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
•
. '
•
.
"
*
*
-