Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-20; City Council; 5158-5; 1st Phase Sewer Allocation System: "" CITY OF "'RLSBAD //} ' ' ' ' ' Initial;AGENDA BILL NO. 5158, supplement NO. 5 Dept. Hd. _ DATE: December 20, 1977 City Atty _ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ^^ City Mgr. SUBJECT: FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM STATEMENT OF THE MATTER The First Phase Sewer Allocation System was adopted by City Council on October 25, 1977 (City Council Resolutions 5199 and 5259) to allocate permits for an estimated 270 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's)', The closing date for acceptance of applications was December 5, 1977, and a staff committee began an immediate evaluation of each application, As required, this report was completed within 30 working days of the December 5th closing date and the findings were made available to applicants on December 19, 1977. EXHIBITS Copies of Applications Received (Two Books) - First Phase Sewer Allocation System Application - Staff Report and Recommendations Exhibits X, Y, Z - December 15, 1977 RECOMMENDATION The. staff report and recommendations for City Council are attached. Council action .12-20-77 Following the public hearing Resolution #5279 was adopted, \ , authorizing the issuance of sewer connection permits pursuant to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. FORM PLANNING 73 J" _ _ 3 § - I- < u.mo *H h- >• „ . * Z ! Q " 2= " m 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 RESOLUTION NO. 5279 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTIONS PERMITS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.05 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code imposes a moratorium on the issuance of sewer permits and building permits due to a lack of sewage treatment capacity; and WHEREAS, said Chapter authorizes the City Council to adopt an allocation system, which provides for the issuance of a limited number of sewer and building permits as an exception to said moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by their adoption of Resolution No. 5199, as revised by Resolution No. 5259, has adopted a First Phase Sewer Allocation System to allocate certain additional treatment capacity acquired by lease from the Encinitas Sanitary District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said system, applications have been received and evaluated, a public hearing has been held and the City Council has satisfied itself that the objectives, purposes and intent of the allocation system will be met by the allocations to be approved by this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes an allocation of sewage treatment capacity to the projects contained on the list marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in the amount shown thereon. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Q < tn 00 "IT .2 1 13 S= < S S"sl 14 liil is VINCENT F.CITY ATTORNEY - C1200 ELMCARLSBAD, CALH H H00 -3 O>20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. That the inclusion of a project on Exhibit A shall constitute authorization pursuant to Municipal Code §18.05.030 to exempt that project from the building permit moratorium imposed by Chapter 18.05 of the code. Pursuant to that exemption the City Manager is authorized to accept building permit applications for said projects and to process them in accordance with the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as modified by the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 20th day of December / 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Frazee, Lewis, Packard, Skotnicki and Councilwoman Casler NOES: None ABSENT: None \/^) J K?Hfe^Cc^<&yee /ROBERT C. FRAZEE, M^OT ATTEST : V%t*«w£ ^f^t^^ MAR^ABSr E. .ADAMS, pity Clerk . 2. o ' , CD _. , •' - j CO POpa -z.m o H- 1—1 <rn o DO CT Orn -o co— '• **^* 0 COo EU •— '• 3 3O- ro S 3=»0 <p*v ro— i. • 3— ' crro ro ! -a o' roo.cn* ocnro CD CT) — j pa 1-1m z.CO O o mm•z. -ni -^^_ r*~ r~ o oo __ ( < — — * ^ »— « 1H»oo COo tJo J3— J o 3=> ro ro co oCo Oroo EUEU 3-s -h CO D • Q. 0-roCO rt- "TDEUo -t> o' ro CDCO CDroro -P.o _ CD CO PO—1 0 yr • r~m-n-nmpa S a s (/) 2* C~> O rl- <3T" fD fD 0 — « ~SPi .taO cro ro13 cH"s "O £U-s ro CD cno o -t=> ^ CD O *«xj -^ co "O 3&co -z.m r~73 m— < Co CO1— 1 GO POt— 1o as • CO c° o 0"o ro 3> Q* O 3— i. -h CO — '• (~h O • 3> cr< ro r— QJ ^3 0) roo CO CDro— j CDro CO _s- pa r—m -Hco i— it-i -ao r-m m —1 -ni—* 3^ • . . r~ (-j ooo*> paO•z.3*r~o o 73 OCOm 73 -H rc roCU --v. *< CO ^EU rn-5 _j O 0-s o• 3—1* BO 3 O 2 0EU ~S PO-s ro0 EU 3 — ' 73 cra. ro S —J 01 CD CO CD cn CD cn 0 CDo ,^» 3 pao^?; ^>r-o 0 PO ocomPa-Hco n: ro *"C (/)3EU m-s — ' o o-5 0• 3 —1. £203 O 30CU -i 73-s roO EU 3 —i PO cra- ro sf — j CP> 0 COO cn CD cn COJ J rno 1— 1 5^ 0 0PO rni — 1 1 — i 0 2 ^ Co ^O ^^^t> "O ~O (T> _i. — i (/> 3 0CO 3 -X3 CD &* P'rl- -S coe-t- ro _a. 330 EU — '.-s a.r—a ro EU O — ' 3 -5ro c+ 'z.o73 ~i O. rt• ro c° crro g -; no— » o •F^ 0 — • -h 0 2 -O EU Eu•a -s O-P=» roro — •> <£> CO -t» GO Om CD m 2pa m3= 73r- coi — i r— js-a r~i— < CO3^ i i O O 3=*~Q-ar~i— io3> —1 CO ~^3> m Com mpa r"" r-oo3> - »— iCD ^Zi COo 0 x1^ CO 3> rnGO COm coOpa COm 73 2 73 mr— moc "TJ 1 — 1pa3> CO-a -H PO -0o m< 3=»m coo m D COm mo s:• mparo03="w i— •^* 1r-— • Ouo o ^4 — 1 O CO -a pa mcgT m xto co re ^Q t-J * *ro r- co_, cr t-ij-j-J . ^^ ^»^Tj ^^ *^ Cx> ^" O * cnro ~. ~> <-" I CO CD * CDO on remopo o CO 31 3£1* O *""•"»in 3 to C/) -S5 o r-o ro -••O 3CX CO Q. , <• r~ CO 3o roc «• 3- ro o to -b C+- O-S roocn» _, o CO -• o cn 1 *^ f° s: *CD 0 Z.z.o — 1 0 S— 1. QJ "*-s^ro 3 to -S 3-s o o3j ^3 QJ-s ro ex to_i . cr QJ O Q» Q. -S rt-o co 3 — •CO <rt- ro Q. • 3 •a.cro ro-h c+s: ro o oroo — ito __• 2 ?O o 13 Opam o re «/> LQ W — • r>a» 3-3 mCL in GO ~^c: *-l^ C1^"OJ— ' cr— ' ro.ro ct- roCDen roroCD en «j L CT5i — ir— CD •^ • COd 0 7C ^ PO O> ">^tn W w O Cu O — 'o. — •ro o0vo mo r~m -Ht-i Oco -z.co•— • r—r^ mcr> 3m o — 1 ~n roo -^»-s wroto CO -sCo C O-< roo0 crcii ro^\ f~t"5. roCDen CDcn co _j C CO-S rt-ro • — • crro $ encn 0enro rocn — i CD0 PO Ocompa— j r~• PO ^^o Cjpa -HSQ> *>».3 inQJ ~S COo» c: O 3 7<T 3 2o *~y — i. 32 -^ ->3» O-s -s 3"c cr-j ro S roo oCO rocn »j ocn "^ r° ^^pj; CT5mr~o o ^*i~- co S— J* **x^ -s f>0=r coc: 30 3 3 Dl 3- O -•• -s — • c-h3- ac: -s-s • 5» cr< roro t-t-S roo 0oo 10 -^ CDCDcn "Z.o POoo *T~o3:rn CO re ro » J. ^^s»— • in—* st ~o CL -Sro TT crro Sf x^ro ~^t^ GO roo ro o 0— i , ««l 1 ^^^a ^^•a• o z.z.o•^* -H 0 S— *• D> "**«^ro 3 in -S 3-s o ocu 3 a>-sa pa — •ro a. to_i . cr - Qio a.-s 3O COro — • CO 3 < r* 0. Q. • *O-h crrof+ ro— jo oroo roo — J oCDCO —1 O /•^ ^3» CO -n* co—1m-o^cmz. CO m ro•— * **^t to o rc0 -"•cxca 3" Q> 3 CL CTro (-f- ^m__i 3 Co encn roCDo CO •— 1 CO PO i-lm 2:co <r> 1—4 | "O rnmz. -n 3=. Mr~ r~ oo H- 3C(TJCL * ^ ^ 1—4 0 •— 1 1—4 0z. o• ^T3 r— >— 4 0 ^fcl HZ-j CO g Tgm cnm2:m =g r- 0o ^>-Hi — i O cccc COm paomi— mac: o mCOCO0 cr COmpo .,., -a•opao mo CDmo• roo W •JD-J -o Q*<0m ro o-b CO POi co' -)i "O•g mpo co ~a mm xco reo •-»r- 03 cn ro xT. ', • X ,_;„ - - ' x '• ' X X ' • , x X X X Xx X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Xx X X XX X, x X Xx X X X Xx X * X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X o73 O TJ •o -n 0vo cz 73 TJ 1C 73 3> :Zo < o O fD -S to 3 rt-fD e 3-< fD — 1 —1* rt- cr Q. fD fDOi rt-3 S OQ. fD -hfD3 3 £D01 -SO. CU-•• 3to Q.O33» ^> "^> — J» ""j —J^ -0 -TJ CO ro 3- -^ -z- rt- -S— ' O» (D<* — '• fDro ro co — 'o o cn 3co- co O p> ro 1 I CO Q. Q CT"• o Eco co -h ->•O O TI -b — 'ro — * <"*' ""** ^"• o — *• II fD 3 • CQ • . „ — 1 -h00 rt- -Sro cu •» — HQ fD *•** -* m fD -SOi CU ( CD (' ; 3 73 o ac •o0 3Sro >-<— i 0remr—i— CO CO Z3 rt- 0O. -S -SfD rt-si ro =r ~ "S CTd> v (/) 13 — '»Q. cr Q.• ro ro ro -hro3 Cjrom — (>— ' -h3 ro-stoo3 ^^ "*• ^^-0 3T^ rr^ 3roro S So -••co rt cn 1 ^tnco ex — 'cn -s cn . <" COro -ooro rt- ~ 3" TI"^ rt*O E • CO • <•u crO o» -P» 3 cr E ..t Q.1 , C-. l— 1 g i— t l— «moo r- C_ioL r*" ^? COo 01 co s;3 rt- roQ. -S toro <-+•r- roOi rt- to CQ <• — I. E Q.3 CT fDcu ro • rt- Os: -*>roro co 3 rt-Cu £J> rt--S fD 3Q. ^* fD ^5* S^r _ , rt- 0ro _i. cn 030 CO o %"cn vo TI -f*. O rt- .1 > CO »-O— « . 01— • exv, TI CX rt- -J- » *j*ro o •S. 301 -S rt-ro o 3" O Oi E 3toro , :z 3 TJrn TJr— Co i— I -, g c: — i CO Om 2: ^3 r- Og-Hi— i CD OTI "^ 73CD f Tm C~J-H 0m CO 731— I TJ—11 — 1 CD•^y 0 TJ73 CDC-imC~j— J mor— CO oo3 TI 3 -s foCO 3 •a o> -j-s w oO fD tj. < fDfD CO O CL fD rt-s: wa fDfD -S -ho o ro —o o • O O>— ' rt- 73roQ.fD<fD O — '3 O•a,to3 << fDto 3rt- rt-ro 3 3> fD OJ o*ta fD CO o-h CO m xco reo •-*r~ ro , rt-O cnro -vl vo 111 t i-j D 1 ' i D 2 -i : 3 : _j D 3) 73 J in (n P 3 CD P W P o ro j (-> ^J o CO o ip»vo ui i A ' O " O ^RONALDO M 0w M t_3 cn as CDP \>< cn 3P W H PJ a oh{ p 3 Ci P- 3s opn to M CD O P 3 H td tt rt•g H -J .O . CO •o cn O cn o CO •JOACHIHAIDRIo s O*> Z• o td >d *d CD O P \p- i-1 cn 3 0w 3 t) CD P Prt M cn ft CD p- > O P £rH p. POP1 3 ^S CD rt Z 0 Pi ft"CD tr CDftsj to P" 1— " bit=> O P* H> O^-^ 2 'd P P t) H O tl^ (D to P1 ^ W *>. <jcn M o p ' ' •DONALDa 9 cn K 3 < CD O 33 \ ft CO O O • t-f CD 1) WPPP" cncn CD 3" 0 P- CD Ri M - tu zo o CD H 3* ft 3 CD tr CD cts: toP1 P1 o C^ 0 p1 t^ El P1 cn CO • ••-' OM Z td Is*tr" - t- O CO o 0 ' > 0 Z td D CO Da O Z W fcL*rJ ^iJ M H H cn cn Z W Dz 10 G Hcn ftf W P- X. o cn O 3KP- > tQ <^ 3* CDI— i P W 3 CD d ft ^ .*d p- O *• h- * cn O^ • 1 — ' 00• o >t^ Ul . w • ocn H oo 10 «„. ^_. - ss. -Jd ta • ,g H n "" K M tr1 f W 3 P1 \ 3 M (?) Q CDn HI H i~h P CD p l"i PJ CQ 0 > 3 CD cn cn rt•tr CD ft ^ »d Z to O CO CO cn >£> O to - O CO > o *» o 0 0 "1 3! H M O tdtd O H tr1 o 0 >£>JIMMIEf• Q 0tcz cn 0 Z > «^ < \ CD cn ei cnrt tr1 PP rt i£) CD .03 cn P rtiD tr h( CD ft ^ CD H P 3 PJ to 0 CO ocn it^ P1 M •» P1 to HI O 0 CO ••PALOMABUSINEcn tdcn if'd H If td ^ O > 0 « J.J. P) ^Ny i~! 3 cn ^0 P-O 3 K h< O P ft ^td Mtd CD opj p s; H C (?) H P CDP- no £ 3P b h^ p r . M P1 CO O . cn to P1 *> — - oo • NJ PALOMABUSINEcn jdcn t^*hd H > X) X O ^d np p g,p- g \O P- cn 3 33) o nK P i < 3> p- p-p- a 3 ^ p Oa 0 td td^ O CD rt tr P . M P1 td CDPI tr e> CDrt Si • to M CO O Ul P1 0 cn • H cn$1 H 0 O p1 I; PALOMABUSINEcn tdcn *^hd H > tdtd T) W Otd d trJ CD cn rt \•) s; cni • 3 ni. t-^ ju 5 P 3 3 M P-0 3d 3 O D P u h{ <J -J P- d p- P lj f^n ^ td 0 0i-< trrt P< CD & toP1 CO ocn H to to H Za . Gcn tdPI f ' . *u w s M,, n ^j o ^ zo APPL:M 2?^z H cn Z Ifsw Q M Z MtoJ> tr1 fO 0 § Ho toooj^* ^rl P iQ (0 •d P Jj CD ' W O G 5* 0omcncno K z 3tr CD £j O TIBERIiCJi*d M OOo BO CD\ SJ cn 3 .H- ft Oo 3 £• CD ft *dp. 3 CD to 0 it* O CTi O. 0 V oo Ul ALBERT'KARAM» S JO H M in P 3O pto p o CD IO O^j t_j ui O' CM VO to oo ALBERTKARAMe> IS JO H W CD CO • 0o CD cn o Hv tJ p ^< (-) . « too^4 | — i Ul 0. c*co to oo Ul 4 RALPH .HAASL• Sjt* Jd 22 D cn CO no CD,, ^CDcnrt O H Yf- P ^ 10o -j i — i Ul 0 to 10 W5£ V.\ • — 0 O to •> ^**^ «^v*VT? < ^RALPH iHAASLvr> S . If Jd 2 2 n oo o < H CD 3o o Ml "Tlp H D • . & . to O -J 1 — > Ul o to CO jj cn H oo 'VyJ "s" **" >RALPH iHAASL| __^_K» S It* J Jd 22 (M 5 S wp p- p 3 Hp X4 D cr H (Dft oo<J CD D ' • to 0 -0 H> Ul 0 to Ul Ul g.jd aM fcn H H H O *da f 2 M M •T) |H g H f >< O H- •WILLIAM»=* •-3 • S Haotr" Hna 3 « O cn M) M O O P 3 3P p- ^ 3 O I>p- Jd h{ CD *O P 0 Mw ft NJ O 0 0 to M to 0 to o toto ID oo vO MICHAEIHOWARDL • J*N 'sa e> ^d D K Jd * • W Jd 3 t O \ O cn cn CD n CD Pt_j t-^ rt DJ cn >rt < CD (M tr S <B P . ft PI ^ P-cn O 3 to to 0 0 U) OJ CO Ul 0 0 to M M ""to M ^ *• M oocn RONALDO • ow M • cn cn 3 CD pcn Ptro< CD H CTi »J O. Ul o *. H O O RONALDD • O W jd cn S CD t-< cn H O W 3 H Jd O pi P3 (M P- 3a oo cn *d Pcn M rt tr ' ' CD ft * I—1 (Tl ~J O U) 0 ^ 1-J 10 - ocn !> H O Ocr>RONALD0 * Oww cn ffi CD P \i< cn 3P M ti H O O h< p 3e-> P- 3S 0P H Jd H CD O P 3 M jd tr PI CDft . * I—1 (7! ~-J O Ulo • Ulo Ul ItJw 2 W Jd O !> O tr1 g K. fT Jd 0 O 3 H rt >p- cr1'; 3c CD P. «-^* r ,^ fri 'd UJV?Lj O , 2 O * TJ tr« H O 2 - cn 2 St?3 O H 2 M JO t"* tr1 0 O£* ' H O 2 . WO EC< O 0 X" O CDcn ^d w P O CD 2 HJ 3'p» tr H (D CD a G 1 o !> H. H 2 O •^ >d O M O 0) hfjoJd ^1 H Jdcn' ^3 ^d KJscnCd cn M S MJd If L"1 IT* On IS*i-3 H O 2 M 00 JOSEPH F. GUAGLIAR' O L s/s 'Chestnut betw[Lincoln & Washingti<j 3 • too • •fi I—1 Ulo w *"* • to o H> .JOSEPH F. GUAGLIARa > sw corner, of PineWashington<f> to 0.*>. oen .to ' o to 0 Hcn PELICAN PROPERTIESs/s Walnut betw LinSt S Washington StooI—1 3 tooji M U)to ,_, H 00 oI-1 m JOHN B. McGRATH(?) 3 O enn CD CO PJ CD 3 CD 0 tf . tr CD .rts: PJ H Hi P- CD CL too to M H to ux o ifc. O * s:. w CO is/s Chest'nut betwjRoosevelt St & Sant[RailroadPJ hH CD > 3 too *> M cn 0 o CTl o OJ !NAIMCO CORPORATIONiIe/s Ocean St betw PAve S Garfield StPJo HIP. cT to- ow oto.to . ^0 M 0 o to 1IREINHOLZ s 'ASSOCIA'iiHJ hi S e/s Jefferson betOak Ave & Pine Ave^ too U) OJ Ul to u> 0 M !DR ROBERT CRAIG &WILLIAM DEENei s; H CO 3 0o;> CD< PJ CD 3 CO ft trCD rts: opjX1 f< " Ti> too LO to Ul H1 H1 0 to o 0 BARTON W. LEFFERDI1rt co 3- CD O Oi i ^ fU CD 0 0O M 3 tr CDft idpjh(X On too-J • M Ulo o 03 • J ' oo U3 MUJ^'DAVID E. SCHLEGELi • •tr enPJ \PJ en to nt- y < CD PI COrt. Cen rtPJH tr Hi CDH- rt CD C QJ O PJen t-(rt MenI to 0 it> M M 0 if^ W 0o 03 .^-— SCO H 0 O •^J T&^l lW 1 TAMARACK SHORESn/s Tamarack Ave beeast & west Jeffers\O rt '3 « . too lt^ to 00o i£ito - H Sft - to to Ul - H U) NJ -J STANLEY S SIGRIDZIPSERw/s Ocean St betw LDr S Pacific Ave«PJ v£)pi 3• • pj too CJ otoH Oto OJ >d G W fen H H M O ftf- W f 3 M M ^d ?• s*H. .V ^ ijj t1 H O Ha . 3 3O APPLICANT'S NAME1GENERAL. LOCATIONW0o tfPJ CD S?n (Dl__lr^ wa j>oo CD CO 01 0n 3Ci tr CO" a _.' • •LOCATION OFtl ROJECTS FOR FIRST PW3* COW CO M W 5" I>f* fOn HJ H O3 o ^ CO O ' Htr1 o 5s S ! «a 0xz H 50 • " ! & % $ "N^io w i p) ^ <$ft) M J-1 ^ CD O* . CD ft to P> 1 W ?|oo Qj to O Ul ocn M CO - '-' - o a M S3iH O atr1 >Zo 0o S CD O 11 X PI •! W 3•1 P-5 t-d 3 3 I-1 O a o 50 X P) CD 3 .Pi ?> P- M 3 •=1 O 3 50 CD •* i ,1 D tr CDn rt< st p-1 cn CO COo - to 1 cn -J Ul to O O O W 5O ^ M Z W ) Mi -h CD CD 1 ft D Wn t 0 \ "* t p- fjft N CD D KCO O Tl ft O 3 1 > f} « K SPRAGa'td . CD V) M P" OPi 3p- 3 O 50 CD PI P- tfc> Ulo cn to CO 0 to 1T> 10 cn " N - • oo • 0 £ M *-3 H O CO Zco H f Z H 0 S H O- 50 Z i^ CD CDto ^^ ft 01 e-i co t) 0 0 £ O hi CD CD. M CO M ft tr CD ft >TJ O H 1 l_i cn cn 0 cn to to cn >-• • o o 00 1 M 5O K f * -50 O 3to O 1-3 PT CO K CD~1 0 X.w w ^(3 s S3 0 k<j hj Ocn 3O fty 0 Hi ^_i Cn cn o kQ o co co";.co >t^ COco cnvo » CO-j COo Oo > > ow M 50 Ir1 * 50 Zo C( 50 • i-3 5 PI X3 wPIn co PJ cn 3 X 3 p-s P-pi Hn > D ^ ^ft - 3* trc: CD H fts: to 0~j o COP1 to Ul |-J 0ocn g • !>Z M f O O- 50 H to s:p- \ hj W O " 3* CO lf> 3 3 Pi 31 O P- > P- ft31 co 0 ft h{ ~tr > CD < ft CD £ ' too-J 0 CO1-1 P1 kO •-1 o 0 cn Z O 50 Oo aosttcn a CD i- P- X HP1 in f M » Cfl *O h P- PI I CD X* t tr CD ft C * ! CD I P1 ( H •*<; £1 to O ~J to COo 0 p1 COo oo jl • SI •a • o>zzoz i n s - PI X3 in 3; o oi 3 pj J 5d M j- trPI5 3 a. CD W 3 H5 a. <t- . puoMI tr CDfts; to I—"o otoo too • P* •L oo CO aos It*cn ^• cn H H *)aH ? M" CD P* X»3 w ^o a O P- Cb kQ 3" Pi 3 DJ tr CD rt $ M H 3 e> i— ' cn cn to . oo p* CO 1-1 1°r\ o^i If-3 f^ tr1 » • cn ZK; O M50 a 3 P- X lQ CO 3* .P- S pi PI 3 i£)D, 3 O (?) P1 P-•> pjo. • . PI > 3 < CO CD tr CD rts; *^j cn frj '1 p- O P1 *> CD kO -J =8= COcn it^^ COo to iw j^ 10 cn H oo 50 Z W O 50 > W < H O H Zw .z td >anw tfl W . P- X O 01o*dpi P-3 3a> CD s > 0 < « CD P-3 tr \~> CD CD ft ^ ^ 13 P- 0 \ to o cn Ocn to Ocn p- 50 H' co cn H tr1 o wMz In. > H tr1 tr" •i -I1! '*• H O H 0 O ^* • M '2tr" HO cn Z S M Otd Z M 5* tr1 Oo H 0z td O 3* O ' 0?? n CD *d cn pi O CD , a ^0 3w tr O H* » CO M Oa ' i lr" O > H H O Z o >d 50O *-<Mn cn o • 50 H to H3 MaJc*.cn W cn M 32 W 50 <£*tr"lr1 O O H Ho Z - • 1 •_ ;J . • . * 1 , .„ ( — 9 • ' " 1 O DOYCEW O H O CO S 3p) O \01 3 01 01 H. 3 0 tr" O CD H- O 3PJ cn DJ rt P £H cn P> • O 3 £ CD rt - 3* CD O pJ Hi 01rt O HI too Ul H cno U)vo i-1 oi-1 cr>ROBERTc, • W K £*a t-C W iQ 01 tf \-> O. pj 3- 3 CD CL Ulrt 0 3 H fj rtjfi 3y j> <! PJ CD(!)3 tr 01 CDrt C/l 5) rt to O Ul to. O 0 I-1 o I-1 p o o aaoa i-3 O S CD 3 01 -< 3 hi 0 0 2J 3 p) HPJ £d M CD DJ UlH trp> p> O rt pj h{ 0 3 W I—1 tn CD < rt 3 PJ PJ tr O CD' Hi rts; to M O Oto O y-> H cn H o aa o tdao • ffi 01 H- \ <Tj 01 3- H O P> 3* 3 CD PJ 01 rt 21 3 C < rf P>M tr H CD CD rt^ c too Ul toto o Ul H INGLE FiRESIDEN'(contimP- r-i 3* CD H 2 PJ > H ^ ^ Hd-i •PPLICATIOa ao *APPLICa *-3— w a Jt*s CD Wa M/o5*fi £H Oo5"1-3 HOa woox TJ vQ fD t) HJ 0 }_J W O G •f ~ 5> oo CD 01 01o a 0 3 CO H o CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 44O5 ALAMO DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92115 (714) 583-4124 (714) 582-8939 December 20, 1977 Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: First Phase Sewer Allocation System 14 Unit Single Family Residential Land Use Average Density over 7,500 sq. ft. per D.U. Dear Mayor and Members of City Council: Based upon the following, we feel we meet the qualifications for hardship under category 4a and 4b: 1. Based upon a letter from the City of Carlsbad (copy enclosed herewith) we enterred into financial arrangements with the adjoining property owner, Standard Pacific of San Diego, to extend Public Water and sewer lines (copy of agreement enclosed herewith). It is our understanding that these lines are now owned by the respective public agencies of the City of Carlsbad, these funds cannot now be refunded; 2. On April 4, 1977 an Application for Tentative Map was filed and the filing fee of $275.00 was paid (copy of receipt dated April 4, 1977, enclosed). On April 27, 1977 we learned that a sewer moritorium had been enacted. At that time based upon discussions with staff as to the potential anticipated duration of the moritorium, the application was withdrawn (copy of letter dated April 27, 1977 enclosed). A refund of $200.00 of the original $275.00 application fee was made. Of course engineering and other miscellaneous costs were also incurred and lost at the same time . Based upon the above, we feel we meet the intent as set forth by the City Council as well as the criteria established by staff in analyzing the various applications. We therefore request you approve our application as meeting the qualifications for First Phase Sewer Allocation. Yours very truly, Robert: P. K<= 1200 ELM AVENUE -^RLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: (714)729-1181 CarMmb June 25, 1974 Robert F. Kevane 4405 Alamo Drive San Diego, CA 92115 Subject: Carlsbad Countryside Hamlet (PD 64) El Camino Real Dear Mr. Kevane: Plans for the improvement of Carlsbad Tract 73-36 Unit #3 are presently being finalized for Mr. Amos Sommers' property southeast of your proposed 14-unit development. It is important that you contact Mr. Sommers at this time and make arrangements for the extension of future water and sewer mains to your property line. An easement dedicated to the City of Carlsbad over Mr. Sommers1 land will be required. Please call Mr. Sommers at (714) 582-1757, Very truly yours, JN/de cc: Amos Sommers R. Young Engineering Jack Nikkinen Associate Civil Engineer / "• " • STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO July 22, 197U Robert F. Kevane UH05 Alamo Drive San Diego, California Re: Proposal And Agreement Sewer And Water Lines And Easement To Serve PD 6U Dear Mr. Kevane: Enclosed please find an engineers estimate for a. sewer and water line to serve your property. As you" can see' the engineer has made a $3,000 estimate to cover the sewer and water to the rear lot line of lot 125- We don't "believe it woiild be necessary for you to go to the expense at this time to have us extend the sewer and water further than a point slightly behing the sidewalk. Based on our current bids we believe the cost will be as hereinafter outlined. Naturally the engineers estimate for unit costs varies from our bids. Unit Item Quantity Unit Description Cost 'Amount 1. 27 L.P. V A.C. Forced Sewer Main 7-50 $ 202.50 2. 37 L.F. 8" A.C. Water. 8.00 296.00 . 3. 1 Each 8" Water ValveUjO.OO 1*50.00 U. Engineering & Printing - 200.00. 5. • Contingency '"' "51-50 $1,200.00 If you will deposit $1,200.00 with us at this time we. will have the engineer provide for" the sewer and water lines and the easement for future construction as an accomodation. We will not be contracting with you or changing your over- head and profit. Upon the City approving the improvement pjLans and record map we will forward you copies. The actual construction would have to wait until our off site improvements for Unit '#3 went in. Mr. Robert Kevane July 22, 19T1- Paga Two You must also agree in consideration for this accomodation and easement on lot 125 to fully replant and repair the ease- ment area when and if you or any successors in interest extend the vater and sever line. If this agreement is acceptable to you please sign two of the enclosed copies and return to us along, with your check. We will forward one copy to the City of Carlsbad along with a cover letter. Very truly yours, PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO Robert. M. Allan President RMArcin Enclosure ACCEPTED: Robert F. Kevane il _„-"-* -" •""* - —"^-^HSgfr.- CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 729-1181 RECEIVED FROM. ADDRESS nxr,<f-</-77 0 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 44O5 ALAMO DRIVE SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92115 (714) (714) K5S55? April 27, 1977 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mike Zander Re: CT-77-9 Dear Mike: As per your telephone conversation with Jack Sprague today, in which we were informed of the recently imposed sewer moritorium, which could have a significant effect on our application for a tentative map, I hereby authorize you to withdraw our application from further consideration. Therefore, as discussed would you please have the applicable fees refunded to me. matter. Thank you for your very sincere help in this Yours very truly, Robert F. Kevane, C.P.A. RFK:ck NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday, December 20, 1977, at 7:00 P.M. to consider a staff report on the First Phase Sewer Allocation System It is anticipated Council will allocate sewer permits pursuant to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,' on Tuesday, December 20, 1977, at 7:00 P.M. to consider a staff report on the First Phase Sewer Allocation System It is anticipated Council will allocate sewer permits pursuant to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: All Departments FROM: Public Works Administrator DATE: December 8, 1977 SUBJECT: Sewer Connections for City Projects The City has leased a small amount of capacity in the Encina Treatment Plant from the Encinitas Sanitary District. This capacity is being distributed via the first round allo- cation which is currently underway. A portion of this ca- pacity (14 equivalent dwelling units) is allocated to com- munity facilities. Another portion (40 EDUs) is set aside for contingencies. City projects would be in one of these categories. The Council has established a connection fee of $875 for each EDU to offset the cost of leasing the capacity and to provide for capacity replacement. This fee will be applied to City projects. For planning purposes, allocate $875 for each restroom required in your construction project. . If you have any questions concerning the applicability of this fee to your project or the total amount of the fee that may apply, please contact Public Works. (L Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator RAB:veb CC: City Manager City Attorney STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROi-i: Jamec C. Hagaman, Ch'airman Staff Sewer Committee • • SUBJECT: First Phase Sewer Allocation System - - • BACKGROUND The First Phase Ser/or Allocation System was adopted by City Council on October 25, 1977 (City Council Resolutions 5199 and 5259) to allocate permits for an estimated 270 equivalent dwelling units (EDU's). As part of the first phase system the City Council provided special rules and procedures to apply for allocation, processing applications and requesting building permits (See Exhibit S to Resolution No. 5259). The closing date for acceptance of applications was December 5, 1977 (staff did reject some applications submitted after this date) . The procedures require that after the clcsirg (Sate a staff committee consisting of the Public Works Administrator, City Engineer, Director 01 Luilding and Housing and Planning Director are to evaluate each application and prepare a report to the City Council. This is -that report. • This report will show which projects in the judgment of the committee meet the qualifications (see Exhibit X, 12-15-77), and the point total . for each project, based on the judgment of the committee (Exhibit Y, 12-15-77) ranked from highest total to the lowest for each land use category. Finally, the report shall recommend which projects in each category should receive a sewer allocation permit (Exhibit X, 12-15-77) . As required, this report was completed within 30 working days of closing date and the findings made available to applicants on December 19, 1977t The applicants were notified of the hearing and the availability of the report by certified mail. A legal notice for this hearing was also placed in the newspaper. CITY COUNCIL DUTIES At the public hearing the City Council is to consider the staff committee's report and then consider and resolve any disagreements regarding qualifications. The City Council shall eliminate from consideration all projects that do not meet the qualifications. Next tKe City Council shall review the -recommendations in regards to point ranking of qualified projects under each land use category. • The Council has the prerogative in making its own policy interpretation of the rating system in reaching its decision on allocations. If the Council is hot satisfied that the results of the rating system meet the objectives of the system, the Council may amend it as they consider necessary. (Administrative Note: If an amendment to the points .suggested by staff is made, adjustment to the rankings can be done with- out undue delay. However, if the Council wishes to amend the method for determining points or other interpretations of methodology, a complete review of all applications would then be necessary for consistency. If this occurred, staff should be directed to revaluate ratings and return report to Council on December 27, 1977.) When the Council is satisfied with the findings and the ranking of the projects, they shall adopt a list which shall become the basis for issuing building and sewer permits. The Council is under no obligation to allocate all or any part of the available sewer capacity pursuant to this system. The Council has reserved the right to establish point total cut-off within each land use category as they consider necessary in order to insure the available capacity is used in the best interest of the citizens of Carlsbad. Any capacity which is not allocated as a part of this first phase allocation, or which is allocated but not used within the prescribed time, shall remain in reserve to be reallocated as the Council may determine by the adoption of a second phase system or by the further amendment of this system. SUMMARY OF REPORTi i in .1- 1.1..-......——— •• .I. ....— - f As required by the First Phase Sewer Allocation System, the staff committee completed the list of qualified applications (Exhibit X), rated each project whether qualified or not (Exhibit Y) and recommended which projects shall receive a sewer allocation permit (Exhibit X). Unfortunately, the system was not simple and many questions and interpretations remai'n to be considered by the Council. Basically, .the problem is that few applications qualified under the strictest interpretation of the qualifying questions. The Council established the first phase primarily to allocate to "hardship cases." The qualifications are pointedly in that direction and list specific hardships. As it turns out very few applications have shown hardships as contained in the strictest interpretation of the qualifications as reviewed by staff. However, many applicants have indicated that they have hardships similar to those listed and therefore qualify. As required in first phase allocation, the City Council is responsible for making such determinations based on staff's interpretation and the applicant's reasons. The qualification questionnaire specifically includes the provision allowing the applicant to submit their unique hardship for City Council's consideration (4 e of Exhibit G). The applicant is also required to submit sufficient evidence that the claims made in the application, exist and may be readily verified by staff review. Most — 2 ~ applications received contained this open criteria for hardship. A note of concern is that there may have been applications not submitted because it was felt that the hardship criteria could not be met. Therefore, a too '*loose of interpretation of hardship could be unfair to people who did not apply but have a similar . situation. Exhibit X indicates those applications that meet the intent of the qualifications established by Council as interpreted by staff. "Staff recommends, that all of the projects that qualify be'given sewer permits. Assuming that many of the unsuccessful applicants will request Council reconsideration, the applications for all requests have been attached for your information. If the City Council determines that some rejected applications do qualify the list of applicants recommended for approval (Exhibit X) will have to be modified. However, time must be given to ^reorder and recalculate the questions that the points are based on for ranking among all successful applications. .'-._.* METHODOLOGY A. QUALIFICATIONS During the period for submittal of applications for the First Phase Sewer Applications, staff reviewed the applications at the counter to be sure that they had answered all questions, signed the applications and generally appeared to have met the intent of the City Council in the submittal. Th^se applications were then numbered in ordejt of receipt and by land use categories and the applications were then placed in envelopes and filed until the deadline for submittal of applications. Immediately after the deadline various members of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the Staff Review Committee went through all of the applications concerned with meeting the basic qualifications criteria. The s.taff and members of the committee then developed their criteria for rating each of the required projects under the rating system questionnaire. The Staff Review Committee then analyzed and detailed for the second time each application in terms of the four qualifications established by City Council to be considered • for sewer allocation. It was found that in general very few projects qualified in. any of the land use categories. Those projects which in the staff's opinion clearly qualified are listed on Exhibit X, 12-15-77 attached to this report. The four required qualifications and comments are listed below. 1. No residential projects will be eligible for consideration that is outside of the infill area as shown on the map marked Exhibit A, attached here and made a part hereof. Commercial and industrial land uses may be considered anywhere within the City's sewer service are.a. 2. With the exception of City building or sewer permits, all approvals, including City Council action and other agency approvals, such as the California Coastal Commission and Sanitation and -Water Districts, must have been issued and proof of such approval must be submitted with the applications. The applicant must demonstrate that he is ready and able to commence construction of the project upon receipt of a Ci.ty building permit. 3. No public costs for City facilities to service the site, such as streets, sewers, etc., are required. 4. The City Council must find that at -least one of the following criteria exists: a. An application of some -.form for development was applied for prior to April 19, 1977, and it can be found that delays in the process were a direct result of City actions. b. The project proponents have made contributions to public agencies in order to develop which cannot now be refunded. c. The site already has a sewer hookup but needs additional hookups to fully complete the project. d. The application is for one single family home on a lot owned by the applicant and legally of record as of April 19, 1977, and this is the only application submitted by the applicant. e. Any similar criteria as determined by City Council. We found upon analyzing the above required qualifications that the . majority of the applications met the first three criteria. Only the second of the first three qualifications presented a problem to staff. One area of concern was when the applicant did not submit evidence of completed^ approvals which could be checked to establish a claim of qualifying. The other area of difficulty was that certain approvals showed an expiration date prior to or after your proposed Council action date (12-30-77).- In the case of the Coastal Commission we have found it extremely difficult to verify if such permits would be renewed or extended. We have therefore concluded that since there is a 20 day period from Council action for full submittal of plans to .the Building Department, that if a project would qualify on all other aspects of the rating system, it could be approved on the condition that a valid coastal permit was presented to the Building Department. Item 4 of the qualifications which lists five criteria, one of which must be found to qualify, presented the most difficulty to the staff in establishing compliance with the Council intent. The following is a discussion of each qualifying portion of 4 and showing our concensus of interpretation of the exact meaning for qualification as well as those interpretations which we believe do not qualify. a. An application for some form of development was applied for prior to April 19, 1977, and it can be found that delays in the process were a direct result of City actions. It is .the staff's position that this qualification does not include process delays in agencies other than City of Carlsbad, such as the Coastal Commission, and that delays resulting from incorrect applications or misreading of .City codes that required redrafting of plans prior to submittal do not qualify under this section unless evidence is submitted that the 'City staff misread the Code. No specific facts of such situations to allow proper evaluation were submitted. In addition, the staff feels that merely sub- -mitting an application to the City and not actively processing such application does not qualify under this division. A project that has been delayed1 in processing for a reason not in the interest of applicant or application by staff, Planning Commission or City Council which caused delays of time beyond April 19 would qualify under this section. An example of such would be a City caused delay for a zone change request which was expanded to encompass a larger area at the request of the City. b. The project proponents have made contributions to public agencies in order to develop which cannot now be refunded. It is the City staff's position that the payment of application fees for projects such as zone changes, environmental analysis, coastal permits or improvement constructed as part of a project approved condition, does not qualify under the meaning of this criteria. An applicant based on approvals obtained from the City and who has committed his firm based on those approvals to perform improvements in the City or similar financial obligations which cannot now be changed or reversed could qualify. Evidence must be submitted to substantiate such a claim. c. The site already has a sewer hookup but needs additional hookups to fully complete the project. City staff's position is that if an office building or •industrial building has been constructed and now needs additional hookups to fully occupy formerly vacant space within, the structure, they would qualify. Staff's position is that if a project is being built in approved phases by a phased specific plan for example, and some.phases to this point have been completed, additional phases which have not been started as of this time would not qualify under this section for they essentially are a new project. It is staff's position that any partially completed project or phase of a project which currently has some sewer hookups that now needs additional hookups to fully complete that project or phase would qualify. - 5 - d. Criteria. The application is for one single family home on a lot owned by the applicant and legally of record as of April 19, 1977 and this is the only application submitted by the applicant. The staff had no difficulty in dealing with this criteria since it was oriented to a single family lot owned by one individual as of a specified date. e. Any similar criteria as determined by the City Council. . This criteria provided the most problem for the staff since the only basis for analysis was the above components of qualification Number d. There were a number of applicants that sought approval under this section. After lengthy analysis, the staff felt that under .the general criteria of this First Phase Allocation System, the following two situations qualify under this section: 1. The staff considers that those properties affected by the City policy of not accepting building permits along Ocean Avenue due to a lack of sewer lines to handle additional demands meet the intent of this section. This is based on. the assumption that all other criteria are met. 2. The staff's position is that uniqueness and hardships would apply to the situation of a building permit which was taken out prior to April 19th and due to illness was allowed to lapse but because of the moratorium cannot now be renewed. The staff has listed those projects which, qualify in ouropinion in. Exhibit X (attached) as previously mentioned. • This chart lists all those projects by land use categories and by rating points from the highest to the lowest. We have also attached Exhibit Y, 12-15-77 which lists all the projects submitted to this allocation system in terms of land use categories and rating again from the highest to the lowest for 'your general information. Staff also took the position that the applications were valid as submitted, i.e., if an application was submitted that requested more equivalent dwelling units than there were in that land use category, they were not considered as meeting the intent 'of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System unless it was clearly stated that there was a secondary level of allocation which was acceptable. Staff did not ^ take a position of interpreting the ability of any applicant to building a portion of a project; therefore, we only dealt with what they said. The staff felt that since the First Phase Sewer Allocation System was designed to help those persons who were caught by the moratorium on April 19th that those projects which now are proceeding through plan check and construction with an approved alternate sewer system did not meet the intent of the allocation system. It was recognized by staff that such projects were desirous of coming into the City sewer, system and could seek sewer hookups in the future; however, the intent of this system was to deal with those persons who could not proceed at this time B. Ratings . The committee rated all applications without consideration of whether they qualified, did not qualify or were questionable. . The ratings were done by members of the rating committee, or their designated representatives. For analytical conformity, each staff Eie.itiber rated a specific question or questions on all applications. Some questions were rated by more than one staff member, each work- ing independently. This was done in order to verify judgemental ratings, or if necessary, to reassess point assignments based on more equitable guidelines. An example of'reassessment involves the first three questions (wa'ter saving, energy saving, sewer flow reduction) . The Building Director rated the questions first. After discussion with other committee members, he analyzed the claims of the applicant assuming that the building plans submitted for plan check review would have to meet that claim or a building permit would not be issued. He made no attempt to modify an applicant's claim or to correct over- sights the applicant might have made. After considerable discussion, staff determined that the questions should be reassessed based on analysis of the actual physical impact of the project, that being the professed goal of rating the projects against each other. The Utilities/Maintenance Director was then asked to look at the first three questions and, disregarding an applicant's claim, assign points based on his judgement of what the listed techniques or devices would do. If an applicant claimed points under water conservation but did not make a claim under reduced sewage flow, he was assigned points under' reduced sewage flow if in fact the technique or device described would reduce the flow. Conversely, if a claim was made for points under reduction of energy demand but no evidence, data, specification or claim by a qualified design professional was submitted, no points were assigned. As in all elements of the allocation program, the. burden of reasonable evidence was on the applicant. In summary, an applicant's evaluation was used only as a very general guideline. The rating assigned to each project is based on' staff evaluation and point assignment. As mentioned above, many assumptions had to be made when doing the rating of each of the questions. Since these assumptions have a bearing on the amount of points given to each question, the following discussion of assumptions made by the raters for each of the questions is presented. 1. Water Saving Devices "The information that was put in the application by the applicant was the main basis for rating. However, there were some instances where there were no markings or figures checked in the application; therefore, I had to assume the applicant did not intend to reduce sewer flow or save water by one method or another." (Richard Osburn) 2. Energy Saving Devices "On the energy, I would say all but those applicants who intend to use thermopane should have the same credits as all residential buildings are required by state law, and after February 1, 1978, all non-residential buildings will have to comply and insulate the buildings to state require- ments. As of this date, I doubt if their construction plans, plan check and issuance of building permit could be accom- plished by February 1, 1978." (Richard Osburn) •"Energy-saving considerations were somewhat limited and were' directed to those features that are not required by current building codes or good construction practices such as insulation, weather stripping, caulking, etc. Solar energy credits were given for all those who indicated their • use as a water-heating augmentation since these installations are reasonably available on the market. Solar energy credits for heating/cooling of the building were not accepted unless there was an indication that reasonable consideration was given, i.e., an architect's design or an engineered system could be incorporated. Solar heating consideration must be incorporated into the structure of, or into the design of, the unit." (Roger Greer) 3. Effluent Reduction "All water-savings considerations which were included in category one received credit in this category. An industrial, commercial applicant using process water could have received greater credit under this category by incorporating recycling features in the design which could not be anticipated under category one, i.e., flow restrictors would be inappropriate for a prpcess- system which may depend on a specific volume of flow; however, recycling efforts could be recognized within the rating system under category three." (Roger Greer) 4. Rehabilitation/Dilapidated Structures "Took applicant's answer, but building department is to determine by site check when removal or rehabilitation was claimed - all land use types." Note: The staff committee allowed points for No. 4 only if the building in question is presently in existence and its removal or rehabilitation is an integral part of the project. 5. Capital Improvement Program "Very simply; if any part of the public improvement (street widening, traffic signals, etc), required of the project was in the five-year program, then five points (partial credit) were allowed. No project of itself totally funded any C.I.P, ^project so no application received 10 points (e.g., Hosp Way' El Camino Real traffic signal, five points were given to each of four projects)." (Tim Flanagan) 6. Percent Of Sewer Capacity In Land Use Type "(A) Residential (single and multiple) - took SOU'S requested and divided for percent of usage. Ignored applicant's claim if different, but made note on cover sheet. Probably some applicants didn't understand the question. (B) Industrial, Commercial - used EDU'S as determined by engineering depart- ment." (pat cratty) 7• ~vtiding. Valuation "To determine building valuation it was necessary to use the building valuation table provided by the building department. This .table gives value per square foot and is divided into use categories and further divided into construction types (frame, concrete, masonry, etc.). The appropriate construction value is then multiplied times the square footage of the build- .ing. The corresponding uses were easy to determine but it was necessary to get construction information from Ray Green." "Since most of the plans did not include any structural notes, Ray had to use his knowledge of existing structures and guess what kind of materials would be used. A major error could affect the overall valuation up to several dollars a square foot. Most of the .guessing was on the smaller projects, however, which would already have a lower, value simply because of their size. "The two commercial office projects were not included in the assessed value percentage rating. The rating committee had- determined earlier that they should be a separate group. There are only two projects in this so our assumption was that one was i'n the 'top 25%' and the other was in the 'bottom 25%'. As a result, the top project received the'full nine points and .the second project received no points." (Charlie Grimm) 8. Taxation "Under taxable, sales, there is a list of commercial categories which contain a multiplier for figuring taxable sales. Staff had a problem in determining an appropriate category for Haedrick's Meat Market/Deli. For lack of a better group, the project was listed as a specialty store which has a multiplier of 100. This seems like a rather high rate considering that a liquor store would fall into the same category. Other related categories include mini-supermarkets (40) and coffee shops (120)." (Charlie Grimm) TIE BREAKERS^ Tie.Breaker - All land use types'. "Used planning department maps for distances; used higher number of fire response time when it came out between numbers." (Pat Cratty) Parks and Recrea.tipn "Distance, was calculated from a 1:1000 scale map prepared by staff with increments of 1/8 mile. Physical barriers such as 1-5 were taken into consideration where obvious. The state beach was considered as a park, but recreational areas such as Bristol Cove were not due to a lack of public access." (Charlie Grimm) Distance - ' . "Distance was calculated in the same manner as Parks and Recreation. Bus lines are somewhat transitory, so it is possible that routes have been changed since the time the " . maps were drawn (7/21/77)." (Charlie Grimm) Fire Response Time "The fire response time was calculated from a computer map. information was fed into the program concerning the existing street network, fire house locations and the speed limits of city streets. From this information, a print-out map was produced with one-minute intervals." (Charlie Grimm) In summary', every effort was made to insure that the rating system was objective. The results reflect those efforts. In the process of analyzing the applications, the staff recognized and understands that there are many excellent projects in our opinion that could provide substantial community benefits. We also under- i stood that the First Phase Sewer Allocation System was designed to j help specifically those persons, known or. unknown, who had been j caught by the sewer moratorium established April 19, 1977. Therefore, i based on the c-riteifia established by the allocation system, many excellent projects are not eligible for consideration. Many of those projects submitted for this allocation would probably accumulate a high point total in any future allocation system the Council may consider either from unallocated sewer capacity under this system or from future capacity which may become available. ' The staff did feel, however, that one industrial and two commercial projects which were submitted in the village redevelopment study area of Carlsbad should more appropriately be considered under the contingency category of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. The contingency category includes failing septic tanks, community . dev- elopment rehabilitation program, redevelopment areas, capital improvement programs and a reserve capacity for other, exceptions to the sewer moratorium contained in Section 18.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. " . There are 40 equivalent dwelling units which could be allocated under the First Phase Sewer Allocation System, and it is anticipated there will be a continuous need for capacity in the' various land uses identified in both contingency category and community facility category. The allocation system also indicates 'that at this time proposed - 10 - projects will be handled on an "as needed" basis by cases to . case evaluation by the City Council. The only exception to this is the City Manager's authority to issue sewer capacity for failing septic tank systems. It is also indicated in the system that it may be necessary to establish a separating system for these categories if a high demand occurs. Staff's position is that application numbers ISAI-004 (One EDU unit), CS*iI-O02 . (One EDU unit) and CSAI-009 (16 EDU units) are sufficient to the redevelopment efforts now in its initial stages in the Village Area. It is recognized that as the redevelopment efforts move along that the sewer availability will become a significant issue as to the speed and ability of accomplishing the goals that are developed. These 18 equivalent dwelling units out of the 40 available would assist the area in accomplishing community goals and still leave 2*2 equivalent dwelling units available in the contingency category. ATTACHMENT TO STAFF REPORT ON FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM - December 20, 1977 PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following steps for Council consideration of the projects are contained within the First Phase Sewer Allocation System as follows: 1. The City Council holds a public hearing to consider staff|,s report. 2. After completion of the public hearing on the report the Council shall consider and resolve any differences between applicants and staff in regard to the qualifications under Section A. Staff Recommendation: Exhibit X be adopted by the City Council. If the Council desires to substantially adjust the staff's interpretation of the qualifications of the sewer allocation system, we would suggest a short break for the staff to make any adjustments which would be required. 3. The Council shall then eliminate from further consideration for sewer permits all projects which do not meet the qualifications under Section A. •4. Council shall then review the recommendations contained within the staff report in regard to the point ranking of qualifying projects within each land use category. 5. The Council shall have the prerogative of making changes on policy interpretation of the rating system in reaching its conclusions on allocations. 6. If the Council is not satisfied that the results of the allocation meet the obvious purposes and intent of the system, the City Council may amend it as they consider necessary in the public interest. Staff Recommendation: If the City Council substantially amends the rating system, they should refer the matter to City staff for analysis and report back on December 27th for further Council consideration. 7. When the Council is satisfied with the findings and the ranking of the'projects, they shall adopt a Resolution provided by the City Attorney containing a list of such projects which shall become the basis for issuing sewer permits and building permits in the Carlsbad sewer district boundaries. JCHtS QW •*•*,- X ON c*wus M w H' O CO£-. 2 l-H O O. O n 0-CATBER(X of o Q O O VG Q. o C/3. ' W W t-4co cr; £3 O /-. . w ww oo w w H >> PQ C3 2= c—•2ic<w P4 W2:on 5CJ»-<^1Pi •5!,-j^j< V-,o o2:I—I« f*-.Ito iHi CM CO H o CU P3n W Ot-l H05 < WU PQw!j|cu2: Pu .55I-H 55 to WW t-H CO Oi 0 u•s Cv >o W N O rt. o O U V oi r- i i i i i •• S3 'OW X. PiW PQ Q i .0 05 fr- iz;•TH 'r- M V LICATIOUMBERCi o•»*» si. CN V) W W »-HCO 05 3 O r.-1 8t, m a w I B W bl E 2 i (Q H O.a a •iu> Ir* fflMXXu s, li n 1 g oS!S?STAFFMENDHOOK! ass<0.g W BS ICATIERAPJLm •4: Qr -t- * -Jcr ^ Uj 0 o 6o S ivj Q 0 Uj ' OO 0- ^4 U O v/\ a 0 O rroo or) * O O --:,* ..Vi flCO I IM 3« uCO toa b. K oH S ia inH CM1-1 I X mM XH w i to H s U W g fcQg< z oE-1 H = Wl« 8 S &9 MCX S£OWl f< MW W H g Ms«H [d o« S & z en QiO 8 NA O O Vfl 3 '5 .a V 'xi- •fc 60 V) » o oo t-•iin i >s XXu Cn b.Q mowW 0 28W H2 (0 DOMECAPLICATIMBERM ><to c: (V) x/ u 7 §M ti0) -PCJ gCJ 0)g -pft CQ O >i rH W (U > CJo> o'd *H 0) -P o CQ O o 0) (U t7> 15C Q)•H CO-P C 0)O COCJ n345y\ CMo MH -P CO 'O M CJ 0) oo(U CO-p U 0)•I—Io Cm VD (N •H 43•H45X w Q W •PO0)•n OM PM 14_| o CJo•H 4J .,_) j_l O CO(1) Q -P O 0) •n O PH q_l O CJo •H4J C D O 1-1 CJo -P R3 U )H • 1-1 ion to an, warehouse.•P ••H -P *O PM•d :to •d1 ••CO . -P 0p., CTV ^J1 . ,. tJ1£M CQ tP 0 CJin -H 0 -P i CQ rH -H i< 0) CJnJa) M -P O 1C •P CJ CO Oa) 'ii 1 *^ O -P •k-. (D <U0) X) C T3 3•H *- tyi W 4J (0 O rH1 4J 0)to (-> ^ <U -P CJ& 10 n3 ^j* 0 «*ank build-XJ •», • * Si) t» frt r*-p tJ1 fl)en > •H - in )Hi— i tJin •• 45in -p -H ^ 5oCJ tr« CJ CJ<D 1 0) MH -P (U 0) hj XI • MH *• *d0 -P CJ 0) <ti CD 0) HH3 M O•-H 4Jto co -d C4J tj (0 -P 0M W g O >H rHg <U pq (No H . -r generaltal area0 On i c_j CQtJV . CJ (U -H O • •d-H -PI-H MH tt|•>H m 3 O • Xt CT>d w ^ CJOJ rd o CJ 10H n (D-H - OJ (0 rH r-t -P 45 <1> WEH M -H CJOTi CO CJ • -rl*u *d M (UocaQ)MH Q) *do £ cj •P (0 0) Q)•d xi -P •H rH CO ^ Q) 0) > 4J 3 0) -P CJ W 5H Q) O 0 > 02 <: PJ o~, 0 • . ' • . " * * -