HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-13; City Council; 5158-1; First Phase of Sewer Allocation SystemCITY OF ''RLSBAD
A«ENDA
DATE:September 13, 1977
DEPARTMENT:PLANNING
In i ti a 1 :
Dept. "Hd.
City Atty \f }
City Mgr.
SUBJECT:
FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM
STATEMENT OF THE"MATTER
As directed by the City Council the first phase sewer allocation system is submitted
for City Council adoption. The system was prepared as per instructions from the
City Council upon review of the sewer allocation committees' recommendation,
have been minor editing for clarity, but no substantive changes.
There
The only thing unknown is the closing date for submittal of applications. The
program indicates that the City Council will set this date. However, the City
Council will not be able to determine the exact date until additional sewer capacity
is secured.
EXHIBITS :
City Council Resolution NO.
Exhibit "S" First Phase Sewer Allocation System
-Exhibit "A" Infill area map
Exhibit "B" Application for sewer allocation
Exhibit "C" Questionnaire for applicant's qualifications
Exhibit "D" Rating System Questionnaire
RECOMMENDATION :
It is recommended that City Council Resolution No .be adopted.
Council Action
9-13-77 Following the public hearing it was agreed that the Kelley and
Newell properties be included in the Infill Area Map. It was
the concensus of Council the matter.be returned to staff for
minor changes to the report and revision of .the resolution to
reflect conformance to EQA.
9-20-77
10-25-77
The report was ordered filed for rescheduling at such time as the appeal
on the Negative Declaration has been resolved. - " 'r-"
Council deleted Exhibit "D" and inserted Exhibits "E" and "F"; deleted
"Wood sash window frames" from Exhibits "E" and "F", Section 2; and
adopted Resolution No. 5199, adopting a First Phase Sewer Allocation
System pursuant to Section 18.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
FORM PLANNING 73
o
CO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 138
2 14
Mil i5
g | 8 o- 16
IP § 17> (- cc JL f
0 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION No. 5199
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
A FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM
PURSUANT TO SECTION 18.05.030 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, by the
adoption of Ordinance No. 8073, has added Chapter 18,05 to the
Carlsbad Municipal Code to impose a building permit moratorium
due to the lack of sewer treatment capacity; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.05.030, the
City Council provided for the eventuality that a limited amount
of capacity could become available which would not be of sufficient
quantity to justify lifting the building permit moratorium but
which, nevertheless, could be available to be allocated within
the City's sewer service area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has reached agreement with the
Encinitas Sanitation District to lease approximately seventy-five
thousand gallons of capacity in the Encina Treatment Plant which
will accommodate an estimated 270 equivalent dwelling units in
the City of Carlsbad's sewer service area; and
WHEREAS, said amount of sewer capacity is insufficient to
meet even a portion of the existing current demand for sewer
permits and, therefore, does not justify a complete lifting of
the building permit moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt a fair and
equitable system for allocating the available amount of sewage
treatment capacity pursuant to the authority of Section 18.05.030
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a Council Committee has worked for many weeks in an
/ •
Q
CD
1 §«< S
NT F. BIONDO. J1EY - CITY OF C00 EtM AVENUED, CALIFORNIAui ^- <N <ro cc - a.Z O ' co— I- _J-* h- cc
0
••
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
effort to devise a fair and equitable system to allocate the
capacity and produced a draft Firsf Phase Allocation Sytem; and
WHEREAS, Planning Director has determined that said system
will have a nonsignificant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared and filed. The City Council has
considered said Negative Declaration and finds that the require-
ments of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance
of 1972 and the California Environmental Quality Act have been
satisfied in regards to said system; and
WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing has been held on the system
i
and after full and complete consideration, the City Council has
determined it to be in the public interest to adopt a system
which can be used for a first phase allocation of the lease
I capacity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That pursuant to the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
18.05.030, the City Council hereby adopts the First Phase Sewer
Allocation System as set out in Exhibit "S", attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
3. It is the intent of the Council in adopting said system
to adopt a framework which can be used to fairly and equitably
allocate some or all of the additional sewer capacity which the
City has leased from Encinitas. In adopting this system, the
City Council does not obligate itself to allocate all or any part
of the available capacity pursuant thereto. Prior to approval of
First Phase Sewer Allocation Permits, the Council may find it
2.
*
Q
ert
-1
• OCE; <^ o
du.Q O
2 "*
0 g
IH
"*
'i-o
00
sCD
.M AVENUEALIFORNIAUJ O
8 o"2 <m
3<r
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
necessary to further amend the allocation system. The system is
subject to change and may or may not be used in the future if
additional amounts of sewer capacity become available. Upon
completion of the initial allocation, the Council intends to
reevaluate the system in light of their experience. A judgment will
be made at that time as to whether or not the substance of the
first phase system can be incorporated into an allocation system
for use in the future.
4. As a part of the first phase system, the City Council
has provided special rules which apply to building permits issued
pursuant to the sewer allocations made under this system. Those
rules provide that building permits must be taken out promptly
and processed diligently to conclusion or they will be void. In
so doing, the Council has deviated from the provisions of the
Uniform Building Code. This action is necessitated by the unique
local circumstances resulting from the City's building and sewer
moratorium. In order to insure that the available amount of sewer
capacity is utilized in the best interest of all the citizens of
Carlsbad, the Council wishes to insure that sewer permits, when
issued, will be used as soon as possible and will not be stockpiled
thereby denying other, perhaps more worth, projects an opportunity
to proceed. The Director of Building and Housing is hereby directed
to file a copy of this resolution with the State as necessary to
justify the deviation from the Uniform Building Code necessitated
by special local conditions.
5. The City Council has determined that it is necessary to
collect a special fee as a condition of the issuance of a sewer
allocation permit pursuant to the first phase allocation system.
3.
Q
<
<§ §
5i< §
- ° <0 u. ^ 5l°|i°£|2mO ^Du; . 5<0,0
z^ SoB|~2It 3.> I- OC
< <
>- U
CJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The fee will be in addition to all other fees required for the
issuance of building and sewer permits. The fee is based on a
proportional share of the total five year lease cost for the
capacity which the City must pay to Encinitas . The amount of
the special fee is hereby established as $375.00 for each equivalent
dwelling unit.
adjourned
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at an/ regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 25th day of October , 1977
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councllmen Frazee, Lewis, Packard, Skotnicki and
Councilwoman Casler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ]fS /) _^_^, ^/
li \ J^^F^_^ f I "~*ji ^0 ^^I/ vuv*^* — " <»^x^^c^.
ROBERT C. FRAZEE, May^?
ATTEST :
^^^//^^-^
MARGARET E. ADAfl3, City Clerk
1 j
(SEAL)
-
-
•**;
4.
9-30-77
* Corrected per adoption
10-26-77
CITY QF CARLSBAD
•' ' FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM
Objectives;
The sewer allocation system contained herein is intended to provide
a framework within which the City Council can make some judgments
regarding the allocation of a limited amount of sewer capacity
which may become available. This system is designed to meet the
following City objectives:
A. To fairly and equitably allocate a limited amount of sewer
capacity among competing demands.
B. To coordinate development with needed public improvements.
••
C. To maintain and enhance levels of City services (infilling).
D. To preserve and/or enhance the' efficiency of service delivery
systems to allow time to provide public facilities adequate
to meet expanded service needs.
.-•
E. To renew and maintain existing urban areas.t
F. To develop vacant land that is within existing urban areas
and is currently serviced by public facilities; i.e., sLreets,
water, sewer.
II. Available Sewer Capacity;
It is estimated that the first phase sewer allocation system will
;.^t have 270 number of equivalent dwelling units and 75,000 gallons of
sewer treatment capacity to be considered for allocation". This
capacity may be distributed on the basis of the criteria contained
within this document. The amount of sewer capacity required for
any particular project shall be determined on the basis of equiv-
alent dwelling units according to the established City System
in that regard.
III. Purpose and Intenv • »
A. The guiding criteria for the application and interpretation
of this system shall be to maximize the overall community
benefits for the City of Carlsbad.
* *" '. -
B. This sewer allocation system is for those portions of the City
of Carlsbad which are located within the Carlsbad service area.
C. This sewer allocation system is responding to the specific needs
of the community in terms of those persons known or unknown who
have been caught by the sewer moratorium established April 19,
1977. -
D. The City Council has determined to consider allocating some
or all of the leased sewer capacity which we have acquired
covering such concerns as: 1) distribution of sewer capacity
by percentage to specific land use categories; 2) creating a
rating system within the various land use categories; 3)
establishing community benefits for the City of Carlsbad as
the major a*lj.ocation criteria; and 4) development of a system
to fairly recognize those persons affected by the moratorium
• . of April 19, 1977.
IV. Land Use Distribution:.
. The following land use distribution of sewer allocation is
established for this First Phase Sewer Allocation System:
Percentage Equivalent
. of Available Dwelling Units
Capacity (E.D.U.'S)
A. Industrial Land Use 30% 81
B. Commercial Land Use
a. General 15% 40
b. Office 5% 14
\•v 'fc. Single Family Residential ?> •>• •• •• • -
Land Use * ^ 20% > 54i
D. Multiple Family
Residential Land Use ** 10% 27
^ *
* Single family residential land use shall be those dwelling
units proposed on legal recorded lots in the R^l and R-A
zones and dwelling units in other residential zones where
the density is 7,500 sq. ft. of land per unit or less.
**Multiple family residential land use shall be all dwelling •
units where the density is, greater than one dwelling unit
per 7,500 sq. ft'.
Applications for sewer permits 'will be divided by use in accoVd
with the above categories. Projects in each category will be
rated against other projects:in the same category and separate
allocations will be made within each category. In addition to
*" the above categories, there are two more categories with capacity
to be distributed:
V.
Percentage
of Available
Capacity
E.D.U.'s
(Equivalent
Dwelling Units)
E. Community Facilities
(Includes parks, schools,
other governmental build-
ings, churches, hospitals
and airports) . 5%
F. Contingency (Includes
failing septic tanks and
community fdevelopment'
rehabilitation programs,
• redevelopment areas,
capital improvement programs
and a reserve capacity
for other exceptions to the
sewer moratorium contained
in Section 18.04.170 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. 15%
14
40
The Community Facilities and Contingency categories are designed
to reserve sewer capacity rather than allocating fixed amounts
immediately as the other land use categories. It is anticipated
that between now and when optimum sewer capacity -i.s available,
.there will be a continuous need for capacity, in the various land
uses identified in these two categories. It may be necessary to
establish a separate rating /system for these two categories if
a high demand occurs; however, at this time it is anticipated that
these will be handled on an "as needed" basis by a case-by-case
evaluation by the City Council. The only exception to the City
Council allocating these two categories based on community need
and the public welfare, is that the City Manager shall have
authority to issue sewer connection permits for failing septic
tank systems. .»«
Procedures for applying for Sewer Permits Under the First Phase
Allocation System.
/• -
A. It is assumed that there will be more applications for a sewer
allocation than there is available capacity. Therefore, five
qualifications are established which must be satisfied at the '
time of application -in order for the application to be considered.
-3-
It is the judgement of the City Council that only projects
which can meet these qualifications should be eligible to
participate in the First Phase Allocation. These qualifications
are also intended to screen applications in a preliminary way
to provide a reasonable guide to save unnecessary engineering
and design costs for a proposed project where there is little
chance of the project qualifying for a sewer allocation permit.
The qualifications are as follows:
1. No residential project will be eligible for consideration
that is outside of the infill area as shown on the map
marked'Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a..part hereof.
Commercial and industrial land uses may be considered
anywhere within the City's sewer service area.
2. With the exception of City building or sewer permits, all
approvals, including City Council action and other agency
approvals, such as the California Coastal Commission and
Sanitation and Water Districts, must have been issued and
proof of such approval must be submitted with the appli-
cations. The applicant must demonstrate that he is ready
and able to commence construction of the project upon
receipt of a City building permit.
3. ^No public costs for City facilities to service the site,
such as streets, sewers, etc., are required.
4. The City Council must find that at least one of tue;
following criteria exists:
a. An application of some form for development was
applied for prior to April 19, 1977, as.d it can be
found that delays in the process were a direct result
of City actions.
b. The project proponents have made contributions to
public agencies in.order to develop which cannot now
be refunded.
. \
c. The site already has a sewer hookup but needs -additional
hookups to fully complete the project. -
' • d. The application is for one single family home on a
lot owned by the applicant and legally of record as
Of April 19, 1977, and this is the only application
submitted by the applicant. ,-
e. Any similar criteria as determined by the City Council.
• * •
Explain:
-4-
.5. The applicant shall complete an Application for Sewer
Allocation, a Questionnaire for Application Qualification
and a Rating System Questionnaire on forms attached hereto
as Exhibit B. In order to receive further consideration,
*" . the. applicant must attain the following minimum point total
on the Rating System Questionnaire:
Residential (Single Family) 25
Residential (Multiple) 35 ;.
Commercial 30 -••'
Industrial 30
B. Applicants for projects which apparently qualify under all five
categories listed above, shall then prepare the following infor-
mation as the official application for a first phase sewer
allocation permit.
1. Documents Required for Submittal:
The following-documents are required to provide sufficient infor-
mation to accurately rate the application, and to determine if the
proposal meets Code requirements. Errors or omission may cause
disqualification.
a) Application. ,
*•
b) Questionnaires for qualification and for rating
(Application attachments).
c) Evidence that lot is a legal building site owned by the
applicant and of record prior to April 19, 1977.
d) Proof in writing that all discretionary actions involving the •
various public agencies have been completed.
e) Ten ozalid prints of the site plan. The site plan shall contain
. all information suitable for submittal for building permits as
required by the Building Official if sewer permits are granted
to that proper, review can be made, and to insure project can be
constructed, the proposal shall meet all Code requirements. -,
f) A written list and explanation of.what water, sewer and energy
conserving material or construction techniques that are going
to be used. (Such list will become part of the record and
plans must comply with the list and be to the satisfaction of
the City Building official.)f •
g) Application Fees:- The submittal of a processing fee in the
amount of -
-5-
$ 25.00 for community facilities.
$ 25.00 for single family residence.
$ 50.00;for multiple family residence.
$100.00 for commercial, or industrial uses.
•»
The deadline for filing applications is the close of the business
day, 30 days after adoption of Resolution No. 5199. Applications
shall be filed with the Planning Department.
VI. Staff Evaluation.
After the closing date for receipt of applications, a staff committee,
consisting of the Public Works Administrator, City Engineer, Director
of Building and Housing and the Director of Planning, shall evaluate
each application in accordance with the provisions of this section.
The committee shall prepare a report for the City Council. The
report shall show which projects in the judgment of the comittee
meet the five qualifications of Section V, The report shall also
show a point total for each project based on the staff juc.grr.ent of
the project's ranking after applying the point system as set out in
the Rating System Questionnaire, a'part of Exhibit B, attached
hereto and made a part hereof. In addition, the report shall rank
the projects from the project with the highest total to the project
with ,the lowest'total for each land use category. Finally, the
report shall recommend which projects in each category should
receive a sewer allocation permit. The staff shall report their
findings to the City Council within 30 working days from the deadline
'for submissions of applications. The committee findings shall be
mailed or otherwise made available to all persons who have applied
for a sewer allocation permit before the Council hearing,
»
VII.. City Council Action.
The City Clerk shall set a public hearing before the City Council
to consider the staff committee report. After completion of the
public hearing on the report, the Council shall first consider and
resolve any disagreements between applicants and staff in regards to
the qualifications of Section V. The Council shall then eliminate
from further consideration for permits under this first phase alloca*^
tion all projects which do not meet the Section V qualifications.
The Council shall review the recommendations of the Staff Report in
regards to the point ranking of qualifying projects within each land
use category. The Council shall have the prerogative of-making its
own policy interpretations of the rating system in reaching its
decision on allocations. If the Council is not satisfied that the
i :•'. results .of_the..rating system meet the objectives and purposes and
-6-
intent of the system, the: Council may amand 1 as they consider
necessary in the public interest. When the Council is satisfied
with the findings and the ranking of the projects, they shall
adopt a list of such projects which shall become the basis Eor
- issuing sewer permits and building permits in the Carlsbad sewer
district boundaries. Inclusion of a project on the approved list
shall constitute authorization pursuant to Municipal Code Section
18*05.030 for the exception of that project from the building
moratorium imposed by Chapter 18.05 of the Code.
> V
The Council is under no obligation to allocate all or any part of
the available sewer capacity pursuant to this system. The Council
reserves the right to establish point total cut off within each
land use category as they consider necessary in order to insure the
available capacity is used in the best interests of the citizens of
Carlsbad. Any capacity which is not allocated as a part of this
first phase allocation, or which is allocated but not used, shall
remain in reserve to be reallocated as the Council may determine by the
adoption of a second phase system or by the further amendment of
this system. •
:il. Permits and Fees
The successful applicant, within the rating system shall be required
to .perform in the following manner in order to obtain and retain a
sewer permit:
#
A. A complete building permit application must be filed within 30
days after Council action approving the list of projects e3igible
for sewer allocations. The project must be as represented in
the allocation application.
B. Concurrently with the issuance of a building permit the applicant
shall obtain a'sewer connection permit and pay-the fee therefore
as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Applicant shall
also pay a special sewer allocation permit fee of $^375.00 per
EDU for his project. The special fee shall be used' to pay the
. lease cost of the capacity, allocated by this system.
C. The applicant must take-out his building, sewer and other
necessary permits within 20 days after mailing of written
notice by the City that plan check is complete and that the -
. building permit is ready for issuance.
D. After issuance of a building permit by the Building Department,
construction shall commence within 30 days and be diligently
pursued without interruption until completed. If construction
does not progress in a reasonably timely way, or is interrupted
for any period in excess of 30 days, the building permit and
sewer permit will be void. All fees shall be non-refundable. .
• ' • \
-7- • . ;r
Exceptions may be granted by the City.Council if they find that the
developer has acted in good yfaith, in a reasonable manner and
that the delay in construction is due to failures beyond the
control of the developer.
If a building permit is voided, a new building permit may be
obtained which will only be issued if the project qualifies for
a new sewer allocation pursuant to such system that the Council
may adopt in the future.
NOTE TO APPLICANTS
This First Phase Allocation System is adopted based on an
assumption that the'City v/ill have available 75,000 gallons of
additional sewer capacity on lease from another member of the
Encina Treatment Plant. This assumption is based on Engineer's
estimates. The true facts are difficult to determine and the
assumptions which underlie the system are subject to change.
There is no guarantee that a project, which apparently qualifies
for an allocation pursuant to this 'system, will actually recoi'.'o :-.
sewer permit. Further, there is no guarantee that the issuance
of a sewer allocation permit will insure that capacity v:ill ir.
fact be available at the time of'occupancy. The City may not
exceed its capacity rights in the plant and, therefore, must be
governed by the actual availability of capacity at the time
the hookup is 'made. Efforts by applicants to obtain an allocation
permit or perform work pursuant to such permit are at your own
risk, .
-8-
\^-
^sr—~HwY—7a•- •S~~~**f CARLSBAD
<P~?—t-"- ~i_^_ --^vt--.=• -L,_.„ ~ CITYx /••^^*^rws*:;r^
-~yfe.: I L • "' , >
BOUNDARY
-7 , :, j %>C:>:.. /7 'i."1-1- r^^,v_^- :;'••-,.;;.'-'.vx*s. "-1- -
iiiiiiiiii^
^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^KSS^SiSllp^TOftiifttx^^
• \ \ '. < -•V > \?3-V V R-i^'\ \ \ -; '•^•^.'' \ \ \ \ 1.'-',- '\ \..-->^\\
!*^'>^%:%^-iks^te\\^-^ ^fra-M^jj^y.
^^ ,v*vPp.M»\
^CSV^--"1^1AM^-^
^Jd-s/.jV^R-A-io
^^
~'T
tCc.)
%\ v>- I"/A\T\ %[«r
ri
i
i
-T .
'••V^ A'*&>••. Hs;
H-AIO
1 / -* - i//" "••i
'EXHIBIT-A
AUG. 25,1977
o .000 »ooo »ooo TEET CARLSBAD.CALIFCRNIA
FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION
INFILL AREA BOUNDARY CARLSBAD
Sassssai COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY (FOR EXACT LOCATION CONTACT PLANNING DEPT.)
EXHIBIT B
9-1-77•
APPLICATION. FOR SEWER ALLOCATION PERMIT #
(Please Print or Type) Date
1. Description of Project (Residential, Commercial, Industrial..
no. of units, etc.):
2. Location of Project: The subject property is generally located on
the side of between
and
3. . Assessor's Number: Book ._ Page Parcels
Book Page Parcels
(Please list others at bottom of page).
4. 'Owner(s):
Name Address City State Zip Phone
5. Person(s) responsible for preparation of plans or .design:
Name Address City State Zip Phone
Registration of License No.
r*
6. Applicant: •--—
Name Address C i t y State Zip Phone
Representing (Company or Corp.):
I hereby declare that all information contained within this application
and the accompanying attachments have been READ, UNDERSTOOD, AND HAVE
BEEN ANSWERED CORRECTLY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
Applicant's Signature X
Exhibit C
9-1-77
Questionnaire for Application Qualifications;
The following five questions must be answered concerning your project:
1. Is the location of your project inside the infill boundaries as
approved by Council, excluding Commercial and Industrial Land
Use (the official map is located at the Planning Department)?
Have all discretionary actions, including all City actions,
Coastal Commission, Sanitation and Water District action been
completed (proof will be required with submittal of application)?
Will the project create any public costs for City facilities such
as streets, sewers, etc.?
Please indicate if any of the following conditions exist:
a. An application*for development was applied for prior to
April 19, 1977, and the project was delayed as a result
of action by the City: Yes No
b. You or agents of your project have made special money
contributions to public agencies in order to develop
which cannot now be refunded: Yes No
c. The site already has a sewer hookup but needs additional
hopkups to complete- the project: Yes No
d. The application is for one single family home on a lot owned
by the applicant and legally of record as of April 19, 1977,
and this is the only application submitted by the applicant.
Yes • • No
e. Any similar criteria as determined by the Council.
Explain:
5, The applicant shall rate his project by using the attached rating
. system to estimate that the following "minimum points can be
obtained for the proposed project: Residential (Single Family - 25;
Residential (Multiple) - 35; Commercial - 30 and Industrial - 30.
/**
Evidence in support of affirmative responses should be referenced or
attached.
Date Signature • -
. • - - Exhibit E
10-18-77
RATING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE
for
INDUSTRIAL - COMMERCIAL LAND USES
Please answer the following questions. Additional pages showing
evidence in support of the points indicated may be attached.
1. Points will be given for certain water saving devices listed
below. Please check the devices, if any, which will be incorporated
into the project. (Jo receive points for any fixture as listed
below, all such fixtures in the structure shall be so equipped
wherever appropriate.)
Faucets
Lavatory sink aerators (flow restrictors) 2%
Spring loaded faucet 5%
Quick heat lavatory faucet 5%
Showers
Thermostatic mixing valve • 4%
Flow control head or in-line restrictor 4%
Hot Water Pipes
Insulation 5%
Recirculat ing (convection or forced) 8%
Toilets
Flush valve (1 ' line) 15%_^
POINTS % WATER REDUCTION
0 0-4%
1 5-9%
2 10-14%
3 15-19%
4 20-24%
5 25-29%
6 30-34%
7 35-39%
8 . 40-44% .
9 45-49%
10 50%+
Comments or Explanation
Points will be given based on the following methods to conserve
energy. Please check the devices, if any, which will be incorporated
into the project. (To receive points for any fixture as listed
below, all such fixtures in the structure shall be so equipped
wherever appropriate.)
Pilot lights for furnaces and water heaters
Electro-spark 5%
Windows
Thermopane
Solar Heating
Hot Water Augment 5%
Building Heating % by Engineering
Design
POINTS % ENERGY CONSERVATION
0 No energy conservation considerations
1 1-5%
2 6-10%
3 11-15%
4 16-20%
5 21-25%
6 26-30%
7 , 31-35%
8 36-40% '
9 41-45%
Comments or Explanation
3. Does the project incorporate facilities to reduce sewer effluent
by significant amounts? (Circle appropriate points that you
believe your project should be allotted.)
0 -1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
mentJ
No
Up
reductionto 2% ....... ,,,.: . .,.,;. .
4% "
•656
8% ' •
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Over 18%
; or Expl anation
-2-
' 4. Does the project remove or rehabilitate older dilapidated structures
within the community of a non-historic nature?*
0 - Land Vacant .
3 - Rehabi1i tati on
5 - Removal of non-historic dilapidated structure
*Structure is defined as any main building on a lot.
5. Does the proposed project participate i.n a capital project listed
on the City Council's approved Capital Improvement Program?
•
POINTS
0 - No
5 - Partially completes a capital project
10 - Completes a capital project
Comments or Explanation
6. Will the project require less than 50% of the sewer capability
that is available in its land use type?.
0 - 50% and over •
1 - 40% - 49%
2 - 30% - 39%
3 - 20% - 29%
4 - 10% - 19%
5-5-9%
.6-2-4%
.7-0-1%
Comments or Explanation
7. Will the project provide substantial assessed value to the City?
* POINTS RECEIVED QUARTILE
0 . Bottom 25% of Projects
3 Third 25% of Projects
6 Second 25% of Projects
9 - - Top 25% of Projects i
METHOD: Projects shall be arrayed from highest to lowest building
valuations. Building evaluation for each project shall be
computed multiplying the square footage of building area in
each project by the appropriate construction cost factors
set forth in the Building Department Valuation Tables.
Comments
-3-
G .ERAL COMMERCIAL ONLY
(Not part of rating for office uses)
8. Will the project provide substantial taxable sales to the City?
POINTS RECEIVED QUARTILE
0 Bottom 25% of Projects
3 Third 25% of Projects
6 Second 25% of Projects
9 Top 25% of Projects
METHOD: Projects shall be arrayed from highest to lowest potential
taxable sales. Potential taxable sales for each project shall
be computed by multiplying the squarefootage of gross leasible
building area in'each project by the following factors:
USE
Regional Shopping Center
Community & Neighborhood
Commercial Center
Specialty Store
i
Discount Store
Furniture and Appliances
Furnishings
T.V., Stereo, Records
Building Suppl ies
Paint and Wallpaper
Auto Service and Supplies
Dinner Restaurant
Coffee Shop
Fast Food
Mini-Supermarket
Car Dealership - set amount of
Comments
TAXABLE SALES PER SQUARE
FOOT OF BUILDING(S)
90
60
100
80
60
60
120
90
120
-.*-.• ; 80
140
120
250
40
$1 .8 mil 1 ion
-4-
TIE BREAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
In case of a tie in any land use category, the following points may be
applied as a tie breaker:
1. Distance to public transportation system
Points
0
1
2
3
4
2. Fire Response Time
Points
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
% mile +
3/8 to 1/2 mile
1/4 to 3/8 mile
1/8 to 1/4 mile
0 to 1/8 mile
No access
Over 6 minutes
to
to
to
to
to
5"
4
3
2
1
0 to
6
5
4
3
2
1
minutes
minutes
minutes
mi nutes
minutes
minutes
Comments
-5-
• .. _ EXHIBIT F
. . 10-18-77
RATING SYSTEM'QUESTIONNAIRE
for
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Please answer the following questions. Additional pages showing
evidence in support of the points indicated may be attached.
1. Points will be given for certain water saving devices listed below,
Please check the devices if any which will be incorporated into
the project. (To receive points for any fixture as listed below,
all such fixtures in the structure shall be so equipped wherever
appropriate.)
Faucets
Kitchen sink aerator (flow restrictors) 2%
Lavatory sink aerator (flow restrictors) 3%
Quick heat lavatory faucet 5%
Showers
Thermostatic mixing valve 5%
Flow control head or in-line 'restrictor 15%
Hot Water Pipes
Insulation 10%
Recirculating (convection or forced) 15%
Appliances
Cycle adjust dishwasher (built-in)' • 2%
POINTS % WATER REDUCTION
0 0-4%
1. 5-9%
2 10-14%
3 15-19%
4 20-24%
5 25-29%
6 30-34%
7 35-39%
8 . 40-44%
9 - 45-49%
10 50%+
Comments or Explanation
2. .Points will be c en based on the followin' lethods to conserve
energy. Please cneck the devices if any which will be incorporated
into the project. (To receive points for any fixture as listed
below, all such fixtures in the structure shall be so equipped
wherever appropriate.)
Pilot Lights (for furnaces, water heaters)
Electro-spark 5%
Solar Heating
Hot water augment
Building heating
POINTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Comments or Explanation
10%% by Engineering
Design
% ENERGY CONSERVATION
No energy conservation considerations
1-5%
6-10%
11-15%
16-20%
21-25%
26-30%
31-35%'
36-40%
41-45%
3. Does the project incorporate facilities to reduce sewer effluent by
significant amounts? (Circle appropriate points that you believe
your project should be allotted.)
0 - No reduction
1 - Up to 2%
2 - 4%
3-6%
. ••.•-<>,•.• -.->•• 4 — - -.-••.*•,»;.*, &% ••• . •• ^.---'• •. >;- "• ,.••, , • • *.; ' • . • •
5 - 10%
6 - . 12%
7 - 14%
8 - 16%
9-18%
10 - Over 18%
Comments or Explanation
-2-
4. Does the project remove or rehabilitate older dilapidated structures
within the community of a non-historic nature?*
0 - Land Vacant
3 -Rehabilitation
5 - Removal of non-historic dilapidated structure
*Structure is defined as any main building on a lot
5. Does the proposed project participate in a capital project listed
on the City Council's approved Capital Improvement Program?
POINTS
0 - No
5 - Partially completes a capital project
10 - Completes a capital project
Comments or Explanation
6. Will the project require less than 50% of the sewer capability that
is available in its land use type?
0 - 50% and over •
1 - 40% - 49%
2 - 30% - 39%
3 - 20% - 29%
4 - 10% - 19%
5 - 5/0 - 9%
6 - 2% - 4%
7 - 0 - 1 %
Comments or Explanation
-3-
TIE BKEAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM
I
a
1
2
3
n case of a ti
ppliecl as a ti
Distance to
Points
0
1
2
3
4
Distance to
Points
0
1
2
3
4
. « Fire Respon
Points
0
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
• -Comments
e in any land use category, the following points may be
e breaker:
Parks and Recreation
% m i 1 e +
3/8 to 1/2 mile
1/4 to 3/8 mile
T/8 to 1/4 mile
0 to 1/8 mile
public transportation system
^ mile +
3/8 to 1/2 mile
1/4 to 3/8 mile
1/8 to 1/4 mile
0 to 1/8 mile
se Ti me
No access
Over 6 minutes
5 to Gminutes
4 to 5 minutes
3 to 4 minutes
2 to 3 minutes
1 to 2 minutes
0 to 1 minutes
•.-•••• • • ;'-•'•" • ' •
-4-
FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION
To the best of my knowledge, my proposed project, will not
require any public costs for City facilities to service the
site, such as streets, sewers, etc. I understand that if
it is determined by' City staff that my project will require
such public costs, my application will be disqualified from
consideration and my application fees will not be refunded.
Applicant's Signature
Log No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TUESDAY EVENING SESSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 1977
JAMES HAGAMAN: THE OTHER PROBLEMS OF THE SEWER
MORATORIUM CAME ABOUT AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE CAUGHT
IN THE PROCESS OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS.
THIRDLY, THERE WAS NO METHOD AVAILABLE TO THE CITY AT THAT
TIME.THAT IN ANY CAPACITY BECAME AVAILABLE TO THE CITY !I
OF HOW IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED. THE CONCERN WAS MANY-FOLD. !
AT THAT TIME THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED A COUNCIL COMMITTEE
TO WORK WITH THE STAFF AND DETERMINE A METHOD OF ALLOCA- 1
TION OF SEWER FOR DIFFERENT PHASES.
THE FIRST CONCERN WAS THOSE; PERSONS THAT WERE
CAUGHT IN THE PROCESS RATHER SUDDENLY ON APRIL 19TH.
THE SECOND ASPECT OF THIS WAS ON A LONGER RANGE BASIS,
HOW THE CITY MIGHT CONSIDER ALLOCATING SEWER. TONIGHT
THIS IS THE FIRST PHASE ALLOCATION SYSTEM WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY DESIGNED FOR THOSE PEOPLE CAUGHT ON APRIL
19TH OF THIS YEAR. THIS IS BASED ON A REPORT THAT THE
COUNCIL HAD SOME DEBATE ON AND CONCERN, AND THIS IS THE
PACKAGE THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
THIS EVENING. ALL THOSE PERSONS SINCE APRIL WHO HAVE
VOICED A CONCERN IN WRITING TO THE CITY WERE GIVEN A
SPECIFIC NOTICE OF THIS MEETING TO COME HERE AND EXPRESS
THEIR VIEWS ON THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM BEING PROPOSED.
IN ADDITION, NEWSPAPERS WERE NOTIFIED AND SEVERAL
ARTICLES APPEARED.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I MIGHT INDICATE GENERALLY ABOUT THE SYSTEM SO YOU
HAVE A FEEL FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT CONTAINS. THE CITY
ESTABLISHED CERTAIN OBJECTIVES IN THEIR PROCESS OF
DEVELOPING THE SYSTEM. I MIGHT READ THEM BRIEFLY HERE.
THEY WERE TO FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY ALLOCATE A LIMITED
AMOUNT OF SEWER CAPACITY AMONG COMPETING DEMANDS; TO
COORDINATE DEVELOPMENT WITH NEEDED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS;
TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE LEVELS OF CITY SERVICES. IT IS
ESSENTIALLY CALLED INFILL. WE WILL DISCUSS THAT LATER.
TO PRESERVE .AND/OR ENHANCE THE EFFICIENCY OF SERVICE
DELIVERY SYSTEMS TO ALLOW TIME TO PROVIDE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ADEQUATE TO MEET EXPANDED SERVICE NEEDS. TO RENEW AND
MAINTAIN EXISTING URBAN AREAS. TO DEVELOP VACANT LAND
THAT IS WITHIN EXISTING URBAN AREAS AND IS CURRENTLY
SERVED BY PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS STREETS, WATER, SEWER.
WITH THIS IN MIND, THE INTENT OF THIS ALLOCATION
SYSTEM WAS TO MAXIMIZE THE OVERALL COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. THE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM IS FOR
THOSE PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WHICH ARE LOCATED
WITHIN THE CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT. IT IS ALSO THE INTENT
OF THE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM TO CONSIDER ALLOCATING SOME
OR ALL OF THE SEWER CAPACITY WHICH WE MAY ACQUIRE IN THE
FUTURE WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE NOW, COVERING SUCH CONSID-
ERATIONS AND CONCERNS AS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SEWER
CAPACITY BY PERCENTAGE TO SPECIFIC LAND USE CATEGORIES,
CREATING A RATING SYSTEM WITHIN THE VARIOUS LAND USE
CATEGORIES, TO ESTABLISH COMMUNITY BENEFITS FOR THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, AND DEVELOP A SYSTEM TO FAIRLY RECOGNIZE
- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THOSE PERSONS AFFECTED BY THE MORATORIUM AS OF APRIL 19,
1977.
THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF THE COMMITTEE
AFTER THEY ANALYZED THE CITY IN TOTO WAS IN LAND USE
DISTRIBUTION. THE SYSTEM PROPOSES THAT IF ANY ALLOCATION
BECOMES AVAILABLE.IN THE FUTURE, THE FIRST ALLOCATION IS
THAT INDUSTRIAL LAND USAGE WOULD EQUAL 30 PERCENT OF THAT
AVAILABLE CAPACITY. THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE IS DIVIDED
INTO TWO CATEGORIES, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AS 15 PERCENT, AND
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL AREA, WHICH IS THE 5 PERCENT.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, 20 PERCENT. MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, 10 PERCENT.
THE-DEFINITION BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE
FAMILY IS BASED ON THE NET DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, SO IT
ACTUALLY RECOGNIZES A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, WHICH IS A
QUESTION THAT CAME ABOUT, IN SHORT, IF YOU HAD A CONDO-
MINIUM PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES OPEN LAND AND OPEN SPACE,
A FACTOR OF DIVIDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS INTO THAT LAND
AREA WHICH WOULD BE 7,500 SQUARE FEET OR MORE, WHICH IS
OUR SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD, WOULD BE CONSIDERED SINGLE
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ANOTHER CATEGORY IS COMMUNITY
FACILITIES WHICH IS 5 PERCENT, AND CONTINGENCY WHICH IS
15 PERCENT. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ESSENTIALLY IS PARKS,
SCHOOLS, GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS, HOSPITALS, AIRPORTS,
ET CETERA. CONTINGENCY IS FOR FAILING SEPTIC TANKS WHICH
THE CITY MUST RESPOND TO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REHABILI-
TATION PROGRAMS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS, ALL OF WHICH WOULD TEND TO LEAD TO COMMUNITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BENEFITS.
THE BASIC PROCEDURE FOR APPLYING FOR THE SEWER
PERMIT, UNDER THE FIRST PHASE THERE ARE FIVE QUALIFICA-
TIONS WHICH MUST BE MET. THE FIRST QUALIFICATION IS NO
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION
THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL AREA AS SHOWN ON THE MAP
MARKED EXHIBIT A. I WILL RESPOND TO THAT IN A MINUTE ON
THE BOARD.
THE SECOND QUALIFICATION IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
CITY BUILDING OR SEWER PERMITS, ALL APPROVALS, INCLUDING
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS, SUCH AS
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND SANITATION AND WATER
DISTRICTS, MUST HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND PROOF OF SUCH
APPROVAL MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS.
THE THIRD ITEM I S NO PUBLIC COSTS FOR CITY
FACILITIES TO SERVICE THE SITE SUCH AS STREETS, SEWERS,
ET CETERA, ARE REQUIRED.
THE FOURTH IS THE CITY COUNCIL MUST FIND THAT AT
LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA EXISTS:
"(A) AN APPLICATION OF SOME FORM FOR DEVELOPMENT
WAS APPLIED FOR PRIOR TO APRIL 19, 1977, AND IT CAN BE
FOUND THAT DELAYS IN THE PROCESS WERE A DIRECT RESULT OF
CITY ACTION.
CB) THE PROJECT PROPONENTS HAVE MADE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PUBLIC AGENCIES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP WHICH CANNOT NOW
BE REFUNDED.
(C) THE SITE ALREADY HAS^'A SEWER HOOKUP BUT NEEDS
ADDITIONAL HOOKUPS TO FULLY COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(D) THE APPLICATION IS FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ON A LOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT AND LEGALLY OF RECORD AS
OF APRIL 19, 1977, AND THIS IS THE ONLY APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
(E) AND. .A SIMILAR CRITERIA AS DETERMINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL."
THE FIFTH QUALIFICATION IS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL
COMPLETE AN APPLICATION FOR SEWER ALLOCATION, A QUESTION-
NAIRE FOR APPLICATION QUALIFICATION AND A RATING SYSTEM
QUESTIONNAIRE ON FORMS ATTACHED. THE APPLICANT MUST
ATTAIN THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM POINT TOTAL ON THE RATING
SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE: FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY,
25 POINTS BASED ON THAT RATING SYSTEM. RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE, 35. COMMERCIAL, 30. INDUSTRIAL, 30.
WE HAVE EXPLAINED IN THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM THAT ONCE
ALLOCATION IS AVAILABLE THERE WILL BE A SPECIFIC PERIOD
OF TIME IN WHICH PEOPLE MIGHT APPLY FOR IT. THE STAFF
WILL REVIEW THESE APPLICATIONS," RANK THEM IN ORDER OF
POINTS AS SUBMITTED, AND PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. EVERYONE SUBMITTING A PROJECT
WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND WHERE THEY
RANK IN THAT SYSTEM, AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THIS
AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF WHO SHOULD GET A SEWER
ALLOCATION AND WHO WOULD NOT BASED ON THAT AVAILABLE DATA.
THERE ARE ALSO PROCEDURES CONTAINED WITHIN THIS ON HOW SOON
AFTER COUNCIL ACTION THAT A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
MUST BE FILED APPROVING THE PROJECT, AND BUILDING MUST
COMMENCE WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE BUILDING PERMIT WILL BECOME
' I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VOID.
FINALLY, IN THE LAST ASPECT OF THIS, THERE IS A
POINT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED WHICH COVERS COMMUNITY BENEFITS,
WATER CONSERVATION, ENERGY CONSERVATION, THE AMOUNT OF
SEWER CAPACITY AT A PARTICULAR PROJECT, THE AMOUNT OF
RETAIL SALES AND COMMERCIAL BASED ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF
>U£
USES, SOME ASSESSED VALUATIONS, OUT OF WHICH ARE CONTAINED
WITHIN THE REPORT. I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT I'M NOT SURE
THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AT THIS MOMENT.
LET ME RESPOND TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT WHICH IS THE
INFILL MAP. DURING CONSIDERATION BY THE .COUNCIL COMMITTEE
OF THE CITY, IT WAS FOUND THEY WANTED IT TO HAVE AN
INFILL AREA WHERE THE SEWER, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
OCCURRED. THIS MAP INDICATES IN THE YELLOW COLOR THE
BOUNDARIES OF THAT INFILL AREA. ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DID
IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY, IT TOOK THE
PERIPHERAL OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING DEVELOP-
MENT WHICH IS IN THE CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT, DREW A LINE
AROUND WHERE THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED. ALL OF
THESE AREAS HERE ESSENTIALLY HAVE RESIDENCES IN THEM.
IT RUNS ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACK DOWN IN THIS AREA WHERE
THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA IS.
IT ALSO INDICATED THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
WOULD BE CONSIDERED OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL AREA, IT WAS NOT
RELATED TO THAT PARTICULAR PORTION. IN ADDITION, FOR OUR
INFORMATION, THE CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT DOES FOLLOW THIS
GREEN LINE ALONG IN THIS AREA. „ THIS WOULD BE THE LEUCADIA1
N -
SEWER DISTRICT IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE CITY.
1 THE RATING SYSTEM, THERE WAS ALSO CONCERN AS THEY
2 WENT THROUGH AND RATED THAT THERE MIGHT BE TIES WITHIN
3 THE RATING SYSTEM. THESE PARTICULAR THREE MAPS WHICH ARE
4 THE COLORFUL ONES ARE A METHOD OF BREAKING A TIE. THIS
5 PARTICULAR MAP IS BASED, AS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, ON
6 THE DISTANCE OF TRANSIT FACILITIES FROM THE AREA INDICATED
7 THERE. YOU WILL NOTICE THE GREEN IS A TRANSIT, AND AS THE
8 COLORS GO DOWN THEY ARE FURTHER AWAY AND FEWER POINTS
9 WOULD BE GRANTED.
10 THE OTHER AREA FOR TIE-BREAKING IS CONSIDERED
11 SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE
12 SAME TYPE OF QUARTER OR EIGHTH OF A MILE RADIUS DRAWN OUT
13 FROM THOSE AREAS WHICH WERE DEVELOPED IN CASE OF A TIE.
14 THE LAST RESPONSE WAS ON A COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF
15 RESPONSE TIME FROM OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO CERTAIN SERVICE
16 AREAS WITHIN THE CITY, AND THAT IS BASED ON MINUTES OF
17 RESPONSE TO THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS.
18 MR. MAYOR, IS THERE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION I
19 SHOULD DO?
20 MAYOR FRAZEE: WE ARE READY TO GO TO THE PUBLIC
21 HEARING. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE SET AS ADVERTISED
22 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FIRST PHASE SEWER
23 ALLOCATION SYSTEM BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, AND WE WOULD
24 LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO WISHES. TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
25 AT THIS TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU AND ASK YOU IF
26 YOU WOULD CONFINE YOUR REMARKS TO THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM.
27 THE DRAFT HAS BEEN GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR A COUPLE OF
28 WEEKS AT LEAST, AND NOW I HOPE THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS SOME
i
T 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTEREST IN THE PLAN AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM
HAS READ THE DRAFT AND IS FAMILIAR WITH ITS CONTENTS.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOUR REMARKS WERE CONFINED TO THAT
AND NOT.THE SPECIFICS OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT SO THAT WE
DON'T GET INTO THOSE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS, BUT ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF.
SO AT THIS TIME IF WE HAVE NO WRITTEN REQUESTS TO
SPEAK, WE WILL JUST TAKE EVERYONE ON A FIRST COME, FIRST
SERVE BASIS. IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PRIOR TO SPEAKING.
MR. .NEWELL: MY NAME IS JOHN NEWELL, 1850 BEVERLY
BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES. I AM TREASURER OF AZALIA, INC.
I AM SPEAKING ABOUT THE INFILL AREA, AND I'M ONLY SUGGEST-
ING THAT I THINK I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH DR. PACKARD AND
MRS. CASLER AND MR. BUSSEY REGARDING THIS, SPEAKING ABOUT
A SMALL EXTENTION OF THE INFILL AREA TO TAKE IN A PORTION
OF THE CITY WHICH HAS BEEN WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY FROM
ITS INCORPORATION, AND WHICH CITY TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ON
THIS PROPERTY ALL THAT TIME, WHICH IS SERVED BY SEWER ON
ONE SIDE, AND A PAVED STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND A PAVED
STREET ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND WHICH I THINK HAS JUST BEEN
AN OVERSIGHT ON THE PART OF WHOEVER DREW UP THE INFILL
AREA MAP.
MAYOR FRAZEE: is THAT SOMETHING WE COULD PROJECT?
MR. NEWELL: I WOULD HOPE SO.
MR. BUSSEY: OURS IS NOT AN OPINION PROJECTOR..
MAYOR FRAZEE: IT IS A TRANSPARENCY. CAN YOU
IDENTIFY WHERE THE AREAS ARE? v
1 MR. NEWELL: IF YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW
2 SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL
3 AND THE VISTA FREEWAY WHICH IS RIGHT HERE. HERE IS THE
4 NEW SHOPPING CENTER. EVERYTHING IN RED IS IN THE INFILL
5 AREA WHETHER BY REASON OF BEING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR
6 COMMERCIALLY ZONED.
7 THE PARCEL I AM TALKING ABOUT IS THIS BLUE PARCEL
8 HERE. NOW, THE ORIGINAL CITY BOUNDARY IS THIS LINE HERE,
9 SO THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN THE CITY EVER SINCE IT'S
10 INCORPORATION.
11 MY ONLY POINT IS THE SEWER IS ALREADY IN ON MARRON
12 ROAD FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF THIS PROPERTY ON THIS SIDE,
13 SO IT IS BOUNDED ON THAT SIDE BY THE SEWER AND BY A PAVED
14 " STREET. IT IS BOUNDED ON THIS SIDE BY A PAVED STREET, BY
15 HAYMART DRIVE, A PAVED STREET. IT CERTAINLY IS IN A
16 HEAVILY DEVELOPED AREA.
17 AS A SIDE ISSUE TO THIS, WE CONTRIBUTED OUR LAND
18 FOR THE WIDENING OF EL CAMINO REAL AT THE TIME ITS
19 WIDENING WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY AND BY THE COUNTY, WE
20 CONTRIBUTED OUR LAND WHEREAS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, EVERYONE
21 ELSE ON THIS SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL WAS PAID FOR THEIR
22 LAND THAT WAS GIVEN FOR THE WIDENING OF EL CAMINO REAL.
23 SO WE HAVE DONE OUR PART.
24 IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WORKED WITH THE VISTA
25 SANITATION DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH AN EASEMENT ON OUR LAND
26 WHICH IS RIGHT ON THIS PART OF OUR LAND HERE FOR THE MAIN
27 TRUNK LINE FOR THE SEWER. SO I THINK IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT
28 WE SHOULD BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION FOR A SEWER CONNECTION
10
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HERE. I THINK THAT COVERS MOST OF THE POINTS THAT I
WANTED TO BRING UP, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE THAT WERE
MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOUS LETTER TO YOU.
MR. PACKARD: WHAT is THE LAND USE ON THE GENERAL
PLAN?
MR. NEWELL: ON THE GENERAL PLAN OUR LAND IS SHOWN
AS R-l, MEDIUM DENSITY, I THINK, OR WHATEVER IT IS, MEDIUM
DENSITY. IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION AND IT HAS NOT BEEN OUR
INTENTION TO COME IN FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL AS
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
MR. 'PACKARD: WHAT is YOUR INTENTION?
MR. NEWELL: OUR INTENTION, AND IT HAS BEEN BECAUSE
IT WAS INDICATED WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN — UNDERSTAND WE
CONTROL THIS WHOLE PARCEL. IT WAS OUR INTENTION THEN AND
IT IS OUR INTENTION NOW AND WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, WE
EXPECT TO COME IN FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE. WHEN
WE GOT THE.COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THIS PART FOR THIS
DEVELOPMENT HERE, WE ALSO ASKED FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING ON
ALL ATHIS. IT WAS ALWAYS SINGLE PARCEL, BUT THAT WAS DENIED US
AT THAT TIME BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC TENANTS
IN MIND FOR IT.
MR. PACKARD: MAY I MAKE A COMMENT RELATIVE TO THIS?
THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO ASK WHAT" YOUR INTENT WAS AND WHAT
YOUR PLAN WAS. THE INFILL MAP WAS, I UNDERSTAND, IT ONLY
APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
MR. NEWELL: WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT, MR. PACKARD,
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LOCKED OUT^.FROM AN APPLICATION ON
s
THIS BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, ON THE GENERAL PLAN IT IS SHOWN
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
s
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AS AN R-l ZONE, SO IT COULD BE SAID ON THE INTERPRETATION
OF THIS REPORT THAT WE ARE NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR
ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT FOR A SEWER ALLOCATION. ALL WE
WANT TO BE SURE OF IS THAT AT SOME TIME, AND WE CERTAINLY
EXPECT IT IS GOING TO BE BEFORE FIVE YEARS, THAT WHEN WE
COME IN THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SAY, "WELL, YOU CAN'T APPLY
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT IN THE INFILL AREA."
MR. BUSSEY: I THINK MR. PACKARD IS TRYING TO MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT THE INFILL AREA ONLY APPLIES TO APPLICATIONS
HAVING TO. DO WITH R-l. THERE CAN BE APPLICATIONS FOR ANY
OTHER COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE OUTSIDE THE INFILL
AREA.
MR. NEWELL: YES, MR. BUSSEY, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THIS
LAND IS PRESENTLY ZONED OR SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN AS
R-l NOW. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO STATE THAT IF WE COME IN
AND ASK FOR A REZONING AND THE REZONING IS GRANTED, THAT
THEN WE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE, THAT IS ALL WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE IS THAT WE ARE NOT LOCKED OUT FROM MAKING AN APPLI-
CATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE ON WHICH WE WOULD REQUIRE A SEWER
ALLOCATION.
MR. PACKARD: AS I UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT PROPOSED
SYSTEM, THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU WOULD RUN INTO PROBLEMS IS
IF YOU MADE AN APPLICATION FOR AN R-l FOR A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
MR. NEWELL: IF THAT is THE CASE, THAT is FINE.
MAYOR FRAZEE: i THINK WE SHOULD ASK THE CITY
ATTORNEY IF ONLY THOSE WILL BE CONSIDERED ARE THOSE THAT
ALREADY HAVE ZONING APPROVAL, THERE IS NO DISCRETIONARY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
APPROVAL LEVEL?
MR. B10NDO: THAT'S CORRECT. I HESITATED ABOUT
SAYING ANYTHING BECAUSE IF WE TRY.TO ANSWER ALL THE
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS EACH INDIVIDUAL'S PROBLEMS, WE WILL
BE HERE ALL NIGHT. OBVIOUSLY, THE GENTLEMAN SHOULD COME
AND TALK TO THE STAFF.
I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIRST
PHASE ALLOCATION IS A SYSTEM ASSUMING THAT THE CITY WILL
ACQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 270 EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS. IT
IS NOT A LARGE AMOUNT. WE HAVE NOT ACQUIRED. IT YET. IT IS
A SYSTEM THAT WILL ALLOCATE JUST THAT 270 UNITS ON A ONE-
TIME BASIS ONLY. IT IS NOT A FIVE-YEAR SYSTEM. IT IS
QUITE CLEAR THAT THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO DEAL
WITH THIS SMALL INITIAL INCREMENT. THE SYSTEM IS QUITE
CLEAR THAT IT IS INTENDED TO DEAL WITH THOSE THAT HAD ALL
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEWER
MORATORIUM. WE ARE READY TO COMMENCE BUILDING AND HAD
THE BUILDINGS DESIGNED, HAD THE FINANCING ARRANGED. WE
ARE READY TO TAKE UP BUILDING PERMITS, AND WE ARE CAUGHT
AND ARE SUFFERING HARDSHIP AND UNFAIRNESS BECAUSE OF THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE SYSTEM.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE PLANS FOUR YEARS FROM NOW AND
YOU MAY NEED A ZONING CHANGE, ET CETERA, THE 270 UNITS,
wtu.
IF COUNCIL ADOPTS THIS SYSTEM, WE'LL BE LONG GONE. IT IS
NOT INTENDED TO DEAL WITH YOUR KIND OF PROBLEM AT ALL.
THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES OF ADDITIONAL SEWERS IN THE FUTURE
COUNCIL MAY OR MAY NOT USE TH^S SYSTEM, BUT THEY INTEND
TO STUDY IT FURTHER IN LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE GAINED FROf
1 3
1 MAKING THIS INITIAL ALLOCATION.
2 I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE
3 TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT IS A POSSIBILITY OF 270 UNITS FOR
4 THOSE THAT HAVE ALL DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, READY TO GO
5 BEFORE THE MORATORIUM. AT.LEAST THAT IS THE WAY THE STAFF
6 AND COUNCIL REDRAFTED IT.
7 MR. NEWELL: I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU WITH ONE
8 EXCEPTION, AND THAT IS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ALLOCATION
9. SYSTEM, IT INDICATES THAT THE FULL DETAILS OF THE
10 CONSIDERATIONS OF OBJECTIVES THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE
11 COUNCIL ARE CONTAINED IN A PREVIOUS REPORT WHICH CALLS
12 FOR FIVE YEARS, A FIVE-YEAR DELINEATION OF THESE RULES.
13 NOW, IF WE ARE CUT OFF FROM AN APPLICATION FOR A FIVE-
14" YEAR PERIOD, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
15 MR. BIONDO: HAVE YOU READ THE RESOLUTION THAT IS
16 BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THE ADOPTION .OF COUNCIL? IF YOU
17 HAVEN'T, I SUGGEST YOU DO IT.
18 . MAYOR FRAZEE: THIS IS SPECIFIC ON THE 270 DWELLING
19 UNITS.
20 MR. NEWELL: AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT TIED INTO A
21 FIVE-YEAR SITUATION.
22 MAYOR FRAZEE: NO, THAT is NOT THE INTENT AT ALL.
23 AGAIN, THANK YOU.
24 MR. NEWELL: THANK YOU.
25 MR. BUSSEY: I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IT DOES SEEM
26 OBVIOUS THAT FROM THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME
27 OUT THAT MAYBE WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM EACH
28 AT THIS TIME, AND WE SHOULD MAKE A LIST. SOME OF THEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CAN BE ANSWERED AT THE END OF THE HEARING AND SOME OF THEM
MAY NEED RESEARCH AND THEN BE ANSWERED.
MR. PACKARD: MAY i GET A CLARIFICATION ALSO THAT
MIGHT ASSIST IN SOME OF THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC? AT
THIS POINT, AS I RECALL, THE INFILL MAP AREA HAS BEEN
ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL/ IS THAT CORRECT?
MAYOR FRAZEE: AT LEAST TENTATIVELY.
MR. BIONDO: ONLY AS PART OF THE INITIAL FIRST PHASE
SYSTEM AND LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL.
MAYQR- FRAZEE: WHO IS THE NEXT PERSON?
MR. KELLY: w. ALLAN KELLY, 4912 VIA AREQUIPA,
CARLSBAD. I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY AT A PREVIOUS MEETING
THAT I SHOULD COME TO THIS PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE
INFILL AND MY PROPERTY BEING INCLUDED IN IT. THAT'S WHY
I'M HERE, SO PLEASE DON'T CUT ME OFF BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
MAYOR FRAZEE: . I THINK THAT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT
COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE AND SAID YES,
WE WOULD LIKE THAT BOUNDARY INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL PROGRAM,
BUT I THINK IT IS STILL THE SUBJECT OF CHANGE IN THIS
HEARING.
MR. KELLY: LET ME HAND YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WRITTEN
INFORMATION THEN. I WON'T TRY TO BORE YOU WITH READING
THIS. IT IS FAIRLY SHORT. BASICALLY, I'M TALKING ABOUT
THE PROPERTY AT THE SOUTH END OF YOUR INFILL AREA, WHICH
IS BOUNDED ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
AND THE ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE CITY BOUNDARY. THIS IS
PRESENTLY BASICALLY MUD FLAT, vi DO NOT EXPECT TO BE IN
THE 275 UNITS, PROBABLY NOT FOR THE NEXT ALLOCATION EITHER
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ - 15
BUT EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME, DEALING With GOVERN-
I
MENTAL AGENCIES, THAT IF I DON'T PUT MY OAR IN WHEN I GET j
A CHANCE, IT IS MUCH HARDER AT A LATER DATE TO GET ANYTHINGj
I
ACCOMPLISHED. I JUST WANT TO HAVE THE INFILL AREA CHANGED |
SO WE WILL BE IN IT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD, AS I SAY, TO
SOME TIME HAVING TO HOLD THAT PROPERTY WHEN THE COASTAL
COMMISSION GETS AROUND TO MAKING UP ITS DECISION.
I WON'T READ THIS OTHER THAN THESE THINGS FOR YOU.
I THINK THE REASONS ARE PRETTY WELL LAID OUT AS WELL AS
THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU
CHANGE THE 'BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THAT PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY
WHICH IS IN THE CITY BOUNDARY. THE PART OF THE PROPERTY
WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE CITY, WE DON'T EXPECT TO BE PUT INTO
IT.
I THINK OUR BASIC — ONE OF OUR BASIC REASONS, NOT
REASONS, BUTIIF YOU WANT TO SAY THE RIGHT, IS THE FACT THAT
WE GAVE A LARGE PORTION OF THIS SEWER EASEMENT TO THE CITY
MANY YEARS AGO, AND AT LEAST ONE PERSON IN THE CITY SAID,
"WELL, LET THEM PUMP SEWERS TO A FUTURE SEWER ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE LAGOON." FUTURE, HECK. I DON'T WANT TO BE
INVOLVED IN A FACILITY THAT MIGHT HAPPEN AT SOME TIME.
I WANT TO MAINTAIN A RIGHT TO USE A SEWER ADJACENT TO MY
PROPERTY, AND THE PROPERTY HAS ALL THE UTILITIES NECESSARY.
THANK YOU.
MAYOR FRAZEE: ONE QUESTION. IS THAT CITY BOUNDARY
THE ORIGINAL CITY BOUNDARY?
MR. KELLY: IT WAS THE ORIGINAL CITY BOUNDARY.
MAYOR FRAZEE: IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANNEXATION?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
MR. KELLY: NO, SIR.
MAYOR FRAZEE: WAS THAT BUILT WITH THE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT OR WITH GENERAL BONDS?
MR. KELLY: IT WAS NOT AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
MR, PACKARD: COULD MR. HAGAMAN OUTLINE ON THE
INFILL MAP WHAT PROPERTY HE IS REFERRING TO? I'M NOT SURE
EVERYONE KNOWS.
MR. HAGAMAN: IT IS THIS PORTION IN HERE.
MR. FRAZEE: IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF YOU FORM SOME
KIND OF A LINE IF WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO SPEAK.
IT WILL SAVE US A LITTLE TIME IN BETWEEN. DON'T BE
BASHFUL.
MR'. LEFFERDINK: I AM BARTON LEFFERDINK, W6-B
COVE DRIVE, CARLSBAD. I AM WILLING TO CRY A LITTLE. I
HAD A PERMIT ISSUED TO ME FOR A FOUR-PLEX ONE BEDROOM
APARTMENTS, AND I BECAME ILL AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION ON
THEM. THE THING THAT WORRIES ME MOST, I THINK, IS THE
COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT. I HAD MY COASTAL COMMISSION
PERMIT, AND THEN THEY LOCKED ME OUT OF THE SEWER, AND I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WILL HAVE A COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT
AFTER THIS THING IS GRANTED OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
ALLOCATIONS THERE ARE OR WHEN THEY WILL COME THROUGH OR
WHATEVER. I WAS ISSUED A PERMIT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: YOU HAD AN EXPIRATION DATE ON IT?
MR. LEFFERDINK: YES.
MAYOR FRAZEE: YOU HAVE REVEWED THAT, THOUGH?"
MR. LEFFERDINK: WELL, I WANTED TO. I MEAN THE~ •***\ .
PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED ME AT THE SAME TIME, I'M BUILDING
17
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RIGHT NOW. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
IF YOU REMEMBER THIS, MR. MAYOR, THEY ISSUED ME A KIND OF
A PIGGYBACK PERMIT. IT WAS KIND OF CONTIGUOUS BECAUSE IT
WAS IN THE SAME AREA THERE, AND I WAS FREE TO GO AHEAD AND
DO MY FOUR UNITS. IN THE MEANTIME, WELL, YOU KNOW, I HAD
HEART SURGERY AND THAT SORT OF THING, AND I COULDN'T DO
VERY MUCH SO WE JUST KEPT THIS ONE PROJECT ALIVE IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO FINISH AT A LATER TIME. WE JUST DID SOME
POURING OF CONCRETE AND PILINGS, AND THAT SORT OF THING.
MR. BUSSEY: THE STAFF HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED THE
REAPPLICAT'ION FOR EXPIRED BUILDING PERMITS. IF THAT IS IN j
ACCORD WITH THE WISHES OF THE COUNCIL, IT SHOULD DISCUSS
THAT ISSUE.
MR. LEFFERDINK: i WAS READY AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDENi
THIS CAUGHT ME. ' |
MAYOR FRAZEE: AS FAR AS THE SUBJECT OF PUBLIC
&C.
HEARINGS OF THE ALLEGATION SYSTEM, YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT
TO BE WITHIN THAT ALLOCATION SYSTEM BY VIRTUE OF HAVING
v
THE COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT ALREADY.
MR. LEFFERDINK: THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTIOI^
THOUGH AS TO WHETHER I HAD A RIGHT TO GO AHEAD NOW BECAUSE
I ALREADY HAD A PERMIT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SEWER PERMITS,
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO GO AHEAD.
MR. PACKARD: THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLOCATION
SYSTEM IS TO PICK UP THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS.
MR. LEFFERDINK: BUT i DO QUALIFY FOR MY SHARE OF
WHATEVER ALLOCATION THERE IS?
18
T 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MR. PACKARD: YOU QUALIFIED TO MAKE APPLICATION
THROUGH THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM AND IF YOU COMPETE, WELL,
UNDER THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM, OF COURSE, THEN YOU WOULD BE
GRANTED.
MR. LEFFERDINK: IS THERE A SPECIAL FORM YOU FILL
OUT?
MAYOR FRAZEE: I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS BECAUSE THIS
IS THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE SYSTEM. IT IS ALL LAID OUT IN
THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS RATED BY THE STAFF BASED ON THE
SYSTEM AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PRESENTED. IF YOU READ
THIS, I THINK IT IS FAIRLY CLEAR.
MR. LEFFERDINK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR.'STARK: MY NAME IS DICK STARK, I LIVE AT
435 ZUNI DRIVE IN DEL MAR. I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICA-
TION. YOU SAID EARLIER THAT PRIOR TO THE IMPOSITION OF
THE MORATORIUM THAT ALL PERMITS HAD TO BE — ALL COASTAL
COMMISSION PERMITS AND THAT SORT OF THING HAD TO BE
OBTAINED, BUT THAT ISN'T THE WAY I READ — OKAY, I DID
MISUNDERSTAND IT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: AGAIN, THE STAFF, IF YOU WILL CORRECT
At
ME, SOMEONE COULD GO TODAY AND GET A COASTER COMMISSION
PERMIT, IF THEY HAD THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT BECAME TIME
TO APPLY FOR THESE, THEY WOULD STILL BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY
HAD ALL THEIR DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL FROM THE CITY. ALL
THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS HAVE TO BE PART OF THE
APPLICATION.
MR. STARK: MAY I ASK ABOUT,, ITEM 3 AND ITEM 5. I'M
x
NOT SURE THERE IS ANYONE HERE WHO CAN GIVE ME THE CORRECT
19
- 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANSWER, BUT PERHAPS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
UP BY THE STAFF. NUMBER 5 HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER ONE CAN
REDUCE SEWER ,/FFLUENT BY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS, AND THERE IS '
NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS INTENDED BY THAT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW OR WOULD
YOU LIKE --
MR. STARK: ALL RIGHT, AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION,
I THINK IT IS ALSO PROBABLY A STAFF QUESTION. I WILL
RESERVE THAT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: NEXT?
MR. PARKER: MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
I AM CLAYTON PARKER. MY ADDRESS IS 610 NEWPORT CENTER
DRIVE, SUITE 1220, NEWPORT BEACH. I AM AN ATTORNEY AND I
AM REPRESENTING KAISER-AETNA, DOING BUSINESS AS PONDEROSA
HOMES. THE PURPOSE OF MY SPEAKING AT THIS POINT IN TIME
IS TO EXPRESS OUR CONCLUSION THAT BEFORE THE PROPOSED
SEWER ALLOCATION CAPACITY SYSTEM MAY BE ADOPTED BY YOUR
CITY COUNCIL, THERE MUST BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
A PROJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CEQA IS NOT LIMITED
TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
HAS HELD THAT APPROVAL BY A LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR ANNEXATION OF A CITY OF PREDOMINANTLY RURAL
LAND WAS A PROJECT.
THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS HELD THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
CEQA WAS NECESSITATED BEFORE A TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
COULD CONSIDER WHETHER TO INCREASE ITS BUS FARES.
WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOUR CITY COUNCIL MAY NOT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
CONDUCT A HEARING IN THIS MATTER. WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING,
HOWEVER, IS THAT THE PROPOSED SEWER ALLOCATION CAPACITY
SYSTEM IS A PROJECT WHICH MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT. SECTION 21151 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE REQUIRES AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BY A LOCAL
AGENCY WHEN THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.
YOUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, MR. HAGAMAN, SUMMARIZED WHAT
THIS ALLOCATION SYSTEM WAS BEFORE US TONIGHT, AND I GUESS
THAT SUMMARY WOULD INDICATE IN FACT IT IS A PROJECT UNDER
QUESTIONING. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN IT IS DETERMINED
THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN YOUR TREATMENT PLANT IS
AVAILABLE, THE PROPOSED METHOD OF ALLOCATING CAPACITY
RIGHTS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. YOUR PROPOSED
SYSTEM WILL TEND TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL AND .COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT. IT WILL IMPEDE OTHER DEVELOPMENT. IT WILL
FAVOR SOME PORTIONS OF THE CITY OVER OTHERS. WE WOULD
JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR OPINION THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO
CEQA. THANK YOU.
MAYOR FRAZEE: THANK YOU, MR. PARKER. WHO IS NEXT
HERE? YOU MIGHT COME AROUND AND GET IN LINE OVER HERE.
MR. HALE: MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MY
NAME IS CHUCK HALE. I LIVE AT 3870 HIGHLAND DRIVE,
CARLSBAD. I CAME IN LATE TONIGHT AND IF MY COMMENTS ARE
MORE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AT ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING,
PLEASE ADVISE ME.
MY CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH THE ALLOCATION POINT
SYSTEM. IF WE HAD A POINT SYSTEM THAT HAD A SUBCATEGORY
FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, BEING THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
21
1 SAVED TO BUILD A FAMILY HOME, OWNER-BUILT RATHER THAN
2 BUYING FROM THE OPEN MARKETPLACE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
3 DEVELOPERS WOULD BE MORE SOPHISTICATED, I THINK, AT
4 QUICKLY ADAPTING TO THE SUBTLE NUANCES OF A POINT SYSTEM.
5 I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME EDGE OR SOME ADDITIONAL POINTS
6 ' GIVEN TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOT
7 BUILDING FOR SPECULATION OR LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT SUCH
8 AS TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTHEAST, FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO
9 HAVE RENTED OR LEASED A NUMBER OF YEARS IN HOPES OF
10 FINALLY REACHING THE POINT WHERE THEY COULD AFFORD TO
11 BUILD A HOME. IS THERE ANY PROVISION FOR DISTINGUISHING
12 IN THE POINT SYSTEM, SAY BETWEEN A SPEC BUILDER AND
13^ SOMEONE WHO IS THE OWNER-BUILDER?
14 MAYOR FRAZEE: NO, i GUESS THAT is DIFFICULT.
15 MR. HALE: i HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE POINT
16 SYSTEM. IN THE EVENT, YOU KNOW, ONCE PEOPLE REALLY GET
17 ATTUNED TO A POINT SYSTEM, IT GETS VERY COMPETITIVE TO
18 . ACCUMULATE POINTS. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENT OF A TIE?
19 MAYOR FRAZEE: YOU WERE NOT HERE AT THE INITIAL
20 PRESENTATION?
21 MR. HALE: NO.
22 MAYOR FRAZEE: IT WAS THE INTENT OF SOME OF THE
23 OTHER PHASES OF THE SYSTEM TO HELP ELIMINATE TIES, AND
24 THOSE HAVE TO DO WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC
25 FACILITIES, AND THE FIRE RESPONSE TIME, PUBLIC SAFETY
26 RESPONSE TIME, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
27 MR. HALE: i WILL STUDY IT MORE IN DEPTH, i DON'T
28 KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SYSTEM:'
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ITSELF.
MAYOR FRAZEE: i THINK AGAIN THIS is ONLY DESIGNED
TO TAKE CARE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY GET CAPACITY
ONLY IN THE NATURE OF 270 DWELLINGS. A LONG-RANGE SYSTEM
OR ANY OTHER CAPACITY, I THINK THE SYSTEM MAY BE REVIEWED
IN LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE THAT COMES OUT OF THIS ONE.
MR. HALE: I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF REDEVELOPMENT
AND IMPROVING OUR TAX BASE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK YOU KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY PERSON NEEDS A
LITTLE MORE. OF THE ALLOCATION THAN THE SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY
PROVIDING. THANK YOU.
MR. PACKARD: MAY i MAKE A COMMENT RELATIVE TO HIS
FIRST POINT? ON EXHIBIT D, PAGE 3 OF THE ALLOCATION
SYSTEM, ITEM NO. 6 DOES FAVOR THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENT,
THE SIZE OF A DEVELOPMENT. IT STATES: "WILL THE PROJECT
REQUIRE LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SEWER CAPABILITY THAT
IS AVAILABLE IN ITS LAND USE TYPE?" IF IT IS 50 PERCENT
OR OVER THERE ARE NO POINTS. AND THEN AS IT PROGRESSES
IT GETS DOWN TO A SMALLER AND SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, THE
POINTS ARE INCREASED, AND IF A SINGLE LOT IS DEVELOPED,
THERE IS HIGHER POINTS THAN ANY SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT
THAT WOULD INVOLVE MORE THAN ONE LOT, SO IN REALITY IT
DOES FAVOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOT, ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T STATE
IT HAS TO BE A HOME-OWNER.
MAYOR FRAZEE: I GUESS THERE IS NO WAY OF REALLY
PROHIBITING SOMEONE FROM BUILDING A HOUSE AND SELLING IT
SIX MONTHS LATER. THAT IS A DIFFICULT THING FOR THE AREA
OF GOVERNMENT TO GET INTO, TO ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE.
23
1 MR. CLOUD: I AM PERCY CLOUD FROM 5201 SHORE DRIVE,
2 CARLSBAD. I AM A RESIDENT OF YOUR COMMUNITY. I HAVE A
3 PARCEL OF PROPERTY AT 286 CHINQUAPIN. I BELIEVE IT IS
4 CALLED THE INFILL AREA. THERE WERE TWO PARCELS ORIGINALLY
5 BACK IN NOVEMBER, AND I HAD GONE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
6 COASTAL COMMISSION, TAKING MY PLANS AND HAD THEM REVISED,
7 AND THEN HAD AN ASSEMBLING OF THE TWO LOTS, WHICH I HAVE
8 PAID THE CITY, YOUR ENGINEERS, TO PUT TOGETHER TO MAKE
9 ONE PARCEL, WHICH I HAVE PAID THEM TO DO THAT. BUT WHEN
10 I GOT READY TO BUILD, THE MORATORIUM CAME IN. SO I AM.AT
11 A STANDSTILL, AND I REALLY NEED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
12 THE PROCEDURE AND HOW LONG I HAVE TO WAIT. WE HAD THE
!3, PROPERTY 15 YEARS. I'M NOT REALLY A FLY-BY-NIGHT. THE
!4 SEWERS ARE PAID FOR, CURBING, EVERYTHING CASH, JUST
!5 PAYING TAXES NOW. ALL I WANT IS SOME INFORMATION ON HOW
!6 LONG AND WHAT TRANSPIRES AND HOW FAR DOWN THE LINE.
17 MAYOR FRAZEE: FROM WHAT i UNDERSTAND, THIS is
18 MULTIPLE-ZONED PROPERTY?
19 MR. CLOUD: YES, SIR.
20 MAYOR FRAZEE: YOU PLAN TO BUILD THAT KIND OF
21 DEVELOPMENT?
22 MR. CLOUD: YES, SIR.
23 MAYOR FRAZEE: WITHOUT KNOWING THE WHOLE THING, I
24 WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ARE AN ELIGIBLE APPLICANT UNDER THE
25 PROCEDURE THAT IS OUTLINED HERE.
26 MR. CLOUD: YES, SIR.
27 MAYOR FRAZEE: IF YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT WITH
28 OUR STAFF, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO YOU.
1 MR. CLOUD: I WILL DO ANYTHING, I'M OPEN FOR
2 SUGGESTIONS.
3 MAYOR FRAZEE: THAT is THE WAY TO GET IN LINE IF YOU
4 HAVE ALL THE NECESSARY DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS.
5 MR. CLOUD: WHAT DO i DO?
6 . MAYOR FRAZEE: IF YOU WILL COME IN AND TALK TO THE
7 PLANNING STAFF, WE WILL GO OVER IT WITH YOU AND GIVE YOU
8 A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL.
9 MR. CLOUD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
10 MR. BARTMAN: i AM JOHN BARTMAN, 450 NORTH ROXBURY
11 DRIVE, SUITE 606, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA. I AM HERE
12 TO REPRESENT GROVE APARTMENT INVESTMANT COMPANY. I AM
13 HERE TO TALK MAINLY ON THE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION PORTION
14' OF THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY IN
15 THE PHASE ONE TO REALLY SERVE OUR NUMBER OF ZONED UNITS.
16 AFTER WORKING THROUGH THE NUMBERS IN THE SYSTEM, I WANT
17 TO MAKE COUNCIL AWARE OF THE NUMBERS. ON PHASE TWO FOR
18 THE BALANCE OF THE FIVE YEARS, AND TAKING THE PERCENTAGES
19 FOR MULTI-FAMILY, THERE IS NO WAY OF SPREADING OUT OVER
20 THE YEARS TO BUILD ANY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE BUILDINGS IN ANY
21 ONE YEAR. I'M REALLY ARGUING THE CHANGE FROM THE GENERAL
22 PLAN ZONING TO THE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE ALLOCA-
23 TION.
24 MAYOR FRAZEE: MAYBE WE SHOULD CLEAR UP WHAT APPEARS
25 TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING AT THIS POINT.
26 MR. BARTMAN: I KNOW YOU SAID THIS ONLY APPLIES TO
27 PHASE ONE. AS THE GENTLEMAN BEfORE SAID, YOU'RE GOING TO
V .
28 PASS A PLAN THAT HAS NUMBERS, AND I THINK AT LEAST IT
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHOULD BE COMMENTED ON WHAT 10 PERCENT MEANS. THAT IS
!
ONLY 27 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY OUT OF THE 275. AND DOWN jj
THE LINE WHEN YOU GET TO 2,750 UNITS, YOU WILL CREATE THE
I
PLANS IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THAT IS ONLY 275 MULTI-
3o
FAMILY UNITS. AND IF YOU TAKE 50 PERCENT, THAT IS ONLY
81 UNITS. WHAT YOU HAVE DONE HERE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
POINT SYSTEM OR ANYTHING ELSE, YOU ARE TAKING THE GENERAL
PLAN, IT CONCEDES IN THERE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
50 PERCENT OF THE DEMAND FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, AND YOU
HAVE TAKEN THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE NUMBERS AND YOU CAN'T
COME OUT WITH MORE THAN 70 OR 80 UNITS FOR ANY ONE YEAR.
WE HAVE MORE THAN 700 UNITS. WE HAVE HAD THE MASTER PLAN
SINCE 1971, AND HAVE BEEN TALKING TO STAFF ALL ALONG ABOUT
OUR NEW BUILDING PLANS. THERE IS NO WAY TO BUILD THAT
EVEN IN PHASE TWO IN ANY ONE YEAR.
YOU PUBLISH NUMBERS, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
PEOPLE BESIDES THE STAFF HAVE MULTIPLIED THEM OUT AND
KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS IN ACTUAL UNITS, IN ACTUAL BUILDINGS.
IN EFFECT YOU HAVE AMENDED YOUR GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS THROUGH A SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM WHICH
SPECIFICALLY STATES IN THE JULY 29TH MEMO THAT YOU ARE
TRYING TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL USE, AND I THINK
THAT IS REALLY A GENERAL PLAN PROCEDURE AND NOT A SEWER
APPLICATION PROCEDURE. THAT IS WHAT I'M GETTING UP HERE
TO SPEAK ON. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDER-
STANDS IT. I CAME DOWN FROM LOS ANGELES, AND I WASN'T
AWARE THAT WE WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PHASE ONE. BUT I
THINK THE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN THE MEMO DIDN'T REALLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
CHANGE FROM PHASE ONE TO PHASE TWO. I WANTED TO ADDRESS
MYSELF TO THAT FACT.
MR. HUNT: I AM LARRY HUNT, 501 CHINQUAPIN, CARLSBAD.
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND ON WHAT THE LAST MAN SAID. WE ARE
LOCKED INTO PHASES OF AT LEAST 50 TO THE PHASE. THERE IS
NO WAY THAT 10 PERCENT OF 270 WOULD DO US ANY GOOD,
OBVIOUSLY. BUT MY ONE CONCERN IS ONCE WE.APPLY AND GET
AN ALLOCATION OR A CATEGORY FOR SEWERS, CAN WE USE THIS
INTO THE NEXT GROUP OF SEWERS? CAN WE APPLY IT TO THE
NEXT ONE? _ CAN WE FORGO IT IN THE FIRST PHASE AND THEN USE
THAT CATEGORY OF JUDGMENT INTO THE NEXT PHASE OF ALLOCATION
OR CAN WE USE IT TO PROVIDE ANOTHER BACKUP SYSTEM?
FOR INSTANCE, WE ARE WILLING TO INSTALL A REVERSE
OSMOSIS SYSTEM AND POSSIBLY USE WHAT LITTLE CATEGORY WE
HAVE TO THE DOWN TIME OR WHATEVER FORMULA MIGHT BE ABLE
TO BE DERIVED, BUT WE CAN'T COME UP WITH THAT IN THE SHORT!
TIME WE HAVE TO TAKE OUT A BUILDING PERMIT FOR UNITS THAT
WE COULDN'T BUILD OUR FULL NUMBER OF UNITS IN A PHASE THAT
WE ARE LOCKED INTO. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE SITTING THERE
AND MAYBE WE ARE ONLY QUALIFIED FOR 10 UNITS. CAN WE PUSH
THIS OVER INTO THE NEXT PHASE OR COULD WE USE THIS AS
DOWN TIME ON SEWER TIME, OR IS THAT SOME OTHER WAY THAT
WE GET CREDIT FOR WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE COMING TO US?
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE COULD USE THE WHOLE 270
UNITS, LIKE MANY OTHER PEOPLE COULD. SO BEING WILLING TO
PUT IN A COMPLETE REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM WITH A WATER
BACKUP AND WATER CONSERVATION^'WHICH WE ARE WITH A DRY
SYSTEM BACKUP, CAN WE TRANSFER THIS INTO THE NEXT
27
1 ALLOCATION? THAT IS MY CONCERN.
2 MAYOR FRAZEE: JUST BRIEFLY, THIS PARTICULAR
SITUATION OR THIS PLAN AGAIN IS TO DEAL WITH, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, AND I HOPE THAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES, THAT IT
5 IS ONLY TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL OF THE 270 EQUIVALENT
6 DWELLING UNITS WE MAY GET AND IT IS TO BE UTILIZED
7 IMMEDIATELY, SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY PROCEDURE THAT
8 ALLOWS STORING OR STOCKPILING OF THE PERMITS THAT MAY BE
9 GRANTED UNDER THIS. WORK MUST COMMENCE ON THEM WITHIN A
10 SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME OR THEY ARE LOST.
11 MR. WARD: MY NAME is ROY WARD, i REPRESENT LAKE.
12 CALAVERA HILLS ASSOCIATES, 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA. I RISE ONLY TO ADDRESS TWO ISSUES WHICH I
14 THINK NEED SOME CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE. THAT IS
THAT I THINK I WOULD BE SPEAKING FOR A NUMBER OF CITIZENS
16 WHO HAVE BEEN LONG-TIME TAXPAYERS AND SANITATION DISTRICT
17 MEMBERS, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THEIR TAX BILLS, WHO MAY OR
18 MAY NOT BE ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE SO-CALLED INFILL AREA,
19 BUT ARE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS AND HAVE BEEN
20 FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. I DON'T SEE IN THE PHASE ONE
21 OR PHASE TWO -- PHASE TWO SPEAKS TO IT BRIEFLY, I BELIEVE
22 ANY WEIGHT OR ANY CREDIT GIVEN, IF YOU WILL FORGIVE THE
23 TERM, TO TIME IN SERVICE AS A TAXPAYER WITHIN THE CITY. I
WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY CONSIDE
SOME WEIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL.
26 IN SOME INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, PEOPLE HAVE
27 PAID CONSIDERABLE TAXES, AND ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE
28 INCLUDED IN THE INFILL, IT WOULD SEEM ONLY REASONABLE AND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
EQUITABLE TO GIVE THEM SOME WEIGHT OR SOME CREDIT FOR
TIME IN SERVICE,.SO TO SPEAK.
MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT WAS ON THE MATTER OF A BLANK
THAT EXISTED ON PAGE 7 REGARDING PERMITS AND FEES. IT
SEEMS TO BE THAT BY PAYING OF THE SEWER HOOKUP FEE WHICH
HAS BEEN DOUBLED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, THAT ANY ADDI-
TIONAL FEES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED HERE OR MIGHT BE
SUGGESTED, MIGHT BE WAIVED IN THIS CASE. THE LAND OWNER
AND DEVELOPER-BUILDER REALLY HAVEN'T CAUSED THIS SITUATION
SO MUCH AS-IT IS A CRITICAL SITUATION WHERE IT JUST CAME
ABOUT. THE ADDITIONAL FEES ON THAT, IN MY OPINION, AND
IT IS ONLY AN OPINION, SHOULD BE NOMINAL FOR THESE PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU ARE TRYING TO INCREASE THE INFILL
AREA, AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BEAR
EXTENSIVE BURDENS OF FEES, AND WE ARE ALL AWARE HOW THE
FEES HAVE BEEN INCREASING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE DESIROUS OF IMPROVING THEIR PROPERTY.
THANK YOU.
MAYOR FRAZEE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO BE HEARD ON
THIS MATTER?
MR. LEWIS: PERHAPS YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE POINT OF
OUR LEASING THAT LAND?
MAYOR FRAZEE: i HOPE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THE
INTENT OF THIS WAS THAT THE NORMAL SEWER CONNECTION FEE
WOULD BE PAID, AND AGAIN THAT IS TO UTILIZE LEASED CAPACITY
FROM THE UNITAS SANITATION DISTRICT, AND THEY ARE GOING TO
BE CHARGING US FOR THAT CAPACITY OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL
COST OF THE PROCESSING OF SEWAGE THROUGH THE PLANT, AND IT
29
"l WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THOSE FEES j
2 MIGHT BE PASSED ON IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I THINK IN
3 LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE FEE FOR A TYPICAL DWELLING
4 WOULD BE THE NORMAL $500 HOOKUP FEE PLUS THE FIGURE WAS
5 ALLOCATED TO BE $300-SOME, IT STILL IS SOMEWHAT LESS THAN
6 THE $1,000 BEING CHARGED IN THE CITY OF VISTA. I THINK
7 THAT IF VISTA GETS SOME OF THAT, THEY WILL PROBABLY DO
8 THE SAME THING AND ADD THAT ADDITIONAL LEASING FEE ON TOP
9 OF THE $1,000 THAT THEY ARE CHARGING FOR SEWER HOOKUPS.
10 MISS HAASL: MY NAME is MARY ANN HAASL. i LIVE AT
11 27967 CABOT ROAD, LAGUNA NIGUEL. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW FROM
12 MY LETTERS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU IN THE PAST, MY
13 HUSBAND AND I WERE INVOLVED WITH FIVE LOTS ON BRISTOL
14 COVE, SOME OF WHICH OWNERSHIP GOES BACK TO 1967. THREE OF
15 THEM JUST CLOSED PRIOR TO THE MORATORIUM, AND I'M CONCERNEC
16 ABOUT YOUR ALLOCATION FOR THE MULTIPLE FAMILY, THE PERSONS
17 EVEN IN THIS SMALL NUMBER THAT ARE AVAILABLE OR WILL BE
18 AVAILABLE. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO REFLECT THE LAND USE
19 PERCENTAGES THAT ARE ON THE GENERAL PLAN. IN ADDITION TO
20 THAT, THE POINT SYSTEM, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS THAT
21 WOULD BE CONSIDERED ARE THE HIGHEST FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT
22 AVAILABLE. IT DOES SEEM THAT THAT IS A LITTLE UNFAIR.
23 PERHAPS YOU MIGHT LIKE TO THINK THAT ONE OVER A LITTLE BIT.
24 I HAVE A QUESTION. IF YOU DO ADOPT THIS PLAN NOW,
25 SAY FOR INSTANCE THIS EVENING, HOW SOON WILL IT BE BEFORE
26 WE CAN SUBMIT OUR PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK?
27 MAYOR FRAZEE: I THINK FIRST OF ALL THIS IS A
28 CONTINGENCY PLAN BASED ON THE AVAILABILITY OF SEWER FROM
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ENCINITAS, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THOSE NEGOTIATIONS
ARE NOT COMPLETE OR SOME DISTANCE FROM BEING COMPLETE,
EVEN KNOWING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT CAPACITY. IS
THAT CORRECT, IS THAT COUNCIL'S THINKING?
MR. BIONDO: THE DRAFT OF OUR ALLOCATION SYSTEM
RECOGNIZES THAT WE ARE ONLY ESTIMATING THAT WE WANT TO
SECURE THIS AMOUNT, AND THERE WILL BE A 30-DAY PERIOD IN
WHICH APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE FILED. THE COUNCIL, ITSELF,
WILL SET THAT DATE WHEN AND IF WE FINALIZE THE ARRANGE-
MENTS WITH ENCINITAS. I ASSUME THAT ANYONE WHO IS
INTERESTED IN MAKING APPLICATION UNDER THE ALLOCATION
SYSTEM WILL MAKE THEMSELVES KNOWN TO THE CITY MANAGER SO
THAT WHEN THE COUNCIL SETS THE DATE, IF THEY DON'T READ
THE NEWSPAPER OR ATTEND THE MEETING, WE WILL BE ABLE TO
GET NOTICE TO THEM. BUT THE 30 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT
APPLICATIONS CAN'T BE TRIGGERED UNTIL COUNCIL DETERMINES
THAT THE SEWER HAS IN FACT BEEN ACQUIRED. WE DON'T HAVE
IT YET.
MISS HAASL: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN YOU WILL
KNOW? I HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR ASKING SINCE THE LENDER
THAT WE HAVE ON THE UNITS HAS EXTENDED THE LOAN SINCE
APRIL, AND IT IS JUST ABOUT TO BE GONE.
MR. BUSSEY: I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. IT DEPENDS ON AN AGREEMENT AND WHETHER ENCINITA
WILL RELEASE IT UNDER REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT HAS
NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET.
MISS HAASL: YOU WILL NO.TJFY us THEN?
x -
MR. BUSSEY: WE DO, MR. MAYOR, KEEP A RECORD OF ALL
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PEOPLE WHO SEND IN LETTERS OF INQUIRY AND HAVE NOTICED
THEM. MANY PEOPLE MIGHT BE HERE BECAUSE OF THAT. IF YOU
HEARD OF THIS MEETING IN ANY OTHER WAY, I DO SUGGEST YOU
GIVE ME A LETTER AND I WILL SEE THAT YOU ARE IN THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO BE NOTIFIED DIRECTLY OF
THAT, IT WILL BE ADVERTISED IN THE PAPER, NOT JUST AS A
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT BUT WIDELY PUBLICIZED.
MR. BIONDO: COUNCIL HAS INSTRUCTED US TO MOVE AS
FAST AS POSSIBLE BUT WE CAN'T ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME.
MISS' HAASL: WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT PERCENTAGE
ON THE MULTIPLE HOUSING?
MR.- PACKARD: THE COMMITTEE DID HAVE FIGURES THAT
BROKE -THE CITY DOWN INTO ITS VARIOUS LAND USES, AND THEY
WERE CONSIDERED AND THESE FIGURES MAY NOT BE EXACT, BUT
THEY CERTAINLY DO APPROACH THE GENERAL BREAKDOWN PERCENTAG
WISE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. SO THAT INDUSTRIAL,
COMMERCIAL, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DOES HAVE A CORRELATION TO THE ACTUAL
GENERAL PLAN. AGAIN THERE WERE SOME VARIATIONS BECAUSE
OF CONTINGENCY THAT HAS BEEN RESERVED FOR FAILING SEPTIC
TANKS, ET CETERA, BUT THIS WAS VERY DEFINITELY CONSIDERED
AS A PART OF ADVISING THESE PERCENTAGES, AND WE DID NOT
OVERLOOK THE GENERAL LAND USAGE IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
CITY.
MISS HAASL: THANK YOU.
MR. BOTTOMLY: MY NAME IS JIM BOTTOMLY, SOLANA BEACH.
I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THOMAS STEVENS, WHO OWNS A SINGLE
VACANT PARCEL IN THE 1800 BLOCK OF HIGHLAND DRIVE IN
i
J.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CARLSBAD. WE HAVE TWO PRIMARY AREAS OF CONCERN. THE
FIRST ONE IS A CLARIFICATION OF QUALIFICATION NUMBER TWO
ON PAGE FOUR OF THE SYSTEM REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. IT WAS SAID EARLIER, I
BELIEVE, THAT THIS APPROVAL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN
NECESSARILY APPROVED BEFORE THE APRIL DATE, AND I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND THE READING OF THIS NUMBER TWO AS THAT, AND I
WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT APPROVAL STILL COULD BE OBTAINED
PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL APPLICATION FILING DATE?
MAYOR FRAZEE: YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT
MR. BIONDO SAID IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION.
MR. BOTTOMLY: THAT is WHAT -i UNDERSTOOD AND i
WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT COMMENT ABOUT THE APRIL 19TH DATE.
THE SECOND AREA OF CONCERN THAT WE HAVE WAS THE REQUIRE-
MENT ON PAGE 7, WHICH IS THE 30-DAY REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE
NO PROBLEM WITH IT BEGINNING WITHIN THE 30 DAYS, AND
REALIZE THE NECESSITY TO COMMENCE ACTION PROMPTLY IN THE
BUILDING, BUT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS
SEEMS TO BE A MANDATORY REVOCATION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
IF THERE IS A DELAY OF 30 DAYS OR MORE, AND I QUESTION THE
MANDATORY NATURE OF THIS PRIMARILY BECAUSE SO MANY THINGS
COULD HAPPEN THAT COULD POSSIBLY DELAY THE BUILDING IN
THE CONSTRUCTION FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE. THERE SHOULD BE,
I BELIEVE, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WRITTEN INTO THE SYSTEM FOR
THESE PARTICULAR ACTS, MUCH THE SAME AS IN A PRIVATE
CONTRACT, AN ACT OF GOD, STRIKES OR SHORTAGES OF MATERIALS,
OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
N .
ANOTHER CONCERN I'M SURE MANY PEOPLE WOULD HAVE WOULC
— 33
1 ALSO BE A LOSS OF FINANCING, AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME
2 TYPE OF PROVISION FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THESE AREAS THAT
3 COULD DELAY A PROJECT OVER 30 DAYS.
4 MISS CASLER: MR. BOTTOMLY, AT THE TOP OF PAGE 8 IS
5 A CONTINUATION OF THAT PARAGRAPH. I THINK YOU MISSED
6 THAT. .
7 MR. BOTTOMLY: I THINK THAT IS KIND OF A GENERAL
8 SPELLING OUT, AND I'M KIND OF CONCERNED BECAUSE IT IS SO
9 GENERAL. V/OULD THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TAKE INTO
10 ACCOUNT THINGS LIKE LOSS OF FINANCING AND THINGS LIKE
11 THAT?
12 MR. PACKARD: i DON'T BELIEVE IT is THE INTENT OF
13 THE COMMITTEE IN ANY WAY TO RECOMMEND THAT IF THEY LOSE
14 FINANCING THAT THEY WOULD BE GRANTED TIME, ALL KINDS OF
15 TIME TO GO BACK AND START TO REPROCESS THEIR~WHOLE PROJECT.!i
16 I THINK THE SYSTEM IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUGGESTING
17 AND THAT IT MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG. OTHERWISE, THERE WILL
18 . BE DISCRETIONARY DELAYS WHICH WE THINK IS NOT IN KEEPING
19 WITH THE INTENT OF WHAT LITTLE ALLOCATION THERE IS TO GIVE,
20 I AGREE WITH MRS. CASLER THAT WHERE THERE ARE DELAYS WHICH
21 A DEVELOPER CANNOT CONTROL, THESE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN.
22 I DO FEEL THAT IF THE COMMITTEE HAD THE DESIRE TO ALLOW
23 ALL KINDS OF DELAYS TO DEVELOP, THAT WOULD STOCKPILE OR
24 GUM UP THE WORKS OF GETTING THE PROCESS DONE. I MAY BE
25 MISTAKEN ON THAT, BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH SUCH A LITTLE
26 AMOUNT THAT WE DID NOT DESIRE FOR IT TO BE EITHER STOCK-
27 PILED NOR DID WE DESIRE FOR IT TO BE PASSED FROM ONE TO
28 ANOTHER TO BE REALLOCATED FROM ONE DEVELOPER TO ANOTHER.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
WE FELT THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONTROLS TO KEEP THE PROJECT
MOVING ALONG. OTHERWISE, THERE WILL BE OTHERS THAT WILL
HAVE JUST AS GREAT A NEED OR URGENCY ABOUT THEIR PROJECT,
AND SO WE FELT IN FAIRNESS TO ALL OF THOSE THAT WERE
SEEKING ALLOCATIONS THAT IT OUGHT TO BE WRITTEN IN TO
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO MOVE ALONG AND NOT TO JUST BE
DELAYED FOR MOST ANY REASON.
MR. BOTTOMLY: THANK YOU.
MAYOR FRAZEE: DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO ONE?
THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO BE HEARD. IF THERE IS
NO ONE ELSE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE TO
DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL.
MR. BIONDO: I HAVE ONE POINT. COUNCIL ALREADY
UNDERSTANDS THAT IF YOU WOULD ADOPT THIS FIRST PHASE
SYSTEM, IT WON'T BE NECESSARY FOR THE MATTER TO RETURN TO
THE COUNCIL TO SET A TIME LIMIT RUNNING ONCE WE FINALIZE
THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH ENCINITAS. MR. PACKARD POINTED
OUT QUITE CORRECTLY THAT THE DRAFT ALLOCATION SYSTEM
CONTAINS A BLANK FOR THE SPECIAL ALLOCATION FEE OF
NECESSITY SINCE THE FEE IS INTENDED TO RECOUP THE SPECIAL
COSTS WHICH THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PAY TO ENCINITAS, AND IT
IS NOT POSSIBLE APPARENTLY TO ESTIMATE THAT FEE UNTIL WE
FINALIZE THE NEGOTIATIONS. SO AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU
BY MOTION SET THE TIME LIMIT RUNNING FOR APPLICATIONS, WE
WILL HAVE TO RETURN THIS WITH A SHORT RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE SYSTEM TO ADD THE FEE ONCE IT IS ASCERTAINED.
MAYOR FRAZEE: WORKING BACKWARDS ON SOME OF THESE
COMMENTS, FIRST OF ALL IS THE ONE ON REVOCATION OF A
35
PERMIT. I THINK THE STATEMENT MADE BY COUNCILMAN PACKARD
2 REFLECTS MY FEELING ALSO. I THINK THE FINDING OF FACT
3 OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL'S FINANCING WAS NOT I
4 AVAILABLE WOULD BE AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ONE, AND I DON'TJ
5 REALLY KNOW HOW COUNCIL COULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
6 IT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR SOMEONE TO SET OUT AT THE
7 BEGINNING TO GET A PERMIT, AND THEN HOLD ON TO IT FOR SOME
8 PERIOD OF TIME AND NOT PERFORM IN THE. MANNER THAT WE
9 OUTLINED, SO I THINK THE GENERAL STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE
10 IN THE DRAFT THAT ALLOWS COUNCIL TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS IS
11 ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO ON THAT.
12 MR.' BIONDO: IF YOU ARE SATISFIED IN YOUR DISCUSSION!
13 THAT THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED THIS EVENING, I THINK WE
14 WANT TO CHANGE IT SLIGHTLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABILITY OF
15 COUNCIL TO AMEND THE SYSTEM TO ADD THE FEE, AND WE ALSO
16 WANT TO CHECK OUT AS A STAFF THE STATUS OF THE ENVIRON-
17 MENTAL REVIEW. I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BUT WE
18 ARE NOT PREPARED TO ADVISE COUNCIL OF THE SPECIFICS, SO
19 I THINK WHATEVER YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF MODIFYING THE ACTUAL
20 ADOPTION, WE SUGGEST DELAY UNTIL THE MEETING OF THE 20TH.
21 MR. PACKARD: ARE YOU REFERRING TO MR. PARKER'S
22 ALLUSION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA?
23 MR. BIONDO: THAT AND THE NEED TO PROVIDE THE FUTURE,
24 AMENDMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE FEES.
25 KAYOR FRAZEE: ON ANOTHER CONCERN RAISED ABOUT THE
26 INFILL AREA, I HAVE SOME FEELING OF A NEED TO AT LEAST
27 INCLUDE ALL OF THE CITY'S ORIGINAL INCORPORATED BOUNDARIES1
28 OR THOSE AREAS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN THAT SEWER SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36
AREA, AND IN THE CASES CITED HERE IT WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER ON THIS ALLOCATION SYSTEM. BOTH SPEAKERS WHO
TALKED ABOUT THAT, THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR APPLICATION UNDER THIS SYSTEM, AND I THINK AS
A PRACTICAL MATTER IN FAIRNESS TO THOSE PROPERTIES, THEY
SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
MISS CASLER: i AGREE, MR. MAYOR, AND i THINK THE
KELLY PROPERTY SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
MAYOR FRAZEE: THIS WAS THE ONE THAT MR. NEWELL
SPOKE ABOU.T> AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL
CITY LIMITS OR AN ANNEXATION.
MR. PACKARD: MY FEELINGS ARE THAT AS THE COMMITTEE
AND I'M SURE THE STAFF STUDY THE INFILL MAP AREA, IT OF
NECESSITY HAS TO BE ARBITRARY TO SOME DEGREE. I FURTHER
AGREE WITH MR. KELLY'S CONCEPT THAT ONCE WE DO ADOPT THE
INFILL MAP, IT TENDS TO BE SET A LITTLE MORE IN CONCRETE
THAN IT IS AT THIS POINT, AND I THINK THAT WHERE IT WILL
NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT UPON THE SYSTEM ITSELF, AND
WHERE THERE IS NO OBVIOUS REASON NOT TO INCLUDE THEM, I
DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION AT ALL OF INCLUDING EITHER ONE OF
THESE PARCELS.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON ONE OTHER PARCEL. I MAY BE
MISTAKEN BUT I THINK THE QUAIL RICH, I THINK IT WAS QUAIL
RICH, WASN'T IT, THAT ALSO ASKED TO BE CONSIDERED, AND I
THINK THIS WOULD BE A TIME TO AT LEAST DISCUSS THAT PARCEL.
MAYOR FRAZEE: THAT BOUNDARY AS IT is DRAWN PICKS UP
THE ONLY HOMES IN TEMPLETON HEIGHTS THAT HAVE BUILDING
PERMITS. IS THAT CORRECT?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37
MR. PACKARD: THAT'S CORRECT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE QUAIL RICH.
MISS CASLER: AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OTHER
SECTION OF TEMPLETON HEIGHTS WHICH DOES NOT HAVE BUILDING
PERMITS. I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT UP THAT THOSE PLACES
DO HAVE TENTATIVE MAPS AND ARE CERTAINLY MORE ELIGIBLE
THAN SOME AREAS OF THE CITY.
MR. PACKARD: i THINK IT is OBVIOUS THERE is NOT
GOING TO BE ANY SEWER PERMITS GRANTED THAT WE DON'T HAVE
TO GRANT,'AND I THINK THE INTENT OF THE INFILL MAP IS TO
OUTLINE THOSE AREAS THAT WOULD BE PERHAPS MOST READILY
ADAPTABLE TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BASIC DEVELOPED AREA.
I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE AREAS
CLOSELY. I DON'T THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE A BLANKET
APPROVAL FOR THEM UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THEY WILL BALANCE
OUT THE INFILL MAP RATHER THAN FURTHER CUT IT UP.
MISS CASLER: I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD SAVE
THOSE TWO, NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THESE ON THE MAP FOR THIS
ORIGINAL ALLOCATION, BUT WE SHOULD STUDY AND SEE- WHETHER
OR NOT WE WANT THOSE INCLUDED IN PHASE TWO.
MR. SKOTNICKI: I SEE NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR INCLUDING
ANY MORE OF THE TEMPLETON HEIGHTS AREA THAN WE HAVE NOW.
THE IDEA OF THE INFILL AREA, I THOUGHT, WAS TO TAKE CARE
OF THE OLD TOWN, TO FILL IN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE OR GOT
FOR A LONG TIME, AND NOT TO START ADDING TO IT BY PICKING
UP VACANT LAND ON THE FRINGES. THIS IS WHAT TEMPLETON
HEIGHTS IS.
MR. LEWIS: I CONCUR WITH MR. SKOTNICKI ON THAT.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38
•;
THAT KELLY PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGINAL BOUNDARY, AND
PERHAPS THAT OTHER PIECE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH
THE BASIC CONCEPT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT THE
INFILL MAP.
MAYOR FRAZEE: JUST FOR THE RECORD ON THIS SUBJECT,
WE DID HAVE A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DIRECTED TO THE CITY
FROM B.T.N. REPRESENTING THE LA QUESTA SUBDIVISION IN
MAKING A SPECIFIC REQUEST. THE CLERK HAS THAT ONE AND WE
WILL INCLUDE THAT ONE IN THE MINUTES.
IS COUNCIL PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS AT THIS
TIME? YOU DO WANT TO MODIFY THE RESOLUTION?
MR'. BIONDO: I THINK SO.
MR. SKOTNICKI: WHEN THE STAFF SUGGESTS THAT THIS
WILL COME BACK TO US WITH THE BLANKS FILLED"IN, I ASSUME
THEY ARE THE BLANKS THAT ARE OPPOSITE THE PERCENTAGES OF
VARIOUS LAND USES AND HOW MUCH THEY RATE IN TERMS OF
EDU WILL BE FILLED IN ALSO. I DON'T LIKE TO OKAY ANYTHING
THAT HAS BLANKS OF ANY KIND, AND THAT'S GOT BLANKS. THOSE
BLANKS COULD BE REMOVED OR THEY SHOULD BE FILLED IN.
MR. BUSSEY: IT MAY BE REASONABLE TO REMOVE THEM.
WE CAN'T FILL THEM IN BASED ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE
STATED IN THE BEGINNING, BUT AS YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT THAT
WE EVENTUALLY GET COULD BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. SO WE
WILL TRY TO HANDLE THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL EITHER FILLING THEM IN OR
TAKING THEM OUT.
V .
MR. SKOTNICKI: I WONDERED AS I LISTENED TO THE
TESTIMONY HERE THIS EVENING OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39
CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN
HERE, WHICH I THINK AT ONE POINT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
QUOTED VERBATIM AND WHICH WAS REFERRED TO FROM TIME TO TIME
DURING THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION. THIS FIRST PHASE,
UNLESS YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN AN ENTRY IN THE SYSTEM
SOMEWHERE, THE SYSTEM DOESN'T PROVIDE YOU A WAY IN. I
HOPE I HAVE INTERPRETED THAT CORRECTLY. PERHAPS I
REASSURED MYSELF, BUT I WASN'T SURE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDER-
STOOD THAT.
MR. PACKARD: YOU MAY STATE WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD.
MR. SKOTNICKI: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF YOU
HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SOMETHING TO GET YOUR FOOT IN THE
DOOR, THE CHANCES ARE THAT THIS DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO GET .
YOUR FOOT IN THE DOOR. FOR ONE THING, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE -
WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION THE DOOR IS OPEN, YOU HAVE
TO HAVE ALL YOUR APPROVALS ON HAND. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE
YOUR COASTAL COMMISSION, AS THE MAYOR POINTED OUT, IN HAND.
YOU CAN GO OUT AND GET IT BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. IF
YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AT THE
TIME THAT THE COUNCIL SAYS OKAY, GET SET, GET READY, GO,
THE CHANCES OF GETTING THEM ARE NIL IN 30 DAYS, THERE IS
NO CHANCE. YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY RUN A DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH, YOU COULDN'T EVEN GET YOUR 'BUILDING PLANS
APPROVED IN 30 DAYS. YOU MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING UNDER
THIS SYSTEM TO GET IN BEFORE THE 19TH OF APRIL, OR COULD
YOU HAVE DONE SO SINCE THEN? I THOUGHT WE CLOSED THE DOOR
TO EVERYTHING SINCE THEN.
MR. BUSSEY: IT WOULD BE GOOD IF I MAY ASK THE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING DIRECTOR A QUESTION OR TWO. I THINK YOU ARE
RIGHT FOR 99 PERCENT OF THE PROJECTS. I WONDER IF THE
PERSON WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY WHO HAS AND HAS HAD FOR
YEARS ALL DISCRETIONARY PERMITS COMPLETED, FIRST OF ALL,
WILL THIS REQUIRE HIM WHEN HE APPLIES TO HAVE HIS BUILDING
PLANS, JIM, OR DOES IT NOT?
MR. HAGAMAN: THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN UP BY THE
COMMITTEE, IT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO HAVE THOSE PLANS
AVAILABLE AS IF A BUILDING PERMIT WAS BEING APPLIED FOR.
MR. BUSSEY: BUT THE TIME DOES NOT START RUNNING
UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT IS READY TO BE ISSUED BY US?
MR. HAGAMAN: IN TERMS OF A 30 —
MR.'BUSSEY: YES.
MR. HAGAMAN: THE COMMITTEE IN CONCERNING;THEMSELVES
WITH THIS MATTER ON THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT WAS QUITE
AWARE THAT THIS WAS PROBABLY THE ONE PERSON IN THE
COMMUNITY THAT HAD THE LEAST KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING
HAPPENING, AND WAS THE MOST SURPRISED AT THE COUNTER WHEN
THEY WALKED IN AND FOUND A SEWER MORATORIUM. THEREFORE,
THEY SAID "IF YOU HAVE YOUR BUILDING PLANS READY, YOU CAN
COME IN AND APPLY FOR THIS."
MR. BUSSEY: MAY I ASK AGAIN, DOES THE TIME START
AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND
NOT AT THE TIME APPLIED FOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CONTROL?
MR. HAGAMAN: YES.
MR. BUSSEY: so IT is ONLY IN THE SENSE, i WOULD SAY,
THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD SJNGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH ALL
N -
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS PROBABLY KNOWING ABOUT THIS TODAY
1 THAT COULD GET READY TODAY?
2 MR. BIONDO: THE ALLOCATION SYSTEM SAYS YOU HAVE TO
3 HAVE ALL YOUR DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS WHEN YOU APPLY AND
YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION THE PROOF THAT
5 YOU DO. YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE IN YOUR APPLICATION ENOUGH
6 INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD TO ALLOW THE
7 STAFF TO ANALYZE IT IN TERMS OF THE POINT SYSTEM, BUT YOU
8 DON'T HAVE TO HAVE COMPLETE TOTAL BUILDING DESIGN. YOU
9 MUST, HOWEVER, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE COUNCIL CONFIRMS
10 THE LIST OF WHO GETS THE SEWER PERMITS, FILE YOUR BUILDING
11 APPLICATION, AND IF YOU DON'T THEN YOU ARE OUT.
I
12 SO TO THE EXTENT THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO WAIT ON THE j
I
!3 DESIGN OF A BUILDING UNTIL THEY GET THEIR SEWER APPLICA-
14 TION, THIS IS FINE, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE
!5 THE PROCESS AND GET IT IN THE PROPER FORM WITHIN 30 DAYS, j
16 THE PERMIT FEES SECTION ON PAGE 7 WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY AS
17 DRAFTED BY YOUR COMMITTEE, IS VERY STRICT, AND IT IS
18 INTENDED EXCEPT FOR A FEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO LIMIT
!9 THE PEOPLE WHO CAN DO IT TO THOSE WHO ARE READY .TO GO
20 EARLY ON. BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE — MAYBE
21 YOU CAN DESIGN A BUILDING IN A WEEK AND GET THE BUILDING
22 PLANS, OR MAYBE YOU HAVE HAD THE PLANS ALREADY IN YEARS
23 AGO. THE POINT IS, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TRY, AND THEY GET
24 AN ALLOCATION AND WANT TO COME IN, THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO
25 DESIGN THEIR BUILDING AND FILE THE PROPER BUILDING PERMIT
26 APPLICATION.
27 MR. SKOTNICKI: IF YOU LOOK AT ANY SIMPLE COMMERCIAL
28 OR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT, IT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF COUNCIL
T 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTION OR SOME PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
MR. PACKARD: THIS WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY
QUESTIONS AND MAYBE I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. LET'S
SUPPOSE THEN THAT UNDER THE SYSTEM IT IS VIRTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY SIZEABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO GET THEIR NECESSARY APPROVALS OR
TO BE READY TO APPLY FOR BUILDING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
SYSTEM AND, THEREFORE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TIME
PERIOD THERE IS ONLY 10 PERCENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL THAT IS
USED.
MR, BIONDO: WE DISCUSSED THAT, AND WHAT I THINK
THE SYSTEM PROVIDES IS THAT IN FACT IT SAYS IN A RESOLU-
TION THAT COUNCIL BY ADOPTING THE SYSTEM DOESN'T INDICATE
ANY GUARANTEE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ALLOCATE ANYTHING OR
THAT THEY WON'T CHANGE THE SYSTEM, OR THAT THEY WON'T
ALLOCATE PART AND NOT OTHERS, YOU KNOW, DRAWING DIFFERENT
LINES, AND IF ANY/IS LEFT OVER OR NOT ALLOCATED IT WOULD
SIMPLY BE PLACED IN A RESERVE TO BE UTILIZED AS COUNCIL
MAY DETERMINE IN THE FUTURE, EITHER BY READOPTION OF THIS
OR AN ADOPTION OF PHASE TWO, OR SOME FURTHER ACTION OR
STUDY, BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE BY COUNCIL. THE
SITUATION MIGHT OCCUR, YOU MIGHT- DECIDE NOT TO MAKE ANY
APPLICATION, TO GO BACK AND READJUST YOUR PERCENTAGES OR
SAVE IT FOR THE NEXT TIME. WE TRIED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR
TWO
IN THE ADOPTING RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE TO BASIC PRIJM-
CIPLES AND OBJECTIVES THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE.
•v" fit
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY WALKING INTO A
MECHANISTIC APPLICATION OF THIS SYSTEM. IF WHEN YOU GET
43
1 DOWN WITH IT YOU DON'T THINK IT MEETS YOUR PURPOSES AND
2 OBJECTIVES, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND START OVER.
3 MR. BUSSEY: THERE ARE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL IN
4 THAT WHO ARE READY TO GO. NOW, THE STAFF IS NOT REPRE-
5 SENTING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE THE FULL ALLOCATION.
6 MR. PACKARD: IT is POSSIBLE THAT 10 PERCENT
7 MULTIPLE OR 20 PERCENT SINGLE FAMILY MAY NOT ULTIMATELY
8 BE THE WAY IT WILL WORK OUT, ALTHOUGH IT IS VERY LIKELY.
9 BUT IT COULD BE WHERE THEY COULD BE ALL MENTIONED IF IT
10 IS NOT ALL USED ;UP IN ANOTHER CATEGORY OR IT COULD BE
11 CARRIED OVER.
12 MR. BIONDO: ON PAGE 7 IT SAYS "ANY CAPACITY WHICH
13 IS NOT ALLOCATED AS A PART OF THIS FIRST PHASE ALLOCATION,
&VT14 OR WHICH IS ALLOCATED •»» NOT USED, SHALL REMAIN IN RESERVE
15 TO BE REALLOCATED AS THE COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE BY THE
ADOPTION OF A SECOND. PHASE SYSTEM OR BY THE FURTHER
17 AMENDMENT OF THIS SYSTEM."
18 MAYOR FRAZEE: DOES COUNCIL WISH TO MAKE ANY
19 CHANGES IN THE DRAFT BEFORE SENDING IT BACK TO STAFF FOR
20 FINAL DRAFT?
21 MR. PACKARD: THE INFILL MAP OUGHT TO BE ADJUSTED.
22 MAYOR FRAZEE: DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT
23 SO WE CAN RESOLVE IT BY VOTE?
24 ' MR. PACKARD: WE ARE ONLY DEALING AGAIN WITH THE
25 FIRST PHASE, AND I WOULD MOVE THEN THAT WE INCLUDE THE
26 TWO PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TONIGHT, MR. KELLY'S
r• ' I
27 PARCEL AND MR. NEWELL1S PARCEL, AND LET THAT BE THE LIMIT j
i
28 OF THE ADDITION TO THE INFILL MAP AT THIS POINT. ' {
•* 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MISS CASLER: i SECOND THAT.
MAYOR FRAZEE: IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT?
MR. LEWIS: I COULD SUPPORT THE KELLY BUT I CAN'T THEj
OTHER. TO ME IT IS STILL NOT RESIDENTIAL.
MAYOR FRAZEE: WILL YOU CAST YOUR VOTE ON THAT MOTION;
PLEASE? THE MOTION IS CARRIED. THEN DO YOU THINK JUST BY
CONSENT WE CAN -- THAT IS WITH THE MODIFICATION OF THE
INFILL AREA MAP, THE REST OF IT WILL GO BACK TO STAFF?
MR. BUSSEY: WE WILL JUST BY CONCENSUS OF COUNCIL,
WITHOUT ANY ACTION, TAKE CARE OF THE QUESTION COUNCILMAN
SKOTNICKI RAISED ABOUT THE BLANKS, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDA-
TION TO MAKE APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS.
MAYOR FRAZEE: THEN YOU WILL DRAFT A NEW RESOLUTION.
CWHEREUPON THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.)