The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978-04-11; City Council; Minutes< , CITY OF Ne&!" ,P Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (Adjourned Regular Meeting) Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M. Date of Meeting: April 11 , 1978 Place of Meeting: Council Chambers 102 - 0 B TF ROLL CALL : E931 1. SECOND REVISION TO FIRST PHASE SEWER ALLOCATION SYSTEM - AGENDA BILL #5158 - SUPPLEMENT #6 1 The Planning Director gave a brief background report and outlined the material included in the staff report and in his memorandum of March 29, 1978 to Council. He explained the methodology and procedures used by staff to evaluate the applications for sewer allocation, including the qualifications and rating system and documents required for submittal. He then clarified two ch.anges that had been mad to correct errors in the material that had been submitted to Council. The changes were as follows: 1. Exhibit V - Multiple Family Residen- tial- Mol9 should be ranked number 18. 2. Exhibit Y - Multiple Family Residen- tial- The order of MOO2 and M021 should be reversed. MOO2 should be ranked number 7 and M02l should be ranked num- ber 6. Following a brief staff report on the Single Family Residential Category, Mayor Packard asked if there was anyone who had requested and :not received sewer allocation, who wtshed to speak on the matter. Mr. Robert Kevane, 4405 Alamo Drive, San Diego, California, addressed Council. He identified his project, S010, the property on the east . side of El Camino Real south of Chestnut on which he was going to build apartments. He indicated that the specific plan for this pro- perty had been approved in 1973,-and due to circumstances at that time, he had not been able to undertake the project. He added, that in'response to his inquiries, Mr. Don Agatep, the Planning Director at that time, had- led him to believe that there was no time limit on specific plans, -a..-d. that he would not have to go through the p.lanning processes again to commence work on the project.. Mr. Kevane commented that in March of 1977 he had made application for approval of the Tentative Map for his project, and that at that time it was still staff's position that there was no time limit on specific plans. He stated that when the specifi'c plan was approved there were to be 14 units on the. property, based on the zoning of surroundin-g areas. Sub- sequent to the application for approval of the Tentative Map, t.he City's General Plan had been changed and would now only allow 10 units to be built on the property. ~~ Present Absent 5 fl FC cX3UNCSkFw45 - D B -2- Mr. Kevane stated that he had until just re- cently been led to believe that his project would be allocated sewer, and that he had just lately realized that it would not. Council requested clarification of staff's actions in this matter, and questioned the change of density of the area. The Planning Director responded that staff's. position is that specific plans become void after one year if the project is not begun during that time. He added that according to staff, this particular project does not pre- sentl'y have a specific plan, and therefore, doesn't qualify for sewer allocation. He indi- cated that the City Attorney had been consulted on the matter, and had concurred with staff's position. The As,sistant Planning Director, Bud Plender, confirmed that the statements made by Mr. Kevane were true, and that he had formerly been led to believe that the specific plan for his property had not expired. He also responded to the question concerning the density of the property, indicating it to be 0-4. Fol'lowing further discussion of the matter, it was the concensus of Council to concur with staff's recommendation regarding the allocation of sewer in the Single Family Residential Category . Following a brief staff report by the. Planning Director on the Multiple Family Residential Category, Mayor Packard asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the allocation of sewer in this category. Mr. Joe Guagliardo, of 4-Design, 800 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad addressed Council. He indi- cated that he and several of his clients felt that the allocation 0f"sewe.r in this category was unfair because sixty percent of the allo- cation was for.projects owned by two persons. Council inquired if the projects that staff had recommended were on individual lots or part of a subdiv'T37on. Staff replied that each of the projects was 1,ocated on a separate parcel. Following discussion, it was the concensus of Council to concur with staff 's recommendation on the allocation of 11 EDU's in the Multiple Family Residential Category to the first five projects listed in Exhibit Y. Council then discussed the Comme.rcia1 Category. Councilman Skotnicki commented that the first applicat-ton in this ca.tegory, COO1, was from Don Sharp, whose representative had appeared before Council on January 3, 1978 to obtain a building permit for a building for a Porsche- q 103 I I ~ ~ , Motion Ayes CIKY P N&IE&& April 11, 1978 - 3- Audi dealership. He quoted from the m'inutes of the January 3, 1978 meeting which stated that the employees in the new building would use the facilities in the existing .building; therefore, it would require no new sewer permit He then questioned the reason.for the present request, and inquired if the facts in this matter as presented previously had changed. The Planning Director responded that there is presently no requirement for. additional sewer for the new building, and that the request was simply a matter of convenience for th.e dealer- ship. It was moved that Council .accept sta'ff's recom- mendation for the allocation of sewer in the Commercial Category of the Second Revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation. A motion was made to amend the motion to ex- clude the 3' EDU's for Don Sharp in the Commer- cial Category. The motion died for lack of a second. Council approved the allocation of sewer in the Commercial Category as recommended by staff. Staff recommended that the remaining EDU's be placed in reserve, adding 40 EDU's to community facilities and 22 EDU's to contingency. Following discussion, Council concluded that they were in agreement with staff's recommenda- tion that the remaining EDU's be p1,aced in reserve. c931 2. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF PHASE TWO SEWER ALLOCATION - PLANNING MORATORIUM. I ~ ~ I The Planning Director prefaced his report by explaining that the ma'tter was being presented at this time so that Council could begin their discussion and have the opportunity to question staff on the matter, and indicated that the continuation of the Planning Moratorium was a matter of policy for Council to act upon. He indicated that eXTe-nsive research had been done and that staff had concluded that allowing planning procedures to continue, regardless of the lack of sewage capacity, wo.uld expose the City to additional pressures a.nd legal liabi-, lity in the future. I , He outlined staff's recommendatian that the Planning Moratorium, as .originally adopted,. be extended until the Second Phase Sewer Allo- cation System is adopted and that individuals to obtaining the required planning approvals. obtained within a reasonable length of time, ~ be allowed to apply for sewer allocation prior I Staff proposed that if the approvals are not I 1 I ! I 1 c K?&m.%Z D B Apr i -4- Staff proposed that the S.econd Phase Sewer Allocation System would require the following changes in the Land Use Element: 1. General Plan-& Zone Code Amendment- All land use approvals subject to the pro- vision and availability of sewer service making it impossible to build until sewer is obtained. 2. Adoption of Second Phase Sewer Alloca- ti on System- Which would differ from the First Phase Sewer Allocation System by delegating sewer allocation into various land use categories and considering them according to certain qual ific.ations. Following Council questions and discussion, staff indicated that a decision by Council was not necessary at this time, and that the mat- ter would be resubmitted to Council on April 18, 1978 for a public hearing. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Packard called an Executive Session. at 8:35 P.M. for the purpose of discussing 1i.tiga- tion.' Council reconvened at 8:45 P.M. with all Council members present and the Mayor announced that litigation had been discussed. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' ,-