HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 230; LAKE CALAVERA HILLS; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)I
'I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I,
I
'I
DRAFT
LAKE CALAVERA HILLS COST-REVENUE ANALYSIS
--Proposition 13 Supplement--
. THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
Prepa red For
The City of Carlsbad
July 1978
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
.1
I
I
.1
I
I
I
INDEX
l. INTRODUCTION. · · . · · . . . . · · · · · ·
2. PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF PROPOSITION 13 AND
RELATED LEGISLATION . · · . . . · · · · · ·
3. SOME GENERAL IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITION 13 .
4. REVIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES.
(1) Ci ty. . · · · .
(2) Water . · · · · · (3) Schools • · · .-· (4) Sanitation.
(5) Parks. · · · . · · · · · ·
5. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
EXHIBITS
PROJECT MAP. · . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2, . ANNUAL HOMEOWNER COST COMPARISONS . .
·
· . · ·
3 COST-REVENUE COMPARISON--JlSTABLE YEARII AFTER
FULL DEVELOPMENT--PER-CAPITA ITEMS.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
. .
Page
Number
1
2
5
6
6
11
12
13
13
14
3
7
10
"
i
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I,
I
I
,"
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I,
I
MEMORANDUM
City of Carlsbad
TO Attention: Mr. Mike Za'nder
FROM Dale H. Levander
DATE
#
July 31, 1978
258
SUBJECT LAKE CALAVERA HILLS COST-REVENUE ANALYSIS--PROPOSITION 13 SUPPLEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of Carlsbad, we have prepared this supplement to
our report of last October.~ In this report, we .evaluated the potential
impacts of the' prospective 808-acre Lake Calavera Hills residential develop-
ment prQject on local governmental finances. The results of this work were
documented in the Summary Report of 76 pages and a technical supplement
of more than 300 pages. Our analysis reviewed financial impacts of the
project upon the City of ,Carlsbad, th~ Carlsbad ~1unicipal Water District,
the Carlsbad Unified School District, and sanitation and parks activities
which might be the subject of special assessment distr.icts outside the City·s
current structure. .
The basic purpose of our work was to assist community leadership in judging
the desirability of the project, as part of a broader general plan review
process.
In this analysis, our purpose has been to determine to what extent Proposition
13 may have altered the basic findings and conclusions reached in the October
report. In the subsequent analysis, we have confined our efforts to a review
of Proposition 13 impacts only. We have not attempted to re-estimate cost and
revenue factors, reflecting inflation'and other.-changes which have occurred
since then, excluslve of Proposition 13 .. This is not a full update of the
other report.
\ In the conduct of this anlaysis, we have obtained information from a variety
of sources. Executives of the several agencies involved have been interviewed,
including the following:
o Paul Bussey, City Manager~ City of Carlsbad.
o James Hagaman, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad.
o Mike Zander, Project Planner, City of Carlsbad.
o Ron Beckman, Director of Public Works, City of Carlsbad.
o Roger Gr.eer, Superi'ntendent of Streets and Uti 1 iti es, City of
Carlsbad.
a/ Lake Calavera Hills Cost-Revenue Analysis, Prepared by Levander, Partridge
& Anderson, Inc. (Name of firm prior to January 1978).
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ...
I
I
o James Elliott, Finance Department, City of Carlsbad.
o Robert Crawford, Superintendent, Carlsbad Unifie.d School
District.
o Glen Whitener, Business Manager, Carlsbad Unified School
Di stri ct. .
o Jack Kubota, District Engineer, Carlsbad Municipal Water
District.
In addition, we discussed the current status of the Lake Cal avera Hills
project with Roy Ward, a principal executive of the development firm. Also,
we reviewed a considerable amount of material on Proposition 13 provided by
the League of California Cities, and reviewed two special report"s prepared
during the past two months:
o Report of the Proposition 13 Implementation Advisory·Committee
(City of Carlsbad) dated July 18, 1978.
o Report of the Pupil Growth Study Committee (Carlsbad Unified
~chooJ Dts~~ict) dated June 28, 1978.
Also, we have d~awn upon our past experience and general familiarity with
city finances, including work in recent months in the preparation of two
1978-79 budgets (for the City of Maywood and the South Gate Redevelopment
Agency) •
For convenience of reference, we have produced ExhibH 1 from the October
report and included it herein.
2. PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF PROPOSITION 13 AND RELAT!ED LEGISLATION
Provisions are not totally clear at this time, because of. need for additional
legal clarification. However, it would appear that the f9llowing provisions
of importance will apply:
o Maxi/mum Tax Rate. The property tax is limited to 1% of fair
market value, which equates to a maximum tax of $4.00 to $100
assessed valuation. However, existing bond repayment
commitments can be added to the $4.00. The $4.00 tax rate
compares to last year1s.rates throughout California ranging
from roughly $8.00 to $15.00. In Carlsbad, last year1s
combined rate for all taxing agencies was about $10.62, includ-
ing about 50¢ for bond purposes. Thus the $4.00 present
maximum i.s equal to about 40% of last year1s rate, exclusive
of bond items.
o· Assessed Value Base and Increases. Property taxes will be
against assessed values per the 1975-76 tax rolls, with an
allowable annual escallation of 2% maximum. Improvements
not on the 1975-76 tolls will be based upon their first-
.year rolls, subject to the same 2% annual increase. In the
event of property sales or other transfers (excluding intra-
family transfers), taxes can be computed on the basis of
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
2
---------~--~------
CD -I g ::I: g m
:3 r _. m
g <
III ~
::J Z
Q. 0
:3 m
III ::0
~ 0
IQ 0 3 ~ CD '"C ~ ~ n Z o -< ::J ~
CI) -t:: Z ;::;: 0 III •
::J
Cij
w
~~
. ~'"'"
RID G ~
RUA
\T E M P LIM H.ij I G H T S·
\ RLM
\ .-... ~ ... -
\
\
\ \
EL;v\
\.
Exhibit 1
PROJECTMAP
RLM 4Jr6U DC. 11& du ...,
d.IJ:"C: 04.4
."'NS.DE
Q
.~iII
"<400'
:'-.oc'"~'
RL /J
'/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I,
I
current value. This means essentially that major additions
to assessment rolls will 'arise only through new construction,
inasmuch as the 2% factor is considerably below present and
potential inflationary rates.
0' Replacement Revenue. A two-thirds voter approval will be
required for new revenues intended as alternates to property
tax loss. However, it' is our understanding that increases
in exi sti ng revenue sources 'will be permitted, such as
business license fees, user charges for water'and other
services, and assessment district charges. This is a rather
complex matter which requires further legal clarification.
o Add'itional Bondin Overrides. It is our understanding that
overrides to the 4.00 maximum property tax rate are
p~rmissable with two~thirds voter approval, for bonding and
other purposes.
Another important aspect arising from passage of Proposition 13 is the
distribution of surplus to cities for 'fiscal year 1978-79. Within the
month ~fter passage of Proposition 13, the legislature decided to appropriate
$250 million of state surplus to cities within the state on the basis of
a formula keyed to allocating surplus on the basis of tax ~evenues lost,
based upon prior year1s experience. In this respect, preliminary estimates
by the League of California Cities indicated that Carlsbad was to receive
an estimated $7.22,000, equal to roughly $28 per, capita. In comparison,
the per-capita average for all cities within the state is approximately
$16 and thus Carlsbad would,receive a great-r per-cap~ta figure than
average.' On the other hand, some cities would receive even higher allocations.
For example, the City of Los Angeles'is estimated to receive approximately
$39 per capita. In effect, the allocation formula favored cities with higher
tax rates inasmuch as these would be the cities most severely hurt by the 1%
limitation.
These were the basic allocation considerations. Another major provision of
the post-T3 law" subject to considerable current controversy, dealt with
utilization of, City surplus. The post-13 law stated that any cities with a
current general fund surplus in excess of 5% of last year1s general fund
expenditures would be penalized in an allocation to the extent of one-third
of this surplus. Many cities have taken exception to this-requirement, and it
is now the subject o"f legal action. It is our understanding that Carlsbad
has a significant surpl'us, and may not choose to accept the State1s allocation
on this basis.
A broader question concerns what will happen beyond 1978-79. In our view,
there is a considerable possibility that the State will dev,ise some form of
additional subvention which will essentially take the place of the 1I0ne-shotll
surplus distribution this year (even though there may be, an almost equal
state surplus occurring by the end of this fiscal year, available for next year).
Most likely such a future subvention would be based on a variety of factors;
and given sufficient time, the legislature could quite probably introduce a
number of so,cial and economic factors into,the distribution formula. Whatever
the specific formula which might be used, it is quite likely that population
would be a significant factor. However, we cannot predict at this poiht in
, THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
time to what extent. In this analysis, we have acknowledged this potential
subvention revenue, but we have not included it in the specific numerical
computations.
In a similar manner, the Legislature set aside major funds for 'distribution
to school and community college districts, and also funds for distribution
to sp'ecial districts (fire, . water, sanitation, etc.).
3. 'SOME GENERAL IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITION 13
There is considerable current disucssion both statewide and nationally
concerning the tru'e meaning of Proposition 13. Some people see it as a
broad mandate for significant cost cutting in government. Others see it
as,an adverse social reaction, aimed at discrimination against minorities
and the poor. Others see the law more simplistically as homeowner
protection. In this respect, still others see inequities in the law concern-
ing renters, and others see need for limiting the law to residential
benefactors only, in effect eliminating co~ercial and industrial enterprises
from Proposition 13 benefits. These are all very complex 'questions being
addressed today. We certainly do not have the answers to all of these
matters. Yet from our standpoint in this analysis, we believe that it is not
necessary to address these broader issues. Rather, we have confined ou'r
analysis to financial impacts of the law as it can be determined today,
irrespective of the broader philosophic questions.
Nevertheless, Proposition 13 is clearly impac,ting itself upon governmental
agencies of all types throughout the state in two major forms', as follows:
a There is a significant move to increase revenues through
user charges, both for operational and capital purposes.
This in effect is a move towards a greater lI user payll
philosophy. It is a lessening of the doctrine which has
been growing throughout our nation during the past 50 years
involving greater and greater progressive taxation.
o Currently, these same agencies are to find means to reduce
costs. In the City of Carlsbad the desire for potential
cost reduction was expressed by the Council through
appointment of a Proposition 13 Implementation Advisory
Committee shortly after passage of Proposition 13, whose
report of July 18 we have read.
Beyond these questions of local government finances, we believe that Proposition
13 has a rather broad implication upon the homeownerls ability to pay for
se.rvices., In the past, with high property taxation of single-family homes,
there has been considerable argument against imposition of major IIbuy-inll
fees by sewer: districts, wa~er. districts, school, districts, and other
governmental agencies. This factor has been of varying importance in
differing jurisdictions; yet our experience suggest that it has clearly been
of significance in the past.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC. 5
economics and management consultants
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
With the advent of Proposition 13, our preliminary financial estimates
show that the homeowner now clearly has a much greater. capability to pay for
physical facilities than he had in the past. To illustrate this point, we
have. prepared Exhibit 2. This exhibit compares the tax savings from
Proposition 13 for typical owners of $60,000 and $120,000 homes to assessment
district costs, were we to assume that all governmental infrastructure were
to be paid by the new homeowner on the bas;'s of 25 year bonds. In s~veral
jurisdictions, such an assessment district arrangement has been approached.
Irrespective, the figures show that tax savings for a $60,000 home would be
more than sufficient to pay for total infrastructure, which we compute for
the average situation to be.in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per unit. This
infrastructure cost would include total cost of school facilities, streets
(not provided by developer), government buildings, parks, sanitation and
water facilities, etc.
We are not recommending institution of such an assessment district at this
time. Rather We use Exhibit 2 as an illustration of the greater capability
of the homeowner to see his way, now that Proposition 13 has been passed.
4. REVIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES
In our October report, we. considered five local governmental agencies:
o City of Carlsbad.
o Sanitation.
o Parks.
o Water.
o Schools.
Water servioe will be provided by the. Carlsbad Municipal vJater .District,
inasmuch as Lake Calavera Hills is in its seTvice area, even though the
City of Carlsbad has a water department operating elsewhere in the City.
School service is provided by the Carlsbad Unified School District. Sanitation
facilities have been broken out as a separate element because of the
possibility of establishment of a separate wastewater reclamation plant on
the Lake Calavera Hills site, and possible establishment of a special
assessment district. Parks have been similarly broken out from city services
because of the possibility of a special assessment district to pay for park
f~cil iti es.
(1) City
In this and the prior analysis, we evaluated the following major functions
in terms of City financial impacts:
o Police Protection.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
6
---------.. ---------
" '-J
Exhibit 2"
ANNUAL HOMEOWNER COST COMPARISONS
$3,000~i----------~----------------------------------------------------~
Before Proposition 13
~,OOO
1,000
$60,000 Home $120,000
4 Property Taxes
After Proposition 13
Home
..
H1 9h_515
Low ~ 429
Assessment
District
Charges
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
o Fire Protection.
o Streets.
o Development-Related Departments (Building, Engineering,
and Planning activities related to new development).
o Library.
o Recreation (excluding Parks).
o General Government.
o Government Buildings.
)
)
) Administration
As discussed, other City functions of parks, sanitation, and water were
considered elsewhere.
The only financial impact of Proposition 13 on City finances for which
projecti.ons can be made at this time is property tax loss. Prior to
passage of Proposition 13, Carlsbad tax rate was $1.90, of which l2¢
was for bonds. Its General Fund rate was $1.78. Correspondingly, the
combined tax rate for the city as a whole was approximately $10.62 (per
Lake Calavera Hills property statements). Of this amount, approximately
62¢ (preliminary) was for bonds. As a consequence, the new combined
tax rate of $4.00 is approximately 40% of the old rate. exclusive of bonds.
On this basis we project that 1978~79 taxes for the City of Carlsbad will
be approximately 40% of those whichwouldhave occurred without Proposition
13. , This estimate is preliminary. Final determination must await detailed
computations by the County. As a check of the 40% figure, City staff estimates
that taxes to be received in 1978-79 will be approximately 35% of those which
would have been received otherwise. The 5% differential (35% versus 40%)
is possibly accounted for by a lower tax base, resulting from having to
go back to 1975-76 tax rolls (plus 2% per year) for most properties.~
Immediately upon passage of Proposition 13, a·number of cities throughout
the state chose to move forward with additional revenue measures, including
increased business license fees, apartment fees, etc. However, Carlsbad
did not do so. However, as noted earlier the Council did move against
the cost side in an exploratory manner by appointment of the Proposition 13
Implementation Advisory Committee, which issued its report on July 18. We
have reviewed this report, which basically identifies and prioritizes a
number of cost-cutting possibilities. However, to··the best of our knowledge,
no specific'cost-cutting actions have been effected. Thus, in this
analysts no specific cost reduc;ti.ons are a~sumed. Rather cost analysis
reflected in o~r earlier report prevails.EI .
aj Subject to refinement in final report.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
On the revenue side, it is 9ur understanding that City staff is currently
exploring greater user charges. However, as with cost cutting, we
are utilizing figures from the October report for revenue generation,' with
the exception of property taxes. '
The principal exhibit of our October report covering revenue-cost impacts
of Lake Calavera Hills was presented as Exhibit 13. In this supplemental
analysis, we have updated this earlier Exhibit 13 as Exhibit 2 which follows
this p·age. As seen, total Proposition 13 property tax loss (based upon the
foregoing 60% loss estimate) is estimated at $41.94. Accordingly, direct
revenues attributable to Lake Cal avera Hills are reduced from $132.90 per
'capita to $90.96. Irrespective, these revenues remain above the directly
identifiable variable costs of Lake Calavera Hills, estimated at $77.70.
The margjn between these direct revenues and variable costs is reduced
from $55.20 per capita to $13.26. Nevertheless, we believe it significant
that a margin still exists.
Basically, the Lake Calavera Hills. cost-revenue picture remains unchanged
in terms of the City finances. It would appear to us, based on this analysis,
that Lake Calavera Hills will more than pay its own. way in terms of directly
identifiable revenues versus costs. As before, it wi.ll not pay its way--
nor wouJd any other residential development conceivable in' Carlsbad--were the
City to assume that fixed costs would increase in proportion to variable
costs. If development were advisable on the basis of pre-13 analysis, it is
our strong view that development is advisable under the .post-13 situation.
Further argument towards this conclusion would be drawn from the three large
arrows shown in Exhibit 3, which reflect the followi,ng:
o Upward.pressures for more user revenues, which should increase
those revenues directly attributable to Lake Calavera Hills.
o Possible significant state SUbventions, a portion of which
would most likely be on a per-capita basis, and thus
directly attributable to Lake Calavera Hills.
o Downward pressures for lower costs, which would r:educe
Lake Cal avera Hills variable costs estimates.
As discussed earlier, in this analysis we have not assigned dollar values to
these potential revenue increases and cost reductions. Yet, they should be
aC,knowl edged.
In the course of our discussions with City officials and elsewhere, we have
identified a number of potential revenue increases, including:
o Full recovery of costs involved in a11 new development
processing.
o Increase in Fi nance Department charges. to the trash, co 11 e,cti on
contractor, to cover billing and accounting activities, which
we understand are not recovered fully at this time.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
9
------Exhibit ----'------3 (Modification of Prior ·Exhibit 13) ---
-' a
COST-REVENL!E COMPARISON
--"STABLE YEAR" AFTER FULL DEVELOPMENT--.//. Dollars .' , MI Ions
Per Capita -PER-CAPITA ITEMS -of Dollars
200' I • 2.0
150
Estimated Property
Tax Loss $41.94
100
50
o
P 0 s sib I eSt ate'
Sub-Ventions
$55.10 Per Capita
$545.:00.0 ,P~r _·'ie·ar -.
132.90
Revenues
188.00
f-;~i~p"
Re venues Under
Fixed Costs
Revenues Over
var;ab'l Costs .' ~iS1"E
o Per Capita
o Per Year
Costs
1.5
1.0
Down.ward Pressuref
For Lower Costs
0.5
o
Upwards Pressure For
. More User Revenues
Cha ng e s to $1 3.26, S.urplus B ef ore
Considering Indicated Pressures
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Charges to the trash collection contractor for full recovery
of City supervision.
o Adjustment of weed abatement overhead charges, to ensure
full recov'ery of City supervision.
o Increase in business license fees.
o Increase in uti.l i ty franch i se fees.
I This list is by no means complete, but it illustrates potential revenues which
can be raised without Proposition 13 two-thirds voter approval requirement.
Regarding fees to cover new development activities, we stated in the October
report that it appears that current fees cover. current costs. However,
as also.stated in the October ~eport, this judgement was based upon very
rough cost anp revenue estimates necessitated because of the lack of detailed
cost accounting in City reocrds. We strongly suggest that the City adopt a
policy for full recovery, and that it implement necessary accqunting means to
ensure that this policy is executed. In this respect, there is obviously,
need for a practical limit of accounting, so that the costs of accounting
do not outweigh the benefits gained. This should be achievable.
In a similar manner through discussions with City personnel, review of the
Proposition 13 committee report, and work elsewhere, we have identified a
number. of cost cutting opportunities. We have not discussed these in this
report, but their. potential is clearly evident to city staff and leadership
which has been documented to a considerable degree already.
(2) Water
As discussed in the October report, water services will be provided by the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Basically, this is a self-sufficient
enterprise. Last year, the total property tax rate applicable to Lake
Calavera Hills was 49¢, comprised of 14¢ general fund (which is' subject to
Proposition 13 reduction) and 35¢ bond repayment (not subject to Proposition
13 reduction). Thus, we estimate that total property tax reduction as a
result of Proposition 13 will be an approximate 8.4¢ loss (60% of 14¢). Based
upon last year1s assessed values, this loss amounts to approximately $31,800
per year, which is equal to about 7.7% of last year1s water sales revenues ..
If we assume that.this tax loss is made up through higher water costs (which
the District has the option to do), the residential water rate would have to
be raised from 33¢ per water'unit (100 cubic feet) to approximately 35.5¢.
For a typical homeowner utilizing 500 gallons. per day, which is equal to
, about 20 water units per month, the resultant increase would be about 50¢
per month. We see no major problem in such an increase, particularly
in. view of the aforementioned major tax-savings to the typical homeowner.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC.
economics and management consultants
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In terms of establishment of new bonds for an improvement district, Proposition
13 will make this much more difficult. However, the District has an
available option"of hookup charges, which it has been studying for the past
year, charges which are quite common in many districts throughout the state.
Such charges at the level of $500 to $800 per unit typically more than pay
for the capital cost requirements of the system. We see no difficulty of
establishment of this means for capital recoupment.
In summary, Proposition 13 will have relatively minor impact upon the
District, and it will not adversely affect Lake Calavera Hills ability to
pay its own way. Lake Cal avera Hills will not adversely impact the balance
of the community in terms of water service finances.
(3) Schools
The principal impact of Propositi'on 13 on the Carlsbad Unified School District
has been to redu'ce total revenues of the District by approximately 10%
over what they would have.been otherwise. This total reduction amounts to
a,pproximately $800,000 during 1978-79. Another impact is that the District
has lost its 10% permissive 'override, which probably cannot be made up through
use of the general fund, because of shortages there. Another impact is
that Proposition 13 has essentially negated the opportunity for the
District to utilize lease-purchase arrangements for financing capita.1
facilities. Such lease-purchases have become a growing m~ans of financing
throughout Cal iforni.a, because of th~ requirement that only a majority voter
approval be obtained. However, with .heavy pressures on the .general fund,
lease-payment revenues would almost surely require a special revenue source--
an override--which in turn require a two-thirds voter approval. Thus lease-
purchase approval would in effect become identical to bonding approval--a
two-thirds requirement in either case.
Thus, Propos.ition 13 has had a negative impact upon the District. However,
in terms of operating revenues, Proposition 13 is not a negative factor in
te'rms of Lake Calavera Hillis impacts. This is because the principal source
of operating revenues is increasingly the State, through the subventions, which
have been and will continue to be based primarily upon average dai1y attendance
(ADA). Thus, funds will become available for Lake Calavera Hills students in
proportion to the community at large. .Further, growth in the district (or
maintenance of existing levels of enrollment) can create certain operating
efficiencies, as discussed in the October report. In this respect, average .
teacher salaries are reduced by growth, because proportionally fewer teachers
reach the high end of the salary step chart.
Regarding facilities requirements, the District appears to be in reasonably
good condition for the next seVeral years. A new Kelly School is under
construction to serve the area .surrounding Lake Calavera Hills. This school
is being built upon a 7.3 acre site near the project. It will contain 12
classrooms initiany, which can accommodate up to 360 (and possibly more)
students. Additional classrooms can be added to the site through use of
relocatables" creating a potential 600 to 800-student capacity.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC, 12
economics and management consultants
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Capacity is also avaH,able at junior and senior high schools. The junior high
school has a capacity of 900 students with an enrollment of about 650 expected
during the next year. The high school has a capacity of 1,800 versus an
enrollment in the range of 1,500 to 1,600 next year.
There has not been significant enrollment growth in the District in the past
several years because of declining household size trends, .and also very
low student generation in some of the newer tracts (such as Seaport and
Spinnaker Hill). Nevertheless, we are basing projections upon those illustrated
in the October report. Accordingly, there will be requirement for new school
construction to serve Lake Calavera Hills at some point within five years or so.
However, there is no immediate problem.
Concerning capital facilities, Proposition 13 does Dot signficantly alter the
outlook over that of the October report one way or the other. State aid
financing during the past several years has provided virtually nothing for
capital facility outlays. Such outlays have had to depend upon a combination
of bonding and lease purchase arrangements, the former with two-thirds voter
approval and the latter with 50%. As noted earlier, lease-purchase arrange-
ments are essentially equivalent to bonding at this point in time. The answer
to new facility construction will unquestionably lie either in some form
of state aid adjustment geared to capital provision, or in cooperation be~ween
the developer and school districts.
As noted earlier, the advent of Proposition 13 will enable new residents
to pay for a Significantly larger portion of infrastructure, including
schools. In the long term, we see this as a problem, but one which is
solvable through cooperation between the developer and school district.
(4) Sanitation
We judge that Proposition 13 will not significantly alter'Lake Calavera Hill IS
impact upon sanitation service. This is because provision of sanitation
service is quite similar-to that provision of water service. It is
essentially an enterprise.operation. Operating costs and all or a part of
capital costs can be handled through service ch~rges. Also capital
requirements can be handled through hookup charges~ These can be adjusted
to secure financial self-sufficiency.
(5) Parks
Our consideration of parks involves only physical facilities and their
maintenance. The recreational function is covered under City services,
discussed above.
As noted in the October report, we evaluated parks under two potential
financial alternatives:
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC,
economics and management consultants
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Special assessment district, which would pay park
maintenance and possibly pay for capital amortization as well.
o Existing City operating format.
If the special assessment district financing route is employed, Proposition
13 should not have a major impact upon Lake Calavera Hills. This is because
such assessment district financing is outside the framework of property
taxation, and can be employed in any respect. It is not utilized, requiring
the City to provide capital improvements and maintenance, this will place
additional pressures upon the City, possibly requiring, a two-thirds override
approval. As a consequence, we believe that Proposition 13 strongly argues
for the use of the special assessment district procedure to finance parks.
5. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the several agencies under study, we offer the following summary
conclusions:
o City. Proposition will have an adverse effect on City
finances; but this effect is basically unrelated to Lake
Calavera Hills. If Lake Cal avera Hills is justifiable on
a pre-13 basis, we believe it is justifiable now. While
theCity·s 'direct revenues attributable to Lake Calavera
Hi 11 s wi 11 be reduced by some $40 per capi ta, revenues wi 11
nevertheless be above direct operating costs, with a margin
of over $13 per capita. Also, this margin will probably be
increased in the future (although not included in our computations)
as a cons~quence of more user fees and cost reductions.
o Water and Sanitation. Enterprise operations such as water
and sanitation will face no major problem as a result of
Proposition 13, because of their capability of obtaining
adequate revenues through service charges and hook-up
(buy in) fees. '
o Schools. While Proposition 13 will impact schools adversely,
this impact wiil be no more in Lake Calavera Hills than it
will be in the community at large. The principal problem
remains the provision of adequate long-term capital faCilities.
Although there is no short-range proplem, additional facilities'
will be required. These requirements' appear to be solvable
through developer-district cooperation.
o Parks. Provision of parks will not be impacted adversely if
the developer·s plan for use of a special assessment district
is employed.
As a final thought, Proposition 13 will significantly. reduce homeowner
property taxes, to the extent that they would much more than pay for
25-year bonding of all infrastructure required for new development (schools,
parks, streets, public buildings, etc.). Thus, we see no major problem
in the impoSition of greater user and capital charges upon future homeowners,
as alternate sources of revenue to those used heretofore.
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, INC. 14
economics and management consultants
'.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:,
LAND. U$E -AND. PUBLIC FACI LITY .'
. t-CONO~lI C H1PACTREPORT ' ,
LAKE. :CALAVERA HILLS·, ."
PLANNED' COM~1UN lTV'
. ,.,-
PLANNING· DEPARTf'1ENT
GITYOF CARLSBAD
•• .... ,
, ,
. '
Lake CalaVe~a Hills t~ ~n BOB~~c~~ pl,afined cGmmunity stte
in ·no rt h.ea s,t Carl s b a,d , Tb.e 'e i. ty ap p rQ,.v e,d a· M'a st.e r P 1 an, rE;:!qu ired
by the site I s P 1, ann e·d·· 'C·ommu:n; ty·. Z.O Ile, fb,r3452 dWell i ng s i n'M-ay ,
1974. To date no deveiopment of 'the site has ocurre,d. A loc;:ation.
Map of t~e ptoje~t is att~ched.
The a ppl i C'a nt ha,s re'qu es:teda:·p·p roV? q o;f ·a,men dm·e·n ts to the adopted
Master'P.lan to bri'Ml·i.'t·jn.to co,nformatlce w'ith the new requirements of :the
Planne:d C.ommun:ity zon:e. ' .
HACK.GROIJ,ND ,'-P.LA.NNEO ~OMMUNrTY . lONt
, Th e C i t.yG oune il a p prove dY':eV is i d.n.S, to the 'P 1 a-n n e'oC oMmu:n i t.y
Zone ·on June 15,1976.,. On,eQf·the. reVi's]ons require's' a·llland :U~e
a·nd Publ i c Faci 1 i ty ECQnomi'c Imp.a.ot Report thatco'ntai ns the foll owtn'g:
1. Ju'stific.ati·nn. for th.e p,r·Q,PQrtionso:f tn.e various land
uses based on the' pr,i,o.j e,qt,ed p o·pu] a,t.t ona.n:d ,a.c·ce pta b 1 e mar ke.ti' n g
or p 1 a,nn i r:rg t e ch.ni q,IJte's '.. . ". .
2. Pto·je··cted' fi;s·(:,al ihJ·pa·cts~,th,e,·deve,lopm,ci.rtwi"'l have o'n the
ability of t,he C'ity:·a.nd other .g·0vernirle;nt'aT orqua.si-pu.bl i,e '.
agencies to provide :pecessary services.,: T~is r·e·port 'sha,ll
include the. appr0'xi,tTYar.t:e.<cost of,dW'elHn;g' ;utri:ts" an,ti'cipatE;:!'d
land and sales, tax'es t,oCity a'nd'costs ·:o·f n,e.cessary p.lIbl,it
services. The, report sball be prepared b.Y'a.n economl'c, COD-
sultarit indep~nderit of the applicant b~t at'the ap~licant's
eXPe nse ."
Theb.asicobj'e'ctives of this assignment .are twofoTd-':--
1. I.o determine the ,extent to whic,h th·e ian·d· uses' prop.OSed
in the Mastar Plan are marketa~le i~ com~~rison to the sttpply and
de.ma'nd .of 'land for co,m,pa'rcible proJects in No·rthSan Oi.ego County. . '.
2. To d·etermi he the sh.ort and long ter'li1 i'mpacts of the p'rOP()s.~.d
d.evelopmento:n: :mur;}it,ip,a.landspecial district se'rvi'ces, re'sultin,g'
expen·dit,ure::s 'and revenueS.; and to eva,luat.e t.hese i.mpac;:'ts on the:
overall .fiscal structur:e' of th.e. Gi,ty an·d spe.ci.aldi"stricts.·: -~,. ~
A sec'or:tda,ry object.ive o,f this assignment is tb'e d.evelopme·nt
of a .methodo1ogya,nd· database usable in evaluating ot:her
Planned.Cornmuni'ttes w.f1ichare'req~lred to meet the Ec·()'n·omic
1m.pact .Re·p'ort requirements., It is not intend,ed that this analysis
will result iii the' d'evelo'pm'ent and i'1nplementattonof a cbmplet·e'
• • " m o·d e 1" for a ri a 1 y si' so f f i.s c a·l, e co no m ia, 0 r mark e t i mp.~ c t.s fo r
all development in all areas in Carlsbad.
S T U:D Y .0 U T. PUT S
The.following six ~aragr~~hs r~pres~nt general g~idelines and
. mlnlmum .~ri·teiria foJ':' the cons.ultant services required. Proposals
that involve additional outputs, refin.eme.nts., revisions or fundamental-
ly different approacbes, as a,propriate to meet the assignm~nt's.
objectives, are en·cou)':'.a'ge·d. Such appro,aches ar·e particularly encour-
ag'e d· i n perf 0 rm i n~g the' Lan d 'U s e r mpa etA n a 1 y sis.
1. Land -Use Impact Analys'is:
The Lak·e Calavera HilTs M.ast.er Pla.n includes.a varietY'of hO'using
typ·es, commercial and recreation fa·ciTitie$. The analysis should' .
determine ·wh·ether 'Or not t·hese laAd uses can be rnarketed in the
. q~~htity and ~hasing propnsed, when compared with t~e sup~ly and
demand o·f lan·d for compa·rable projects in No·rt.h S·an Diego Cou.nty
over the same period.
The C.ity's staff .i.s t;.tnclear at this til1)e whether or hot su·ch
an a·n~lys.is can be meaningfUlly done ·fo·:r a commu,nity projecte·d to
be-d~velo·p.e·9· over 15·-20 yea:rs." 'Xt'is th·er·efore .req'uested ·that the
p r Ii) P os a 1 recommend study p'r 0 c e d.u res qn ds p e·c i f i c 0 u t put sw h i c b wi 1.1 meet
th~ City's intent if appro,riate~ Outputs ,f~om this section may be
used as inp~t to the Public FaciTi~y ~co~~mi~ Lmpact An~lysis, but
the Ci ty does no:t' assume such wi 11 be the case i .
2. Public Facility tCQ·nornic Impact AnaJys5s -Analys.is oL Services:
Th'e, a·n·alysis should determine the levels Of service req.uired
by Lake Calavera Hills for t.he foilowin·g services:
S·choo ls
Water
Sewer
FlOOd Contr'ol
SoTid Waste' Oi sposal
-F ire
Police
Library
Parks and Recreation
Streets
Adll)inistratio'n
'. • Other send ce's as" S'l.i:gge$ ted by p:ropo's aT
The analysis sho'uld' ad,dress Q'u.ality of Pu'bl-it '$ervi'ce
levels. If t,h'elevels o,f .p,ublic$ervi'ce pr9Posed 'for analysi~
di'ffer Jr'om prese~nt levels,' the rati'("H:lale behind the cha,nge
sho,uld be do'.cu,m,ent,ed in th:e analysis. '
The analysi~ should 'fbn,e~cast t'he ,annual'cos:ts ,of the various
services by City frepartment and SpeCial Dist~itt .. 'In ad~1tion
to th,e City, the folTowin'9,',Spe'Cial Dist-rl.cts ,ser,ve the Lake
Calaver,a Hi J 1s area: ',,' -,
Car 1 s bad U'n i. f i e,d S,~ h 00 1 jj i s t ric t , , ' .-,
Carlsbad Municipal ~iter'&ist~ict:
Th~ analysiS of cOsts ~h~~ld address the iSsues bfboth otreGt
service ,costs and In'dtrectservice costs. Th,e ahalysi,s sh'o.uld
docu'ment t'he ratlonale used in allocating admi.nistrative and oth,er
1.n d 1 r e c t c G s ts, , '
Th,e proposaLsh,ould in-di,cate the rel:a,tlve involvement propose,d
fo,r the cOh,$ultant, spe,cial dis.,tr:ict, and Cftystaff a,nct officials,
in identifying levels of s~rv:j£~ and co~t all~catjQns.
3. Ptl,bl i.c FaG j'lj, ty [con ollyi, c, I.m p act An a lysi S '" Det,e'rm, j n a t'i on of'
P'ub:li'c CapitalF,aciltt;es Expenditure,s:
The analysis ~ho'l:ll dd'e'termine th~ a"d:ditionalcapital improvements,
and facili,ties req'!;lire,d by t,he P'Y'oposed' development, in terrrisof
time andco'st.' .
Majo'r capita:.l' expendi,ture's, .parti-c:l:Ilarly ,those re'quire,d dur'ing
th,e lidtial year's 'of th'e dev'elo,pm'ent, shoulq b'e 'Spebffl.c,ally id'en,fified
,a,od consid,ered ind,i.vid:ual Ty. ,Ce.rtain sm,aller 'capital exp'enditures
may be c O'D'S, ide r'ed on ap e r -u n i tb a,s i s or other a 11 0 cat io h me th b d ~
if appropriate. The a:nalysi? should addre:ss the follo:wing m,ajor issues,
and as~umpt~ons!
, ,
A • t.u n din 9 a·-u tho r j. t Y for 'e a ch fa c i 1 i t y: s ch 0,0 ld i s t ric t, C l' t Y ,
of Carlsbad, ot.h'er special ,distri~tsor public a,g,ency, the devcel'oper;
B , T h'e a:p p·r'o p ria t e cos tal lo cat ion for: f a c i, li ties mad e ne c e s sa ry
b.y the new dev,eTo:pme,nt, b,ut q.lso serv;,ng' or b'enefitting areas, outsid:e
the Master Planned Co'mmunity,
4. ~ubliC',FaG;:ltty fCO.nomic IIll,ea,ot Arralys'is ,-' Ana1ysins, of. ReveMAes:
, The 'analysis should Torec:a,st annual mu~ni.cip,al and s'p:eC:iaT district
-3-
• revenues ge'n~rq.ted by the cJeve,lopme.nt 'by sou,rce .• Thean,alysis, shQ'uld
inc l·u de:
k. Direct reven l:I eS (prop r.et·yta'x e's ~ $.C)..l e'staxeS ~ ,p'erm,it fe'es,
use r fee s, s ta t e s u~b'V, e'wt ions., etc. ') ;. . " . . ,
B. Capital f,acil·{ti:e,$ finanalng, in'cluding, bon'd·:jng req,uirem..ent·s;
c. Indirect i"'evenue .eff~cts (particuJarly reg'ardhl':g' sides
taxes allo~atiDn).
5 .• , Public Fa ci H,ty .Eeoh'om i: c Impact An:~.ly sis',.. Cos t -Reyen u.ePr'oj e,ct torn
The analysissh'ould foreoast the net surplus/de'fici·t g'en:$rated
for th,e City and speciC).l d'istricfs,bnan annual basi·s 0v'er t.he'
d.evelopme,nf te,rm and at com.pleti'o'li. The Proposal'may includ.E; multip.ie
pr'ojections (or other methoc/ol.Q·gies.) demonstrating the effects oJ
varl:ous cost-r.evenue assumptions arid II Y-i'skll • '
6. I nte,r.pr·etati aD . -Final' Repqrt: .
The Fina; Report should ';:nclude a ,clear s'ummary bfthe following:
A. ih,e ·broad e.conomit base of the N:or·thCounty~. again.stw;hic·h'
the Land. Use Impact and PU,bl ic Fa.cil ity tconollli'c Impact Analyses have
been per for me·d ; "
B. Th·e.' liniit,ations of the methop.o,10'gie-s·employed;
C. The. keyissue.s to be"'resolv~d:by' ,t~e p1anningcommis5ion/Cit.~'· ,C 0 u n· c i 1 : " , ", ,-' , . ,
D. Theba.s:ic·D,oncil,l~sio'ii~ 'ana/or:' re.c·orirm'en.datio.ns (iyf the study.
, .
On'ce a'gain, t·he finaJ.report should<in . .cludecom:p,iete d'0cumen'tatiQ,n
·of methodo'log,ieS,? 'P9st and, r,ev.enue. factQ'f:sc ,. ;as.sutnptlo·ns.·
, ~., ~, -' ~ , ',.. : , ." • -• )r ,1
Thi rty-:-fi:ve' co.pi es of the fi·Dql report 'are: requi red ..
A VA IL A.BL EP·f.\;TA
At thi:s time two' Ecenomialnrp.act R.eports on ·o,fh'er Pl ?rmed
Co,mmuniti·es are in pre.p,aratibn by cobsulta-.rfts. [J:epeTI.ding o'n the
stage ofcpmpletiQn of these repe~ts when the con~ract i$ let, their
data may be availC).bl.e for. 'else.
'PROPOSAL P REPb\RAT I O,N.AN D S EJECT rON:
In ?ddi'tion to a disc.assien ofmethed.b10gies a·nd· s'ervic,es to be
r'enoered in meeti'ng th.e ab·ove gU'~'del+ne:s and triter,ia, all·.·propo's,als
should include the.fo116.wtng inform.~tion: .
-Lj:-
• A. A IfI a xi mum b.u d 9 e.t for th es e r vic es . t 0 be 'j:> r-ov f d:e d:;
B. Ane's t i mated c;:om:p 1 et ion .d:a te;
C. The firm:!'s ,qualification,s an,d,expeTi'enc.;e i'n perfornii'ng: ,similar'
a$sig:nrnents. S;'nc;'e your fi:rm recently proposed for .Uie tn'€! taCosta
E cun o:mi.c Imp a c tRe R.o rt ,re'p e tit i on ,of q·ua 11 f i c.at iOJi sa n d ,e )(p'eri'e tic e
stat ~ d ' in. t hat p n) p 0 sal . is· no t. n e c e's s'a ty. . . . .
Follow,ing, evaluation of the p'roposals by City staff, f'irm'sm:ay
'b.e·req,uested to ma'ke a verbal presentation to a City scr·e;.~nlng c-om':"
mittee '. Selec,tionw]ll be m,ad'e' by the screen.ing co,lfImit·te-e sL!~ject·.
toapp-rQNal by the City C:Oi:J,ncll. ' .. '
N·b m·a X i mum h u d get a tl o,c a t to nh a s been .e s ta b 1 i she,d, a 1 tho u 9.11' a·
total'" cost in t'he ord.er of $'1.5 ,000 .. $,25,,0,0:0 has Peene:stimat,e·q on:
a very, preliminary oasis. A tot·al ela.ps'ed .timedf 3 ri]o·i}'t·hs is,,'eli-.
visto·ned. Cost and e.Ja'psed time will be mi,tl,or' fa'ctor.s 'in the over-ail
evalu,atio'n p,roc~ss', an.d th·ese e·sti'fnates shoiuld' ,not be constru~das
eith,er mini:mum or tna.ximum constrai'nts to ad:equate an,d p'rop;er perfor":'
mah'ce of the scope ,o~ work,. ".'
" ' " ,
to:
Please direct a~y' question,s, regarding this R~quest for P'Y'opos,ai
. ' ,
Allen M:e·acha:ni,.., (714) 729·d18L' Extension .25 .
., I. \ '_--," -
The dea'Qli'n'e for 'rece:.ipt·Qf pr,op:a_$~i-s ,'s"Fr:id:ay, M;arch.·2S, 197.7.
Four co~ies of the prop6~a~ sh6uld be ~ubmitted t01
At t eon t i Ml :
ACM:ar
, Mr.' B·ud P:l ender
,Acting' Plann'i'ng Director
City 0 f Car ls bad
12 (}O Elm A v e'n u e
. Car 1 s b ,a d, C,a,l i for n i a 9 2,0 0 8
,Attac,hments:, Location '~1'Cl.p.
-5-
:~
,~
·UJ
'fj
:\J
'-1
I •
•
L~J(£ O!llAvDeA. tifltt(
If!;ft; 0<' ,DE t/ e L opf.ZftJr Pt/l~' ..
ca.;l TJO/I) I!1iJr
" r .. '
l .... __ ..... "'--,-, . "-', ~--.-. -.'------_._ ........... ~,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORl'+IA 92008
729-1181
JUl11-78~2P~~1J S"t?*;:; *~ , SU\) , 0 .. ,_J.\J
,
RECEIVED FROM 'Rat :3 tJARD C",TE ''":ScAt/l 7 g -A~ LA-~ CI-\(...Ave i!A-HtLW hSSc:1G I-+~ . ADDRESS
A/c. NO. ' DESCRIPTION ' AMOUNT
~ 5-85)..-OSJ7 p.,...,.. ... ~ ,3 A-~ cJ e AI dlfWl-~~GO 00
I \
: ,.' -r~\ 4 rs rae::.-. ~('J ftc.T R~
~
~r-LAKe cAt.A~r~ (../-, Its ,
Lt-.2.. Vc:MIn.t....... "P(;:t.1""T",~'Ie.e...d ,
,
. "': .. , " Pw~S07'l. ')
.' , "~
:'';
. ;.;.~.~-'.
.~.
-
005512' TOTAL $'%,()O tfJd
.",
~ ... , t ( . I _.J __ ' __ l'J'OI-~_~" J ~, "" ...... ;4) -","
.--~.--.-.--
levander, partridge & anderson, inc. 336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
Sept. 9, 1977
217 '
Invoice No. 526
City of Carlsbad
, 1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Attention: Mr. Allen Meacham
INVOICE
SEP 12 1977
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Departmem
For economic consultation services our·ing August 197? "'-Calavera Hills:
D. Levander
48 hours @$40.00/hr. $1,920 •. 00
C. Levander
30 hours @$lO.OO/hr. '300.00 ~ ..
D. Brown
1.5 hours @$12.50/hr. 18.75
$2',238:.75
Miscellaneous expenses 35.00
~.~ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE " $2,273.75
G)""jt~QI t" V, C,
C>h Cf./1-c /1-'
economics and development consultants
DATE: ____ 8~/_1_5~/_77 ____ __ ••
Vendor No._~ ______ __
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, ~A 92008
(714) 729·1181
REQUEST FOR WARRANT
~ NO. __ ~.~l~l~ ______ __
The Director of Finance is hereby re.quested to draw a warrant payable
. ".
". \' , '
To: ' Levander, Partridge & Anderson, Inc.'
336 Tejon Place
Palos Verdes Estates, California .90274
IN PAYMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: . ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
In payment of professional services
for conducting an Economic Impact Repol;"
on Lake Ca1avera Hills Master Plan
durinq July, 1977. Resolution No.
5061. Aqxeement
Authorized By:
City Manager
Requested By: "
Department Head
.
dated Mav 3. 1977. 65-852-0519 $4,750.0'0
$4,75,0.00 TOTAL _______ ~ __
Approved By:
Purchasing Agent
•
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
August 8, 1977
217
Invoice #521
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Attention: Mr. Allen Meacham
INVOICE
•
336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
J,\UG 11 1971
em OE CARLS_BAD-~mannlos. DJ3p'artment
For economic consultation services through July 1977 ~~ Cal avera Hills:
D. Levander
97.50 hours @ $40.00/hr. $3900,00
D. Brown
4 hours @$12.50/hr. 50.00
C. Levander @ $lO.OO/hr.. 800,00
80 hours @
$4750.00
Levander
DHL/jb
economics and development consultants
• W~(F;~~Pfi
-"-.J t" lCJ '. D iLJJ
fJ. • 1 :.... _ ~ -
AU G 1 0 1917
MEMORANOUM CITY l,.r C/JRLSBAD
Plannin.s Department
TO Mr. Allen Meacham DATE
FROM Dale H. LeVander #
August 8, 1977
217
SUBJECT PROGRESS REPORT--JULY
This progress report covers our work through Friday, August 5. Major
wo~k completed during this period tnvolved Task 2 memoranda. See attached
list. Basically, we have completed our Task 2 work. There will, of course,
be refinement in subsequent work. Also, we have completed our determination
of assumptions to be covered in subseq~ent Task 4 computations and Task 6
final reporting. See separate memorandum on this subject.
Responses from department heads received to date include the following:
o Sanitation. Detailed discussion with Mr. Beckman, reported
in my second sanitation memorandum of August 2. No formal
sUbmittal.
o . Public Buildings. Telephone information from Mr. Baldwin,
as reported in my second memorandum on this subject of August 3.
o Police. Receipt of Chief Kundtz memorandum of July 26.
o Fire. Telephone conversation with Chief Thompson on July 26.
No written response.
o Library. Your brief comments received from Mrs. Cole.
o Engineering. Comments noted on copy of memorandum by Mr.
Flanagan.
o Building. Brief telephone conservation with Mr. Osburn.
o Planning. Your comments on memorandum copy.
Areas not heard from to date include the following:
o Streets, Street Lighttng, and Traffic (Mr. Greer).
o Waste Collection and Disposal (Mr. Greer).
o Carlsbad Municipal Water District (Mr. Henley or Kubota).
o Carlsbad Unified School District (Mr. Crawford).
o Parks and Recreation (Mr. Johnson).
o General Government.
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
economics and development consultants
(
8/9/77
This progress report was inadvertently not attached with the invoice mailed
to you yesterday_
•
•
'\
• •
I will contact the responsible individuals personally during this next
week to make sure I have any major inputs that they may have to offer. It
should be noted that timing is not critical in this respect. I plan to
have computations completed this week and a draft final repcrrt to you next
week. This report is subject to modification before it is published in
final form in September.
DHL: sf
levander, partridge & anderson, inc. -2-
economics and development consultants
DATE: 7/12/77 •
Vendor No. _________ _
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
(714) 129-1181
REQUEST FOR WARRANT
.NO . 4
, ,
The Director of Finance is hereby requested to draw a warrant payable
To: IBvander, Partridge &Anderson
. 336 Tejon Place
Palos Verdes Estates, california 90274
IN PAYMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: ACCOUNT NO.
Professional services for conductlllg an
econorru.c lIllpact refOrt on LaKe ca.Lavera lil.l..1S
. "
AMOUNT
Master Plan, Jillle, 1977. Resolution No. 5061-65-852-0519 $5,878.25
Agreerrenc aa-cea rtJaY .j, .1:::1 I I •
Authorized By:
City Manager
Requested By:
Department Head
..
-
,"
..
..(.
.
$5,878.25 TOTAL _________ _
Approved By:
Purchasing Agent
•
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
July 8, 1977
Job No. 217
Invoice No. 506
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Mr. Allen Meacham
INVOICE
•
336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
iRlECEllVED
JUL 8 1977
CITY OF. C elannJng' O:pRartLSBAD ment
For economic consultation June 4 -30, 1977:
D. Levander
• 92.75 hours @ $40.00/hour $ 3,710.00
D. Brown 110.5; hours @ $12.50/hour 1,381.25
C. Levander 64.50 hours @ $10~00/hour 645.00
$ 5,736.25
Mu1var Expenses 67.00
Travel & Miscellaneous 75.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 5,878.25
G~c lEZoU'M
Dale H. Levander
DHL: sf
economics and development consultants
• •
MEMORANOUM \;..-'
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Mr. Allen Meacham
Dale H. Levander
DATE
#
July 8, 1977
217
PROGRESS REPORT --END OF JUNE
Major work through June incl udes the foll owing: :
o Completion of land-use memorandum and accompanying pr~ject-review
memorandum, both dated June 28.
o' Completion of collection of secondary data for both land-use and
cost-revenue elements of work.
o Completion of about 90% of interviews for both land-use and
cost-revenue elements of work.
o . Completion of detailed per-capita calculations for 14 cost
categories of the 414 Citizen California, and submittal of
this information to EDP service for preparation of frequency
distributions, with 24 cross-tabs and total for each cost item.
Per our discussions Wednesday, July 6, the remainder of our work is scheduled as
foll ows:
Work Item
Memoranda --Cost/Revenue Factors
Memoranda --Assumptions
Memoranda --Computations & Final Conclusions
........... ~ .... ~
Week Of
July 11
18
25
Aug. 1
8
Sept. 5
Meeting for Review of Preceding Three Memoranda (Optional)
Draft Final Report
Meeting for Review of Final Report (Optional)
As discussed, we will prepare a working memorandum of cost-revenue factors for each
of the various affected agencies and departments. We will send these to you as
completed starting next week. Possibly a few will be submitted the following week,-:
along with the memorandum of assumptions. We will request that these individual
memorandum be reviewed by their respective department or agency officials, to obtain
benefit of their comments, additions, etc.
Since the end of June, we have conducted additional interviews. On July 6, I met
with Roy Kundtz, Dick Osborn, Roger Greer, Thelma Sowell, and Robert Crawford. The
only department head not interviewed to date is Les EVans of Encino.
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
economics and development consultants
Mr. Allen Meacham
July 8, 1977
#217
Page 2
• •
We estimate that we are approximately 50% complete in the assignment in terms of ............... ~
time and effort.
Please let me know if you have any questions or 'comments' concerning the memorandum
or the accompanying invoice.
DLH: sf
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
economics and development consultants
-.
. .
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (5)
, '.
, i
• Date_----"'·6 1<-.;1=7-<-1-'.7...:..7 __ ---,--__ _
Req. No. ___ -->3""'8"---~ _____ _
Dept. Planning
CITY OF CAR LSBAD • PURCHASE ORDER
CITY OF CARLSBAD IS EXEMPT
FROM FEDERAL EXCISE TAX
.f.;ti~~~ ~ .-'1'0431 -------
This order No. must appear on all
invoices, bills of lading. and
corre~~~~e~;ce.
Not val ia without number and signature of Purchasing Agent. All purchases ~W;m,t~t t~ the con-
ditioos printed below. Mail TWO copies of your invoice to FINANCE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE,
CITY HALL, 1200 ELM AVENUE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 9200B. All statements to. be mailed to
saine address. All purchases F.O.B. Carlsbad.
TO;: .Levander, Pq:rtri·dge & Andersoo, Inc.
336 T~jon Place .
Deliver All Merchandise To:
City of Carlsbact .
Att$n: Planning Department
1200 E11)1 Aven:ue Palos Verdes Estate, Ca. 90274
Carlsbad, Cal iforriia 92008
-
QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT TO UNIT AMOUNT BE ~HARGED -PRICE
Professi ana 1 services for conducting an 65-852-0519 $18,400.00 -
Economic Impact Report on the Lake Cal avera
.• Hi lls -Master Plan -, ,Contract dated May 3, 197
Resol-uti-on 5061
Agenda Bill 3069 Supplement #3 ..
..
,
-
. '.
" :
--
tERMS AND CONDITIONS DISCOUNT
1. The City of Carlsbad will not be responsible for articles or services furnished ii'~~'~ .. ~ officials or employees without a Purchase Order si!=jned by the authorized pur-SUB-TOTAL
chasing agent.
2. The right is reserved to purchase in the open market and-to charge the difference TAX to the Vendor in the event that del iveries are not made at the time specified in
the bid or contract.. --
3. Whenever. a delivery is relected tile Vendor shall be notified and given reason TOTAL~U~ 1.8,400.Q0 for the re jectiori. A" -rejec.ted del iven es sha II be held at Vendor's r 18k. and he
A"'hOCd
By J) 1 shall bear the expense -9t rernov?l.
4. We reserve the ri'gilt 'to' take cash discounts if'.pai.d with,in 3'Q. days of. receipt of
statement.
5. ALL PURCHASES F.O.B. CARLSBAD. ,ra. ,_l R
City Mana~r
Signed -!"'--\--""'-=-~--=---='---=-"'---1~""---~-"-...-o~----'
, ,
~
"
Date __ ,1;.-r:::..:17-'-1-'-1...::...7 _____ ~
~:r:J Req. No. ___ -=.:::..-_~-----
VENDOR NUMBER~ ____ ~ __ ~~ __
~ it:-.J
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PURCHASE ORDER
CITY OF CARLSBAD IS EXEMPT
FROM FEDERAL EXCISE TAX
~~ ~, l~-; 1 t ~, ".t....... ~
This order No. must appear on all
invoices, bills of lading,and
correspondence.
Not valid without number and signature of Purchasing Agent. All purchases are subject to the con-
ditioos printed below. Mai I TWO copies of your invoice to FINANCE DIREClOR'S OFFICE, r.;(.«,,-,,'" ,,~
CITY HALL, 1200 ELM AVENUE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008. All statem~nt's to be mailed to
same address. All purchases.·F.O.B. Carlsbad. --.. ---.
TO: lB¥ilnd~r$ POl'ti"idtl0 r. fmdet'$Oih Inc.
33G Ti;.jon PlueC!
Deliver All Merchandise To:
f~'t'i;ell: :J<li:a1n'WfJ UC;.>j.i;"') .:·l, .. ; 12l~tO Elm rW(:i1W~ Pnlos Vnrdes E$tat~. Ca. 90274
--
QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT TO UNIT AMOUNT BE CHARGED PRICE .
!lrofcss·tort01 5~rvic:::s foY' cnndt1ct'hvJ jJi1 f3 .. ~Yi2 ... (1,)1'j ','1:. .. :'-, .';;
E c :1r.a:H::rlt:; I:npnct Roport on t:l::J tDI~:1 c~ 1 ;W;,'ri).
rNlls ;!nst~1" }llan -Ccwfi.T:1Ct ,:l~~tf:d n:lY .J} E:]7
, Pr i:.'() 1 I1····i 0\1 l"'_,,}-"" f .... II 5(1:::;1
f'n:'ln",t~ ~-l':;_ ~h.J. 3ill 300J "til"' I) 1 (..'>1.,.,-1'" " ~._', ,,~I to :~( 'J
6/2.1/77 pat,! 3~~ 133.75 hal on P"O. 1-31'" "'i. !J, V.£.J ... invoice no • 502
'ok
.]/19/7:' pay 5e 878 .. 25 ba1 on P.O. 9,438.00 -II n SOl)
lV29/77 oay .!}~. '50.00 bal on P.O. {!·~6DD. 00 !I TI 521 -I~'" .. , . l I , .. , " .-..
0 ' ~ \ -I'! T O,/3(}/ ;'7 2,273.75 bai p.n. 2~l!1.4. 2::; f ,. , . t.: pay on ,{ If S2G . .
..
I : I 12 '1177 2$414·.25 hal on P.o. -o-f! II 535 i~/~/~!, pi 'H i i i 1,7 -*I~ " .... ------
...""". ":I II! A ~r' ~n'nr:O
tPU~{L~~~~ )b~l NU~'>LJLB' . -~i~M ~ t~p;~{ TlON' . f\' . DISCOUNT
1, Th~ ~ity of Carlsbad will not be re~ponsi.b_I.~.!-%o/J.i~es or services f.urnished l offlc!als or employees rl~ a fdr2i1Bst""or~r-[_ siQnEl, by the authorized pur·! SUB-TOTAL
chaSing agent, ~ .' ~ ~"'\ . 4 .... '
2. Th~;.fight;is re~erved to ~iJ.ri.gbl~~hf(~~~~n::·m~rk'e --~nd to chaq~e the dif!~rence,V TAX o the Vendor In the event that deliveries !'Ire not m9...~.l:!e-t+me-sl'Jecifimj-rn
he bid or
3. Whenever a del ivery is reiected the Vendor shall be notified and given reason TOTAL AMOUNT 1.:" . ,'I -: .• ~, •
for the re'ection. Allre'ected deliveries shall be held at Vendor's risk. and he I J sha II bear the expense ot remova I.
4. We reser-ve the right 'to take cash disco~tnts H paid within 30 days of receipt of
statement. .
Authorized By \
5, ALL PURCHASES F.-O.B. CARLSBAD.
City Maoag~r
Signed_-'-... --o'i~~---_--~_~-------------
Purchasing Agent
G
SHIP:
TO
ADDRESS
CITY &
STATE
Item ,,',
t
",
..
.. "
"
.,
PURCHAS~~·R~Q.l:IISITION
CITY OF 'CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Date Needed
RECOMMENDED VENDOR
City of Carlsbad (Planning Dept.)
1 200 Elm A v en u e
LEVANDER. PARTRIDGE & ANDERSOa, ide.,
336 Tejon Place ADDRESS ____________________________ ~
Carlsbad CA 92008 , CITY &
STATE Pa 19S YerrJe;;" Estg '~I;;$ ~
l.f\ ,.c.U/~:· l':: i..j J .~; f .:.-i.,,;; {.;'
Quantity Unit Of Description Account Unit Amount Measu,re Number Price
Professional services for "
,,': ~"C' ":':' , ~ :,. "
;.,: conauc'c 1 n9 an t.conoml C Impact
" ;" Report on the Lane Calavera . " n I I I;;> I'la;::. I.C! r I Cl. II •
Resolution No. 5061
l.U n t,; nH; t,;
dated f'·lay 3, 1977 65-852-05 19 $13 !;(.~j.J ~ \}
J 1_ u!) \ .,',:: c/.· : ---, " 1-' ./ j ,',
/' I
, > •
. . ~, :
"
. ,
.,'
I'"",,' >"
:<':
:'
,",
t1: r.<l Ii ~rP, r=:<~~ ,A C'>E ,&'~. ~ ~
!'=" IJ ~ 1~11 1 J"=-~ <,lJ it: Uh<Ulti~ -' ,
.. r , ()~lt:r\ ii, '''(, F ~ n~n A A fR>. r .,-' I=~ ....... ....,.~V~IlJ Ie ~~L !/V~ ltj~ ':b~
lItem .
,
.\1el'\(lor'& Name .-I~-' ',~{i~.'"~J Price Item VendOr's Name
.
/r-}./ --
/=!,equlliitioned BY.:f){'.I~(;'~~~"-", ./~ Appr?..'?ed By:! I , Ordered By: -, " 7 ,~. -"~~:~::::j..",".-!+:'--r, ,~~ .• ,--",c-.~-~-~~,..'" (r-) /.~ I :lf~~~. ,-~~_._ '_ \"" I", ,I" P12nn1nQ ~men~ , .... _;::/-,:~ 1. '-I.., L '-_ : . -
.
i t 1 I ~.
DATE:
.. ' l' Y _6_-~1_4-_7_; ____ •
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Alienue
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
(714) 729-1181 '
c (, (
.' NO.
Vendor No. _________ _ REQUEST FOR WARRANT
The Director of Finance is hereby requested to draw a warrant payable
To: a lEVANOER~ PARTRIDGE &,ANDERSON~ ERe.
3 3 6 T (,~j on P 1 ace
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 92074
(213) ;)73 ... 6919
7J
IN PAYMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
Professional Services Conducti'ng
tC anOll'll C .l. mpa c":.. l~e po rt)
Lake Calavera Hills Master' P1an,
, .
! rw u u gnu u n e .:S, I ';) I .t •
r\~::>u I U 'VI Ufl f'IO. ::>uo I
AgreemeQtd~~. May' 3, 1971 65-852-05'19
-., ;;.
.. -.~.~ .... '".
, .'
~,' .
':.. :.,~: ..,:, . , "
-';"?::~f~'--•• t:_ .•
~ -••. '1'~ .,.
• -.;~. '_":cO: , .... -',-' ...... , ....... . ":" :':1.'" . ... '," -,:' .
.... -----------------------'--11---------,1-----------'" .. ~~~ ; . .-,l;...-~~ .. >. : ...... _ a~ .. _-•• ,
" . ,,':: '.. .
• t" •• ,' ..
TOTAL
Requested By: Approved By:
.. -,~.
•
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
June 6, 1977
217
Invoice #502
City of Carl sbad
1200 Elm Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Mr. Allen Meacham
INVOICE
•
336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
For economic consultation services through June 3, 1977 --Calavera Hills:
D. Levander
53.75 hours @ $40.00 $2,150.00
D. Brown
63.5 hours @ $12.50
Travel Expenses
Other Expenses
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Thank you •
. ~~er
DHL:jb
793.75
120.00
20.00
$3,083.75
economics and development consultants
RECEIVED
JUN 91~17
CIT_V. OE CARLSBAD
Planning Depa~ment
• •
MEMORANOUM
levander, partridge & anderson, inc. 336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
TO Mr. Allen C. Meacham June 6, 1977
FROM Dale H. Levander
DATE
# 217
SUBJECT PROGRESS REPORT--LAKE CALAVERA HILLS ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY
This is the first monthly progres~ report, in support of our first invoice,
as required by contract. We have started the assignment and are well into
data collection activities. We will be meeting with you and Mr. Hagaman
for our first work session on June 16. To date, we have experienced no
unusual delays or problems and have received excellent cooperation from
department heads and otherCi ty staff.
1. PROJECT INITIATION
This task is complete, involving with-my meetings with you and developer
representatives on May 10 and a subsequent meeting with the developer on
May 26. My May 10 meeting also included a physical inspection of the site.
We have received a variety of material from you and the developer, in the
form of maps, reports, etc.
2. DEPARTMENT HEAD INTERVIEWS
To date I have spent approximately 2-1/2 days interviewing department heads.
Approximately one additional day will be required to complete this task on a
preliminary basis. Interview notes have been and are belng submitted to each
person for review and further comment. We plan to submit preliminary findings
and conclusions to these individuals for their review prior to report finali-
zation.
3. HOUSING PROJECT INFORMATION
We have compiled extensive information on housing activity in the County and
North County areas, covering new single-family and condo projects, single-
family and condo resales, and apartment rents. We have personally inspected
several local projects. We also have obtained secondary data on population
and -housing unti growth, resident demographics, etc. We will be in a position
to present preliminary marketability conclusions at our meeting with you and
Mr. Hagama,n SCheduled for June 16.
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
economics and development consultants •
economics and development consultants
•
4. COST AND REVENUE FACTORS levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
•
336 tejon place, palos verdes estates, california 90274, (213) 373-6919
Our department-head interviews and your most recent budgets provide valuable
information here. In addition, we have obtained a wide variety of" statisti-
cal material on other-city experience, plus are drawing on our files for cost-
revenue factors. We will have preliminary judgments on these matters at our
second meeting, not scheduled yet but to follow our first meeting by one to
two weeks.
5. SCHEDULE
We are basically on schedule. We will prepare a detailed completion schedule
reflecting current status, for review at our meeting of June 16.
levander, partridge & anderson, inc.
economics and development consultants economIcs and development consultants
•
ADDRESS
. ""-.......... ,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE.~ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
729.1181
A Ic. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
rJ.->0~' MIt! G (}JVn IVI},; /I -' Ar1./J cJ /;':-yf,?/ --
!p/ /2.C?1-I
I /
" -. -
. ..
--. ,
< ,~
_ U.LUl.£.: TOTAL Va: 'S
,
, .
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (5)
, '.
, I
CITY OF CARlSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PARTIAL PAYt~Erl.T
DEPARTMENT: Plfmnil1~ Tl". DATE:
P A n1 E N T TO: Levander. Po }"~~\"'i"dgp . '~l Andpl"e;on. .inc. P • O. No.
ADDRE.SS: 336 Teiol'l Place Amount: 1::L40f'U')O
Palos Verde Estat~, Ca. 90274 Pay: 2.£1,14.25
Vendm" No. 20088 B a 1. 0 n P.O. _____ ~~O:.--____ _
Payment from 65-852-0519 Acct. Uo.
Dept. Acct. No. Invoice Total Discount Pay Amount
Pl anning orr. 65 ... 852-0519 2~414.25
Professional ser\f'~ces for EcoE!lomic Impact on lake CalavaV'a H111s Haster Plan Resolution 5DS1
/ll"':-nYt.4"1 ..... ~.t'" ~f(~n ~''''''''~' #>t ... ""''''t.''\.~~ /~?
& .... 7 .......... ~ ---' .. 11 '" -, .......... J ~t"f~ ... f ... 'J. .. , •• u .. _t~ ...... li_
Payment no~ 1 -3,033.75
II II 2 ... 5~878.15
It II '3 ... 4·~750.00
/I II lj, .. 2~273.75
II 11 5 -...b.9J!. 2Ufi ria 1 ) invoice no. 535
contract amt. 18,400.01)
Purchase Qrde~~ J.043J. Closed \tJlth this paymel'lt.
-.---
Title: . . '
By:
STAFF !'JASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION
COMJ.'vlENTS BY 'LAKE CALAVER,A HILLS ASSOCIATES
COVER PAGE:
Para. 4
Para. 5
Pgs.I-7
P. 7
P. S'
The draft master plan was submitted, accep'ted and started
through staff review Barch, 1977. Sel\tetllf"hcs
Staff admits that they may not have done more ,than a _f)
cursory review due to 1I1ack of time,lI. ? r-e..vt.e t.U oT
STAFF' REPORT • 5"/?t.-f'..p r~F0r-i-
Covers history, general plan information, major planning
considerations and form. Forl'Vlc:tf-?
B. Map & Legal Description (Graphic)
-
Comment: We feel that OS areas should be included on all
exhibits for better visualization of what land is developable
vs. what ,is open space. Since it is 20/25% of total land, it
is significant. -mer-I!! a-f"e r~$ -tor-d~""eat-~rctrt.HCS-
-Hit:> e f'll!;! I 6 n at-..fJ>r 6£' t9i'\ S C<:u::'". e .. ' C. Land Uses (Graphic) ,-, r---
S' aff Recommenda-t.-LOi.1":
Schools/sites are not 'open space and set aside for a
specific use -not open space -should the district choose
not to utilize any of these sites, it would be deve'loped
then according to its surrounding land use. (Appl.ies to
Village A,' M, & S). MC\~<2 0-5 ~~ rever-SlO'1 To adJ<1\,1A' t.1-q \ 'Zc~U1-9 /6 o/~,~~er 6L)hdIVI5"/~Vl. ~..J c. Why eliminate the added equestrian uses on H, I, Uj Z-l,
Z-2? \\(E)/t \S ncrt"" (!h:p\ctWled \-Ii\. Mr· loS', e-( -~ o. k'. f
J 1+ p~Vl&es -f'~ r e~ ()e~Ia..-1I\ • -, "
-.gJ.. Who moved parks? They were set one year ago with P & R
Dept. to prov~e maximum community uses and access. ~66't'l~ ::rve~ (~(9-.. P:tR.. ~3ree5 W't'tt1 ~G.$.
e. Reference to waste water reclamation and percolation
fields should be held in abeyance until action by City
Council o~ treatment facility location. IJ6\ C<?fl5/d~i'r(9v\ cotk 'thIS nF.
f. Lake Calavera Hills would agree to'set aside the site near
the lake in Village R but it is not required to dedicate
it or SUP.RlY(i,t free. P~\I!$ 6\-'~.;> p-c. c:'c:u1. reQ()lre lWdre~ .• fVb('G ~ \fll9~ E/elMeWr, · I
g. We think that this is essential to our diversity of life
style plans for Lake Calavera Hills'. Is there another
way to achieve our goanl? We vlant equestrian zones.
(lOS)" t~ ~cft ~pfQ.me~ lV1 MP ..
Open space areas already exceed the requirement. Why add
more: Especially in face of lack of money to mai~ta~n. 1
Pin this down exactly -no float on this matter.jf~~~ ~n ~~ c:ur-e flItIVlIWlClIflL:'# Cc:t'vl n9f.Ut i'f2.. ~ie wl#l Jo-si-lf',ab,~ &
Village E can be expanded to the west provided it 1S
understood that this project will only support 10 acres
~C-LR-q J~~ ff/& ~
'-
PAGE 2
x-~
P. 9
",..--rJe>T QCe~n:\ I ~~ t ~ ~ .eefo;t
of commercial when analysed against surrounding regional
and neighborhood commercial. A C-2-Q zone specifically ~
will allow heavy density residential uses on all floor S
~levels including the ground floor, a good case coulo-De ~
made core development activities (i.e~, senior citizen,
government housing, and support activities such as day (7,
care centers, medical, R.V. service and parking) . 6
j. Villages G & J -'O.K. to Rl-SOOO -perhaps we should
specify that this should be either cluster housing or
zero-lot line developmen-t. C~"&Ea..' (eiter-.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
Village 0 -should remain RDM-Q to allow future planning
and city review. ~, ~k~. e-\ _~6't9D(~:= ~l\a..\C2\f'E.r &.
Village P -should it be decided to split in'to two
areas, -the west slope should be left ROM-Q to allow
maximum future planning and review. !SO WDO\<\ ~-(-~~fVD)'.
UJl\i:? ' Village U & 'x -stay away R-E t We analySed slopes -
the so-called steep slopes are generally in open space
area adjacent·o...S '(.!'> belVlj used Cbt ~ ~ a~r-8:tfJe ... ~ ct':9LMte~ ~l"" ~-E:...
Village V -Is compa-tible to have R-1-7S00 zoning. A
lower density does not solve the problem of rolling
terrain which can be minimally di¥turbed with proper
planning. ~-l-"7S~ d<s~ ,tncT MQbll.s~ qVlvtt,""c:t.e~-r b'ts/a? Sl~pe IS eU6~(;\ -f2; re:rut~ Ic:t~er-lo't 5~ , I
Village Z-3 (SD~&E easement) O. K. ~s open space. ' , Off: ..
D. Open Space 'Programs .;
3. Recommendation-
a. If community park is moved for logical reason, O.K. -
b~t if moved to avoid major costs to city for streets
and improv~ments -let's work it ou~ to retain present
location. K~~~ -to M4\1e -'S~~ (_c£t,~ ~-r-ImprzNe~ qre be~1tJq t-E?Q:!)~ .,
b. Neighborhood park was lo~ted as near S.E. corner for
specific reasons.
1. to 'include existing Sycamore grove and flat area
with creek in it and endangered plant species.
2. to better serve areas outside Lake Calavera Hills
for future utilization. n-J~&$Vl (t ndafe.... -r-<::=> d. S ,
&6 /}.J-~ ~tt.te ? r
PAGE 3
P. 12
P. 13
P. 14
c. o. S. will either be all public or all private -~
need fur-th~r discussion with?staff on this. Why I
d. O. S. should remain ~n~on O. S. map. Added ~pace
does not add to its usefulnes.s.. Presently exceeds the
o. S. req;uir~.ment by 20%. 11/1 vh t14 U WI ( DG)(1'+ (J~~? -.
E. Specific Development ptovisions (Graphic)
.. -.. ··1-4":"3 .Concur with Staff .. 6) K
F.
d.
G.
Public and Quasi-Public Facilities
1-2-3.-:Concur with S'taff. 0 K .
Location of fire station and possible branch library -
these items were excluded in the initial draft.on staff
recommendation .. Why now wish to include ·them? Locatlori <:::>
of thes~ structures could be set aside in the Village E
to bpvtt~\~~~, ~~~ ~t~v~eed arises.
Circulation (Graphic)· /
Concur with Staff. ~~
H. Additional Public Facilities
Concur wi·th Staff. at--
1.
J.
Phasing of Development (Graphic)
Concur wi·th staff ·excep·t regarding what: cons·titutes phasing. ?
We ·think the graphs included in the MP 150-A better reflect t!'J
the phasing and requirements of public utilities and facil-?
i ties than the Phasing & Development Standards on p.!.ge 19. 2cr I
It would be better if some flexibility were available to
allow deviation from phasing to permit better or complete
opening of property such as extension of College to Elm
.t9 providp. transport loop, etc. I J . At-J AP_ v,f lage ffkt~l VI. c:r 5q wee ~s q, nt"t ( IV I •
Topography -.J
Concur with Staff. 0 r-
K. Grading
Comment: At this time, it is almos·t impossible to set up
wi·th any specificity the C!egree of grading that will be ~ ~~e~ done in any village. This grading plan will be reviewed ~
..LJ . ...I-: w:a~ at the time of filin the Tentative Map and aga.in on fillng ~r \~ n ,l the Final Map_ Lake Calavera Hl s ee s 0 additional
definiti~nAshoUld be required at this time.
J1Je C"O<:f€ r-erUtres rf;
PAGE 4
P. 14
P. 16
L. Land Use
a. Village dev.elopment
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. & 9.
10.'
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Village A -concur with staffc/~
Village B -concur with staff except on issue 9f
Bike Trail -on a paved dedicated street -\~ld4
mean redesign of entire subdi vi sion. W IB-1'11~t1 ( , .,.
Village C --concur with staff 6K A?
Village, D --concur wi th staff~-f'1frll/ifflUht CJtlE~'fy If' '
Village E -concur with staff provided that at least
10 acres have the alt~rnate use of he~vy pePfi~y
core residential use .flI1et'~e 61<c.orrl d~lt1it/~f')
Village F -concur with staff if real reason to " ~
allow more central core development in Village E ~~
and no't to avoid improvement costs of Elm ,& Tamarack.
Village G -slope miscalculated (@ 19%)! Disagreew~~~
wi th staff on comment of preservation C?f agricul-I~ IT l'
tural use. This is heresay and is not based on '
knowledge of the proposed uses of, reclaimed water ..
Obvious a't'tempt to slant thinking of planninq CJn 4Jhctt.'fZ
comIDIssion and city council. By zoning P.C., it
intends property within Lake Calavera Hills to be
used as community use for people, not ,agriculture.
(Revision for agricultural pres~rve absolutely
unacceptable). 8eit-e-r-e lead w ~ctt ~ ~~ S~YYI(J-4
Village H & 'r -in an attempt at offering'various
development opportunities, these sloped lands
were designated ,to provide split level houses
with equestrian oriented uses with direct access
open space. Doing away with' the,E use and suggesting
agricul tural rEJJserve unacc~ptable. _ l
"(E)'fno't d~f1e<J 1 ,~ Ie ... ( ... '12.. o~? A ~ ... '6eV2 CLp¢V'~.
Village J -unacceptable comments as to agricul-
tural reserve made in Villa~e G applied,to this
property. MIJ1Hl1tlt\ .. O~? J.\j'" See a..bcwe)
Village K -concur with staff 0 t:-MrVl ,~ eev;tq \
Village L -concur with staff 01<""-M,yt I at::-?
Village M -this village is set aside for school
use. If not used for school, it will revert to
use by owners to surrounding land use; de7+gnation
as open space 'unacceptable. AJ~ -to C(Clt'l"\Y.
Village N -site was set with P & Rand Bcnool
district to provide joint uses of the school OK..
grounds and park. ' •
Village 0 -R-5000 PUD acceptable no agriculture
reserve acceptable. This village,not adjacent to
community core. ~-S'ee ~.
Village P -conc~r~ith staff if allowed to set
the division line between P-l and P-2.
Uhr-k wrt '" s-f~.
PAGE 5
P. 17
P. 18
. 0JM/--O~.x: , hq ve. wee eft 111 W1~ ?
17. Vlllage Q -generally agree wlth staff. We do '~
feel i:h,is sho,uld be left for apar'tments potential I
or multi-family. Some flexibility ,is desired here.
18. Village R -concur with staff except for proposed
R-2 village. Lake Ca1.avera Hills suggests setting
aside of park si·te bu·t no 'dedicatio~ Not required -
already meet Quimby Act. regs. ~ ff~ ()jw p~~ f9 ?
19. __ ]illage S -agree wi·th setting aside of' 5r. High 1 ,{)OIJ'~c~ite but l1Qt zoned open space, since site will ~t1:2 revertto owners if school di's·trict does not use n._ ~ , I it. Use to be in conformity I'i-t:-A surrounding 'land ~r~ I uses at time of reversion. ~~~
20. Village T -, concur with staf~~ .
21. Village U -do not agree with starY recommendation.?
Staff does not have grasp of what types of devel-
opmen·t can go on hillside lots. This should be 6,.
available for equestrian uses. Retain R-l-l. R-6'~'~.
22. Village V -do not agree with staff recommendation. '2 R-I--IO ,000 ·too res·trictive._ Might consider ..... RDN P..::1~"'~
c cluster housing on tlils parcel in 'tha·t i·t has some-' ",<>1
very good knolls for cluster dev,elopment wi th view.
23. Village W -do not concur with staff suggestion -
all slope approximations are inaccurate and cannot
be applied to all the tEroperty( in each village. '
Retain R-I-IO, 000. Cob\CW"~ 51S-Pe5 ? .?
24. Village X -agree with low density -~ot R-E zonek6J~
25. Village Y -park to remain where i·t is -to save ~ I
Sycamore grove and f la t creek area .~.:!> 6-2::> .
26. Village Z-l -re·tain R-I-IO,OOO. -not R-l-l/2 acre.tvh.v?
27. Village Z-2 -R-I-I/2 acre O.K. if with equestrian I I I
use permitted.O~· I
28. Village Z-3, -SDG&E easement· to: open space O.K. ocf!.:-
P. 18 b. It is unfortunate that staff .feels that the zoning uses
outlined by the city do not allow lIinnovative!! cOI).cepts.
This paragraph obviously points out that staff has not
discussed or asked Lake Calavera Hills what it meant
by these statements nor 'has staff reviewed the equestrian
-policy on use sUbm:f,.ted·, the CC & R 0.:J open space mai~
tenance pl~:l11. tu~,~ jO~ b ~~ _ 2ott-Wl-8 7 (?
)Jguj Zou1 e. It is also a reversal of policy to OUX-mind of what "'?
I ~~ ~ the MP is supposed to accomplish -if the ctty zo?ing-
I? ~(\\~~ ordinances do not allow for innovative creative design, -t~~V\ eld 2Z>11e.. housing types and land uses, perhaps the'y should be
looked at and not an MP that must adhere to them. ,
. ' ,
/'\ ? S· h" . 150" d d Lv '~e ~ t-" lnce, t e Clty lS saylng MP-lS lna equate an too C
detailed, &hy so much. detailed crltlclsm of the MP l50-A c
~proposal ~hen all that was done was to delineate
PAGE 6
P. 20 D.
l/~~I~Vl-\:.OoV'l'i IVl.tp(ernec1t \ fJ'€~ +~ he li1
within the 40-50 acre "core" a more finite zoning AA p.
arrangement? ..If staff had discussed wi·th us ·the p'r .
core area, ·they would have realized-the il)tent ori-
ginally instead of making their quickie ~lf way ,
assessment of the "core area". .
1. Zone changes after MP approval should follow along 1)/
to development standards in effect· al the time of ()1'--
development or rezone.-concur with staff.
The only proper e dedicated.shall be the
park s~tes. No other' Lake Calavera.Hills will set
aside other pu lC service areas, but Will not
dedica·te.. 24% of the property given to the city is
Wl6ft-~'
CC M4y ~Vlr-e
lNWt"e. 01'" dOM/,
/ enough!
P. 21 3.
3. Minimum increment by village plus schools or other{)l/ ?
public areas -i.e., parks, etc, to be included. J,-I
Recommendation:.concur with staff except for specific
inclusion of hoUsing for elderly, safety facilities,
parksi library sites to be set aside -not dedicated
cultural amenities whatever they are not be specified
at this time, since would'be reviewed' under IlQII zone
review. UJ<lolc\ vt& be ~obJ~ -k> reI/lew.' .
M. Economic Impact: generally concur with staff. Paragraph
F misses point of Proposition 13 altogether. Tax payers
didn't vote for lower property ta,xes to have the bill shifted
to user and capital charges. "'Thats t.\.')~<tf-~~ ~. .
Paragraph E -parks and open space do not become-adVerse D~~5 IL2tO$.burden on city if a OS & Parks maintenance district es·tablished. r(, IStaff recommends rough grad~ of parks. ~ho pays for it? Who
P. 23
maintains area agains·t erosion, and, damage? The Cl ty wiLt own
the land. D~ve.(~~\ + ~::SCc:R:;f'-e. . ,-~ We
N. Special -Development Re'gs: S'taff has misinterpreted the ·~/eM. t-....
a·ttempts of Lake Calavera Hills at setting up zonlng to"" allow
maximum market adjustment flexibility while still glvlng city
total control over develo ment by using in effect architec-
tura iew under the Q zone a . areas e
than R-l. Additlona, n review through
/\ J the PUD ordinance to city satisfa.ctian and desires.
l.-<Xl e '-ec1'O 11-'e5 #'VI6-t-e. .
Recommendation: do not concur. See zoning as requested by
Lake Cala~e7a Hills, no R-E zone. Must have equestrian areas.
YJ "'1-1'"2-~I <bPI!? c:::riler/q "
P. 24,25 O. Public Facilities -concur with staff except J & K. Fire
P. 26
df~~O~~i~~ an~~ary okt;:> be reserved but no·t dedicated.
P. Private Main~~ance: ~o no~ concur with staff recommenda-
tion. After much study and legal opinion, the only cost
support effective method of financing construction, main-
tenance', and control of the~park, open space, trflils,
;:' ~U~liC ROW'~ld~:r~~t
, "
PAGE 7
....
district to equalize the expense burden on all homeowners
who will be the main users of the parks and open space.
Staff states that without formation of "this or some other
support form, the open space and parks become a burden on
the City of Carlsbad .
A Homeowner's Association is recommended by staff". If a
Homeowl!er's Association is the desire of the city, the
only public open space, trails, parks other than those
dedicated at inception will be private and be restricted
to the residents of Lake "Calavera Hills only. This would
be necessary to limit the liability of the Homeowner's
Association. UJ~y ? ""
If the city wants to use these spaces and parks, it only
seems logical that they would be willing to titurlarly
head an open space, parks maintenance district to insure
the quality of assessmen"t f use land safe-ty to all ci "tizens
of Carlsbad.
We request an indepth discussion of this issue with staff,
PC and CC.
P. 27 Q. Phasing (Text) -although staff makes some good points,
the fact of the matter is that new conditions heretofore " -1" ~, w ho~ot ~sired have been thrown in to the Phasing. Specifically, ¥1 librarles, rire stations and other public facilities were I . not requested prevlously. _
It is understood ln development that logical progression is
required in development. Such public facilities as sewer,
~later, s-treets, follow a logical progre$sion of development.
To jump allover the property is inconceivable.
Lake Calavera Hills feels that the original MP150 and" its
11 odd phases was simply overkill and depending on needs and
desires of both the city and" Lake cala~e,ra HilJs was simply
too restrictive and cumbersome. BuT -Hlci:\6 CO~cL\ ~ r-elU/~,
h Therefore, the phasing was limited to 3 general phases
W~ V5~~ with sQ.ecific estimated time frames_ based on predicted
" -\ market and estimates supplied in graphic form as to the ~e ~e-( interpreta"tion of market demand, public services I processing
" time, construction time and final sales and habitation of
the phases. This study more clearly projects all the needs
of Lake Calavera Hills as to phasing and when key items" are
required regardless of where the development take$ place
they will have to be provided.
If s"taff and city want con-trolled growth, then come up "
with Ordinance. If yod want growth consistent "with demand
and facilities, this adequately covered in MP150-A, if you
will use the graphs as in"dicative of how it happens in
PAGE 8
reality. Staff proposed phase schedule is overkill. _&J~ ?
P. 28 & 29 Special Requirements: Lake Calavera Hills has reservations'
over concepts of special,regulations. The following list
of special regulations was provided to the city for their
P. 30
P. 31
1J.C1.-review: <f15~~ '-A. Self supporting open space and parks district
Landscaping and slope control plan
Architectural control committee guidelines
IJtft +hvt~ B. t l11eNld,( --C • n CC & Rs'
Equestrian use and control guidelines '
Grading guideline outline per village
Public facilities required (i.e., water sewer, etc.)
Somehqw many of these documents were overlooked by staff.
Almost all the questions raised, Lake Calavera Hills feels,
have been adequately covered in these documents and through
the attempt of providing diverse types of zoning, yet hav-
ing allowed flexibility in future developmen't without the
necessity fpr MP am~2d~,ts every ~so p!t.e'n. l/c:5€.$fI't c:rcvtf'"e-6.:; ,sr~ ('~IVIeVl<l(I-C(/~S r
S. Mi tigation Mea,sures -concur with stafb ~
T. Landscape Plan: concur with staff except in specifics:
A. The criteria for length of underpasses is to get
under the road -
B. Bikeways shall c~espond~ stAe~~ ~ades. No more
than 8%+ 770 1-6 ~~
C. Design criteria for rest areas, etc., were set forth wk e.t-e ~ in 'trails study, Peridian. Who pw for insllran.ce,
maintains them if they are public?, §ur~~y not ~~9t
the people in Lake Calavera Hills. J.;J.t;'f df£o5~ VI~,
D. Minimum width criteria for open space is too restric-
tive. There will be open space as narrow as 20-100 Whar dm4-~feet. Restrictions of open space is ridiculous -
/'\L? '(does a 20 foot access open space have to be increased
f..../:::;'? , to 200 feet?) (Tr 76-12, example?)
P. 32
P. 33
E. If there is no city support of open space and parks
A I m?_intenance, we sugges·t all openJPace ~~ J?r.j;,vate. J we CT;st:~ ~t> (,u~ 1:5 1=V.b{IC!:. ~ wttcp\ (S prrvaJ\'e_
~ Sign Program:, concur, witn staff on all items except more
flexi ilit should be allowed in temporary directional signs.
JJ19t£? 's¢m lI"q '. ler-' C(/Vl
V. Intent and Purpo~: concur wlth s
Subsec,tion B: Lake Calavera Hill--'::;s":-l-~...;;....
permitted within the city zoning
PUD overlay, great latitude for maginative
control by staff and city thro~ h review is
,/tJJesre d~ \'tat-c~wtf(Y.'
iJaf. '~ 4fr;' -cod e I~'+.
• .0 '. ' ..
PAGE 9
P. 34
Subsection C: Orderly, coordination has been plann~9 for
to, provide for all necessary Public Facilities. ~~ ~
Subseotion D: With an indepth understandin~,of the ~
{
graphic display and timing for the various phases, it
seems to Lake Calavera Hills ,that more than adequate
phasing considera'tions have been met and still allmvs
flexibility to meet market demand with various product
);116~1~~4Y..: r-ere4. , '
III. Staff Recommenda'tions ' a.~ a.rf~veJ. by C. L
a.l. concur
2. changes a upon by Lake, Calavera Hills and
,City shalr reflected.
3. Final Master Plan returned to PC within 60 days afte~
approval. Need further discussion on this. W tt-v (
4.
5.
b.
Any other modifications 15 day~. fJJ4? Q .1"
Certification: concur with staff.~7 ~ IO,C{CNV CS
Summary of changes: ~~ ~ /1_
See preceding comments. 'l ~SV\ #
"
. .
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (5)
, "
I I
,
, ,
j
;; ' ........
-~ ..
~ t) ,
€f2'
, ' ,
, 1 • -, -,: -• " , •
• (, '0.' •
! ~ , ~
""':'Ll "-, 0., ''''I"GO , 1..' "l;' ,
, "
" '~ .... ".-, ,"
, !:
: l' "\
~ ;:"11 .', , . .
'".'
I'.\.
", ," -,:-~,. "'""':-"'":: '-.~-,.~"-""",:"-r'·-'~ ,r-~~-""'"""""...r,,.,.....,-..,"~~~...,-r~-~~'_~
,',. -'~~-:;;~~'-;;::::,-~~T~~7:-", ;:, ~',~""G~:'~-~, :: ~'~\~.' ':.~ ::!,_~~:~
'/-.z <" q', '1
{) , "! _~ , t , _../
',,'
" , ",,-
" "
, "
, '~,
'" '., "'1
-... " .,'j
, "
: ".
, " ) ,~