Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-05-17; City Council; 5059-2; Sewer moratorium updatei, C CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. ^ &^^ -^JLjrf^(LrttAj^-fcjL Initial: DATE: May 17. 1977 Dept.Hd. t C. Atty. DEPARTMENT; Public Works C. Mgr. Subject: SEWER MORATORIUM UPDATE Statement of the Matter Since the April 14, 1977 report, which was updated by oral informa- tion to Council at the April 19, 1977 meeting, staff has accumulated information to give as complete a picture of the situation as possible to Council. The attached staff report and exhibit will outline the various projects and applications in process and update information concerning current readings in Carlsbad's flow through the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Exhibit Staff report. Recommendation No Council action necessary. Council Action: 5-17-77 It was agreed that discussion of sewer allocation be continued to a workshop session and further that Councilman Packard and Councilwoman Casler be appointed to work with the staff on a sewer allocation sytem, after which a report would be prepared for the Council for discussion at the workshop session. MEMORANDUM May 12, 1977 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director RE: Sewer Allocations In order to develop a sewer allocation system which could be analyzed and discussed by the City Council for possible use in the event any immediate additional sewer capability is available, staff has gone through the following process. A number of department heads including the Public Works Administrator, City Engineer, Fire Chief, Director of Building and others met to generally brainstorm types of criteria which possibly could be incorporated into a sewer allocation system. The purpose of this session was not to develop the system, but rather to attempt to be as comprehensive as possible in developing such a system. Next we compared the criteria developed at that meeting and either dropped duplications or consolidated as many items as possible in order to minimize duplication. The next step was to group the various criteria into some reasonable categories which had a relationship to each other. Several members of the original group then met to discuss this process and developed four distinct categories for the sewer criteria, the four categories being: Project Status Criteria Community Benefits Criteria Sewer Criteria Environmental Criteria It is realized that there are numerous ways to group and list the various criteria; in fact, we may have overlooked some criteria. However, after our discussions we felt this method to be a relatively easy system to deal with. Our next step was to list each of the four categories in terms of what we considered their importance as compared to one another. Our assumption in doing this was that the first priority of the City Council was to respond immediately to possible hardship situations related to proposed projects which were stopped at various points due to the sewer moratorium. We felt in the short- run that the Project Status Criteria category would tend to pull Page 2 Memorandum to Mr. Bussey May 12, 1977 Re: Sewer Allocations a heavier weight than the other three categories. This is based on the assumption that within a very short time there would be additional sewer capability available for the City to deal with. The other categories are listed in the order of their importance as we view them. It is our further feeling that on a longer term basis over the next year that the Project Status Criteria category should not be rated on top of the four categories but rather would take a lesser seat being listed after Environmental Criteria category, if not in fact dropped from the allocation system incorporating perhaps one or two items within another category. We feel that there are several methods of using this data on a project by project basis which need to be fully discussed. One method would be to assign a specific number to each of the categories which would be the maximum weight or points that could develop through its criteria, i.e., since there are four categories, each could contain a possible 25 points equaling 100 points overall as a maximum score or each category weighted on the basis of importance allowing perhaps 35 or 40 points for the top categories and 10 - 15 points for the bottom. In addition, each of the criteria within the categories could be assigned a portion of that number of percentage thus providing a point system which could be dealt with. We fully recognize that any such system has a certain degree of subjectivity to it, and therefore could lead to strong disagreements as to how it is done. We have developed a tentative point system which we have incorporated in the following lists. This is not highly formalized at this state but essentially it uses the rating system as discussed above. We have assigned a possible 40 points out of 100 to the Project Status Criteria category; 30 points to the Community Benefits Criteria category; 20 points to the Sewer Criteria category and 10 points to the Environmental Criteria category. We have attempted to phrase the criteria to create a yes or no response. We have also attempted to minimize any duplication of individual criteria between the categories. Our next step in attempting to develop a rating system was to require a specific number of positive responses to the criteria within each category, i.e., in the Project Status Criteria category we felt that at least six positive responses out of nine possible would be required to obtain the 40 points; in the Community Benefits Criteria category seven out of ten; in the Sewer Criteria category three out of four and in the Environmental Criteria category five out of five. We felt this system would be relatively easy to use compared to many more complicated weighting systems requiring percentages, plus or minus points and scales which tend to get rather complicated to administer. Page 3 Memorandum to Mr. Bussey May 12, 1977 RE: Sewer Allocations In addition, we feel there are several items which the Council may wish to consider which do not conveniently lend themselves to a rating allocation system. One area of possible consideration would be the Council allocate a percentage of any additional sewer capability by the major land uses such as commercial, industrial and residential prior to rating the individual projects. In addition, Council may wish to consider only allocating a portion of available capability in any given time span until we have permanent new capability developed. This would tend to spread whatever development would be permitted over a longer time frame and not use all of the available capability immediately. It should be noted that this system assumes projects that have approved alternative sewer systems are not part of this process. We are suggesting that a sewer allocation system is for an immediate response to additional sewer capability being available within a year and also our additional feeling that this system would not be valid for a time expansion beyond a year when additional capability may become available. We feel that any system of a longer term suggests that the City develop some form of growth management. Our staff is not now working on a growth management system; however, for the longer term the City Council may wish to consider asking the staff to investigate the "state of the art" of growth management systems and report back on their successes and drawbacks. JCH:s 5-12-77 I. PROJECT STATUS CRITERIA 40 POINTS SIX OR MORE POSITIVE RESPONSES OUT OF NINE REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR 40 POINTS. These criteria identify various levels of actions needed to complete proposed projects as well as any City requested actions which may have lead to lengthening the overall processing time. These criteria are considered to have only immediate short term validity in allocating any additional sewer capacity. 1. Are all City approvals complete except for building permits, such as required dedications? 2. Has a school letter been received? 3. Is project outside of the Coastal permit area or have all Coastal Commission approvals been completed if required? 4. Are public utilities available to the site? 5. Has the site been legally graded to at least rough grade? 6. Have there been any agreements with the City requiring performance and capital expenditure by the proponents? 7. If the project has phases, have any of these phases been completed? 8. Are there unique individual project hardships involved? 9. Has the owner of the property been paying City taxes on that property for ten or more years? II. COMMUNITY BENEFITS CRITERIA 30 POINTS SEVEN OR MORE POSITIVE RESPONSES OUT OF TEN REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR 30 POINTS. This criteria provides a basis to judge projects on a community-wide basis with the objective being to maximize overall community improvement. 1. Economic - Will public services be able to adequately handle the proposed project? 2. Does the project provide a positive benefit to the agencies due to its location and development requirements? - 1 - 3. Will the project exceed General Plan policies and objectives? 4. Will the project provide an improvement in the aesthetics of the neighborhood in which it is located? 5. Will the project exceed generally accepted City standards? 6. Will the project provide needed public facilities, such as the opening of Tamarack to El Camino Real, or dedication of park lands, etc.? 7. Will the project provide substantial new sales tax revenue? 8. Will the project provide new permanent employment potential for local citizens? 9. Will the project provide infilling within the community, minimizing public expenditures? 10. Will the project complement City programs to upgrade the Village Area? III. SEWER CRITERIA 20 POINTS THREE OR MORE POSITIVE RESPONSES OUT OF FOUR REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR 20 POINTS. The intent of the criteria is to provide a basis to judge the effect of proposed projects on existing sewer systems and the additional work involved in providing service to the project such as construction of trunk lines. 1. Will the project produce non-damaging or low volumes of effluent? 2. Will the project produce equal or less flow rates as compared to similar uses? 3. Will the project require less than 20% of the available sewer capacity? 4. Does the trunk line servicing the site have capability to carry the project sewer demand? - 2 - IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA 10 POINTS FIVE POSITIVE RESPONSES OUT OF FIVE REQUIRED TO QUALIFY FOR 10 POINTS. This criteria is to provide a basis for judging the effect of a project on the generalized goals of the City. It includes water and energy conservation measures. 1. Energy Conservation - Does the project minimize energy use per existing City Council policies? 2. Will the project use sewer facilities that are on gravity flow? 3. Water Conservation - Will the proposed project incorporate the existing water conservation policies of the City Council? 4. Will the project not have an above normal adverse effect on air quality? 5. Does the project mitigate any effects it has on archaelogical, geological or biological factors? JCHrs 5-12-77