Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-11; City Council; 5158-6; Second revision to first phase sewer system. C'' c I ? %., , ! *- * 'CTTY' 'OF 'CARLSBAD .. I r AGENGA B'I:LL .' . '51'58; 'Subplement NO'. 6 q- 7 ................. .... .......... ................................. c" Initfal : SUBJECT: SECOND REVISION TO THE FIPST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM. ..... ....... ._.. ....................... _I .................. \ The Second Revision of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System was adopted by the City . Council on February 8, 1978, (City Council Resolution No. 5303) to allocate permits for an estimated 93 equivalent dwelling units (EDU'S). The closing date €or acceptance of applications was March 3, 1978, and a staff committee began an immediate evaluation of each application. As required, this report was completed within 30 working day's of Narch 3, 1978, closing date and the findings weremade available to the applicants on April 3, 1978. There were 32 applications submitted for a total request of 268 EDU'S. Only 8 of the 32 applications are new, the remainder are carry overs from the first allocation. Seven of the applications were disqualified as not meeting one of the 3 qualifiers,;:5 of which were dye to no fhal subdivision map. Qualified applications for single family and commercial did not exceed the sewer available, but there are a great deal more EDU'S requested fx multiple family than available. EXHISITS Resolution No .sa Copies of App 1 i. c; t i ons Reviewed Second Revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System Application Staff Report and Recommendations Exhibits V & Y, dated March 28, 1978 fiElCCMMENDAT I ON % --- It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents approving the following applications for sewer: S002, S018, Soli, SO19, COO1, CO13, co05, C010, Moll, M003, MOO4 - M004, M005, M009. . (Please refer to Exhibit "V" for applicants name, location and assessor number). This reconmendation includes the recommendation that 11 EDU'S be allocated to multiple instead of the 10 made available. It is further reconmended that the remaining EDU'S be placed in reserve, adding 40 EDU'S to community facilities and 22 to contingency. Council Action 4-1.1-78 Council accepted Staff recommendation. FORM PLANNING 73 1c 13 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 5371 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING PURSUANT TO THE SECOND VISION OF THE FIRST PHASE SEIilER ALLOCATION SYSTEM AND TRANSFERR1:WG THE REiMAINING CAPACITY TO COPZi?lUNITY FACILITIES AND CONTINGENCY- WHEREAS, Chapter 18.05 of the Carlsbad llunicipal Code imposes ISSUANCE OF SEWER COh7NECTION PEItFlITS 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, theCity Council, by theix adoption of Resolution No. 5199, as revised by Resolutian No. 5259, has adopted a First Phase Sewer Allocation System and by their adoption of=Resolution No. 5303, has adopted a Second Revision to the 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 and other actions to be approved by this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the CLty of Carlsbad as. follows: 1. Thzt 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 I1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 marked Exh'ibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, in the amount shown thereon. 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. City Manager is authorized to accept building permit applications Pursuant to that exemption the for said projects and to process them in accordance with the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as modified by the > Second Revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. 4, . There are 37 E.D.U's remaining in the Single Family category, 12 in General Commercial and 13 in Office Commercial. The City Council determines that the public interest requires that this capacity be transferred to reserves as follows: 40E.D.U's to Community Facilities and 22 E.D.U's to Contingency"to be - allocated by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the '18th day of April , 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Councilman Packard, Skotnicki, Anear and NOES : None Councilwoman Casler ABSENT : None RONALD /@&4/&< C. PACICARD, Mayor ATTEST: A 2. I! $$ m 'r " & €4; '4 Q. .. cv ... 4 rl rl - e., QD 4 - ... bm 0 .. cv .. .. w 7 - - .. -. (Y . '. .I . 0 I 32'. . J N a) ut u) a .w .1 0' 4 cp .* - .- - *. -. .. .. .. .. ..... ... - '9.. ._ ,' .. , c.: . .- - . 0 *' In ... CI 0 -- 'cv . m 0 - 04. .. - .. ..... 1 - a 2. 0 0 9 '7 0 0 z E+ r;: :i ti 17 m 0 .. ht ... ', . L- . .. *. ' - .. .. - .. . .. .. - .. ., ut 0 x .m * 0 In 0 d ,.r 'u) .w .. . _. .f - .. - 5. .. . . .I .. -- 0 u) 0 - .' - ir. . E.r ea k :. 0 # rl .L c ' .. c E R". . , - !' w m' ' E B 0 ps m r-4 0 u 0 25 0 V-I c. u ~ , - . -I EXHIBIT "S" SECOND REVISION R-43LWTION NO. 5303 E', AUAKY 7, 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD SECOND REVISION - FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM I. Objectives: The sewer allocation system contained herein is intended to provide a framework within which the City Council can make some judgments regarding the allocation of a limited amount of sewer capacity which may become available. This system is designed to meet the following City objectives: A. B. , c. E. F. 1 ,L. To fairly and equitably allocate a limited amount: bf sewer capacity among competing demands. To coordinate development with needed public improvements. . To maintain and enhance levels of City services (infilling) . To preserve and/or enhance the efficiency of service delivery systems to allow time to provide public facilities adequate to meet expanded service needs. To renew and maintain existing urban areas. d To develop vacant land that is within existing urban areas and is currently served by public facilities; i.e-, s'ttreets, water, sewer. 11. Available Sewer Capacity: It is estimated that the first phase sewer allocation system revised will have 210 equivalent dwelling units and 58,333 gallons of sewer treatment capacity to be considered for allocation. This capacity may be distributed on the basis of the criteria contained within this document. The amount of sewer capacity required for any particular project shall be determined on the basis of equivalent dwelling unit-s according to the established City system in that regard. . ->.,e- . - 111, IV . / . ” ,L Purpose and Intent: A, B. C. D. The guiding criteria for the application and interpretation of this system shall be to maximize the overall community benefits for the City of Carlsbad. This sewer allocati’on system is for those portions of the City of Carlsbad which are located within the Carlsbad service area. This sewer allocation system is in part responding to the specific needs of the community in terms of those perscns known or unknown who have been caught by the sewer moratorium The City Council has determined to consider allocating some or all of the sewer capacity which we may acquire covering such concerns as: I) distribution of sewer capacity by percentage to specific land use categori*es; 2) creating a rating system within the various land use categories; 3) establishing community benefits for the City of Carlsbad as the major allocation criteria; and 4) development of a system to fairly recognize those persons affected by the moratorium of April 19, 1977. established April 19, 1977. * ,c. P Land Use Distribution: The following land use distribution of sewer allocation i,s established for this second revision of the first phase sewer allocation system. Remaining E.D.U.’s in First Phase (Eauivalent Dwellina Units) A. Cokercial Land Use 1, General 2. Office 26, - 14 B. Single Family Residential 43 - Land Use * C. Multiple Family Residential Land Use ** 10 *Single Family Residential Land Use shal f3 be those dwelling units proposed on legal recorded lots in the R-1 and R-A zones and dwelling units in other residential zones where the density is 7,500 sq. ft. of land per unit or less. **Multiple Family Residential Land Use shall be all dwelling units where the densi-ty is greater than one dwelling unit per 7,500,sq. ft. ,- 2 - .- z Applications for sewer permits will be divided by use in accord with the above categories. Projects-in each category will be rated against other projects in the same category and separate allocations will be made within each category. In addition to the above categories, thereare three more categories with capacity to be distributed: r Remaining E.D.U.'s'in'FirSt Phase (Equivalent Dwelling Units) D. Industrial Land Use E. Community Facilities {Includes parks, schools, other governmental buildings, churches, hospitals and airports) F. Contingency (Includes failing septic tanks and community development, re- habilitation programs, redevelop- ment areas, capital improvement programs and a reserve capacity for other exceptions to the sewer moratorium contained in Section 15.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 81 14 .. 22 The Industrial Land Use, Community Facilities and Contingency categories are designed to reserve sewer capacity rather than allocating fixed amounts immediately as the other land use categories. It is anticipated that between now and when optimum sewer capacity is available, there will be a continuous need for capaciky in the various land uses identified in these categories. It may be necessary to establish a separate rating system for these Categories if a high demand occurs; however, at, this time, it is anticipated that these will be handled on an "as needed" basis by a case-by-case evaluation by the City Council, The only exception to the City Council allocating these categories based on community need and the public welfare, is that the City Manager shall have authority to issue sewer connection permits for failing septic tank systems. . V. Procedures for Applying for Sewer Permits Under the Second Revision of the First Phase Allocation - System. A. It is assumed that there will be more applications for a sewer allocation than there is available capacity. Therefore, three qualifications are established which must be satisfied at the time of application in order for the application to be considered -3- - I k If is the judgment of the City Council that on1y projects which ' can.meet these qualifications should be eligible to participate .in the allocation under the second revised first phase sewer allocation. These qualifications are also intended to screen applications in a preliminary way to provide a reasonable guide to save unnec-ssary engineering and design costs for a proposed project where there .is little chance of the project qualifying for a sewer allocation permit. The qualifications are as, follows: 1. 2. 3. No residential project'will be eligible for consideration that is outside of the infill area as shown on the map marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Commercial and industrial land uses may be considered anywhere within the City's sewer service area. With the exception of City building or sewer pegmits, all approvals, including City Council action and other agency approvals, such as the California Coastal Commission and Sanitation and Water Districts, must bavo been issued and proof of such approval must be submitted with the appli- cations. The applicant must demonstrate that he is ready and able to commence construction of the project upon receipt of a City building permit. No public costs for City facilities to service the site, such as streets, sewers, etc., are required, - -_-- - -. ^. - B, Applicants for projects which apparently qualify under-the categories listed above, shall then prepare the followtng information as the official application for a second allocation sewer allocation permit. f .' ,.* 1. Documents Required for Submittal: The'following dicuments are required to provide sufficient infor- mation to accurately rate the application, and to determine if proposal meets Code requj-rements. cause disqualification. Applicatj-on, Questionnaires for qualification and for rating Errors or omissions (Application Attachments) . Proof in writing that all necessary approvals involving . the various public agencies have been completed. Two blue line prints of the site plan. The site plan shall contain all information.necessarv to evaluate the project under this system as required by the Planning Director. 74- A written list and explanation of what water, sewer and energy conserving material or construction techniques that are going to be used. (Such list wiI.l become part of the record and plans must comply with the list and be to the satigfaction of the City Building Official.) In addition all dnergy conservation efforts requesting points a+ii be documented, - reviewed and signed -,by a qualifying engineer OE simill-ar professional in the field. Application Fees: The’submittal of a processing fee in the amount of: . $25 for community facilities $25 for single family residence $50 for multiple family residence $100 for commercial or industrial uses’ , A fee is not required for applications on file pursuant to the first revision to the sewer allocatiqn system, The deadline for filing applications is the close of the business day on March 3, 1978. Applications shall be filed with the Planning Department. Staff Evaluation After the closing date for receipt of applications, a staff committee, consisting of the Public Works Administrator, City Engineer, Director of Building and Housing and the Director of Planning, shall evaluate each application An accordance with the provisions of this section. The committee shall prepare a report for the City Council. The report shall show which projects in the judgment of the committee meet the qualifications of Section V. point total for each project based on the staff judgment of the-project’s ranking after applying the point system as set out in the Rating System Questionnaire, a part of Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. In additi.on, the report shall rank the projects from the project with the highest total. to the project with the lowest total. for each land use category. Finally, the report shall recommend which projects in each category should receive a sewer allocation permit. The staff shall report their findings to the City Council within 30 working days from the deadline for submission of applications. The cormittee findings shall be mailed or otherwise made available to all persons who have applied for a sewer al.location permit before the Council hearing. The report shall also show a .. I .. . -. .- . . - ._ ,. .. . VI1 . - City Council Act!.frl. -. - , . .I^ . ." 1 *f I \ The CXty Clerk &all set a public hearing before the City Council tcp consider the staff committee report- After completion of the public hearing on the report, the Council shall first consider and resolve any disagreements between applicants and staff in regards to the qualifications of Section V. The Council shall then eliminate from further consideration for permits under this second allocation all projects which do not meet the Section V qualifications. The Council shall review the recommendations of the Staff Report in regards to the point ranking sf qualifying projects within each land use category. The Council shall have the prerogative of making its own policy interpretations of the rating system in reaching its decision on allocations, results of the rating system meet the objectives and purposes and intent of the system. The Council may amend it as they consider necessary in the public interest. When the Council is Satisfied with the findings and the ranking of the projects, they shalladopta Sewer list of such projects which shall become the basis for issuing sewer permits and building permits in the Carlsbad sewer district boundaries. Inclusion of a project on the approved list shall constitute authorization pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.05.030 for the exception of that project from the building moratorium imposed by Chapter 18.05 of the Code. the available sewer capacity pursuant to this system. The Council land use category as they consider necessary in order to insure the available capacity is used in the best interests of the citizens of Carlsbad, Any capacity which is not allocated as a part of this second revision , - first. phase or which is allocated but not used, -shall remain in rese'rve to be reallocated as the Council may determine by the adoption of a second phase system or by the further amendment sf this system. r If the Council is not satisfied that the , The Council is under no.obligatian to allocate all or any part of . reserves the right to establish point total cut off within each , /' ,L ./ VIII. Permits *and Fees The successful applicant within the rating system shall be required to perform in the following manner in order to obtain and retain a sewer permit: A, A complete building permit application must be filed after Council action approving the list of projects eligible for projects within 45 days. All other projects within 30 days, The project must be as representedin the allocation application. Sewer allocations as follows: Commercial and industrial B. Concurrently with the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall obtain a sewer connection pennit and pay the fee therefore as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Applicant shall also pay a special sewer allocation permit fee of $375 per EDU for his project. lease cost of the capacity allocated by this system. The applicant must take out his building, sewer and other 'necessary permits within 20 days after mailing of written notice by the City that plan.check is complete and that the building permit is ready for issuance. The special fee shall be used to pay the C. -6- ,’ 1 D. E. Aiter issuance of a building permit by the Building Department, construction shall commence within 30 days and be diligently pursued without interruption until completed: If construction does not progress in a reasonably timely way, or is interrupted for any period in excess of 30 days, the building permit and sewer permit will be void. All fees shall be non-refundable. If a building permit is voided, a new building permit may be obtained which will only be issued if +the project qualifies for a new sewer allocation pursuant to such system that the Council may adopt in the future. r NOTE TO APPLICANTS This second revision system is adopted based on an assumption that the City will have available 58,333 gallons of additional sewer capacity on lease from another member of the Encina Treatment Plant. This assumption is based on Engineer’s estimates. The true facts are difficult to determine and the assumptions which underlie the system are subject to change. of the first phase sewer allocation There is no guarantee that a project, which apparently qualj-fies for an allocation pursuant to this system, will actually receive a sewer permit. Further, there is no guarantee that the issuance of a sewer allocation permit will insure that capacity will in fact be available at the time of occupancy. The City may not exceed its capacity rights in the plant, and, therefore, must be governed by the actual availability of capacity at the time the hookup is made. The system is subject to litagation. In the event of a result unfavorable to the City, any permits issued pursuant allocation permit or perform work pursuant to such permit are at your own risk. ,C I.’ ’ hereto could be revoked. Efforts by applicants to obtain an In addition to Pages 1 through 7 hereof, the second revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System shall include the following: Exhibit A - Infill Map Exhibit B - Application for Sewer Allocation Permit Exhibit C - Questionnaire for Application Qualificatj-ons Exhibit E - Rating System Questionnaire: Commercial Exhibit F - Rating System Questionnaire: Residential -7- . . 0 1000 2000 1000 PEET f 'EXHIBIT-A . 8 AUG. 25 1977 CARLSBAD,CALIFWIA bZZ%%t-%M COASTAL ZONE B0UP:DARY (FOR EXACT LOCATION CONTACT PLANNING DEPT. .I .. 1. 2. 3. ’ 4. 5. .- APPLICATION FOR SEWER ALLOCATION PERMIT 4 #r EXHIBIT B 9-1-77 # (Please Print or Type) Date Description of Project (Residential, Commercial, Industrial.., r no. of units, etc.): Location of Project: the side of between The subject property is generally ‘located on t ana . Assessor:s Number: Rook Page Parcels Book Page - Parcels .”. (Please list others at bottom of page), - Owner (s ) : Name Address City State .. Zip Phone r. .. Person(s) responsible for preparation of plans or design: Name - Address City State Zip Phone -- 6. Registration of License No. Applicant: Name Address City State Zip Phone - Representing (Company or Corp.) : - c c 4 € * I hereby declare that all information contained within this application and the accompanying attachments have been'READ, UNDERSTOOD, AND HAVE BEEN ANSWERED CORRECTLY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, I Applicant's Signature x r . -. .. 1 .- .. Lah. b i t C January 16, 1978 Questionnaire for Application Qualifications The following threequestions must be answered concerning your project: 1. 2. 3. TO t Is the location of your project inside the infill boundaries as approved by Council, excluding Commercial and Industrial Land Use?(The official map is located at the Planning Department,) Have all approvals, including City Council actions and other applications such as the California Coastal Commission, Sani-tation and Water District been completed? (In order to document Miis yualif ication,proof must be submitted and attached to this application.) b Will the project create any public costs for City facilities such as streets, sewers, etc.? c the best of my knowledqe, my proposed project will not require any public costs- for City-faciiities to service the site, such as streetsp sewers, etc. I understand that if it is determined by City staff that my project will require such public costs, my application will be disqualified from consideration and my application fees will not be refunded. c .. .. . __.- . Applicant's Signature LOG NO.. / .' RATING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE -- E or - COMMERCIAL LAND USES Please answer the following questions. Additional pages showing evidence in support of the points indicated may be attached. 1. Points will be given for certain water saving devices listed below. Please check the devices, if any, which will be incorporated into the project. (To receive points for any fixture as listed below, all such fixtures in the structure - shall be so equipped wherever appropriate.) ,. . j- Faucets Laboratory sink aerators (flow restrictors) 2% Spring loaded faucet 5% Quick heat lavatory faucet 5% Thermostatic mixing valve 4% Flow control head or in-line restrictor 4% No showers included in project 8% - Insulation 5% Recirculating (convection or forced) 8% .. Flush valve (1' line) iii % Showers Hot Water Pipes -7 Toilets POINTS $3 WATER REDUCTION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-4% 5-9% 10-148 15-19% 20-24% 25-29% 30-34% 35-39% 40-44% 45-47% 48% Comments or Explanation ,. .. .* c 2,) Points will be gi. i based on the following$"thods to conserve energy, Please check the zi evices, if any, which will 1~e incorporated into the project. fixtures in thr structure shall be so equipped wherever applicable.) (To receive points for any fixture as listed below, all such Pilot lights for furnaces Electro-spark 5% Windows r Thermopane 4% 10% , Solar Heating 5% Hot Water Augment . Building Heating % by Engineering Design A clear, documented statement substantiating the ' py-eentage receive any credit. ..1 \ claimed must be included -to .# POINTS % ENERGY CONSERVATION f 0 No energy conservation considerations k 1-5% 2 6-10% 3 11-15% 4. 16-20% 5 21-25% 6' 26-30% 7 31-35% 8 36-40% 41-45% 46% + 9 10 Comments or Explanation I ' .. ... I 3. Does the project incorporate facilities to reduce sewer ef€luent by significant amounts? (Circle appropriate points that you believe your project should be allottCid,) 0 - No Reduction 1 - up to 2% 2 - 4% 3 - 6% 4 - 8% 5 - 10% 6 - 12% *. 7 - 14% 8 - 1.6% 9 - 18% 10 - Over 18% Comments or Explanation -3 4 F ' 4. 'Does the projecc remove or rehabilitate o,&r dilapidated structures ,within the conununity of a non-historic nature?" , 0 - Land Vacant 3 - Rehabilitation 5 - Removal of non-historic dilapidated structure *Structure is defined as any main building on a lot. 5. Does the proposed project participate in a capital project listed on the City Council's approved Capital Improvement Program? POINTS 0'- NO .. . 5 - Partially completes a capital project .I .. . 10 - Completes a capital project P _L Comments or Explanation t 6. Will the project require less than 50% of the sewer capability that is ava.ilable in its land use type? 0 - 50% and over 1 - 40% - 49.99% 2 - 30% - 39.99% 3 - 20% - 29.99% 4 - 10% - 19.99% 5 - 5 - 9.99% 6 - 2 - 4..99% *>' 7 - 0 - 1.99% ..L Comments or Explanation . .-. ... 7. Will the project provide substantial assessed value to the City? - POINTS RECEIVED 0 3 6 9 QUARTILE Bottom 25% of Projects Third 25% of Projects Second 25% of Projects , Top 25% of Projects METHOD: Projects shall be arranged from highest to lowest buildhg valuations. Building evaluation for each project shall he computed multiplying the square footage of building ana in each project by the appropriate construction cost factors set forth in the Building Department Valuation Tables. - Comments . -3- (Not 8. Will the project 4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ONLY part of rating for office uses) - provide substantial taxable sales to the City? POINTS RECEIVED QUARTILE I 0 Bottom 25% of Projects 3 Third 25% of Projects 6 Second 25% of Projects 9 Top 258 of Projects METHOD: Projects shall be arranged from highest to lowest potential taxable sales, Potential taxable sales for each project shall be computed by multiplying the squarefobtgge of gross leasible building area in each project by the following factors. USE TAXABLE SALES PER SQUARE FOOT OF FUTLDING(S) Regional Shopping Center 90 Community ti Neighborhood Commercial Center Specialty Store Discount Store Furniture and Appliances Furnishings T.V., Stereo, Records Building Supplies Paint and Wallpaper Auto Service and Supplies Dinner Restaurant Coffee Shop Fast Food 60 100 - ' .".. 80 60 60 3.20 90 120 80 140 120 250 Mini-Supermarket 40 Car Dealership - set amount of, $1.8 rnill.ion Comments -4- TIE BREAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM CO-WQERCIAL -- In case of a tie in any land use category, the following points may be applied as a tie brea$er: 1. Distance to public transportation system POINTS 1/2'mile + 3/8 to 1/2 mile 1/4 to 3/8 mile 1/8 to 1/4 mile 0 to 1/8 mile 2. Fire Response Time . POINTS No access Over 6 minutes 5 to.6 minutes 4 to 5 minutes 3 to 4 minutes 2 to 3 minutes 1 to 2 minutes 0 tc 1 minutes 1 -A ,L. t ./ .- -' Comments -5- .. RATING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE for RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Exhibit F 10/18/77 Revised 11/15/77 Please answer the following questions. Additional pages showing evidence in support of the points indicated may be attached. 1. Points will be given for certain water saving devices listed below. Please check the devices, if any, which will be incorporated into the project. fixture as listed below, all. such fixtures in the structure shall be so equipped wherever appropriate.) Faucets f (To receive poilltp for any Kitchen sink aerator (flow restrictors) 2% Lavatory sink aerator (flow restrictors) 3% Quick heat; lavatory faucet 5% Showers Thermostatic mixing valve 5% Flow control head or in-line restrictor 15% Hot Water Pipes Insulation Recirculating (convection or forced) Cycle adjust dishwasher (built in) Appliances / .' I .C POINTS 0 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 a -- 10% 15% - - . .. 2% % WATER REDUCTION 0-48 5-9% ' 10-14% 15-19% 20-24% 25-29% 30-34% 35-39% 40-44% 45-4996 50-57% Comments or Explanation '. 3 ' &. / .' 3. 1 'Points will be given based on the following i,,dthods to conserve energy. Please check the devices, if any, which will be incorporated into the project. (To receive points for any fixture as listed below, all such fixtures in thr structure shall be so-equipped wherever applicable.) Pilot lights for furnaces Electro-spark 5% I Windows Thermopane 10% Solar Heating Hot Water Augment 10% Building Heating % by Engineering Design A clear, documentcd,statement substantiating the pekcentage claimed must be included to receive any credit. I POINTS % ENERGY CONSERVATION 0 No energy conservation Considerations 1 1-5% 2 6-10% 3 11-15% 4 16-20% 5 21-25% 6' 26-30%. 7 31-35% & 8 36-40% 9 41-45% .. 10 46% f Comments or Explanation Does the project incorporate facilities to reduce sewer effluent by significant amounts? (Circle appropriate points that you believe your project should be allottsd.) 0 - No Reduction 1 - up to 2% 2 - 4% 3 - 6% 4 - 8% 5 - 10% 6 - 12% 7 - 14% 8 - 16% 9 - 18% 10 - Over 18% Comments or Explanation .. . -2- - SI It . .. .4. Does the project remove or rehabilitate older dilapidated 'structures within the community of a non-historic nature?* 0 - Land Vacant 3 - Rehabilitation 5 - Removal of non'-historic dilapidated structure "Structure is defined as any main building on a lot 5. Does the proposed project participate in a capital project listed on the City Council's approved Capital Improvement Program? POINTS 0 - NO 5 - Partially completes a capital project 10 - Completes a capital project t Comments or Explanation 6. Will the project require less than 50%of the sewer capability that i.s available in its land use type? 0 - 50% and over 1 - 40 - 49.99% 2 - 30 - 39.99% 3 - 20 - 29.99% 4 - 10 - 19.99% 5 - 5'- 9.99% 6 - 2 - 4.99% 7 - 0 - 1.99% .. Comm&nts or Explanation -3- .. _. - I. .I TIE BREAKING RATING POIMT SYSTEM In case of a tie in any land use category, the following points may be applied as a tie breaker: 1. Distance to Parks and' Recreation POINTS , 0 1/2 mile + 1 3/8 to 1/2 mile 2 1/4 to 3/8 mile 3 1/8 to 1/4 mile 4 0 to 1/8 mile 2. Distance to public transportation system POINTS 0 1/2 mile + 1 3/8 to 1/2 mile 2 1/4 to 3/8 mile 3 1/8 to 1/4.mile 4 0 to 1/8 mile 3. Fire Response Time POINTS 0 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 No access Over 6 minutes 5 to 6 minutes 4 to 5 minutes 3 to 4 minutes 2 to 3 minutes 1 to 2 minutes 0 to 1 minutes .. . ... Comments -4- STAFF REPORT DATE : TO : FROM: SUBJECT: March 29, 1978 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council James C. Hagaman, Chairman Staff Sewer Committee Second Revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System Background The City Council on December 20, 1977, allocated sewer capacity to those projects which qualified under the First Phase Sewer AlLocation System. sewer capacity to the projects it was found that there was additional capacity left in the following land use categories: Single Family Residential (43 edu's), Multiple Family Residential (10 edu's), Office Commercial (14 edu's), General Commercial (26 edu's) and Industrial (81 edu's) = After allocating Subsequently, the City Council Sewer Committee met to consider what steps, if any, should be taken in allocating.the capacity that remained in the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. Committee was given in an oral report on January 3, 1978. The Committee recommended that the remaining capacity in the land use categories of Single Family Residential, Multiple Family Residential, Office Commercial and General Commercial. should be given out and that the Industrial capacity should be held for Council. consideration similar to the community facilities and contingency categories. A recommendation to the City Council from the Council Sewer The City Council adopted the Second Revision of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System on February 8, 1978, by Resolution No. 5303. This resolution contained the processing and procedures for allocating the sewer permits as per "Exhibit S Revision" dated February 7, 1978. Application for the first allocations that were not granted sewer permits were automatically placed in the second revision for re-evaluation, unless a letter was submitted specifically requesting withdrawal of the application. The closing date for acceptance of new applications was March 3, 1978. cedures require that after the closing date a staff committee consisting of the Public Works Administrator, City Engineer, Director of Building and Housing and Planning Director are to evaulate each application and prepare a report to the City Council. application submitted, (see Exhibit V, dated March 28, 1978). This exhibit includes all applications qualified or not and all pertinent information such as applicants name, general location, assessor number, edu's, qualifiers, points and grand total. the gaps in the number sequence are caused by the granting of sewer in the first phase or withdrawal of first phase applications. The pro- This is that report. This report will show the rating of each The applications are 1istc:d in nunterical number; please note Exhibit Y dated March 28, 1978, is the listing of applications as to their standings in the rating and which application staff recommends approval, exhibit includes the application number for reference. an application from Exhibit Y the City Council must reference back to Exhibit V for the name, address and assessor number. Exhibit Y also includes points, edu's of project and remaining edu's if application is granted. This Therefore when approving As required this report was completed within 30 working days of closing date and the findings made available to applicants on April 3, 1978. The applicants were notified of the hearing and the availability of the report by certified mail. 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 the 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 not 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 without 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 occyrs, staff should be directed to re-evaluate the rating and return report to Council at a date determined by City Council. findings and the ranking of the projects, they shall adopt a list which shall become the basis for issuing building and sewer permits. When the Council is satisfied with the 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. this first phase allocation, or which is allocated but not used within the prescribed time, shall remain in reserve to be reallocated as the.Counci1 may determine by the adoption of a second phase system or by the further amendment of this system. Any capacity which is not allocated as a part of Summary of Report As required by the Second Revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System, the staff committee completed the list of applications (Exhibit V), and which projects qualify for considerati.on for sewer allocation permit (Exhibit Y)- Assuming that some the unsuccessful applicants may request Council consideration, the applicants for all requests have been attached for your information, (Exhibit VI, If the City Council determines that some rejected applications do qualify the list of applicants qualified for consideration (Exhibit Y) will have to be modified. How- ever, time must be given to recorder and recalculate the questions that the points are based on for ranking among all successful applications- .2 - 4 . \ Summary of Second Revision There are 32 applications for a total request of 268 EDU'S; of these 32 applications only 8 are new being submitted on the second revision. are 7 applications for single family residence, 20 for multiple family, 5 for commercial. New applications are 2 for single family, 5 multiple- family, and 1 commercial. There Seven applications were disqualified for not meeting all three of the qualifying requirements. approved. one each because no specific plan in PC Zone, and sewer not available without public costs. applications are among the disqualified, (no final map). Of these, 5 were disqualified because final map has not yet been Two of the new multiple-family Results The allocation system has relative more edu's for single family residential and commercial than multiple family residential. Therefore all qualified applications for commercial and single family residential are able to receive sewer, but only a few of the multiple-family can be granted sewer. synopsis of staffs evaluation of each category is as follows: The application for multiple family - edu's however were greater than available multiple family edu's, . A brief Single Family (EDU'S) EDU'S Requested Not qualifying Qualifying 61 55 6 Available EDU'S 43 Qualifying 6 Remaining EDU ' S 37 .... The allocation system was established to allocate sewer to those lots that were existing prior to the moratorium. map but not finalized. the first allocation when the existing lot distinguished wasn't clear. The system excluded lots approved by tentative All of the rejected applications were carry overs from Multiple Family (EDU'S) EDU'S Requested Not Qualifying Qualifying 190 71 119 Available EDU' S 10 Qualifying 119 Remaining EDU'S 0 Like the single family category, some multiple family requests were disqualified for lack of final map. There are however, 119 qualifying EDU'S of which only 10 were allocated. The first four successful applications for multiple family have a total of 8 EDU'S. The fifth application is for 3 EDU'S for a grand total of 11 EDU'S to allocate. single family category, the City Council could allocate 11 EDU'S instead of 10 for multiple family by approving the highest 5 ranking applicants, (see Exhibit Y). Staff believes that with the remaining of EDU'S in the Commercial General (EDU'S) EDU'S Requested Not Qualifying Qualifying S6 2 14 Available EDU'S Qualifying Remaining EDU ' S 26 14 12 '* 3 f - - b, 1 \ Commercial request did not meet the available EDU'S because some requests for commercial were withdrawn, (evidently comitments by prospective occupants could not be held). Co,mmercial (Office) (EDU'S) EDU'S Requested Not Qualifying Qualifying 1 Available EDU'S 14 1 Remaining EDU' S 13 0 Qualifying 1 This one requested EDU is a carry over from the first allocation. was originally allocated, it was not used. The applicant, however, wished to keep the allocation alive and therefore it is again approved. Although it As per staffs recommendation, the allocation will allocate 31 of the 93 edu's availability leaving 62 edu's. held in reserve by the City. reserve. for contingency. Both are low, but the community facilities is especially low. The City anticipates need for sewer in upcoming community projects like park development and the swimming pool, as well as some possible churches. Therefore, staff recommends that 40 of the remaining edu's be added to the reserve for community facilities and 22 for contingency. Staff recommends that these remaining edu's be This is needed to supplement the existing low (Presently there are 14 edu's for community facilities and 22 edu's . The prccessing and decisions of this second revision appears clearer and easier than the first phase allocation. Most if not all ambiguities and indiscussion have been rectified and most of the applications have already been reviewed in the first phase. Also, only the multiple family category has more qualified applications that available EDU'S. For ease of processing, the City Council should approve the single family and commercial first, then open discussions on multiple family. Methodology A. Qualifications All unsuccessful applications for the first phase sewer allocation were auto- matically placed in the second revision allocation unless the applicant submitted, in writing, a request for withdrawal.. C wwo applications for!eme&kstl were withdrawn.). Some of these first phase applications were modified by the applicants in an attempt to increase their standing. New applications were accepted during the period for submittal'and were assigned numbers in order of receipt starting from the last number of the first phase. Immediately after the deadline, various members of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the Staff Review Committee went through all the applications concerned with meeting the basic qualifications criteria. of the committee then developed their criteria for rating each of the required projects under the rating system questionnaire. then analyzed and detailed for the second time each application in terms of the three qualifications established by City Council to be considered for sewer allocation. The three required qualifications and comments are listed below: The staff and members The Staff Review Committee .4 1. 2. 3. We No residential projects will be eligible for consideration that is outiside of the infill area, as shown on the map marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. considered anywhere within the City's sewer service area. 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. to commence construction of the project upon receipt of a City building permit, Commercial and industrial land uses may be The applicant must demonstrate that he is ready and able No public costs for City facilities to service the site, such as streets, sewers, etcs, are required. found upon analyzing the above required qualifications that the majority of the applications met the first and third criteria. disqualified by not meeting No. 2, however. were from the first phase generally, because final maps had not been approved. new applications were disqualified. Many applications were These disqualified applications No Most of the disqualified applications were the lack of a final subdivision map. Most of these applications can not get final map approval until sewer is available (as a condition of the tentative map). that such new maps would not qualify for early sewer allocation, thereby excluding existing lots of record. This was done by the City Council to insure In the case of the Coastal Commistion permits, we found it difficult to2veri€y if such permits would be renewed or extended. We have, therefore, concluded that since there is a 20 day period from the date of 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 during this 20 day period. The haxdship qualification of the fixst phase was deleted from this second revision. Therefwe, some applications that were originally disqualified were now qualified, B. Ratings The committee rated all applications without consideration of whether or not 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 member rated a specific question or questions on all applications Some questions were rated by more than one staff member, each working independently. This was done in order to verify judgmental ratings, or, if necessary, to reassess point assignments based on more equitable guidelines. very general guideline. The rating assigned to each project is based on staff evaluation and point assignment. The applicant's evaluation was used only as a Assumptions had to be made when doing the rating of each of the questions, these assumptions have a bearing on the amount of points given to each question, the following discussion of assumptions is submitted by the raters for each of the questions. Since .5 \ ,* I. Water Saving Devices This item was quite specific - all points were allowed if the applicant indicated his intent to install the specific items. No credit was allowed for points claimed because of the installation of low flush toilets (required of all new construction by plumbing code) or for claims of low maintenance landscape, timed irrigation, etc). (these items were intentionally left out of the system because of the difficulty in review and enforcement). (Rose, Greer) I gave points for: "1. Water saving or conservation devices. 2. Insulation and recirculating of hot water. 3. Cycle adjustment of appliances." (Richard Osburn) 2. Energy Saving Devices All claims for points were approved - if they included a brand name, architects, engineers verification of performance or other documentation. No points were approved for points claimed on the basis that energy saving design would be considered if the allocation was made or on a basis of other than equipment considerations. installed for solar heating, but had no provision for shielding or minimizing excess heating in hot weather). (One applicant indicated skylights would be (Roger Greer) I gave points for: - 'I 1. Energy conservation through furnaces and stoves, thermopane as against regular glass and solar heating of building and, or water. "(Richard Osburn) 3. Effluent reduction Received maximum points if they included water saving devices (Item 1). This item should be revised if it is to be used in future allocation systems since it applies primarily to industrial/commercial application where a recycling system is feasible. (Roger Greer) I game points for: "The use of the water conservation devices, there is a reduction in the amount of sewer effluents in the system. The amount or percentage is based on the type of fixtures and the number used." (Dick Osburn) F la, . ? ..(( 4,. Rehabilitation/Dilapidated Structures "This was determined by on-site investigation. If the structures to be removed were abandoned and vandalized, the determination was easy. In cases where the structures were occupied and appeared to be in a good state of repair, and still had a long, functional life ahead, points were not given. The Building Department was consulted on one use where the determination was difficult. Rehabilitation points were given if the existing structures appeared to be in need of rehabilitation. Five applications claimed rehabilitation points for regrading the sites (which were vacant) so that they would drain to the street. the site were not involved. removal of a structure that had already been removed sometime previously -- no points were awarded. (Don Rose) These points were not given because structures on One application claimed points for 5. Capital Improvement Program t Very simply, if any part of the public improvement (street widening, program, then five points (partial credit) were allowed. NO project traffic signals, etc.), required of the project was in the five-year of itself totally funded any C.I.P. project, so no application received ten points (e.g., Hosp Way, El Camino Real traffic signal, five points i E i i i 1 ; were given to each of four projects)." (Tim Flanagan) b 6- Percent of Sewer Capacity in Land Use Type i Paints were calculated by dividing the requested edu's by available edu's to find percentage of sewer capacity required by the application. (Pat Cratty). 7. Building Valuation (Commercial only) i "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 building. necessary to get construction information from Ray Green-" his knowledge of existing structures and guess what kind of materials would be used. a square foot. which would already have a lower value simply because of their size. I 1 I I ~ The corresponding uses were easy to determine but it was "Since most of the plans did not include any structural notes, Ray haa to use A major error could affect the overall valuation up to several dollars Most of the qyessing was on the smaller projects, however, (Notes from first phase allocation) I I 8 - Taxation (Commercial only) The table provided with the application was used to award these points being objective. (Don Rose). .7 - - .* ' 9. Tiebreakers : Distance to parks, public transportation, fire respnse. These were determined by using maps prepared by the City indicating distances and response time to the subject facilities, (Don Rose) In summary, every effort was made to insure that the rating system was objective, The results reflect those efforts. in thc process of analyzing the applications, thc staff recoqnized and understands that there are many excellent projects in our opinion that could provide sub- stantial community benefits. Sewer Allocation System and the Second Revision were designed to help specifically those persons, known or unknown, who had been caught by the sewer moratorium established April 19, 1977. Therefore, based on the criteria established by the allocation system, many excellent projects are not eligible for consideration, Many of those projects submitted for this application would probably accummulate a high point total in any future allocation system the Council may consider from future capacity which may become available. We also understood that both the First Phase Attachments Procedures and Recommendation Exhibit V & Y dated March 28, 1978 Reasons for disqualification JCH:BP:ar 1 .8 - - ' ATTACHMENT TO STAFF REPORT ON SECOND REVISION OF THE FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM, DATED MARCH 29, 1978. PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following steps for Council consideration of the projects are contained within the First Phase Sewer Allocation System as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The City Council holds a public hearing to consider staff's report. 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. Staff Recommendation: Adopt staffs recommendation as to qualifications as contained in Exhibit "V", dated March 28, 1978. 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. The Council shall then eliminate from further consideration for sewer permits all projects which do not meet the qualifications. 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. The Council shall have the prerogative of making changes on policy interpretation of the rating system in reaching its conclusions on allocations. 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 April 25, 1978, for further Council consideration. Also, to speed up the processing, staff recommends that the City Council consider the single family and commercial first. After these have been allocated the discussion on multiple family rating can be done. When the Council is satisfied with the findings and the ranking of the projects, they shall adopt by resolution a list of such projects which shall become the basis for issuing sewer permits and building permits in the Carlsbad sewer district boundaries. After allocating the sewer, the City Council should place remaining EDU'S in the reserve, adding 40 to community facilities and 22 to contingency. BP : ar .c 13 . .- 13 -. . . . 6 -I-..- __. t ! .. 1 i ! i b I --* I i I i I i t -A- -- ---1 ..- I_ P 0 0 0 1 0 4-- h). h) ... .--- e.:.=: ---I-- -..---t---- i I: I ----+. I __..._~. . t c1 .P P W N '8 0 i I I ! I IW P r I -+- I 0 cn 0 16 I_L W -. , --I- F cn .- P 0 __L_ P 0 4 0 -- 0 0 0 cn --- 0 I- ---- --_I IP 0 I 7-- - I YLU IP I -*a -_a. c. ;J 0 r) J I- D J m I. 0 )3 c-l ... ., .. ._ . . .. I . ... - .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. ... - .. -. .... -. .. .. . .. .. . ... t-J 0 r I J n -- e- - I - ._ L ?. *f I. *. SO08 ' so10 ,. '. Kamar Const. Jack Sprague Robert Kevane DISQUALIFIED APPLICATIONS - SECOND REVISION FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM c012 REASONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: William Mihalich APPLICATION APPLICANT'S NUMBER ' NAME Mol9 I M022 Perin Thayer Gerald Behrendsen Robert Bryan I SO16 REASONS No final map. Specific Plan expired No final map. CT 77-6 tentative approved. Sewer not available without public costs. No final map Condos. No final map. .". Condos. No final map.