The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977-10-25; City Council; 5158-2; 1st Phase Sewer Allocation System Neg DecCITY OF "RLSBAD '' . ' "initial* AGENDA BILL NO. ^ / ^ & - ^jutfpA^sLJT **3 Dept. Hd. DATE: October 25, 1977 City btty DEPARTMENT: Planning Department City Mgr. SUBJECT: * * tf FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATEMENT OF THE MATTER The First Phase Sewer Allocation System is specifically designed for those projects known or unknown to the City which have completed all their required discretionary environmental assessments and proof that no costs for City facilities to service the site will be necessary. The allocation will only cover 270 sewer permits and is designed to discourage residential developments in outlying or fringe areas that could disrupt^ the environment and cause additional City services to be provided to the project. Any possible impact on developments in infill and urbanized areas would be insignificant because the services are available. Since all projects must be completed and discretionary approvals and Environmental Impact Assessment's completed must be in areas where there is a minimum of any public expenditure to provide services, and since there is such a small amount of capability available, it is the opinion of staff that a Negative Declaration more than meets the intent of the environmental laws. Based on our local ordinances, the appeal and hearing processes before the Planning Commission and City Council offer the opportunity to approve, conditionally approve, modify or disapprove a Negative Declaration if the City Council chooses. Upon review of the entire matter, we submit for Council's consideration a supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment (initial study) and Negative Declaration for the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. EXHIBITS Memorandum to City Council dated October 17, 1977 Negative Declaration dated September 9, 1977 Environmental Impact Assessment Form dated September 9, 1977 Supplement to Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration Letter from Mr. Clayton Parker dated September 14, 1977 Copy of Planning Commission Minutes dated September 28, 1977 Letter from Mr. Robert A. Ryan, Jr. dated September 28, 1977 Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated September 23, 1977 First Phase Sewer Allocation System .Letter from Mr. Clayton Parker dated October 5, 1977 RECOMMENDATION If City Council concurs in this modified Negative Declaration which includes the staff report to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director's report to City Council and the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment, your action would be to deny the appeal and adopt the modified Negative Declaration which will constitute an endorsement of compliance. FORM PLANNING 73 Agenda Bill #5158 - Supplement #2 Council Action: Page 2 10-25-77 Council concurred in the Modified Negative Declaration which includes the staff report to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director's report to City Council and the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment, denied the appeal and adopted the modified Negative Declaration. MEMORANDUM ' October 17, 1977 TO: City Council FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: First Phase Sewer Allocation System Negative Declaration BACKGROUND On April 19, 1977 the City Council adopted a Building Permit moratorium (Ordinance 7047) and a Planning moratorium (Ordinance 7048) because the City of Carlsbad sewer service area had reached its legal capacity at the Encina Power Plant. The Council action stopped some numbers of projects from being processed through the City in various stages of approval including those ready to be submitted for plan check. Although the City of Carlsbad was out of sewer capacity it was predicted that various events could occur which would provide additional capacity in the future, including the expansion of the sewer plant. The Council expressed concern about those projects which were stopped in the approval process causing unforeseen hardships. It was therefore decided to create a sewer allocation system for those projects which were stopped in the process to be used when the City obtained additional capacity. Subsequently after many workshops and meetings a First Phase Sewer Allocation System was developed. The City Council set a public hearing date for input to the proposed sewer allocation system and specifically notified all those parties and persons who had contacted the City since April 19 on this matter, as well as placing legal notices in the three newspapers available in the area. The City also had an independent news article in at least one of the newspapers. The First Phase Allocation System is specifically designed for those projects known or unknown to the City which have completed all their required discretionary approvals including environmental assessments and proof that no costs for City facilities to service the site will be necessary. The general opinion of the staff was that formal documents are not required. However, prior to the City Council hearing the City Attorney after a conversation with Mr. Parker, Attorney representing Kaiser Aetna, suggested to my staff that we review the allocation system relative to the environmental laws. The staff in reviewing the allocation system and in recognition of immediate potential sewer capacity becoming available felt that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be made. This was done on September 9, 1977, and after consulting with the staff I executed and had posted a Negative Declaration. In executing the Negative Declaration it was understood that only approximately 270 sewer permits are available in this first phase sewer allocation, a very insignificant amount which would have a very small impact, if any, on the environment. Additionally, these permits could only be granted to projects that have previously met the Carlsbad environmental ordinances and all other discretionary actions must have been completed. The allocation system is designed to discourage residential developments in outlying or fringe areas that could disrupt the environment and cause additional services to be provided to the project. Conversely, any possible impact on developments in infill and urbanized areas would be insignificant because the services are available and very few permits are to be issued. Based on the allocation system there would be approximately 80 residential units in the urbanized area and 125 commercial and industrial permits in other portions of the community already zoned for such purposes. (Note that a single industrial or commercial project could in itself require 5 or 10 or more sewer connections. Therefore this does not represent a number of separate projects.) The urbanized area contains approximately 3,800 acres of land. If all of the residential, commercial and industrial sewer permits were given to the infill area only, they would average out as only one permit for every 15 acres of land. If we recognize the urbanized area for residential only, it would average out one permit for every 47 acres. This is a very insignificant impact on an already urbanized area-. The system is also designed to promote energy and water conservation techniques, encourage development near existing schools, parks, transportation systems, fire stations and discourage projects that require any additional public expenditures. If this allocation system was a permanent growth monitoring system it possibly could have an effect on the environment. However, it is not a permanent growth monitoring system but rather a system designed to assist those projects that were caught in various stages of completion when the sewer moratorium was applied on April 19, 1977. Therefore, since all discretionary project approvals must be completed, Environmental Impact Assessments completed, the projects must be in an area where there is a minimum of any public expenditure to provide services, and since there is such a small amount of capability available, it is felt that a Negative Declaration more than meets the intent of the environmental laws. It is to be noted that the rating system proposed to judge one project against another is based on the assumption that there will be more demand for sewers than capacity and establishes community benefits as a major criteria. Based on the above considerations and my personal knowledge of the allocation system, the environmental factors considered in all stages of preparing the system and the system is designed to encourage conservation, minimize public costs, maximize all community benefits, we proceeded with the Negative Declaration. It should also be noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment form contains my signature dated September 10, 1977, a day after the Negative Declaration. This has been questioned by the appellant. For the record I did in fact review the assessment form with my staff on September 9th prior to issuing a Negative Declaration; however, the signature sheet had been misplaced and was not found until later. I have noted that the 10th of September was a Saturday. Apparently, I signed it on Monday the 12th and thinking it the next working day dated it the 10th. We did give the environmental assessment a complete review on September 9th prior to issuing the Negative Declaration. The City Council held their hearing on Tuesday the 13th of September on the allocation system and took public testimony including that of the appellant who inquired about the status of the environmental assessment. On the 15th of September the appeal of the Negative Declaration was filed and the Planning Commission heard the appeal on September 28, 1977. The Planning Commission's denial of the appeal of the Negative Declaration has been appealed and is now before the City Council. -2- There has been some question raised on the City's environmental procedures since the City has not amended its laws since the new environmental guidelines became .effective. I would reference the City Attorney's memorandum to the City Council dated January 19, 1977 which states "In my judgment the City of Carlsbad's Environmental Protection Procedures were close enough to the first •set of new guidelines to allow us to wait for the second before undertaking the extensive amendments necessary to Chapter 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and its implementing resolutions." Based on the City Attorney's opinion and the City's environmental procedures, I am satisfied that we are in substantial compliance with the State requirements; in fact, we go beyond the State guidelines and provide the opportunity at the Planning Commission and City Council for modification of a Negative Declaration as well as approval or denial. The validity of modifying a Negative Declaration as well can perhaps best be understood in this case since some concern has been expressed by the appellant. Your staff took another look at the allocation system as it relates to the environmental laws taking into consideration all of Kaiser-Aetna's points expressed in their letter of September 28, 1977. Again upon reviewing the matter we reached no other conclusion than a Negative Declaration was the proper document for this case. Based on our local ordinances, however, the appeal and hearing processes before the Planning Commission and City Council offer the opportunity to modify a Negative Declaration if City Council so chooses. Based on our review of the entire matter, we are offering for the Council's consideration a supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment (initial study) and Negative Declaration for the sewer allocation system which is attached to the original Negative Declaration for your consideration. Under City codes, City Council may approve, conditionally approve, modify or disapprove the decision of the Planning Commission. The decision of the Council in this matter is final. It is the staff's recommendation that the supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment be made a part of the Negative Declaration as sustained by the Planning Commission. •RECOMMENDATION If City Council concurs in this modified Negative Declaration which includes the staff report to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director's report' to City Council and the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Assessment, your action would be to deny the appeal and adopt the modified Negative Declaration which will constitute an endorsement of compliance. SUPPLEMENT Supplement to Environmental Impact Assessment (Initial Study) and Negative Declaration for the Sewer Allocation System I. EIA Project Description - The project is the adoption and implementation of a first phase sewer allocation system for allotting approximately 75,000 gallons of sewage treatment capacity within the Carlsbad sewer service area. This treatment capacity will be Distributed to various uses as follows: A. Industrial Land Use B. Commercial Land Use a. General b. Office C. Single Family Residential Land Use D. Multiple Family Residential Land Use E. Community Facilities F. Contingency TOTAL Percentage of Available Capacity 30% 15% 5% 20% 10% 5% 15% 100% Equivalent Dwelling Units 81 40 14 54 27 14 i°_ 270 E.D.U.'s In order to qualify for the allocation system, a project must meet the following criteria: 1. Residential projects must be in the infill area ("old Carlsbad"). 2. The applicant must have received all City and other agency approvals (with the exception of sewer and building permits. 3. No public costs are required. '4. One of the foll^vving must exist: a. An application for development was made prior to April 19, 1977. b. Project proponents have made non-refundable public agency . contributions. c. The site already has a sewer hookup but needs additional hookups. d. The application is for a single family house owned by the applicant as of April 19, 1977. 5. The applicant must achieve the following minimum point total on the Rating System Questionnaire: Single family residential 25 Multi-family residential 25 Commercial 30 industrial 30 The project rating system evaluates projects on the achievement of water and energy saving techniques, participation in capital improvement projects, and removal or rehabilitation of older dilapidated structures. Commercial and industrial projects will also be rated on revenues they will generate. If projects in any land use category have equal ratings, ties will be broken by the following criteria: a. Distance to parks and recreation (residential only). b. Distance to public transportation. . ' c. Fire response time. Description of Activity Area Residential projects will be restricted to the infill area, where development is already concentrated (see attached Exhibit A). This area is characterized by a relatively flat coastal plain with the area east of 1-5 rising to an elevation of 300 ft. The three distinguishing natural features of the infill area are the Buena Vista Lagoon to the north, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Because of the urbanized character of the project area, the vegetation is predominantly introduced or adventitious (weeds). Animal species in the project area are those small species which are tolerant of human populations. The area bounded by 1-5, the ocean, Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon is characterized by a wide variety of land uses. The Central Business District is concentrated along two axes: Elm Avenue and State Street. Some heavy commercial and industrial uses are located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Residential uses in this area are pre- dominantly single family, although a gradual transition to multi-family uses is occurring. -2- The area east of 1-5 is predominantly single family residential, with the exception of multi-family along Pio Pico, and in the Bristol Cove area. The infill area also extends to include the Terramar neighborhood which is south of the Encina Power Plant. This neighborhood is single family, with the exception of about five duplex structures. Industrial and commercial development will be restricted to lots already zoned for industrial or commercial purposes. This includes the CBD, the commercial area near 78 and El Camino Real and the Palomar Industrial Park. It is possible that because of the restrictive criteria in the allocation system, very few industrial or commercial projects will qualify. Those which do qualify would be, in all likelihood, adjacent to existing commercial development. Energy and Water Conservation Measures Incorporated into the Project - The following energy and water conservation devices will earn points under the allocation system: 1. Water saving faucet fixtures 2. Low volume toilets 3. Spring loaded faucets 4. Flow control shower head (or in-line restrictor) 5. Thermostatic mixing valve on showers 6. Hot water pipe insulation or recirculation mechanism 7. Cycle adjust dishwasher 8. Washer with water level adjustment 9. Electro-spark pilot lights 10. Thermopane windows 11. Solar heating for domestic hot water augment or household heating. II. Reasons for Negative Declaration 1. The 270 Equivalent Dwelling Unit capacity will allow relatively little development: approximately 81 residential .units and commercial and industrial uses.utilizing a total of 125 EDUs. Spread put through the entire 'infill area (for residential) and City-wide (for .commercial and industrial) , there should be very little localized impact. Since the residential units will be distributed over the 3400 acre infill area, the gross density increase will be only one unit per 47 acres. The industrial and commercial uses would be over a 19% sq. "mile area. -3- 2. The system promotes compact development in the urban area, and allows development only where adequate urban services already exist. 3. The system gives priority to projects which conserve water and energy and are proximate to existing schools, parks, transportation systems and fire stations. 4. The Allocation System sets up a process which can achieve mitigation of potential adverse environmental effects through the implementation of water and energy conservation measures and concentration of development in the infill area. This mitigation would not occur if there was no allocation system and sewage capacity was allocated simply on a first-come basis. 5. The Allocation System will prohibit "leap frog" development, and alleviate its concomitant problems of costly and inefficient service extensions, increased traffic, and increased energy consumption and emissions. 6. The allocation system will apply only to projects which have received all necessary discretionary approvals (including coastal permits). Consequently, virtually all of the projects allowed under the allocation system.will have already complied with the City's Environmental Protection Ordinance requirements and the California Environmental Quality Act. 7. The limited amount of development which will result from the allocation system will occur in fully developed and improved areas. Therefore, impacts on the physical surroundings will be insignificant and no adverse environmental effects will occur. DHW:jp -4- ALEXANDER OWIE A LAW CORPORATION ALEXANDER BOWIE CLAYTON H.' PARKER SPENCER E. COVERT. JR. •NANCY C. SHANAHAN STEPHANIE L. ECHER R6BERT A. RYAN. JR. OIO NEVVi (T CENTER DRIVE • SUITE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9266O AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE REF. OUR FILC September 28, 1977 Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: Appeal of Determination of Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect Regarding the First Phase Sev/er Allocation System of the City of Carlsbad Gentlemen: . The purpose of this letter is to supplement the verbal presentation to be made relative to the above refer- enced Appeal at your hearing to be held at 7:00 p.m., on September 28, 1977. Kaiser-Aetna, doing business as Ponderosa Homes and owning property within the City of Carlsbad (Ten- tative Tx-act No. 73-29) , has appealed the Determination of the Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect (Negative Declaration) Regarding the First Phase Sewer Allocation System /" of the City of Carlsbad. . This appeal was mailed to Mr. James C. Hagciman, the City's Planning Director, on September 14, 1977, together with a fee of $50.00 pursuant to Section 19.04.140 of the City Ordinances. AJL'iXA.NL>liK JJUWIJLi A !AW CORPORATION Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Two The Negative Declaration is appealed for the fol- lowing reasons: • . 1. The manner in which the Negative Declaration f » was prepared does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Resources. 2. The manner in which the Environmental Impact Assessment, or Initial Study, was prepared does not evidence good faith compliance with the intent of CEQA. 3. Because the effect of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System (System) will be to permit industrial, com- mercial and residential development in some areas of the i City while limiting it in others an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and not a Negative Declaration should be prepared prior to approving said System. The fact that the System is weighted toward industrial and commercial development further emphasizes the need for an EIR. ALEXANDER BOWIE .. A LAW COR PO(t ATI ON Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Three THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND THE STATE GUIDELINES. CEQA at Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code • * mandates that adequate public notice must be given prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or EIR. Section 21092 provides that: "Any public agency which is preparing an environmental impact report or a negative , declaration shall provide public notice of such fact within a reasonable period of time prior to final adoption by the public agency of such environmental impact report or negative declaration. Notice shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: (a) Publication, no fewer times than required by Section 6061 of the Government ALEXANDER BOWIE *'LAW COFIPOFtATION " ~_ • Members of the P.. .ining Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Four Code, by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. • (b) Posting of notice by the public agency on-and off-site in the area where the project is to be located. (c) Direct mailing to owners of con- tiguous- property. The alternatives for providing notice specified in subdivisions (a) to (c) , inclusive, shall not preclude'a public agency from providing additional notice by other means"if such agency so desires, nor shall the requirements of this section preclude a public agency from providing the public notice required herein at the same time and in the same manner as public notice otherwise required by law for such project. ALEXANDER BOWIE * A LAW COFtPOHAIION Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Five ' • Subsection (d) of Section 15083 of the State Guide- lines also requires that a Notice of Preparation must be given prior to completing the negative Declaration. The pur- pose of such advance Notice is obvious. It is to "start a review period which would be long enough to allow members of the public time to respond to the .proposed Negative Declaration," (Vol. 4, No. 2, California EIPx Monitor, at p. 2.) The State also recommends that the notices given should refer to a "Draft Negative Declaration" and that any determination that a project may or may not have a significant environmental effect be made after the time for public review. V7e believe that no advance notice was provided to the public that a Negative Declaration was being prepared by the City of Carlsbad. Rather, the Negative Declaration was prepared almost simultaneously with the Environmental Impact Assessment. . This problem appears to have arisen from the City's failure to revise its Environmental Ordinances (Chapter 19.04 of the City Code) subsequent to the adoption of Public Re- sources Section 21092". The proper sequence of events is ALEXANDER BOWIF. „ A LAW CORPORATION Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Six Notice -that a Negative Declaration is being prepared, public review and response and finally preparation of the Negative Declaration. In the instant case the Negative Declaration was prepared out of the sequence that.is mandated by CEQA. • Even if we assume that the Negative Declaration prepared by Mr..Hagaman on September 9, 1977, was equivalent to a Notice of Preparation, which it is not, then the effective period provided for public review under the City's procedures was grossly insufficient. -It must be taken into consideration that the legally required manner of providing Notice was not accomplished until September 14, 1977." Section 19.04.130 of the City Ordinances provides that a Negative Declaration shall b£ posted for five business days in the public portion of the Planning Department. Initial posting there occurred .on September 9, 1977. The same Section also provides that the Negative Declaration be .published'once during the posting period. This was accomplished in the Carlsbad Journal on September 14, 1977. Public review and response must be made during the post- ing period. A LAV/ CORPOHATION Members of the /. ..anning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Seven ' • Public Resources Code Section 21092, set forth above/ as well as Section 15083 of the State Guidelines require that a Notice of Preparation be made within a reasonable or sufficient time to permit public response. Such Notice is required to be given by at 3.east one of three alter- native measures — publication at least once; posting on-and off-site of th,e project area; or direct mailing to owners of contiguous property. Again, assuming that the Negative Declara- tion in this instant case is equivalent to a Notice of Prepara- tion, posting it in the Planning Department does not comply with any of the three alternative means of notice set forth in Section 21092. Compliance with that Section was not achieved until September 14, 1977. Therefore, because City procedure permits the public to respond only within the posting period, the public had a period of two days in which to 'respond after legally proper notice was given. Such a short time is grossly inadequate. ' . . • Because the purpose of providing notice is to allow time for the public to respond to environmental fin- dings, the period of review should be long enough for members a i xv A LAW COIHPOHATION Members of the Claiming Commission City of Carlsbad • September 28, 1977 Page Eight of the public to review the project, weigh its potential en- • / vironmental effects and make appropriate responses. Two days from the time notice is given, is hardly enough tirae to learn about the decision, let alone to make an appropriate and rational review and response. • Additionally, Subsection 15083 (b) of the State • Guidelines provides that prior to completing a Negative De- claration other public agencies involved in carrying out or approving a project must be consulted. ' It is also required that public agencies which have jurisdiction by law over the project must be consulted. This is also required by Sec- tion 19.04.125 of the City Ordinances. The First Phase Sewer Allocation System will be implemented by leasing sewer capacity from another member of the Encina Treatment Plant. It is understood that an agreement to this end has* been entered into with the City of Encinitas. Another factor included in the implementation stage will be the issuance of sewer permits to successful applicants. Implementation of the Allocation System will effectively determine land uses within the California Coastal Zone. , li ^v A N D E It iJ U W1 Jb" A. LAW CORPORATION Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Nine These factors all indicate that the City, prior to completing the Negative Declaration on the First Phase Sev/er Allocation System, was required to consult with other public agencies. Among the public agencies which it is be- » lieved should have been consulted are the Regional Coastal Commission; the overall Planning Agency for San Diego County; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; the Encinas Joint Powers Agency; and the City of Encinitas. It may also have been advisable to consult with the San Marcos County Water District and the Buena Sanitation District which are understood •to provide service in the City of. Carlsbad area. There is no evidence that proper consultations were ever made. INSUFFICIENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT When a project is not -exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines, Section 15080 of those Guidelines requires that an initial study be conducted to i determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Subsection (a) of Section 15080 also pro- vides: ALEXANDER -BOWIE A'LAW CORPORATION Members of the F nning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Ten "All phases of project planning, im- plementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study of the project." It was noted in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura County, 118 Cal. Rptr. 249 (Cal., 1975) that: • "The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel the government at all levels to make decisions with en- vironmental consequences in mind." At 262. In other words, pro forma compliance with CEQA and the State i Guidelines is not enough. Careful thought and consideration should be given to the environmental consequences of the project viewed in its entirety. Thus, a considerate study of possible environmental effects of the project should be conducted. Compliance with CEQA is not achieved by the pro forma completion of a checklist, ALEXANDER BO WIT A LAW COni'OnATION ___ Members of the ". inning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Eleven The manner and haste in which the Initial Study in the instant case was prepared and the Negative Declaration issued precludes the possibility of thoughtful consideration of potential environmental impacts. . ' - . * Obviously the Initial Study upon which the negative Declaration is based is not sufficient on V7hich to make con- siderations of environmental consequences. Surely, it does not reflect the type of considereition that is the intent of CEQA and is envisioned by Section 15080 of the State Guide- lines. The Initial Study does indicate that the sewer allocation system could serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify development of al- ready developed areas. However, no adequate explanation of . why permitting new industrial, commercial and residential development within the City of Carlsbad could not have a sig- nificant effect on the environment is given. Section III of the Initial Study simply reiterates that the new development will occur. It does not explain why new development, especially industrial and commercial development, will not have a signi- ficant effect on the environment. .ALEXANDER BOWIE " A LAW COItMOFIATION Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Twelve Absence of good faith and/or adequate consideration of environmental consequences is also evidenced by the se- i quence in which the Environmental Impact Assessment was pre- pared and received by the Planning Director when compared to the date on which the Negative Declaration was prepared. As noted by Subsection 15080(b)(5) of the State Guidelines, one of the purposes of an Initial Study is to determine a basis for the finding of the Negative Declaration. The Environmental Impact Assessment and the Negative Declaration which are attached to this letter were both pre- pared on September 9, 1977. In this regard, Section 19.04.120. of the City Ordinances must be considered. It provides as follows: "19.04.120. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment. The planning director, with as-, sistance from other departments or city staff as appropriate, shall review each project for which an environmental impact assessment form has been filed. He shall evaluate all in- formation regarding the project and shall ALEXANDER DO WIT A 'LAW CORPORATION Members of the I. aiming Commission City of Carlsbetd September 28, 1977 Page Thirteen determine whether or not the project as pro- posed may invo3.ve a significant effect on the environment. The city council shall by resolution adopt guidelines which shall be followed by the director in making the determination. If it is determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental im- pact report will be prepared and processed as provided in this chapter. .If it is determined that the project will have only a trivial or insignificant impact on the environment, the director shall execute and post a negative declaration as pro- vided in Section 19.04.130. : The respon- sible person shall be notified in writing by mail of the director's determination. The decision is final unless appealed. A negative declaration, when final, will re- sult in the execution by the director of the endorsement of compliance. (Ord. 1158 §l(part), 1973)." yvYMN J_; JL1 J.\ J .> v> VV X JL'. A LAW COflPOriATION Members of the P nning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Fourteen It is doubtful that the type of consideration and evaluation mandated by the above Section, and intended by CEQA, could be accomplished on the same day the Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared. Further doubt in this regcird is cast by the fact -that the Planning Director, Mr. Hagaman, did not receive the Impact Assessment until September 10, 1977. Yet, the Negative Declaration, prepared by the Planning Director, and supposedly based upon evaluation and consideration of the Impact Assessment as well as "all information regarding the project" was posted and is dated September 9, 1977. It is inconceivable, therefore, that the Negative Declaration could have been based upon adequate consideration of the Impact Assessment.' - • • AN EIR, NOT A MERE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS MANDATED BY CEQA. • Public Resources Code'Section 21151 provides in pa'rt that "all local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be pre- pared by contract, and certify the completion of an Environ- mental Impact Report on any project they intend to carry out \. JLJWWJLJJ. A^LAW CORPOFIATION Members of the 7 inning Commission 'City of Ccirlsbati September 28, 1977 Page Fifteen or approve which may have a significant effect on the environ- ment." The importance and significance of this language has often been considered and affirmed by our courts. In "No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 118 Cal. Rptr. 34 (Cal,/ 1975) the Supreme Court expanded upon its in- terpretation of when an EIR is required. In that case, the * trial court had determined that an EIR would be necessary only \ if the environmental effect of the project would be important or momentous. This premise was rejected. Rather, the Court indicated that any interpretation of Section 21151 "is one which will impose a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR." 118 Cal. Rptr., at 44. The Court additionally discussed the purpose served by an EIR: I "One major purpose of an EIR is to inform other government agencies, and the public generally, of the environmental impact of a proposed project [citations omitted], and to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and i J.V A(LAW COHPOrtATION Members of the 1-j.anning Conunission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Sixteen considered the ecological implications of its action. A simple resolution or Negative Declaration, stating that the project will have no significant environmental effect, cannot serve this function," 118 Cal. Rptr., at 46. The sewer allocation system proposed by the City of Carlsbad will permit new industrial, commercial, and residen-* tial development within the City. At the same time, it will limit such development in other, areas of the City. Land use patterns will be affected. New industry will operate within the City. It is inconceivable that a.decision to be made by 'the City of Carlsbad that will affect land uses and permit the type of development contemplated can be said not to ^ have a significant environmental effect as that term has been construed by our courts. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared prior to approving the proposed sewer allocation..system. Finally, as Mr. Clayton Parker indicated to the City Council on September 13, 1977, the fact that individual U i^v AN D Ji K J3 <J W1 li /\ J..AW COnf'OHATION Members of the Planning Commission 'City of Carlsbad September 28, .1977 Page Seventeen EIR1s Or other CEQA documents are prepared prior to authori- zation of specific construction projects is not a substitute for compliance with CEQA prior to approval of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. This is clear from Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura County, supra. In Bozung, supra, the Supreme Court determined that environmental con- siderations must be made in the early stages of a project and certainly before a single project was chopped into many little ones, 118 Cal. Rptr., at 262-263. The Bozung case is similar to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System proposed for the City of Carlsbad. The Allocation System anticipates future development. Full compliance with CEQA should therefore be accomplished prior to approval of the System and subsequent CEQA proceedings at a later stage of the Project cannot be substitu- ted. NorT although the City's Planning Department attempts to characterize the Allocation as small and insignificant, can the Allocation be termed "minor". \ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ^ It is clear that the environmental factors of the First Phase Sewer Allocation System were given inadequate ALEXANDER BOWIF • • A-fc.AW COrtF'OHATION __ *hjembers of the }. tnning Commission City of Carlsbad September 28, 1977 Page Eighteen consideration and were not considered in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines or, in some instances, the City Ordinances. It is recommended that a new Initial Study be conducted together with proper consultation with' other public agencies and -with th'e provision of sufficient time for public review. It is believed that an adequate, thoughtful study of potential .environmental effects v/ill reveal that an'EIR is necessary. To. otherwise proceed with this project will be a clear, and patent violation of both the letter and the spirit of CEQA. •' • Very truly yours, - ALEXANDER BOWIE,, A Law Corporation RARrfs cc: Robert A. Ryan, Jr. Mr. Paul D. Bussey, City Manager Mr. Vincent Biondo, City Attorney Mr. John Garcia, Ponderosa Homes \•^ i»'P«'•VT^^S•^W!c^^'^««^^^¥!P?^JQ^V*'n!SWW MEMORANDUM September 23, 1977 TO: ' Planning Commission FR01"}: Planning Department RE: Appeal of Determination of Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect Regarding the First Phase Sewer Allocation System of the City of Carlsbad. The City Council recently held hearings on the First Phase of the Sewer Allocation System, which is a system to allocate sewer capacity that the City has leased from the Encinitas District. Since this was a discretionary action that could have an effect on the environment, the City did an Environmental Assessment on the impacts of the project. It was determined that the First Phase Sev/er Allocation System would have no adverse impacts on the Environment, and therefore the Planning Director had published- a Negative Declaration indicating his findings. This Negative Declaration has been appealed to the Planning Commission by Mr. Alexander Bowie, representing Kaiser-Aetna Corporation. The City Council directed City Attorney to prepare documents approving the Allocation System, however, approval is pending the outcome-••&.£ this Negative Declaration appeal. The action before you therefore is -che appeal of. the Negative Declaration, not the adoption of the 'Sewer Allocation System. However, the Planning Commission must review the allocation system to determine if the Planning Director was justified in giving a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission may wish to ask questions for clarification of the Sewer Allocation System, but your action is limited to the appeal of the Negative Declaration. •. Negative Declaration Procedure A negative declaration is the City's method of giving public notice that no adverse environmental impacts will result by this project and therefore no EIR will be required. This determination is done after evaluation has been completed by the Planning Director, with assistance from other appropriate staff, of all possible environmental impacts a project may have (Environmental Impact Assessment). If it is determined that the project will have only a trivial or insignificant impact on the environment, and therefore a full EIR would serve no useful purpose, the Planning Director executes and has published this decision, which is known as "Negative Declaration". The declaration is to be posted for five business days and published once during this posting time. An appeal must be filed within this posting time to be valid. Subject Negative Declaration was posted on September 9, 1977 and published on September 14, 1977. The appeal was made on September 15, 1977, which is within the time period. • Allocation System / The First Phase Sewer Allocation System is generally self-explanatory, in that it contains the objectives, purpose and intent, and processing for allocating. Generally the allocation will be determined in two steps, the first step is the "qualification" necessary to be considered in the allocation system. (See Exhibit "C", dated 9/1/77 of the allocation system.) This specifies that applications must meet certain criteria. The two most important being (a) residential use in an infill area, (See Infill Map, Exhibit "A", dated 8/25/77 of Sewer Allocation System) or (b) commercial or industrial use anywhere in the City. There are additional qualifications, such as having all discretionary action completed and that the project will not create any public costs, etc. Providing the applicant qualifies, they will then submit an application for rating. (See Exhibit "D", dated 9/1/77 attached to Sewer Allocation System.) From this questionnaire the City Council will determine who will be permitted sewer hookup based on the highest points obtained. Each major land use is competing separately and each has a specified percentage of the sewer capacity. .(See Land Use Distribution on page two of'Sewer Allocation System.) It is weighted relatively heavily for Industrial, Commercial, and contingency. The City Council desired this emphasis because commercial and industrial developments will increase employment in the area, and then generally have a higher ratio of value of structure to sewer flow. Contingency is high because of the possibility of unknown problems that may face the City Council in implementation. Although the residential allocation is relatively low, the City Council felt that there were only enoucrh oermits available to help the. individual home builder or small developer... There was no way the small allocation could be equitably distributed to the large land subdivider/builders. V . * Negative Declaration Evaluation There will only be 270 sewer permits granted in this First Phase Allocation, a very insignificant amount. The amount itself would have a very small impact on the environment. In addition, these permits can only be granted to projects that have previously met the Carlsbad Environmental Ordinance and all discretionary actions have been completed. The system will promote development in the already urbanized part of the City or permit commercial and industrial development in areas already zoned for such uses. The System will also discourage development in outlying areas that would disrupt the environment and cause additional services to be provided. On the other hand, the impacts of development in the urbanized area will be insignificant because there are not that many permits to be issued. > -2- .The distribution of permits v/ill approximately be 80 residential units in the urbanized area and 125 commercial and industrial permits in areas already zoned for such uses. Most of this development will occur 'in the already urbanized area which is an area of approximately 3000 acres. If all the permits were given in this area it would average out as one permit for every 15 acres. For residential, it would be one-for every 47 acres. This is a very insignificant impact on this already urbanized area. Furthermore, the system may promote developments that are designed with energy and water conserving techniques, encourage development near existing schools, parks, transportation systems, .fire station, and discourage projects that require additional public costs. p- If this Allocation System was a permanent growth monitoring system, it could have an effect on the environment. However it is not and additional allocation systems will be adopted as additional capacity becomes available. The allocation system is purposely titled "First Phase" and under Section II the amount of sewer capacity to be allocated with this first phase is clearly stated. When additional capacity is available, a new system v/ill be prepared and an environ- mental assessment will be specifically evaluated. Upon the above consideration, staff prepared a Negative Declaration .that stated: "The Phase 1 system will establish priorities for those residential projects within the established urbanized area and those commercial/industrial projects within appropriate zoned boundaries. As a result, development v/ill be concentrated in areas where land use patterns have been established and urban infrastructure exists." Applicant* s Appeal - As stated in the applicant's attached letter dated '9/14/77. The appeal is based on the fact that the proposed project will tend to encourage development in the City and limit to others. Staff agrees that this will occur. However, Staff does not believe that this will have an adverse effect on the environment. To the contrary, as stated above, the system will have a positive impact on the environment over uncontrolled allocation. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may approve or modify or disapprove this Negative Declaration or the Director's decision. If the Planning Commission approves the decision, the action is to deny the appeal and direct Staff to so notify by mail the Planning Commission decision. If the Planning Commission wishes to modify the declaration, the action is to direct the Planning Director to renotice and post the declaration with such modification. If this modified declaration is.appealed, the Planning Commission would hold another appeal hearing. If the Planning Commission disapproves the declaration, the action is to request the City Council to direct Staff to prepare a full EIR for public hearing. -3- The decision of the Planning Commission is final and must be mailed to the applicant within 10 days of the hearing. However, the Planning Commission1s decision may be appealed by any interested party to the City Council. To make sure that this can be done, Staff has prepared two Planning Commission resolutions, one denying and the other approving the appeal. This will allow the Commission to make final action at the hearing and immediately notify the appellant of your decision. Recommendation Staff recommends that the appeal of the Negative Declaration regarding the First Phase Sewer Allocation System be denied, and further recommend that Planning Commission Resolution 1402 be approved. Attachments Environmental Impact Assessment Letter from- Clayton H. Parker, dated 9/14/77 First Phase of the Sewer Allocation System, Exhibit "S", dated 9/23/77 City Council Resolution No. 5199 Planning Commission Resolution 1402 Denial Planning Commission Resolution 1402 Approval BP:jp —4 — ALEXANDER BOWIE A LAW CORPORATION ALEXANDER BOWIE CLAYTON H. PARKER SPENCER E. COVERT, JR NANCY C. SHANAHAN STEPHANIE L. SCHER ROBERT A. RYAN, JR. 6IO NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE • SUITE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9866O AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 644-9311 REF. OUR FILE 1116.4 September 14, 1977 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Re: James C. Hagaman Planning Director Appeal of Determination of Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect Regarding the Sewer Allocation System of the City of Carlsbad Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned represents Kaiser-Aetna, doing business as Ponderosa Homes, owners of property located within the City of Carlsbad (Tentative Tract No. 73-29). The undersigned has examined the Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect signed by James C. Hagaman, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad. This letter constitutes an appeal of the determination that the project has a nega- tive effect. Enclosed herewith is a fee of $50.00 in com- pliance with Section 19.04M40 of your City Ordinances, a copy of which was obtained from your City Clerk this date. It is obvious from reading the First Phase Sewer Allocation System, dated 9/1/77, and the letter dated July 29, 1977, regarding the sewer allocation system, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. As the undersigned orally advised your City Council on Tuesday, September 13, 1977, the proposed project will tend to encourage development in some areas of the City and limit it in others. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER BOWIE A Law Corporation ton H. Parker CHP:wm Enclosure cc: Members of City Council Paul D. Bussey, City Manager Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., City AttorneyElias John Garcia, Ponderosa Homes Philip I. Auerbach, Ponderosa Homes NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 25, 1977, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's Determination to uphold the Negative Declaration as issued by the Planning Director regarding the City of Carlsbad's Sewer Allocation System. APPELLANT: Kaiser-Aetna, a California General Partnership PUBLISH: October 15, 1977 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL / o 3 ALEXANDER BOWIE 6IO NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE • SUITE I22OA LAW CORPORATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9266O AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 644-9311 ALEXANDER BOWIE CLAYTON H. PARKER SPENCER E. COVERT, JR. REF' OUR FILE NANCY C. SHANAHAN STEPHANIE L. SCHER 1116.4 ROBERT A. RYAN, JR. October 5, 1977 Honorable City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: City Clerk Re: Appeal of Determination by the Planning Commission Regarding the Negative Declaration Issued by Planning Director Regarding the City of Carlsbad's Sewer Allocation System Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned represents Kaiser-Aetna, doing business as Ponderosa Homes, owners of property located within the City of Carlsbad (Tentative Tract No. 73-29). The undersigned does hereby appeal the determination of the Planning Commission, as set forth in Resolution No. 1402, upholding the Negative Declaration as issued by the Planning Director. Enclosed herewith is a fee of $50.00 in compliance with Section 19.04.140 of your City Ordinances. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER BOWIE A Law Corporation Parker CHP:wm Enclosure cc: Paul D. Bussey, City Manager Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., City Attorney Elias John Garcia, Ponderosa Homes Philip I. Auerbach, Ponderosa Homes CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 729-1181 MEMORANDUM DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1977 TO: - PAUL BUSSEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RATING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE SEWER ALLOCATION On October 18, 1977, myself, Ron Beckman, Roger Greer, Tim Flanagan, Dick Osburn met with two gentlemen who both wish to build single-family homes in the infill area of Carlsbad. These men, Bob Snyder, and Bud Von Brightenbagh wish to qualify for sewer through the Sewer Allocation System. Both had re- viewed their particular projects with the allocation system. and have indicated to staff that they felt there are some prob- lems in the rating system questionnaire, as it relates to single family development. After reviewing this matter, I also believe there are problems which can be solved by some simple modifications to the rating system. The basic problem is that there are incongruities built into 'the rating system when all land uses are rated with the same questionnaire. We could have commercial uses putting in res- idential fixtures and residential putting in commercial fixtures which would be removed or replaced after the building is accepted. For example, flush valved toilets are very practical for commercial or industrial, but would be an annoyance for single-family and a complete failure for multiple-family. In response to this problem, I have revised the rating system to be in two parts, Industrial/Commercial and Residential. These revised questionnaire's are attached as Exhibits "E" § "F", dated October 18, 1977. I have added a statement to quesiton 1 f, 2 of both questionnaire's to clarify that points will be given only if all fixtures in a structure are equipped with the savings devices listed. The original is not clear if points are to be given for each fixture separately. For example, additional points could be achieved if a developer added faucets, showers, etc., if points were given on each individual fixture. For both questionnaire's the list of fixtures have been modified to relate to either Industrial/Commercial or Residential needs. Also added is a mechanism that fits, into the hot water faucet that provides for immediate heatin'g through an electrical coil. In question 2, energy conservation for Industrial/Commercial, points for pilot lights are to be given only for water heaters and furnaces, this will preclude developers putting in un- necessary gas ranges and other appliances not needed in Industrial/Commercial. Also added was wood sash to window frames. Evidently a great amount of temperature transference occurs in aluminum frames. The amount of points in question 2 has been expanded to a max- imum of 9, since it was felt that solar heating would have a significance percentage of energy savings and therefore we needed a larger percentage spread to accommodate and promote solar heating Page Two Two additional points have been added to the sewer available, (question 6) this is to give a better spread of points at the top end. Apparently it is possible for most proposals to get the max- imum points as originally proposed. Question 2 has been deleted since the qualifying requirements would not allow any proposal to be accepted that required any public expenditures in the first place. This to was originally left in with the idea that future allocation system would not have the qualifying requirements. The two that attempted to use the questionnaire found that the presence of this question led to unnecessary confusion. I feel that we will completely analyzie this questionnaire prior to any future allocations and therefore we could address this or similar questions at that -feime. RECOMMENDATION If the City Council concurs with our recommendation, the City Council should adopt Exhibit "E" § "F" in place of Exhibit "D", and approve 'the first phase of the sewer allocation system. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit.5 "E" $ "F", dated October 18, 1977 BP:ar- 10/21/77 (2) 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. (To receive points for any fixture as listed below, all such fixtures in the structures shall be so equipped wherever appropriate.) Faucets Lavatory sink aerators 3% • ' Spring loaded faucet 5% Quick heat lavatory faucet " 5%_ Showers Thermostatic mixing valve 5%_ Flow control head or in-line restrictor 5%_ Hot Water Pipes Insulation . 10%_ Recirculating (convection or forced) 15% Toilets Flush Valve (V line) 10% POINTS % WATER REDUCTION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Conments or Explanation_ 2. 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 10% Wood sash window frames 5% 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 - ments No reduction Up to 2% 4% 6% ' • . . 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Over 18% ; or Explanation -2- Does the project remove or rehabilitate older dilapidated structures within the community of a non-historic nature?* 0 - Land Vacant . 3 - Rehabilitat ion 5 - Removal of non-historic dilapidated structure *Structure is defined as any main building on a lot. 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 - 40ft - 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? METHOD: POINTS RECEIVED 0 3 6 9 QUARTILE Bottom 25% of Projects Third 25% of Projects -"Second 25% of Projects Top 25% of Projects 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- GENERAL 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 TAXABLE SALES PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING(S) Regional Shopping Center 90 Community & Neighborhood Commercial Center 60 Specialty Store ' 100 Discount Store 80 Furniture and Appliances 60 Furnishings ' 60 T.V., Stereo, Records 120 Building Supplies 90 Paint and Wallpaper 120. Auto Service and Supplies 80 Dinner Restaurant 140 Coffee Shop * 120 Fast Food 250 Mini-Supermarket . 40 Car Dealership - set amount of $1.8 million Comments -4- TIE BREAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM INDUSTRIAL ANQ 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 h 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 5 to 6 minutes 4 to 5 minutes 3 to 4 minutes 2 to 3 minutes 1 to 2 minutes 0 to 1 minutes Comments -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 2% Lavatory sink aerator 3% Quick heat lavatory faucet 5% Showers Ther'mostatic mixing valve 5% Flow control head or in-1ine 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 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, water heaters) Electro-spark 5% Windows Wood sash window frames 5% Solar Heating Hot water augment 10% Building heating POINTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Comments or Explanation % by Engineering Design % ENERGY CONSERVATION No energy 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-25% 26-30% 31-35% 36-40% 41-45% conservation considerations 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% 4-8% 5-10% 6 - 12% . ' 7-14% „- 8-16% 9-18% 10 - Over 18% Comments or Explanation • -2- Does the project remove or rehabilitate older dilapidated structures within the community of a non-historic nature?* 0 - Land Vacant 3 - Rehabi1itation 5 - Removal of non-historic dilapidated structure *Structure is defined as any main building on a lot 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% - 3-9% 3 - 20% - 29% . 4 - 10% - 19% 5 - 5% - 9% 6 - 2% - 4% 7-0-1% Comments or Explanation •3- TIE BREAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM In case of a tie in any land use category, the following points may be applied as a tie breaker: 1. Distance to Parks and Recreation Points 0 1 2 3 4 h mil e + 3/8 to 1/2 mile 1/4 to 3/8 mile 1/8 to 1/4 mile 0 to 1/8 mi!e Distance to public transportation system Points 0 . 1 2 3 4 Fire Response Time Points 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments % 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 6 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes to to to to to 5 4 3 2 1 minutes -4- CI-TY OF CARLSBAD' ENVIRONMEi-.AL PROTECTION ORDINANCE 1972 .DECLARATION OF NEGATIVE (NON-SlGNIFICANT):ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT .APPLICANT TYPE OF APPLICATION: PERMIT AND/OR FILE NO. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I- declare that I have examined the information for the above project as submitted by the applicant, and on the basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment questionaire on file in my office- as a public document, it is my determination that this project will not have any significant impact upon the environment within the meaning of the .California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 for the following'reason: The Environmental Imapct Assessment will be available for public •review and comment for FIVE DAYS from date. D AT E D: TWH7CG A ^ 'iAN, Plarmi .i)<f~Di r ecTo rPI a rfn Tn REV. 3/16/77 FORM PLANNING 42 E.I.S. Log No. EHVx i ' H1. Nt A I. IM V A C I A S S L S S M L. H i' Receipt No. . . • " . EIA .HO.. Date: Name of Applicant: Address: Permit Applied For: Case IIos.: Location of Proposed Activity: • f ^\i Wi^fc. ^ BACKGROUND INFORMATION • 1.-. "Give a brief description of the proposed activity (attach any preliminary development plans). a.' • • i 2. Describe the activity area, "including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. of 3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of. the project. ( ' • ' ' r •• • •• .D,*r '.MliMTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ii,-^ £wnrorfflental .Impact Analysis ' . . • Answer the follov/irig questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. • 4. Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? 5. Are "any of the natural or man-made features in the activity . area unique, that is', not'found in other parts of the County, State, or nation? . - 6. -Could the activity significantly affect a historical or archaelogical site or its setting? 7 Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural res- ource? .... • • -.8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source nesting place, source of v/ater, etc. for -rare or endangered vrildlife on. fish species? ' ''- : \ . » 9. Could the'activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life? - - • .10. Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity .area?. • ' 11. Could the activity change existing features of any.of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? 12. Could t'he activity change existing features of any of the City's beaches? 13. Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination . of .agricultural lands? . • \ * V • » Hi Could the activity serve to encourage development of .presently undeveloped areas or intensify development of already developed areas?. . r~" ~ No 1. 'Could the project significantly change present land uses 'f ' in the vicinity of the activity? . . _ _ \ * . 2. Could the activity affect the use 'of a recreational * . area, or area of important aesthetic value? • 3. "Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? . 15. VlilT the activity m,uire -a variance from cstablisi,..j environmentalr* standards (air, wate.i noise, 'etc)? •'16. Hill the activity require certification authorisation or issuance of a permit by any. local,.State or Federal environmental control agency? 17. .Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit-by the City? • • 18. Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? -•-...• •• •"'••** • . * 19. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a.flood •plain? . - * i 20. Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? . 21. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? • « . * * 22. Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of noise? ... * -- * *• • • 23. Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of.dust? • • • ^ • • 24. Will the activity involve the burning of.-brush, trees> or other materials? • .. • * •-* . . .25. Could the activity result in a significant change in the . quality'of any portion of the region's .air or water resources? • . .. (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore). 26. Vlill there be a significant change to existing land form? (a) indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards. K)A •* . i • ' (b) percentage of alteration to the present land form. \0/\' •\A(c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes. ' • A )/A . _ " v/ ' .27. Will the activity result.in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? , 11. State of t'o Significant Environmental Effects If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II but you . think tiie activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: • ' 'r» Comments or elaborations ;tp Any of the Questions jn Section IT . , * • (if additional space is needed for answering .any questions, attach additional sheets as may be needed.) Signature - '. Date Signed:j - __ (Person completfrig report) — ) , ' /^~ ^ ^ ("^° ^8 completed by the Planning Director). Place a check in the appropriate box. •"• • . ( ) Further information is required. . • (*^} It has been determined that the project \vill not have significant .. environ.r.ental effects. ( ) You. must subnn't a preliminary envircnTie impact statement by the follov;ing date _ _ _ . ( ) You .- should 'make an appointment with the Planninc; Director TO discuss, further processing of your project, in accordance with. Chapter 19. 01 of the Municipal Code. - E HHCEIVED:' fanning Directpf,' or, vised 7-/3/74 ' ;RM PLANNING 40 ' • ALEXANDER BOWIE A LAW CORPORATION ALEXANDER BOWIE CLAYTON H. PARKER SPENCER E. COVERT. JR. NANCY C. SHANAHAN STEPHANIE L. SCHER ROBERT A. RYAN. JR. 6IO NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE • SUITE \2ZO NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 93660 AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 644-9311 REF. OUR FILE 1116.4 October 5., 1977 Honorable City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: f City Clerk Re:- Appeal of Determination by the Planning Commission Regarding the Negative D'eclaration Issued by Planning Director Regarding the City of Carlsbad's Sewer Allocation System i Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned represents Kaiser-Aetna, doing business as Ponderosa Homes, owners of property located •within the City of Carlsbad (Tentative Tract No. 73-29). The undersigned does hereby appeal the determination of the Planning Commission, as set forth in Resolution No. 1402, upholding the Negative Declaration as issued by the Planning Director. Enclosed herewith" is a fee of $50.00 in compliance with Section 19.04.140 of your City Ordinances. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER BOWIE A Law Corporation on H. Parker CHP:wm Enclosure cc: ^aul D. Bussey, City Manager Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., City Attorney Elias John Garcia, Ponderosa Homes Philip I. Auerbach, Ponderosa Homes - CITY OF}CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL - Commissioner Jose was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The Minutes of August 24, 1977 were approved with the deletion of "to enable construction of a Solid Waste Shredder and Transfer Station" from the headine of Case No. GPA-49, Page 1. RESOLUTIONS (1) Resolution No. 1397, CUP~138,-H. W. Butts A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1397. (2) Resolution No. 1398, CUP-139, John R. Mock • A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1398 with the addition of Condition No. 1-1: "The erection of the Cross is not approved by this Conditional Use . Permit. It must meet the requirements of the City ordinance for signs. " (3) Resolution No. 1401, CUP-141, Robert Colburn A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1401. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director, requested that "Archaeology Requirements for Royal Homes Unit #6 - CT 76-2" be added as item No. '16 under New Business: He distributed a letter from Mr. Bert D. Alton in connection with Case No. 8 (Winton) and a letter from Mr. Frank Fitzpatrick regarding Case No. 10 (Pearlman). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS (New) Appeal of Determination of Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect Regarding the Sewer Allocation . . System of the City of Carlsbad. Alexander Bowie. Mr. Bud Plender gave the staff presentation. He stated there were three courses of action open to the Planning Commission: 1) They could modify the Negative Declaration. 2) They could require that an Environmental Impact Report be certifiei 3) They could deny the request for appeal. If the Planning Commission denied the request for appeal, the applicant could appeal the action to City Council. Mr. Plender requests final action by taken on the request as the appeal is 10 days from the mailing date of the resolution. Commissioner Rombotis stated that he has property that miqht be effected by this action and would abstain. PRESENT MOTION AYES ABSENT MOTION AYES ABSENT MOTION AYES ABSENT MOTION AYES ABSENT CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 2 Mr. Robert A. Ryan represented Alexander Bowie, applicant, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. He distributed a letter addressed to the Members of the Planning Commission dated September 28, 1977, which is on file in the Planning Department files. The purpose of the letter was to supplement the verbal presentation. Mr. Ryan said the position of the applicant is that the way to proceed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and the Guidelines is that an Environmenta Impact Report should be certified prior to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. He stated that City staff "did follow the City's procedure of a Negative Declaration as required, but in his opinion-the City ordinance does not comply with CEQA Guidelines. Mr. James Hagaman, Planning Director, stated that the Negative Declaration and the Environmental Impact Assessment forms were on his desk on September 9, 1977. He signed the Negative Declaration on that date but the signature sheet for the Environmental Impact Assessment form was not includec with the package. It was sent to his off.ice the next day at which time he signed and dated it September 10, 1977. Mr. Vincent Biondo, City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission should base their action for either denial or . approval of the appeal on whether or not they believe there are significant environmental impacts that are involved in the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. . The Commissioners were of the opinion that a Negative Declaration was proper. They did not believe tha't"270 j sewer units would create a significant impact or that an ' Environmental Impact .Report was required. They stated that the only projects to ;be considered for sewer distribution are those projects which have previously gone through some form of environmental rev few and have" been certified by due process and full public hearing. Public Hearing closed 8:50 P A motion was made to deny the appeal of Determination of Declaration of Negative Environmental Effect regarding the Sewer Aloocation System of the City of Carlsbad because 270 sewer units would not create a significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration was- proper. Resolution No. 1402. (2) Case' No. V-270^ Bernie Gilmore - Request for a Variance to Section 21.34.110 of the Zone Code to allow the use of a wood fence with landacaping in lieu of a solid concrete or masonry wall to screen outdoor storage. • Mr. Bud Plender gave the staff presentation. The code requires, a solid masonry fence around outdoor storage. However, if the Commission approves the variance, staff recommends that ' masonry wall be installed on the El Camino side. The. applicant is suggesting that he will gunnite the fence which has the appearance of masonry. This will not have the lasting durability of solid masonry wall. In answer to the question by the Commissioners as to why this problem is coming up at this late date since they have been there for awhile, Mr. Plender said that the applica had made requests to the City Council to amend thesoVdi nance The Council did not wish to change the ordinance; however, staff allowed time for this request to go to City Council.- 1 • 1. MOTION AYES ABSTAIN ABSENT / .J it X X X X • X Exhibit "S" to Resolution No. 5199 9-30-77 CITY OF CARLSBAD . : ' FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM I. Objectives; The sewer allocation system contained herein is intended to provide a framework within which the City Council can make some judgments regarding the allocation of a limited amount of sewer capacity which may become available. This system is designed to meet the following City objectives: A. 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. F. To develop vacant land that is within existing urban areas and is currently serviced by public facilities; i.e., streets, water, sewer. II. Available Sewer Capacity; It is estimated that the first phase sewer allocation system will 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 Intent; •• 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 allocation 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 C. 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'. " •*•* N-2- Applications for sewer permits "will be divided by use in accord with the above categories. Projects in each category will be rated against other projects in the. same category and separate allocations will be made within each category. In addition to ' the above categories, there are two more categories with capacity to be distributed: Percentage E.D.U.'s of Available (Equivalent Capacity Dwelling Units) E. Community Facilities (Includes parks, schools, other governmental build- ings, churches, hospitals and airports) • 5% 14 F. Contingency (Includes failing septic tanks and community development' 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% 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 is 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. * V. 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. J$o 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 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 d.irect 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. Expl a in : ' _ -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. s ' ... 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.) 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 committeef 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 committee meet the five qualifications of Section V, The report shall also show a point total for each project based on the staff jiadgment 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 allocar* 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 withiri 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 results.v.Gfuthe.-.rating system meet the objectives and~purposes and -6- intent of the system, the. Council may amend it as they consider necessary in the public interest. When the Council is satisfied with the findings and the ranking of the projects, they shall adopt a list of such projects which shall become the basis for .» issuing sewer permits and building permits in the Carlsbad sewer district boundaries. Inclusion of a project on the approved list shall constitute authorization pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.05.030 for the exception of that project from the building moratorium imposed by Chapter 18.05 of the Code. > ^ The 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. • VIII. Permits and Fees The successful applicant, within the rating system shall be required to perform in the following manner in order to obtain and retain a sewer permit: 0 A. A complete building permit application must be filed within 30 days after Council action approving the list of projects eligible 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^, a'llocated 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. , -f -7- Exceptions may be granted by the City.Council if they find that the developer has acted in good faith, in a reasonable manner and that the delay in construction is due to failures beyond the control of the developer. E. 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. ;>.i NOTE TO APPLICANTS This First Phase Allocation System is adopted based on an assumption that the City will 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 receive a sewer permit. Further, there is no guarantee that the issuance of a sewer allocation permit will insure that capacity will in fact be available at the time of occupancy. The City may not exceed its capacity rights in the plant and, therefore, must be governed by the actual availability of capacity at the time the hookup is made. Efforts by applicants to obtain an allocation permit or perform work pursuant to such permit are at your own risk. -8- OCEANSIDE CTY BOUNDARY EXHIBIT-A IOOO 2000 3000 FEET AUG. 25,1977 CARLSBAQ.CALIFCRNIA FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION Iliiiil INFILL AREA BOUNDARY CARLSBAD 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. 6. Applicant: Name Address City 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 hookups 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 I dbit D 9-1-77 RATING SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions. Additional pages showing evidence ih 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. Faucets Kitchen Sink 1% Lavatory 1% Aerators 8% Spring loaded faucets 8% (auto turn off) Showers Thermostatic mixing valve 3% Flow control head or in-line restrictor 12% Hot Water Pipes Insulation 3% Recirculating 5% (convection or forced) • Toilets 12% Flush valve (I1 line) Appliances Cycle adjust dishwasher- 1% Washer with water level adjustment 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 Exhibit D page 2 9-1-77 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. Pilot Lights Electro-spark 5% Windows Thermopane Solar Heating Domestic Hot Water Augment Household Heating 5% POINTS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments or Explanation % by Engineering Design ENERGY CONSERVATION No energy conservation considerations 1-3% 4-6% 7-9% 10-12% 13-15% 16-18% 18%+ 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% 4-8% 5 - 10% 6-12% 7-14% 8 - 16% 9 - 18% 10 - Over 18% Comments or Explanation Exhibit D page 3 9-1-77 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. 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% 5-0-9% Comments or Explanation 7. No public expenditures would be necessary to provide service to the proposed site such as new water lines, street additions, sewer etc.? 0 - Substantial public expenditures 3 - Minimal public expenditures 5 - No public expenditures required. Comments or Explanation * Exh^oit D page 4 9-1-77 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 8. Will the project provide substantial assessed value to the City? POINTS RECEIVED QUARTILE 0 Bottom 25% of Projects 3 Third 25% of Projj&cts 6 Second 25% of Projects 9 Top 25% of Projects 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 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ONLY (Not part of rating for office uses) 9. 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 TAXABLE SALES PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING(S) Regional Shopping Center 90 Community & Neighborhood Commercial Center 60 Specialty Store 100 Discount Store 80 Furniture and Appliances 60 Furnishings 60 hibit D page 5 i-1-77 T.V., Stereo, Records • 120 Building Supplies 90 Paint and Wallpaper 120 Auto Service and Supplies 80 Dinner Restaurant 140 :>. V Coffee Shop 120 Past Food 250 Mini-Supermarket 40 Car Dealership - set amount of . $1.8 Million Comments Exhibit "D" Page 6 9/1/77 TIE BREAKING RATING POINT SYSTEM In case of a tie in any land use category, the following points may be applied as a tie breaker: 1. Distance to Parks and Recreation (For Residential Only) Points 0 1 2 3 4 *5 mile + 3/8 to 1/2 mile 1/4 to 3/8 mile 1/8 to 1/4 mile 0 to 1/8 mile 2. Distance to public transportation system Points 0 1 2 3 4 3. Fire Response Time Points 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h 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 5 to 6 minutes 4 to 5 minutes 3 to 4 minutes 2 to 3 minutes 1 to 2 minutes 0 to 1 minutes Comments