itable for park use,T they
x2-r - .:e s;ls.zi Z~LZ ~arkec ~aicle afcer saizisfyirrcy :ha 1~3ga!
ricuiranents as outlined herein with the proceeds limited I
I ___ &
_- __ - L --
-1
use EOZ pazk purposes.
rr*% i:..- Q City owas the 1.824 acre fire station site which may bc 3 Jr
retsi2e2 and used for that purpose or sold at fair market
ValXG?,
k;hiie vi2 lqally xay require the dedication thak was made as a coildiCLi~r: ~f t3ft master plan and retain the property, full exercise of these rights would be in some respects at variance
with cutrrerzt city council policy- The Council has nok required
-2 5-
0 0
I
Parks and Recreation Director -8- December 4, 1984
developers of major planned conxiunities (La Costa, Lake Calavera Hills) to dedicate fire station sites, That. is, of coarse, provided the developer agrees to pay the public facilities fee.
While the developer here has agreed to pay the fee for the undeveloped portion of the master plan area, keep in mind that several portions of the master plan community, that is the
nmbilehome park and the development on the southcease quadrant: of
1-d Poinsettia Lane, has ai-- nocat tne papen oTany putslis facilities fees,
There is a related pr~blera whish also needs to 9e presentkd ts
the Council in regards to the Lot 17 park area consisting of
5.578 acres. The site is shown on Exhibit E, Its dedication wa
required as a condition of the final map for CT 73-24.
Apparently the subdivider, Plaza Builders, has offered ko dedicate the property as required, Elowever, it is your pasition and that of the Parks and Recreation Cornmission that the prcqert is not suitable for park purposes, The developers have or'fered,
as a part of their proposal, to pay the park fees for the Plaza Builders' project in return to.which the City would reject the
dedication, Leaving it in the hands of the subdivider, That
would still Isave the mobilehome park, whiu s d-pl op=-a-
h
pait or t22 nascer plan, without the pa IIent
2.4 c LQC - 41; 5, i an is probably be,ter r~c) iacrlude it as a part of an overall, solutior, to this
problem,
3y separc?? memorandum, dated Novembzr- 12, 1989 p you have askski
us to revisw a proposed agreement between the City and
Occidental which would.give them the 3-95 acres in seturn for
their pave%& of park-in-lieu fees OR the remaining undeveloped - Property, 3i,efore commenting on that agreement in detail, in light of ths discussion sf the above memcxanduii we suggest we
xeot witkt thi city Hanager to discuss the matter further, prim
53 zzatt x.l.;..rinc;, It ~i0~1d bs useful to determix2 I- the City
--es ___I 2 -7-% a--- -LIL =-* 3 flre stacion in t:?s area 2nd %herher or EO"L
Ithe oroperq we cow own is suitable, That would certainly be 3 signi-ican? * 'SI' consideration in arriving at a jucigment on this izatter, -= 11 tie &m3t want the site, a fair resolution mi-
to return-the 3-95 acres in return for a payment of pck fP p. $,
%d pubirc zzciiicies fees tor the develwed areas of the maste;
~&davelopeo areas. want tne sit2 but 'a starting point might be to keep the 4,824
acre site in lieu of public facilities fees for the already developed areas, returning the balance of the site to the
developer on his agreement to pay all fees,
aa..?(. fp 0%
.I *-
6Lan and an agresxaent to pay them for all the remainins
Things are a little more complicated if we
-26- -
v e 0
Parks and Fiecreation Director -9- December 4r 1981
$a additional matter that requires some attention is the existing
Parks anti Recreation element, As you knowI at the request: of dzvelopers, the City has approved a general plan amendment &Q
inc e? ude it within an area proposed for residential development.
Unfortunately, the Planning Department neglected to at the same tine arcornplish the required amendment to the Parks and
Rscreation element which continues to show the property as open
space. The developer should be advised of this problem and the Planning Department encouraged to initiate the necessary
amendment to bring the Parks and Recreation element- inta
conformity with the land use element as SOQ~ as possible,
Please Pet us know if you need any further advice on this
GQ~OV~ ths ogen space designation from the subject property and
.matter,
\
VINCENT F, BIONDO, 9% *I VFS/rnla
Sittachmezc
qc:- Ci-t2- :+imager
e
.e
-2 7-
Y..y&Y-.. -
-2'8- - '. .- .. --.
a e
MEMORAN DUF;
TO: City Manager
FROM : Assistant City Manager/Developmental Services
DATE : May 3, 1982
SUBJECT: PROPOSED OCCIDENTAL AGREERENT
(i?
In response to your request, I am forwarding comments on your April 28th
draft of a proposed agreement with Occidental Land Company.
OVERCROSSING
1. Your draft agreement proposes a payment of $274,000 to the City. Since the McDaniels Engineering estimate for this structure was $224,000, I must assume that the $274,000 figure includes $50,000 for re-engineering the old plans.
2. My recommended time for commencement of construction, as previously indicated, is 24 months after signature of agreement; not the 12 months as proposed. The City is prepared to redesign and secure permits for the structure.
In proposing a $750,000 agreement with Lusk, there are two important things which are not mentioned. The first would be the assumption that the City keeps the $124,668 currently on deposit with the City- This money had been deposited by Sequoia Pacific as their share of the approaches. The second issue is that the $750,000 proposed plus the $124,000 on deposit is approximately $91,000 short of the esti- mated costs of construction of the approaches.
a copy of which has been furnished to the Occidental representatives. In summary on this item, the amount deposited or guaranteed by Lusk should be $841,000 in addition to the $124,000 already on deposit with
the City.
3.
The estimate of $965,000 is contained in the r\lcDaniels Engineering estimate (attached) 3
SEWER REIMBURSEMENT
I have no problems with this section. proposed to Occidental several months ago.
PARK LANDS
I don’t understand why the need to breakdown park-in-lieu credit to 740 units plus an additional 60 units, unless this complicated breakdown is necessary for Occidental to establish the basis of their agreement re- garding the disposition of 3.95 acres of land dedicated to the City.
It is essentially as we initially
-39-
e w
May 3, 1982 PROPOSED OCCIDENTAL AGREEMENT Page 2
PARK LANDS (Continued)
I agree with the clause requiring Lusk to pay additional park-in-lieu
fees as applicable at the time for any units in excess of those prepaid.
The 2.126 acres of land which was accepted in lieu of 390 units of park- in-1 ieu credit is currently worth approximately $37,000 more than the
in the value of the property since it was dedicated to the City. turn the land to Occidental at this time would result in a windfall profit to Occidental. There has been no discussion regarding the issue of back taxes during the period when the City held the property.
On page 3 of your draft, you make comment regarding the City Attorney's interpretation, which would require Occidental to pay $161,090 for the 1.8 acres in order to receive 740 units park-in-lieu credit. Assuming our appraiser's estimate of land value is correct, 1.8 acres of land would be worth approximately $180,000. Therefore, Occidental ' s payment of $161,000, which you imply as excessive, would be a good deal for them.
In summary, the bridge deal shculd be sweetened by Lusk agreeing to pay
an additional $91,000 on top of the $750,000 proposed. The agreement
should also indicate that the City keeps the $124,000 on deposit. sion of the 3.95 acres to Occidental and their "prepaymentt' of park-in-
lieu fees for 800 units results in some risks and some potential loss of property to the City. Action in this area, however, is purely a policy issue and it may be worth it to us to get Occidental and their old master
plan out of the picture. The additional money from Lusk, however, should be included into the agreement because failure to include it would result in the City having to pay this cost out of its limited capital resources.
Attachment
RAB/cl e
value of the park-in-lieu credit. This is due primarily to appreciation
To re-
Rever-
-30-
w . - .. . - ... . -
7 md QANIEi ENGlNEERkNG aPANY 4~9CASSSTREET,SAh)DlEGU,CPILIFORNIA,92109 1714}273-822C
I. .
February 10, 1982
City ' Engineer Ci.t;y of Carlsbad ' 1200 EIK~ Xkvenue ..
Carlsbaci, CR 92008 ..
x.y!x~~TIog : LRIIIX DOSSEY
-_ SUBJECT: POINSETTIA L-WE: GmDE SEPARATION
.- ..
Gentlemen: -.
At. YOUK. reql;res-t we have reviewed and up dated the preliminary
cost estixz-tc to construc-t the proposed grade separation and
approach roa6ways for Poinsettia Lane at the ATSE Ry tracks in Carlsbad- ..
13 our. csin~.ort the preliminary cos-t estimate for a four-izne
struct=rz; Sased or1 the detail plans prepared by VTN in 1973 is estimte2 to SC $654,000.
estirnzt;,. fzr a .C;:~-j.arxe alternate, e-andable a% a future time
to fo::r-lar.zs D~Z- VTN 2lans r to be abont ..$224, Or&9 - oux estimatt
of th2 cc;s;-i. to ~onstruzis. -the approach roadwa$s is on the order
This estimate is baseu solely on the items of ~701
-es &scribed in the design report prepared by..VTl\i,
April 25, 1.373, entitl-eds Design Report-Poinsettia Lane Rzilrsc
Overero E; .j! T?,, rir. h avt - PA maae no independent determina-tion of tt
cOrrect-.;:.t2 5 ? t:he.'iter~s of work and the quantities listed thzr
tSe also prepar2cl a preliminary cost
----.- .__...__ -- -____C-^...__^- ---.-------.____. -._._ -
_-..__ "_- __-.. I '-
----_I___. -7-----------
___
_______-._ .- ..
..
We wish t:, poink out that these es-tinate updates are for your . plannin; ;;)~~pc,ses only and, therefore r should not be considerec
as necz5;:;irily reflecting a precise and fixed upper 1imi.t of t?
cost of ::r-,r:stru.cti.ng the work as described in the design report
or on YTY I s gili:ns'. PIS make no representation concernirlg the 'e5 mated zi,;zn ~i.ki~:; arid cost figures made in connection Lq7i.th this ject other t.hai1 ?ill such figures arc estimates only and v~e casr bz resFo2sibl.e for fluctuations in cost factors.
~f YOU 5n.tre zny qtles-tions please call us,
assistir::j the City of Carl-sbad in connection wit.h your Poinseti Lane pl.anziny ef-forts-
\.!e Loo!c forward to
Very truly yours, yb~mhdJ! \e i. -th ~a 11 i st e 1
KAG/asm
a-ttachmerlts : 1:s tirncl te ~afcula tions ( 1. set ) -VTN ~esic~n ncport,
April. 26', 1373-V7'1\1 Iict.aril Pl.atns, 9 sheets, unclatl
. - . . . . . . .... - .. -31 - .. . . . . . .. .-
hject ----,-------------- / Uf f 13" .->-- Tj --~------------~-~----~----~-~--~--~------~-~--------~--------.-----Da~e----~---~-----~ {C-t
Engiptr __________________-------- _-_ ------..-------- 1---- -_____.____________________: ________________________________________--------- Checked by _________-_
File Nu _________________ Pr&;fl/;;?di'L/ - && &f-7kYaLe S h e et . - -.-=--__.of 9 - -
3 spas /ZUr//O?!$Y 33 I b2/2-& .-
L~--&MQ gde ~Cpar~h~
7
- -- UHii prc- bri G? UUu7 N Yy 1 -iv
s-hd E&%(/ *lB cy . kzoa 1 /2(
S*&Ea+4j/ . Facy - /L-doo '/
FO/fl/ih-& J' p ;b g/z.L.f= /2LOD .I 209
Qrwe q5T pi/& 2pEA jmo. 00 = ZP, 0
S??~O& &;[Lrdi~; 207Cy 2m,orl vyr, -7
1' 1
/ -~ ____ .-
-
* .. -- . . , f . . . -. -
.oi m l IS,2
-36400
f z3/:
&z322*00- 1 +l
&LV /27LF . /ruoo / E3 p4.@72) / 1 L/&Z
~m~h- /c--//=le 5d /27L/= ZJ3 073 ' 3r-
At I c. OVW/dl 60 T~MS zr4 0-0 1 21
CI~A Linb Fmce /OD LF Is-o=
SA&-&[ /- (85,
&z-f- +-(a .z;),.- 17 -L f </rc/f3c 3G, SOOLl9
,G%?~&yy /y2- Eo1 &i. /&-$E3 E?p
si54 /nshL[ Ais hx .!./P&k??
J
-J /L t,
-. .- . .*
g2xfrieJ'- F/pE 1 235 /Z7LF .. \SD:'od / 62
7-f
. . -. .-
/
'- c s
ALobL'//za ?%!#I@ /6 '% 1 e5
/ 203,'
2-0,:
/ $- - -32- .LZ-.r;,
Cb~h~~~r;,Cfe~ GL /o"/ 0 J
projecf ____________________..---------- j2O/Q se-M/& *-------- C~-e------~-----~-~--~~~- ---~-~------------~-------------------UdL"-----'------- Enginer __ ________________._._ ._________._____- :----* --_- - --_------ ........................ ---:______________-__-_____________:______:Checkd by_---
File No .____._-- -.
- mK711"oy ArpmOc de r 1. aI€?d ____ .16--.
-i 3 & - -1 fim . omflfiy UDP /r/
2.9a 7znf s Z5,OU /
1- *I37 TUNS f-
23 '/.CTB . .. * 2'rA#c,/4€aiaF~ : . B,Boo sF . 3.00
--Pf r9c.c. Walk / 7jpeCCfb - . +27G CF
&h*bJ2H?OPAfl4@. 55 000 cy' a00 -' 9-
ce&ihiT PJdI 960 Sf /z-oo x-
sl~pz ,bian+h 476 00 sF /;om / 4 L.S, /&ooo ? f 1 EncnsE- iElC-0
ggfend '5~~27 *c Ldm~~g -
/7e /oL~-?c? +?-f /Si- O v d, O.Y~~G/ /u,ooo ? / - ]g'gL:p 5f)Jmfl -pra/j, 2 1u LF. - -40.00 '
C/mn L.> &-- 1 E4 - zs-50>50 '
SDLIJLDTLOJ *-7
.g
i S-E
/fevp7s J pi,arb &- ~CJ ymif/;cje-r fake- 7C
~~ __ _-_ .I _. ----
/+e h&;/7a r y . . COX 13;-'j/L/otah Lyw[a+-e -
-
t/ J;7'//,c, J (7~WC@j l3.35 TOHS 35,OO f
&,bo
/o- 00
2S;ao' y M,E Gi,~id*Pai/ /z.!i-Z LF. I ~
- 5-0.00 / '
Ad. -rc
. CD. LE
. 'CS, .-
- z+'- PC- P Ssi7jp1 Dj~aiy7 270 LF. 50,&0 '
2 674. z~-~cJ..oo I lur/Q3- curb //>/<-J -L . ZEA. 3000.00 4 ~+ry.@L- //+!I L, 5a. /zaa. 00
/Job;//2U+L& e /o "/,
cmfzc3/7spvIcl'Q-T e f 0 "/t
I
E
)do?&;
prz/lflll17Br Y ~st/n;~ rccS Gf CGXT psv- v7
pppEff n'Qfi%P +zF- 73 , 00;t pr/-c-cJ- O(
+y /y.w-sz k1.t Dmp ac/l &-[ pnu4.
-33-
-
- 0 W
BieJear HOMES, INC.
4540 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA m PHONE 546-8801
April 8, 1982
/w Mr. Frank Aleshire & City Manager
1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad, CA 92008
RE: Pacesetter Tentative Map 81-30
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
The City Manager's memo of January 28, 1982, advised that the City staff has decided not to process development applications within the original Occidental Master Plan area. The City Manager's memo indicates that Occidental and the City of Carlsbad have entered into various agreements to allow development to occur. The memo further states that there are basic conflicts requiring resolution before applications can be processed. These conflicts involve the Poinsettia railroad overcrossing, sewer reimbursement, parks and public facilities fees.
Pacesetter Homes filed an application to resubdivide an existing subdivision which was acquired from Occidental several years ago. Our application was to be heard by the Planning Commission on
February 10, 1982, but was not heard because of the Manager's memo.
We fail to see where our property is involved in these "conflicts" and offer the following reasons as to why we should be allowed to proceed with our applications as filed in July, 1981.
Poinsettia Railroad Overcrossing:
Occidental has an agreement with the City to provide this facility. As developments have occurred within the Master Plan area, deposits have been made on the basis of the agreement and related amendments. In our case $22,382 in cash was deposited on the same date as our current Final Map (73-23) was recorded, February 28, 1975. This
money has been held in an interest bearing trust account since its deposit for the purpose of paying our per acre portion of estimated construction costs.
Sewer Reimbursement:
Occidental originally installed oversized sewer facilities in order to accommodate flows from surrounding properties. The cost of these oversized facilities, beyond "normal" requirements, was to have been
-34 -
c * I e w
. Mr'. Frank Aleshire April 8, 1982 Page Two
collected by the City as development occurred and returned to Occi- dental. A formal agreement was never executed to accomplish this. We are prepared to pay Occidental directly - thereby eliminating
the need for the City to act as collection agent. concurred with this approach. Occidental has
Parks:
The original Occidental Master Plan required certain land dedications for parks purposes. ment in lieu of land. ($464.00/DU) to meet our parks ob1 igation.
Public Facilities Fees:
The original Occidental Master Plan did not contain provisions for public facility fee payments.
facilities fees in accordance with current City policy. A signed Public Facilities Agreement was submitted with our application to resubdivide on July 6, 1981.
Given the facts above, we feel that we have met the original intent of the Occidental Master Plan and related agreements. Additionally,
we believe that we have provided for those items noted in the City
original Master Plan.
Therefore, it is requested that you consider this letter a formal appeal of the staff decision to discontinue processing of Tentative Map 81-30 and direct your staff to now set 81-30 for public hearing before the Planning Commission and process the map as required by subdivision law. Consideration of this appeal by the Council at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of April 20, 1982 would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
The City has since elected to require fee pay- We have agreed to pay current park fees
We have, however, agreed to pay public
Manager's memo (park & public facilities fees) not addressed in the
JWK: dc
cc: Mr. V. F. Biondo, City Attorney Mr. Ron Beckman, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Mr. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
-35-