Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 106; Lusk Mobile Home Park; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (28)CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT “AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER” 801 PINE AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 May 27, 1975 Mr. Donald A. Agatep Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Agatep: Reference: Case No. CUP-106, John D. Lusk and Son and Case No. SP-122(A) , Covington Brothers This is to inform you that the Board of Education of this school district has not to date had an opportunity to review the above two cases. John D. Lusk and Son requested a delay of school board action until a representa- tive of that firm had an opportunity to personally appear before the board to discuss the possibility of being exempted from making a developers contribution for school construction. The Covington Brothers development is scheduled for review by the b oard at its meeting this evening, May 27. It is hoped that the following information may provide some clarification regarding these two proposed developments: 1. John D. Lusk and Son When the school board reached a determination as to the per unit contribution amount for dwellings, it was discussed as to whether or not adult only units should be excluded from the computations. The board, by official action, determined that they should not, and the general reasoning given was that all properties pay school taxes whether there are children in residence or not. Therefore, the per unit contribution amount was calculated on all types of residences and the district has signed agreements with several developers building condominiums and townhouses for adults only, the most noticeable being the forthcoming additions to be constructed at Altamira. The San Diego County Counsel’s office advised the district superintendent some time back that while the intent of the developer is to have an adult only subdivision, that this may not hold true for some years in the future and there would be a possibility of some school age children in residence. ADMINISTRATION 729-9291 Mr. Donald A. Agatep May 27, 1975 Page Two 2. Covington Brothers The original Covington Brothers' specific plan was approved by the city prior to the actions taken by the school board and the City Council in providing resolutions and policies covering the requirement to provide school facilities. Therefore, Covington Brothers was originally not involved in obtaining a letter from the school district for this purpose. It is the district's understanding that the original approval for this development has expired and that Covington Brothers is now submitting a revised plan, which, we understand, may be for adult only units. Under the agreement with the city, it is understood that this is for all purposes a new application and that a letter will be required from the school district advising the Planning Commission that school facilities will be available for this subdivision. In order to obtain the letter, it will be necessary for Covington Brothers to enter into a signed agreement with the district pledging school facilities contributions. The district has an agreement with Occidental Land, Inc., which specifically outlines certain land to be made available for school use in which the agreed value will be credited against certain proposed developments which for the most part lie north of Poinsettia Lane. Apparently, since Covington Brothers sub- division had been approved by the city prior to this agreement, the Covington property was not included with the other wherein the dwelling units would receive uniform credit for the school land. Should the Covington Brothers wish to be included in this arrange- ment, it appears that it would be necessary to revise the agreement between the district and Occidental Land, Inc. providing both parties are agreeable to such a revision. We have a letter from John D. Lusk and Son advising us that that firm intends to sign an agreement (under protest) with the district to provide contributions. Brothers, however the district has been contacted by that firm's attorneys to obtain clarification on that proposed development, which has been described to you above (No. 2). To date, we have not had any such agreement from Covington It is hoped that this information will be of some discussing these matters with the Planning % .-.__. Fred H. Lance Business Manager FHL : aw