HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-18; City Council; 5998-4; Continues Hearing on 2nd phase sewer allocationCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGEN
DATE
DEPA
DA BILL NO. 5998, SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 Dept. Hd.
DECEMBER 18, 1979 Cty. At
RTMENT : PLANNING Cty. Mg
CONTINUED HEARING ON SECOND PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION PROGRAM SUBJECT:
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
By past action Council has approved allocation within the categories of Single
Family Residential (four or less units), Office Commercial, General Commercial,
and Industrial Expansion. The categories of Single Family Residential (more
than four units), Multiple Family Residential, and Industrial New have been
continued for further review and re-rating. In addition; questions were raised
on certain application and applicants have contacted the City on various concerns.
The re-rating of the three categories noted above have been completed and ready
for your review. Questions and concerns on the rating system have been addressed.
In addition staff has listed alternative means to dispence the remaining EDUS
from this allocation. The staff reports are attached containing this information.
The Sewer Committee completed the residential allocations, while the City Encineer
prepared the re-rating of Industrial-New. This was necessary since the City
Council requested special review and modification of these applications by the
C i ty FPC. i neer.
Also, attached is a summary of the various recommendations contained in the
staff reports.
EXH i U ITS
Summary of Recommendations
Staff Report prepared by the Sewer Committee dated December 11, 1979
Staff Report prepared by the City Engineer dated 12/10/79
EECOMMENDAT I ON
It is recommended that the City Council consider the recommendations contained
in the Summary of Recommendation's document.
Counci 1 Action:
12-18-79 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving sewer allocation as outlined in the Memorandum from the Planning Director to the City Manager dated December 11, 1979 in accordance with the recommendations l.a., l.b., l.~., l.d., and 2a) and Zb), and in accordance with Alternative #2 as outlined on Page 5 of the Memorandum from the City Engineer to the City Manager dated December 13, 1979.
Council directed that documents be prepared allocating sewer for 3.7 EDU's to Cal iforriia Aquaculture from the reserves.
.. .
Attachments
Exhibit "A", dated 12/11/79, approving additional applications
Exhibit "B", dated 12/11/79, approving allocation for Single
Family Residential (more than four units)
Exhibit "C" , dated 12/11/79, approving allocation for Multiple
Family Residential
Exhibit "D", dated 12/11/79, approving allocation for Industrial
New.
BP : ar
-2-
MEMORANDUM
DATE :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT :
December 11, 1979
Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
James Hagaman, Planning Director
Ron Beckman, Public Works Director
Richard Osburn, Building Director
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION (SECOND PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION)
1. It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING the following
applications for sewer allocatzon:
a. S-38, S-39 & S-40, as listed on Attached Exhibit
"All, dated December 11, 1979.
b. C-15, as listed on attached Exhibit "A" dated
December 11, 1979.
c. S-2, S-23, S-6, S-1, S-25 & S-53, as listed on
attached Exhibit "B", dated December 11, 1979.
d. M-41, M-20, 14-55, M-29, M-57, M-25A, M-16, M-46, M-8, M-39, M-9, M-17, M-18, M-53, M-24, M-36, M-
43, M-73, as listed on attached Exhibit "C", dated
December 11, 1979.
e. 1-20, 1-15, 1-26, 1-17, & 1-22, as listed on attached Exhibit "D", dated December 11, 1979.
2. It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents amending City Council Resolution No. 6013 by:
a) Reducing the EDU'S of C-17 from 22 to 20
b) Increasing the EDUS of C-13 from 10 to 20
3. It is recommended that the City Council APPROVE application 1-27 (Aquaculture) for 3.7 EDUS, and request that staff research the possibility of accommodating application C-19 with the remaining EDUS. If an acceptable method
for the development of C-19 cannot be accomplished within
45 days, staff to research the possibility of accommodating
the completion of Tamarack Avenue. If that cannot be accomplished within a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, the remaining EDUS shall
remain in reserve and be considered for allocation by the City Council in June, 1980.
3 ‘8 c e rl
53 d
Lo
-
e rl
a c rb
m d
rl
W 0
d
a, br id Pi
ul z 0 H E
H GI PI
4
2
2
2
GI
0 H E H n
a d cn rl
0 0 d
0 ID m
.O W m
li 0 N
0 cn rl
Lo 0
(v
54 0 0 a -
P 0 m
fi 0 cv
$ 0 u
x k rtl PI
P z
.
a M I co
0 TP I ul
Lo rl I u
0 z
53 M I ul
u) I m
d I m
d rl
r
c cn rl
m rl .
d d . m 4
I- * rl m u) rl
0 c3 N
0 W 0 cv
(u 0
0 0 rl
?r: 0 0 a -
W 0 cv
In 0 cv.
I- 0
(u
I- 0 cv
n w HGI Li4 HH
. 0 z
Ln cv I cn
cv I u-2
m cv I m
m Ln I ol
3 .a w Tr m I-
N 0
N. rl rl
M
ID 0
Tr
N m
La
rl m
rl 0 0 m -Y 0 \2) *
0 r-l N
/
Tr 0 N
N 03 0
N rl rl
0 m rl
M I- ri
0 M 4
0 .N 0
.W 0 N
x 0 0 m -
-r 0 N
Lo 0 N u7 0 N
-Y 0 N
m 0 N
M 0 N
E +, Q
a, a 0. Xa, E wo OX
a, a. aF: -rl rd m a c,F: ma rdk WW
c 8' 4J Q
mu XI OF: &+, =Im ma, cc: WU .o
a, aa -4 0 mo 3 4Jm ma
.
a
. .F: rd 0 -4
ma ram
z w u3 z w b
.
rl Tr 4
0 z
4 m N I
0 N A
I- rn A
ID rl A
\2) Tr I 5:
*.
w m M m
cv
w 0
N'
a, m tu PI
I4 4 H E z w
H cn
a
2
2
* GI H
L
w I4 Pi H E GI 3 c
LD rl
LZI * rl
N m u) Tr * rl
0 F 0
0 -3 hl
0 co- 0
Q 9 rl
u) 0 N'
W 0 cv.
m 0 cv
u) 0 N
a rd GO -4 k arl rd -4 3rd Fffi G -4 a AG urd
a rl a, -4 . 4-1 k rd c7
w 0
c,
u) rb .a,
x u a k rb 5 E-!
E 4J a z 0 H
0 GI
i= rb a,' US! OU a, WClQ) om
a,a aG -4.a m k 4rd ma aa, BU
2 0 V
Pi El h
4 8 * E 2
0 z
W m A
m
A
M F & m
z I
il PI PI FI:
b
a .a w
0
In In
.
I
z 0 H €3 4 V
z
0 cv I H
rl
In 0
0 In 0
m rl ol
c 5 4'0
u, l-4 I H
In
In N
0. -3 0
i
Cn' 0 cv
W
N I H
0 0
0 rl m rl
I
0 N
m rl
I' CD w h 4 H u 0 m m 4 VI
w. 0 3: V H z
* 3
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE : December 11, 1979
TO : Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: SECOND PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION
The City Council, on bTovember 20, 1978, directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving the categories of single family residential (four or less units), single family
residential (more than four units), general office commercial,
office commercial and industrial expansion. In addition, the
City Council wished a re-evaluation and re-rating of the
multiple family residential and industrial new categories.
On December 4, 1979, upon review of the document prepared by
the Attorney, the Council approved all categories as directed, except single family residential (more than four units). It
appeared that re-rating was necessary.
In addition to the re-ratings of the categories noted above, this report will attempt to answer questions raised at the
City Council meetings and by applicants through personal
contact or letters that were received on or before December
7, 1979. It also contains staff recommendation on what to do
with the EDU'S assigned to the Second Phase Sewer Allocation, but not allocated (placed in reserve).
I. Questions raised by City Council or applicants:
Single Family (four or less): The City Council approved 39 applications for 49 EDU'S on November 20, 1979. In addition, the City Council requested further review of applications
S-38, 39 and 40 to determine if these applications were
one application split into three parts. The properties are
adjacent to each other and submitted by the same applicant.
Staff found, however, that each property is owned by a different
person and the applicant is an agent for these three separate owners.
Recommendation
It is recommended that applications S-38, 39 and 40 be allocated sewer. The total EDU'S are 7, thereby reducing the remaining EDU'S to 44.
Single Family (more than four units): The City Council on November 20, 1979, directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving the first five applications on the standings list.
The City Council also directed staff to review the next few applications to determine if they were rated correctly, especially as to distance from parks. The City Council would then approve allocation of remaining EDU'S to those applications with the most points after review. However, on the eveninq of approval of- the resolutions, one applicant explained to-the City Council that he felt his application had more points than others being approved. entire category be reviewed and re-rated. The discussion on this re-rating is contained in that part of the report.
The City Council directed that the
The City received a letter from J.H. Gleason dated November
29, 1979, requesting a modification of his application (S-
28) to reduce the EDUS requested from 35 to 26. The City
has consistently not permitted modifications of applications
after the deadline. To do so would allow others to modify
applications and theoretically, have a perpetual allocation
system.
At the December 4, 1979, meeting Mr. Kevane, (S-35) indicated
that actual fire response times were greater for a certain
competitors application. He got this information from the
Fire Department. This matter was reviewed by Fire Chief
Thompson who explains the difference between response times on the CPO map and the time estimates that may come from his Department in attached letter dated 12/5/79.
Recommendation
Deny request to modifiy application in this category.
Office Commercial: The City Council approved office commercial
as submitted by staff. Unfortunately we discovered, after the
action, that one of the applications was inadvertantly left off of the rating list and therefore not made part of the approving documents. This is application C-15 for 5 EDUS.
Since there are excess EDUS in this category, it is possible to add this application. The net remaining EDUS will be 7.4.
Also the City Council did have some discussion on November 20, 1979, concerning moving an application for industrial office to the office category. There was contention by the applicant that staff errored in not properly categorizing the application. Upon review, we found no error in categorizing. Staff used the information submitted and followed an established guide in these matters for consistency. To change this one application
could disrupt a much greater part of the rating sytem. This matter is discussed more fully under New Industrial.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve allocation for C-15, leaving an excess of 7.4 EDUS in this category.
-2-
General Commercial: City Council approved the allocation of this category on December 4, 1979. Upon reviewing the action
it was noted that two applications for General Commercial
made last minute changes to their applications, (prior to the closing date). These changes were not noted when reviewing
the approved allocation of Resolution No. 6013. One was for
a reduction of 2 EDU'S, (C-17), the other was for an increase
of 10 EDU'S, (C-13). A net of 8 EDUS is necessary to correct this oversight. It is recommended that the additional 8
EDUS be taken from the reserve.
A letter was submitted on December 3, 1979, by Mr.
Ward, C-16, amending the application. The City has not
accepted amended applications after the closing date. Staff
agrees that the applicant could have made better application,
as others did that received allocation. However, the applicant was informed at the time of submittal that the application had to be disqualified. See letter dated December 3, 1979 from Ward.
Recommendation: Approve amendment to Resolution No. 6013 and Deny request to amend application C-16.
Industrial-Expansion: The City Council approved the allocation
ok this category on December 4, 1979. No further action is
necessary.
Multiple Family Residential: The City Council did not approve allocation of this category. Instead the City Council requested re-rating of the category after the following are corrected. or analyzed.
1.
2.
3.
Directed that the side by side lots in M-25, and M-26 be rated as one application. The combined application
is renumbered M-25A.
Deleted one of the two applications of a phased project,
M-60 and M-61. Application M-61 has been deleted. The
applicant, Mr. Hirsch, has submitted a letter on his matter, dated November 26, 1979. Although he indicates some concern with the City Council decision to delete one of his applications, he does recognize the City's desire to 'rspread" the EDUS. Mr. Hirsch asks that the City Council give him preference in later allocations or leftover EDUS from this allocation. This is a Council policy decision, however, staff finds no precedent for this kind of action.
Re-evaluate M-67 to determine if it should be considered
in the single family residential. Staff has reviewed
this application and believes it is correctly placed in the Multiple Family Residential category because:
The Second Phase Sewer Allocation System that the City
Council adopted, specifically states on page 2 of Exhibit X, that residential density greater than one dwelling
-3-
4.
5.
6.
unit per 7500 square feet of land area is considered
Multiple Family Residential. The City Council needed
to do this because there are Multiple Family development
with a low density. It would not be fair for these low
density projects to compete with the high density
"apartment" type developments.
Changing the density figures for M-67 could affect other
applications by allowing them to be placed in Single Family Residential categories. Furthermore, the City Council was interested in the type of development not the number of units. Density was used as the factor, not number of units. M-67 is for property zoned R-3, located on the north side of Juniper between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield. There exists a four car garage on the property. The applicant can build seven units on this property based on the zoning. The applicant has
indicated that he intends to convert the existing
garage into a rental unit and later build two additional
units. The area presently contains many single family
residences, but the zoning permits multiple family and
in time many will be converted to higher density. The General Plan and zone indicates the area as Multiple Family, not Single Family.
Re-evaluate M-31 to determine if it is in the proper
category. Evidently the applicant believed the density would allow it to be placed in the Single Family (less than four) category. The application is for two
additional units on a lot presently containing one unit.
The density factor for the completed project is about one unit for 4,000 square feet, far below the 7500 cut off. The application is in the correct category.
Re-rate M-54. Staff determined an additional point should he granted for distance to markets. The applicants were satisfied with the rating for all other criteria.
Mr. Thomas E. Shadle submitted a letter dated December
3, 1979, noting problems in rating his application
(M-72). Staff found an error in addition and added points in distance to schools and markets, however did not modify fire response maps.
Industrial New: The City Council did not approve allocation
of this category. Instead, the City Council requested reratinq of the category- after reviewing with each applicant to -
-4-
determine the "applicants" intended construction plans
regarding square footage and number of employees planned
for that construction. Also the following matters were to be resolved:
1. City Council directed that applications 1-3, 1-4, and
1-5 be considered one application. The City Engineer discusses this in his report.
2. In addition, the applicant for 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5,
submitted a fourth application which was placed in Office as a bank. That application C-20 has been approved by the City Council on December 4, 1979. This decision has been challenged by other applicants of
Offices in the P-M Zone, However, C-20 was submitted
as a separate application as an office use (bank).
Whereas other "office" use applications were combined
with industry or industrial office and could not be
separated.
3. The City Council also directed that applications in New
Industrial not be allowed to phase or divide by submittal
of more than one application. Besides 1-3, 1-4, and
1-5 discussed above, there are two others that need to
be considered.
A. 1-12, 1-13, and C-21. These applications have
been made by the same company (Torrey Aviation), on the same lot, However, the lot is Palomar Airport and the site for these buildings are in
different locations and on different lessees. Staff suggests that these three applications remain separate.
B. The applicant for 1-18 has asked that his application for 82 EDUS in the P-M zone be split to allow one application for 10 EDUS in the Office category
(see letter dated November 29, 1979, McRoskey). Application 1-18 is for "Industrial Commercial Office 190,000 square foot total building area". Mr. McRoskey did not make separate applications, therefore staff could not move the office portion to the Office category. Council policy as noted
above is to combine applications not split them.
Although Mr. McRoskey's property appears to be a logical site for a commercial use, that is only a judgment. The site is zoned P-M, which only permits services by CUP. It is possible for other applicants in the P-M Zone to make the same wish to split application into separate applications for their office portions. Staff recommends that 1-18 not be split into two applications.
-5-
C. One other application in the Industrial category
was moved to Office; C-22. The project is in the
M Zone, which permits all types of commercial, and
office uses by right. The request is for an
office and sound studio for cablevision. There is no industrial type of use associated with this application. Staff felt this was a service oriented off ice.
11. Re-rating of Remaining Categories
The Second Phase Sewer Allocation rating system meets many of the objectives of City Council, and in general works
fairly well. The system seems to separate out those applications
that definitly meet the City's objective from those that
definitely do not. However, drawing the cut off line between
winners and losers is difficult. A fraction of a point is all that separates them.
The criteria used to provide the point spread is not absolute and many assuptions were made in establishing it. Also the
2,000 scale maps this criteria is placed on does not provide
adequate acuracy where a point or two is critical. Staff did not know the extent of this problem when we provided the City Council with our first rating on November 20. (Although
we certainly had our doubts to the accuracy). Upon further staff review and with the help of applicants, errors of many types were found.
Therefore to rerate those categories as directed by Council, staff had to do further research on locations and distances
and preparation of more accurate maps. Staff continued to
use the 2,000 scale Fire Response and Transportation Maps.
However, the criteria for schools, parks, and markets were
re-evaluated on a 500 scale map. In determining points,
properties that were in more than one point spread were
given the higher points. In schools the measurement was
taken from the school site, not the buildings, however
market distances were measured from the building, note the site. Recreation areas on school grounds were counted in
parks. These methods are all consistent with the criteria adopted by the City Council.
Even though the ratings are better, there still is room for
argument as there always will be with criteria of this nature. For example, it is possible to provide more points to one
-6-
project because it is closer to a school in actual distance,
than to another project even though it is closer in walking
distance. For consistency staff used only the criteria as
adopted by the City Council. The changes we made was only
to improve our ability to interpret this criteria. To change one application points based on "actualities" or "fairness"
would require the same consideration for all other applications.
In short a completely new allocation system, and one that
would take and inordinate amount of staff time.
A. Sinsle Family (more than four units)
Attached is the new rating for
applications remain within the
to the order. The next three i
this
top n ra
category. The four with modifi .tinas were also
first .cation in the
four
first
rating, but the order has changed.
only 2 of the 3 can receive EDUS. Application S-53 now
receives EDUS while S-35 does not.
This is significant because
Application S-49 for a proposal on Palomar Airport Road, east
of Paseo Del Norte does not qualify because it is not in infill area or logical extension of existing development.
Approval of the application as listed will provide a remainder of 10 EDUS in this category.
Recommendation
Approve Applications S-2, 5-23, S-6, S-1, S-25, or S-53, for allocation in the single family residences (more than four units). The remaining 10 EDUS to be placed in reserve.
B. Multiple Family Residential
As directed by Council only M-60 of the dual M-60 and M-61 applications for phased development (Tamarack Shores) was rated. With the better maps, closer review of the applications and reducing the size of the project to that area applied for, the application lost points. Originally distances were calculated based on the total property, which includes Phase
I as well as I1 and 111. Our rerating was taken only from the Phase I1 portion of the property. The application as rated will not receive allocation.
Application M-25 and 26, which are on contiguous properties
were rerated as M-25A. This combined applications as rated will receive allocation.
Application PI-8 and 9 are owned by the same person and on same
street, but not contiguous. Staff rated them separatly
because they could not be combined into one project. Both
applications as rated will receive allocation.
-7-
h h ..
Applications for M-11 and M-37 are on contiguous lots and
with a single owner. Combining the applications as in M-25
and 26 disqualifies the project as having too many EDUS. (M-
11 has 20 EDUS, M-37 has 19 EDUS). Council indicated in the Industrial category that if combining results in disqualification the applicant can proceed with one of the applications. Staff listed M-37, which had higher points, however, this
application will not receive allocation as rated.
There was a general increase in points by the rerating. Of the 13 applications that would have received allocation in the list originally submitted, 2 will not receive allocation in the rerating. (M-60/61 and M-5). Since M-60/61 was for
54 EDUS, five more applications will receive allocations in the rerating than in the original.
Recommendation
Approve applications M-41, M-20, M-55, M-29, M-57, M-25A, II-
43, M-73. The remaining 7 EDUS, to be placed in reserve.
16, PI-46, M-8, M-39, M-9, M-17, M-18, PI-53, M-24, M-36, M-
C. Industrial New: The City Engineer prepared a separate
report on the rerating of this category.
111. Alternative on Remaining EDUS
As already approved or recommended there will be 187.5 EDUS
placed in reserve. The breakdown is as follows:
APPROVED CATEGORIES
Single Family Residential (four or less)
Off ice Comwrcial
General Comnercial
Industrial Expansion
CATEGORY RERATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (more than four)
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL NEW
EDUS EDUS EDUS ASS I GNED APPROVED REMAINING
100 49.0 51.0
100 87.9 12.1
150 113.0 37.0
150 53.6 96.4
100
100
150
850 -
96.0 4.0
93.0 7.0
150.0 0.0
TOTALS 642.5 207.5
-8-
CORRECTIONS TO ALLOCATION PROGRAM
ADD S-38, S-39, S-40 7.0
ADD C-15 5.0
REDUCE C-17 by 2 EDUS -2.0
INCREASE C-13 by 10 EDUS 10.0
TOTAL ADJUSTMENT 20.0
-
GRAND TOTAL REMAINING EDUS 187.5
There are various alternatives on what to do with the remaining
EDUS. The following is a discussion of some of the more obvious solutions:
1. Retain reserve for later allocation: There is evidence
that many of the EDUS allocated will fail to complete building permits or get discretionary approvals. It is possible that the remaining EDUS could be increased in 6 months by the applications that were not completed.
If so, the City Council could review the situation at
that time and determine a 2nd allocation based on the
need, This method would also spread allocations out
over a greater time period to accommodate good projects
that were not ready for this allocation.
However, there may be sewer available from other sources
in the future that could be allocated on an incremental basis.
2. Allocate on percentage: To allocate the remaining EDUS on the same percentage basis as already approved for the three categories that had excess demand is consistent
with the Second Phase Sewer Allocation, This works
out generally to be 53 EDUS for Single Family Residential
(more than 4 units), 54 EDUS for Multiple Family
Residential, and 80.5 for New Industrial. Each of the
categories could easily use this amount of EDUS. If this is the City Council's choice you could request documents to be drafted approving allocation for the next applications in the rating list.
3. Highest Demand: Determining highest demand is at best
subjective. However, if the number of applications and apparent interest is any criteria it appears that the highest demand is in the Multiple Family Residential category, especially the smaller developments. It has been suggested that the 3 or less unit developments be granted allocation out of the remaining EDUS. There are 12
-9-
applications for 3 or less units for a total of 28 EDUS. Adding 4 unit applications increases the request by 3 to 15 for a total of 40 EDUS. This would spread the EDUS more evenly in the community, but does not insure meeting other goals desired by the Council.
4. Benefit Basis: Some projects have far greater community benefit from others. For example, the City Council recently approved allocation for Oaks Industries on a community benefit basis. Some of the more beneficial projects are:
a) There is an application that was disqualified (C-19) is for a large hotel, restaurant, gift
shop and service station combination at Palomar
Airport Road and 1-5. It would be a tourist
attraction, provide needed accommodations in that
area, and provide tax revenues. The application
is for 212.3 EDUS, which is 24.8 more than available.
However, the City is considering reducing the
EDU count for motels without kitchens.
b) Completion of a portion of Carlsbad Palisades
that would provide for the completion of Tamarack.
This would provide the desirable connection between
El Camino Real and the Freeway and beach area.
It would reduce traffic on Chestnut which is not
suited to the heavy traffic it now has. Apparently applications were not submitted because the 35 EDU maximum was not sufficient to pay for the cost of Tamarack. It may be possible to increase the EDUS to provide for Tamarack and still have some left over.
c) Completion of Elm Avenue. Like Tamarack this connection is needed. This need will soon increase with the pending development of Hosp
Grove. However, providing a project that could
build Elm Avenue may be more difficult because
development of the properties are only in
discussion stages, which have slowed down because of the planning moratorium.
d) An application for an agricultural operation on Agua Hedionda Lagoon (1-27) did not receive many points because of low valuation and number of
employees. The request is for only 3.7 EDUS.
It appears that the City will gain great benefits
from this operation relative to the number of
-10-
EDUS requested. The operation is experimental in
nature and if successful could be a prota type for
this very important endeavor. This operation will
make excellent use of our natural resources while
not damaging them.
e) There may be other applications on other projects that are of a true community benefit not listed. here. It is possible to solicit for these in a special allocation. The project should be for a specific use (not for speculation or rental), or for a definite public works project not funded through other sources.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council APPROVE application
1-27 (Aquaculture) for 3.7 EDUS, and request that staff
research the possibility of accommodation in application C-
19 with the remaining EDUS. If an acceptable method for the
development of C-19 cannot be accomplished within 45 days
staff to research the possibility of accommodating the
completion of Tamarack Avenue. If that cannot be accomplished
within a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council, the remaining EDUS shall remain in reserve and be
considered for allocation by the City Council in June, 1980.
Attachments
,- -I
Letter from Mr. Gleason, dated 11/29/79
Fire Chief Thompson's letter dated 12/5/79
Letter from Mr. Hirsch, dated 11/26/79
Letter from Mr. McRoskey, dated 11/29/79
Letter from Mr. Shadle, dated 12/3/79 Letter from Mr. Ward dated 12/3/79
Listing of single family residence (more than 4 units)
List of multiple family residential
Report from City Engineer on Industrial New dated 12/10/79
BP : ar
12/11/79
-11-
NEWPORT SHORES BUILDERS
20051 DROOKWUR17 BTRLCT
HUNTINQTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA
(714) 06P-600S U40-4200
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OPFlCE IOX A
HUNTINOTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 02641)
SAN DlEGO OFFICE: 137 West 0 Street
Enc i n i tas, CA 92024
(714) 436 7322
November 29, 1979
Honorable Mayor, City Manager, and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Ca rl sbad, CA 92008
RE: Modification of Sewer Allocation Request
Gentlemen:
Please consider this letter a a formal request to modify our sewer allocation
application (S-28) to a request for 21 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) as opposed
to 35 EDU request in our application of October 12, 1979,(S-28).
We received Coastal Permit (F-7848) on February 16, 1979, City of Carlsbad approval
of CT 79-4, and City Council Resolution on August 7, 1979.
Your favorable consideration of this measure is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
NEWPORT SHORES BUILDERS
J.H. Gleason
CC: Councilpeople: Lewis, Anear, Casler, Nicki
Planning Dept. - Director Hageman
Public Works - Administrator Beckman
Engineering - Les Evans
HOMES BY AYRES SINCE la05
u
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO : BUD PLENDER, PL
FROM: FIRE CHIEF
ING DEPARTME T DATE: 12-5-79
SUBJECT: FIRE RESPONSE MAP
I have reviewed the fire response map which was prepared by
C.P.O. some two to three years ago, which is being used in
the sewer allocation program and feel that it is consistent
and gives an accurate estimate of running times.
In reference to the fire department differing from the C.P.O.
on response times this is not so.
From time to- time people call or come in and ask for fire
station locations and approximate times and distances from
their property to the nearest fire station; this is usually
for insurance reasons. These are only estimates, usually given as "under five minutes'' or ''from five to ten minutes"
as this generally meets the needs for insurance purposes.
.- .-
,GOLDRICH, K€ST & ASSOCIATES
EUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
PARTNERS
JONA CSOLDRICH
SOL KEsT
ROBERT HIRSCH
___-_
November 26, 1979
The Honorable Ronald C. Packard Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
Council Members:
Girard Anear
Mary H. Cas-
Cla- A. Lewis
Anthony J. Skotnicki City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
SI6 UNION EANK PLAZA
15233 VENTURA BOULEVARD
SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA Dl403
981-f3293 - 872-1741
RSCEHWED
1'1OV 2 0 1979
CITY OF CARLSBAD Flannlng CEprtment
Re: Sewer Allocation for Multiple Residential Units
Dear Myor Packard and Cmincil Members:
You will recall that our development had ranked for both Phase I1 and
Phase 111, each covering 27 units, amng the highest for multiple Unit sewer allocation, and that your Council voted to give us only one ph&e of 27 units total.
Your adopted Second Phase Notice of Sewer Allocation With criteria and
applications, which was made available to us September 19, 1979, recites
on Page 4 that applications for a project under this system shall be
limited to 35 EDU's in the residential category. infornation indicate that two properties, two phases or adjacent lots would be considered as one project.
Nowhere did your
My assertion before your Council was that we will have a recorded Phase I1 and Phase 111, each phase therefore beccatles a separate "project."
We are well aware of the considerable pressure on your Council as a result
of the limited number of sewer applications, and we muld strongly supprt the concept raised by another developer that the multiple category was "short-sheeted" with only 100 units cc~npared with the single-family category receiving 200 units.
Considering that we did not obtain any release of sewer applications under
your Phase I allocation, we are greatly concerned not knowing when the next
allocation will be and whether you will use the same criteria. Accordingly, we are rwmrializing our request to again consider granting the 27 units for the third and final phase of our developwnt, in addition to the 27 units granted at your meeting of November 20, 1979.
8.
c ..
The Homrable Ronald C. Packard
Council Members: Girard Anear
Mary H. Casler Claude A. hs Anthony J. Skotnicki November 26, 1979 Page 2
We will allow the next 27 units in the ranking behind us to take our
place in Line as your mtion suggested.
request that in the event of any additional allocation to the multiple
category, we feel our last 27 Units should be granted sewer allocation or, if any of the proposed naxltiple units do not go forward within the
year, that we be allowed to take up to 27 units for this development.
Huwever, we would respectfully
You will note in reviewing the Staff's separate sheet on the multiple units that there are nine applicants with mre than one project,
hclrading bm applicants who had three projects each submitted. your Council did not seem to treat any other developer in the single-
family or multiple category by removing a portion of their units in
the reccmmded Staff List, we would trust the above request is worthy of your consideration.
Since
,
LEONARD H. MCROSKEY
420 LORING AVENUE
LO8 ANGELS. CALlFORNIA 90024
November 29, 1979
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. J. Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
At the Council meeting of 11-20-79, I requested the Council to hold open
for consideration my petition for a sewer allotment in the commercial cate-
gories. I explained that since Staff had overlooked my commercial designa-
tion and improperly assigned my entire application to the industrial area,
I would submit my petition for a correction during the discussion period
for the industrial category.
ing that correction would be heard at that time.
The Mayor indicated that my petition concern-
When consideration of the Industrial Category was postponed, I asked the
Mayor at the conclusion of the meeting for direction. He indicated that
Mr. Bud Plender should be contacted with a request for a recommendation to
the Council based on the proper disposition between industrial and commer-
cial, as requested in the original application.
Mr. Plender has since referred me to Mr. Evans, and I intend to meet with
him prior to the Council meeting scheduled for December 4th, 1979. I
respectfully request the opportunity to present my petition for correction
at that time, and to receive a confirmed sewer allocation under the "comer-
cia1 land uses". A miniaturized reproduction of my site plan dated June 15,
1979 with a revision date of September 27, 1979 is enclosed for reference.
Faithfully,
Leonard H. McRoskey
John W. McRoskey
LHM:sj
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Ronald. C. Packard
Vice-Mayor Anthony J. Skotnicki
Hon. Claude A. Lewis
Hon. Mary H. Casler . Girard Anear
Bud Plender
I December 3, 1979
Mr. James C. Hagagman
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
I would like to commend your staff for their efforts in implementing
time period. However, a number of mistakes were made on our application which resulted in a rating of 14.80 in the multiple category instead of the 21.50 I feel we are entitled to.
' the sewer allocation system, considering the difficult task and tight
PES - 5 1979
Carlsbad, CA 92008 OF CASLSBAD Re: Second Phase Sewer Allocation, Cc;aament
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
I am a member of a partnership that owns four lots with frontage on Tamarack Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. We have joined with the owners
of the two adjacent lots at Carlsbad Boulevard and Sequoia and plan to develop the six lots into a high-quality oceanfront condominium project. Realizing we would be penalized under the sewer allocation system for
the larger number of units requested, we still chose to combine the lots
for the sake of quality and in the hopes that by developing this prime block in the best possible manner, the project would be a stimulant and example for other Carlsbad Boulevard - State Beach property owners to
upgrade tkir parcels into the high-quality beach area this should be come.
I have reviewed the areas of disagreement in our rating with your staff
and have received excellent cooperation and assurances that the mistakes
will be corrected before the standings are finalized. However, I am going to be out of the state for over a week, during which time the council may act on this matter and I feel it is necessary to have a
written record of my concerns on file.
The first problem with the application concerns the location - "east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack and Sequoia." This is the correct
description, however, the young man calculating the distances to the various facilities and services, did so from Carlsbad Boulevard not realizing we also have 173 feet frontage on Tamarack where our entrance will be located and which is closer to the various facilities on your
rating system.
I<
A+
PALOMAR INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL REALTY, INC.
235 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 937 Vista, California 92083 714-758-5383
t :s "&
Mr. James C. Hagaman
Planning Director
December 3, 1979 Page 2
Measuring from entrance on Tamarack to the school, I get about
1,800 feet than 3/8 mile (1,980 feet) and results in one extra point.
Also, scaling the distance from the Tamar ck trance to the rn- I came up with about 3,200 feet which is 1
and entitles us to one more po jnt.
mfiEG?rn5--fTre response time. I've talked with both Mr. The neZt--kkm-
Plender and the young lady that worked on the computer model for this Y item. They both agree that there was evidently a mistake made on the
an 3/4 mile (3,960 feet)
. *--_ - .-
\\
,
+E
-\
I
map at the Tamarack area that would result in
The last mistake was simply mathem in adding and subtracting the points given by staff, they marke 4.8 when the figures actually show 17.5.
By taking the 17. school, one additional point for market, the correct final figure
should be v.
It may be that even this 21.9 figure will not entitle us to any of the
100 permits allocated to the multiple category; however, the standings below this point could be still quite important. It seems likely some of the unused permits of the other categories may be added to the multiple where the largest demand and need appears to be. Also, some of the winners of permits may not be able to comply with the time restrictions on
development, and there is always the possibility that these ratings may be used for future permits when they become available.
5'
Thank you for your consideration in correcting these problems,
Best regards,
THOMAS E. SHADLE, Vice-president
Palomar Industrial & Commercial Realty, Inc.
General Partner for Tamarack-Carlsbad Venture
TES :os
December 3, 1979
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Re: 2nd phase sewer allocation. Pal-
omar Airport Rd. & Avenida Encina.
Dear Mr. Ha.gaman:
When I submitted my appkication for sewer hook up permits for the property at Palomar Airport Road and Avenida Encina I sug- gested on the application that the commercial office portion could be separated from the retail and restaurant portion of the development.
Little did I realize that other land owners and developers would
also do this formally thereby receiving allocations because of
their actions.
the 4
approxi-
square
two acres of our site.
Your response and consideration by the City Council of this
request under the second phase allocation will be appreciated.
P.S. - I understand that there is still capacity under the com-
mercial office available.
RJW/sta
cc: City Council
City Manager City Engineer
ROY J. WARD CO. Real Estate investment 1207 "D" Elm, Carisbad, California 92008 714 729-4912
..
0 0 rl
, ..
rT)
0 0 ri
I I ! I ,
N rl
..
w 0
I
i I
! j
I i !
City Engineer ~3% To: City Manager
FROIV:
DATE : December 13, 1979
SUBJECT: NEN INDUSTRIAL SEWER ALLOCATION
At their meeting of Novenher 20, 1979, City Council directed staff to meet
with the applicants in the New Industrial category to firm up details relative to the applicants' intended construction plans regarding square footage and nuniber of employees.
category which represent parts of the same project be submitted only as total
projects without any kind of phase or breakdown in order to put all projects in the same perspective.
Staff met with each of the 16 applicants to review the proposed projects.
a result of the meetings the following observations were made:
The Council also directed that applications in this
As
1. Few of the applicants have building plans or confirmed tenants for
their buildings. -
2. Many of the applicants indicated that they would be willing to phase their project and accept fewer EDU's.
For those applicants who proposed building industrial-type structures in the FM Zone, but who had no firm building plans or confirmed tenants, the following assumptions were used for building use and number of employees:
1. The building will be 40 percent office space.
2.
3.
The building will be 60 percent warehouse space.
There will be one employee for each 500 square feet of building.
Utilizing these criteria or specific building plans, if available, the applications were reevaluated. application: The following is a brief description of each
1-1 McDowell. The application is for a single 28,600 square foot industrial building in the M Zone south of Palomar Airport Road on the east side of
Avenida Encinas adjacent to the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant. property has two other industrial-type buildings on it at the present time. The applicant has building plans and prospective tenants for his project. The application was revjewctl and found to be complete and accurate.
The
..-
3 -2- . NEW INDUSTRIAL SEWR flLL0CATION December 13, 1979
1-2 Gilmore. The application is for 137,800 SF of industrial buildings to be constructed at Palomar Airport Business Park.
require the resubdivision of Lot 16 into 8 lots with 8 buildings
ranging in size from 11,250 square feet to 23,200 square feet.
the applicant has not yet developed building plans or identified tenants, the standard calculations for EDU's and employees were utilized. EDU's were raised to 47.1 and number of employees reduced to 275.
applicant indicatedthathe would be satisfied with 32.9 EDU's for
96,300 square feet of buildings on 5 lots. lots could be handled by septic tank. Mr. Gilmore has also filed
application 1-17.
The development would
Since
The The
He indicated the other three
1-3, 1-4, 1-5 Graham International. The applications are for the construction
of three corporate office buildings, of 35,000 square feet each, on Lot 13
of the Palomar Airport Business Park.
cation for each building and gained maxim advantage of the point system.
If the three projects are combined, the applicant's point total drops to
13.6 (this reflects increased points for buiding valuation and decreased
points for number of EDU's requested). If only one of the applications is accepted the points earned by the project are 23.5. EDU's required for each building have been revised to 19.4.
The applicant filed a separate appli-
1-10 THN Palomar. The application is for 70,895 square feet of industrial buildings, two of which are to be leased to Oak Industries for use until their permanent facilities on Lot 18 are completed. The lot presently is
approved for 22.3 EW's on septic tank.
Industries, l" Palomar has applied to the Health Department and the City for approval of a septic system to handle up to 31 EDU's. would prefer to connect to the sewer and be able to accommodate up to 400 employees.
In order to accommodate Oak
l" Palomar
Accordingly, they have requested 43.9 EDU's.
1-11 Birtcher Pacific. The application is for 110,000 square feet of industrial type buildings to be constructed on a portion of Lots 2a and 2b in Palomar
Airport Business Park. The development is only a portion of a subdivision
which was recently approved by the City Council.
approved for development on septic tank.
for the proposed development resulted in an increase from 30 to 38.
The property has been
A recalculation of required EDU's
1-12,1-13 Torrey Aviation.
Palomar Airport. 22,000 square feet. space. Aviation is evidently about to purchase the leasehold. that perhaps his application should have been considered under the Industrial expansion allocation category. plans reduced application 1-12 to 3.9 EDU's and application 1-13 to 5.1 EDU's. The applicant indicated that either project could stand alone and if they
had to choose only one they would prefer application 1-12.
The applications are for two hangars located at the
One hangar consists of 16,000 square feet, the other
Both hangars will have 2000 square feet of office
Although the owner of the property is North County Aviation, Torrey The applicant felt
A recalculation of EDU's based on their
- 3-
NEW INDUSTRIAL SDCR ALLOCATION December 13, 1979
- 1-15 Hare. This application is for the construction of 40,000 square feet
dfndustrial type buildings on Lot 10 of the Palomar Airport Business
Park. The applicant has prospective tenants for her project and after discussion we agreed that she should have applied for 18 EDU's instead of 16..
1-17 Gilmore. This application is for the construction of three industrial
buildings totaling 87,316 square feet on Lot 6 in the Palomar Airport Business Park. The lot has previously been approved for 32 EDU's of
septic tank capacity. Mr. Gilmore also submitted application 1-2. In
that the developer has no specific plans for the buildings, standard
calculations for EDU's and employees were used.
1-18 McRoskey. This application is for four buildings totaling 190,000 square
The applicant feet tobe built on Lot 1 of Palomar Airport Business Park.
proposes to build two industrial type buildings, one corporate office headquarters building and a bank building.
would be willing to phase his project and build only the bank and the smaller of the two industrial buildings under this allocation.
he would reduce his EDU request to 27. the bank be removed from the industrial classification and placed in a
commercial category where there are EDU's available.
precedent for this, the industrial zone allows certain types of office
uses and several hundred EDU's have been requested for office use in the
industrial category.
of a bank in the PM Zone to a commercial category and cannot recommend
making the same mistake twice.
He also has indicated that he
By phasing,
Mr. McRoskey has requested that
Although, there is
Staff probably made a mistake by allowing the transfer
1-19 Laughlin. The application is for five buildings totaling 129,600 square feet
to be built on Lots 1 and 2 of the Palomar Airport Business Park. In that Mr. Laughlin has no specific building plans or confirmed tenants the EDU's and employment figures he submitted were reviewed using the standard calculations.
development and accept 32.6 EDU's and reduced square footage.
MI-. Laughlin indicated that he would be willing to phase his
1-20 Shaw and Talbot. This applicationis for the initial phase of a major industrial subdivision which, if approved, will eventually fill the area along Avenida Encinas north of Burroughs The developer is proposing 164,000 square feet of PM Zone industrial buildings
for as yet to be determined tenants.
employees were used resulting in a reduction in the EDU request from 70 to 55.
and south of Cannon Road.
The standard calculation for EDU's and
1-21 Mow. The application is for a hangar and office space on the south side of the Palomar Airport Runway. which hli? not yet been con5tructcd. The hangar has an approved septic system Although the applicant did not claim
:in;,' CI:I~~JI~\LY~~: 1 t it I:, .tr~~~~~d tl1;it 1 - i ioli; \~ouL~ he cl.c:1tCc!.
-4- I" INDUSTRIAL SEWER ALLOCATION December 13, 1979
1-22 Nicholas. The application is for 10,000 square feet of industrial buildings in the PM Zone on Paseo del Norte opposite Hadleys. applicant feels he will employ 100 people and was informed he would require 11 EDU's rather than the 5.56 he originally requested.
The
1-24 McReynolds. The application is for industrial type buildings in the PM Zone on Paseo del Norte opposite Hadleys. The subject property is nearly 32 acreas for which the applicant proposes an initial phase of development. In that the applicant has no specific development plans or prospective tenants, the standard calculation for EDU's and employees was utilized.
1-25 Ukew awa. This application is for four acres of land on the south side ___fg_ o Palomar Airport Road east of Laurel Lane. Although the land is still in the County, the Council recently approved a request from the owner to process an application for annexation. The owner is planning to build a
packing house employing up to 125 persons. The size of the proposed building is 73,000 square feet. the building he proposed will require only 16.4.
El Camino Real just north of the Beckman Instruments property. developer proposed three phases which will eventually total 228,587 square feet of industrial buildings.
plans or tenants and his EDU requests and employee estimates were revised using the standard calcualtion.
Although the applicant requested 48 EDU's
1-26 Koll. This application is for 17.7 acres of land on the east side of The
The developer has no specific building
1-27 LaPota. This application is for an aguaculture farm for the purpose of The farm is to hatchi'ng and growing of abalone for commercial purposes. be located on the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon between the ATSF Railroad and Garfield. Under the allocation plan, this particular project with few employees and a difficult to determine building valuation will never be successful.
On completion of the review of the applications, staff developed two alternatives for allocation. The first alternative treated the Graham International applica- tions as one, resulting in an accumulation of only 13.6 points for their proposal.
Essentially, alternative one is. the result of the review of each application and
the correction of employment or EDU figures which were not consistent with the
square footage or use claimed.
- 5-
NEW IhXlUSTRIAL SEWER ALLOCATION December 13, 1979
Although the allocation system does not provide for revising applications, the second alternative was prepared utilizing information developed from meeting with the applicants and encourages phasing.
applicants was asked the minimum number of EDU's which he could utilize. project was then reevaluated using the new data. applicant was permitted only one application. 1-17 were deleted from consideration. ing prioritization:
Under this alternative each of the The Under this alternative an Therefore, 1-4, 1-5, 1-13 and The alternatives resulted in the follow-
ORIGINAL PTS .
1- 3 (20) 23.3
I- 4 (20) 23.3
I- 5 (20) 23.3
1-15 (16) 22 -7
1-22 ( 5.6) 22.2
1-17 (30) 21
I- 2 (42)
1-11 (30)
1-20 (70)
1-19 (50)
I- 1 ( 7)
1-24 (40)
1-26 (43)
1-10 (43.9)
1-13 (15)
1-25 (48)
1-27 ( 3.7)
1-12 (11)
1-21 ( 5.2)
1-18 (82)
20
20
18.7
17.3
16.7
16.7
13.7
13.3
13
13
12.8
11.3
7.3
4.7
ALTERNATIVE #1 PTS. ALTERNATIVE #2 PTS.
1-20 (55) 23.7
1-15 (18) 22
1-26 (25.5) 21.5
1-17 (30) 21
1-22 111) 20.3
1-24 (20)
I- 1 ( 7)
1-25 (16.4)
1-19 (46)
I- 2 (47.1)
1-11 (37.6)
1-12 ( 3.9)
I- 3,4,5 (58.3)
--
1-10 (43.9)
-*
1-13 ( 5.1)
1-27 ( 3.7)
1-21 ( 5.2)
1-18 (82)
20.3
19.7
19.5
18.7
18.3
17.5
13.7
13.6
13.4
13.3
12.8
8.3
4.7
1-20 (55) 23.7
1-18 (27) 23
1-15 (18) 22
1-26 (25.5) 21.5
I- 3 (19.4) 20.5
1-11 (37.6) 20.5
1-24 (20) 20.3
1-22 (11) 20.3
1-19 (32.6) 20 .I
I- 2 (32.9) 20
I- 1 ( 7) 19.7
1-25 (16.4) 19.5
1-12 ( 3.9) 15.7
1-10 (43.9) 13.4
1-27 ( 3.7) 12.8
1-21 ( 5.2) 8.3
--
--
-..
--
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt alternative NO..~.
./’ - .
I
. ./-
-. , -_
t
!-
December 18, 1979
TO: City Council - City of Carlsbad
From: La Costa Land Company
Subject: Santa Fe Knolls Phase I - Tentative Map
Our company has been unable to find a satisfactory solution to the problems
raised by the requirements for a secured agreement in regard to public facility
fees on this project.
Therefore this project has not been completely processed by the Planning
Commission.
We would appreciate it if you continued this matter until such time as the
problems are resolved.
Sincere1 y ,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
7JQ
Vice Fred J* President Moreyl - I; overnmental L Relations
F JM/eem
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD . CARLSBAD.CALIFORNIA s200e - AREA CODE 714 . TELEPHONE 43a-ai41
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
December 21, 1979
Mr. Arthur Dellamano OCEANS IDE FEDERAL SAVINGS Post Office Box 210
Oceanside, CA 92054
TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181
This is to confirm'Council's action at their meeting of
December 18, 1979 with regard to sewer allocation, and
more specifically, applicatfon Number M-39.
Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents
approving allocation of sewer to those applications listed
in Section 1.d. of the Memorandum to the City Manager,
dated December 11, 1979.
As confirmation, application M-39 was included in the list for approval
LEE RAUTENKRANZ, " CITY CLERK
LR: adm