HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-20; City Council; 8236-4; PUBLIC HEARING - CHAPTER 27 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-4 PARK DRIVE?.*
L! 0 C 4cd 44
ma daJ .d -d 4-1 h -4 ua
u cda
z2
aJa sc uu
uta CdG c -d ua 3 04 ma *d d k, .d 0 Ll- am u as
4
.d a,
5 .:
3:
5u
-u dm hl ma COaJ L! *c ou
co 0
ad d uo 3 -4 4 4 u4 ocdcd 2: 5 dcdM uG a U3-d a,dC u ad .d acd 0 aJu aca cdUN
4!4a -d 0 ,G
3 hh ocdo u a4-1
z4-1
Y-
\D co I 0 hl I m
.. z 0 6 4
4 G z 3 0 0
( CITCI)OF CARLSBAD - AGENWILL ddba
AB# 8236 -*q TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - CHAPTER 27 DEI
MTG. 0 5/20/8 6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CIT
No. 86-4 PARK DRIVE DE PT.ENG CIT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion, adopt Resolution No. 8521 overruling and c
protests, directing the Superintendent of Streets to cor
the street improvements and making other findings at a
hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of '
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On May 6, 1986 Council continued the public hearing to E
1986 to allow residents to investigate alternatives, COI also set this meeting of City Council as a public hearing I final objections to the proposed improvements. Resolut: 8463 directs the City Engineer to construct the pi
improvements if the owners do not start the work within 6( That 60-day period ends May 31, 1986.
Staff met with all Park Drive property owners on April 25 z
again with Joe Wilson on May 9 to discuss construction COI a 1 ternat ives .
Staff also reviewed the plans and looked for ways to red1
cost estimate. Three street lights were included to make
deficiencies on the south side. These will be deleted fi
assessment district. Staff also looked at moving the rei wall 4 1/2 feet closer to the sidewalk which will redl
height and eliminate some of the wall. This will re(
variance to City Standards. These two changes could save !
in construction costs.
Mr. Joe Wilson has obtained quotes on constructioi contractors of about $80,000 to do the work. Staff's e:
with the above reductions and no contingency $97,001
Wilson was encouraged by staff to start the const:
immediately.
After taking public testimony, staff recommends that ( close the public hearing, overrule protests and ordc
Superintendent of Streets to construct the improvements. '
take staff about 60 days to complete the plans, advert
bids and return to Council with an Award of Contract. If that time, the property owners have done a substantial am(
construction, the bids can be rejected and no award made.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated construction costs: $1 30,300.00
Estimated incidental expenses: $ 55,175.00
Total estimated cost: $185,475.00
0 0
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. L2.JG,-Ty
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 8521 overruling and denying prote directing the Superintendent of Streets to construct t
street improvements and making other findings at a pub hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act
1911".
LOCATION MAP
r
LEGEND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-4 ~~ll~~~ll~~lll~~llllllllllllll BOU N DA R y , p RO J E C T 3 I 92
PARK DRIVE AT MARINA DRIVE
IMF%OVEMENTS, PROJECT 3216
VlcSarvN
PROJ. NO.
3192 t3
3216
N. T. S.
r
PRoJEC7" NR##E PARK DR. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PARK DR. AT MARINA DR. IMPROVEMENTS
L
I .i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 8521
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, MAKING
FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT
OF 1911"
WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CARLSBAD, CP
has instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of
27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", being Division 7
Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
construction of certain authorized improvements in a
assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-4 (PARK DRIVE)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District); anc
WHEREAS, Notice has been given in the manner and
required by law and specifically Article 11, Part 3 of Di
of the Streets and Highways Code, and a Certificate of Cc
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held and all test.
evidence heard relating to the works of improvement as
for the Assessment District, and the legislative body is
at this time to proceed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all t
correct.
SECTION 2. That all protests of every nature ar
overruled and denied.
SECTION 3. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby
tcr proceed and cause the construction of the works of im
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
z0
21
22
23
24
25
a 0
in said Assessment District if said construction is not c
within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the proper
to so cause the work to be done.
SECTION 4. That the w'orks' of improvement shall be
carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of
27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", and for all particult
these proceedings, reference is made to the Resolution
the installation of the public improvements and instruc
Superintendent of Streets to so give notice.
SECTION 5. The works of improvement and project
financed pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 27, 1
shall issue to represent unpaid assessments in accorda
Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
California ("Improvement Act of 1911") to represent each
ment of $150.00 or more remaining unpaid following the e:
of a 30-day cash collection period. Such bonds shall b
and sold as this legislative body directs and shall
following the expiration of the cash payment period.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
Council held on the 20th day of , . May * - , , 198E
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pett
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A,dR*
Y ayor
.. '(. d e 0
Dear Mayolr Casler, and Council members:Chick, Kulchin, Lewis and Pettine:
In order to obtain approval for qy minor subdivision No. 533 on the 16th of
1982, I was required to spend many thousands of dollars for engineering, so analysis,, environmental impact report, dedicate part of niy property to the
portion of Park Drive and agree to pave it. I was encouraged to obtain the
the city staff who said that eventually the city would be taking over juris
from the coastal commission. I have been unable to obtain approval from th
coastal commission because Chuck Dama of that organization recommended disa because of the slope of the property. Subsequent meetings with him were no It was hoped that when the city took over the jurisdiction, that since they
closer to the situation, a workable solution could be found. The Park Driv
assessment district issue, however, has brought it to a head prior to the t
city had ccarrplete control. (I wonder why it's taking so long?) Now, not onl
the city staff not approved the project, they have communicated to the coas
conmission that they were not in favor of it. Clyde Wickham, who incidenta approved the project in 1982 after several changes he required were made, n
says that, the project is no good, in his words, n junk property.H
Since ihe previous city council public hearing on the assessment district,
have met with Gary Wayne and Clyde Wickham and they said they couldn't do a
whicn was not approved by the coastal commission, It seems very strange to
that they could allow Mr. I4acf)ougall cut 9 parcels out of his property ad3
to mine on a slope very similar without even going through the coastal corn
I, Rick Ifill, my engineer and Frank Ausman, a Realtor, met with Adam Bhba
Chuck Dam of the coastal codssion. They agreed to take another look at
project if we redesigned it for a minimum cutting of the slopes, ie,,using
instead of slopes and minimizing grading for construction w byilding pale where the slopes required it. Chuck Dam emphasized, however? that that it' xay obligaked him to approve anything which we might propose. He echoed.&
bJickham by saying he prefered to see cluster housing on the large parcel.
There are several reasons why this is unsatisfactory:
1. The highesk and best use appears to be for single family residences
high quality for people who appreciate the topography and the atmos:
People who live in cluster housing tend to overlook the property arc
them.
The areais zoned R-1-15000.
AIL1 of the other property owners on the
strongly oppose any cluster type of dwellings.
2.
3.
Cluster housing would require a zone ck
North side of Park Drive W(
4. Current thinking of the city is to reduce dwelling density. To be
viable project, 8 to 10 units would be necessary on the lower sectic
the property. I've or& asked for three high quality dwellings whit
enhance the area values.
Thousands of dollass were spent doing %he first lot split to get it
the approved condition. Cluster housing would require entirely new
and with all of Lhe associated costs would require approximately $2(
I need the support of the city cauncil, engineering and planning staff, rai
than their opposition to it. Even if thc
coastal staff recomnds denial, we feel that it is a good project and wit1
city sup2ort, could get an approval on appeal to the coastal commission.
5.
It would be a plus for Carlsbad.
0 L e 1
**
Sithout city support for approval of a temporary road into the property to demonstrate that it can be developed, I have no way of generating any cash
flow from the property. To Do this, I've instructed Rick Hill to generate grading plan which will provide access to the property and which will provj better erosion control tin the property has in its natural state by provic
paved surfaces to drain away the runoff.
1 would ask the city to pay for niy share of the assessnent to Joe Milson tc
share of the property until it is developable.
Failing this, I respectfully request a continuation to August 26th, 1986 tc permit time to go through the coastal commission cycle. Tney informed me 4
it requiK.es a raininnua of two months from the date of submittal.
Until I have agreement from the city and the coastal commission on a viable
project for this property, I cannot agree to putting any money into the roi or the assessment district.
Sincerelg-,
Ray Spangler 3774 Skyline Rd. Carlsbad,, CA 92008
729-2001 evenings 931-3224 days
,' e m
To: City Council members From: Jim and Valerie Alvord Re: Park Drive Assessment Dist.
We have met with the city staff, and believe that the recommendation being being made here tonight makes no sense.
Essentially staff is saying, "The city should continue to spend money (up to $25,000) which it cannot retrieve if the property owners install their own improvements."
The rationale is that an approved assessment district will force us to install the improvements in a timely manner.
Wouldn't it make more sense to set a time limit, and within that time limit declare a moratorium on wasting unrecoverable funds?
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, we recommend that the council continue this matter for six weeks. If work has not commenced, then the staff recommendation should be followed.
-