Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-05; City Council; Minutes,, *&, 03 MINUTES (50) Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (Regular Meeting) Date Time of of Meeting: Meeting: 6:OO p.m. I\\ April 5, 1983 COUNCIL % %% 9 Place of Meeting: Council Chambers MEMBERS % %% CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Mayor Casler at 6:OO p.m. ROLL CALL was taken by the City Clerk as follows: Present: Council Members Casler, Lewis; Kulchin, Chick and Prescott. Absent: None. INVOCATION was given by Bishop Roy Atkins of the Church of Jesus Christ - Latter Day Saints. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by City Manager Frank Aleshire. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (Approved by one mtion) Casler X Lewis X Minutes of the Adoumed Regular Meeting held Kulchin X Prescott X Chick March 11, 1983, were approved as presented. xx Minutes of the Regular Meeting held March 15, 1983, were approved as presented. Minutes of the Workshop Meeting held March 22, 1983, were approved as presented. Mayor Casler announced Item 7, 14 and 27 were being withdrawn and continued until April 19, 1983. Mayor Casler requested Items 6 and 10 be remved from the Consent Calendar. Council Member Kulchin requested Item #4 be remved from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENQAR: Council affirmed the action of the Consent Calendar, Casler xx Kulchin follows: X Lewis with the exception of Items 4, 6, 7, 10 and 14, as X Chick X l?rescott X WAIVER OF ORDINANCE TEXT READING: Council waived the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions at this meting. 1. AB #7329 - RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS AGAINST T€E CITY. Council ratified the payment of demands against the City in the aunt of $897,289.65, for the period March 11 to March 25, 1983; payroll demds in the amount of $277,646.71, for the period February 28 to March 13, 1983; and Housing demands in the amount of $710.23, for the period March 11 to March 25, 1983. (81) (70) (68) (97) (45) (70) (45) (81) '(99) (107) (45) 67 MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 2 COUNCIL y$ % MEMBERS Z. 6 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2. AB 7330 - ACCEPTANCE OF A POEION OF CHESTNUT AVENUE. I I Council adopted RESOLUTI(X NO. 7167, accepting a grant deed from Ralph and Carol Besler conveying an easement to the City for road purposes of a portion of Chestnut Avenue. 3. AB a7331 - PAY" FOR L1FM;UARD SERVICES. I Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7168, aproving a transfer of funds from contingency to pay for lifeguard services for the fiscal year 1980-81. 5, AI3 #7216 - Supplement #2 - PAYMENT TO CARISBAD CcplMuNITY EDUCATION, INC. Council adopted RESOLUTION NO, 7170, authorizing the payment of $1,000.00 to Carlsbad Comnunity Education, Inc., for the purpose of funding the mailing of a city newsletter and a parks and recreation brochure for remainder of 1982-83. 8. AB #7334 - WATERGINE REPLACEMENTS IN PI0 PIC0 AND HIGHLAND. 6 I I Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7172, approving an agreemnt with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. for the preparation of plans and specifications for the design of waterline improvements on Pi0 Pic0 and Highland Avenue. 1 9. AB #7279 - Supplement #I - JEFFERSON SCHOOL BAIJ; FIELD IMP- - PROJECT NO, 371 6. Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7173, rejecting bids, amrovinq plans and specifications, and authoriihg the city Clerk to readvertise for bids for the Jefferson School ball field improvements. 11. AB #7336 - QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENT FOR OPEN SPACE. I Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7175, quitclaiming the City's interest in an open space easement to the San Marcos Unified School District. 12. AB #6742 - Supplement #2 - TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION - CT 81-29 - THE DAVIDSON COMPANY. I Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7176, approving a one-year extension of time for tentative map CT 81- 29, and including PUD-33. 13. AB #7337 - SUMMARY VACATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION OF PORTIONS OF GLASGOW DRIVE. Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7177, summarily vacating a portion of Glasgow Drive; and ~ Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7178, accepting a grant deed for a portion of Glasgow Drive for realignment, % t vi? *z. U3 MINUTES ( 112 1 (29) (106) 3'1) (45) COUNCIL \%y % %' ? April 5, 1983 Page 3 MEMBERS % %% ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 4. AB #7332 - DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCES - CITY OF CARLSBAD WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM. Council Member Kulchin stated she had requested this item removed from the Consent Calendar in order to question why 100 percent of the administrative costs are not recovered. Brian Watson, Fire Marshal, explained the procedure for arriving at the costs for the weed abatement, noting that for for one hundred percent of the costs to be recovered, the entire administrative costs for the program would have to be charged to those who have the City abate their weeds. Council adopted the following Resolution: Casler X Lewis X RESOLUTION NO. 7169, DECLARING AS PUBLIC NUISANCES Kulchin xx WEEDS, RUBBISH, AND REE'USE UPON PRIVATE PRopEIiTy IN Chick X THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. Prescott X 6. AB #7333 - 1983-84 CAPITAL I"ENT BUDGET, Mayor Casler stated she requested this item removed from the Consent Calendar for clarification of Reference #83-18 on page 7, Tamarack Avenue Inprovements between Ada Street and Highland Drive. She stated even though this is in the Capital Improvewnt Program for this year, this does not mean the project will go ahead. A determination will not be made until the Circulation Cornittee completes its report. Council recognized Mrs. Judy Rice, 1549 Tmrack, who had submitted a Request to Speak on this item. She stated she would like to see Elm put through to El Camino Real, and requested it be added to the CIP. Council assured Mrs. Rice this would be considered, as well as all other circulation routes in the City when the report is forwarded by the Circulation Comittee. In addition, if development is approved in that area, the developer would be required to construct the street, Council approved the 1983-88 Capital Inproverent Casler xx Program as outlined in the CIP Technical Appendix and Lewis X adopted the following Resolution: Kulchin X Chick X RESOLUTION NO, 7171, ADOPTING THE 1983-84 CAPITAL BUDGEZ AND AF'PFOPRIATING F'UNDS. X Presmtt 7. AB #7224 - Supplement #1 - REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A MARKET ANALYSIS FOR LEASED som UNITS. This item was withdrawn and continued until April 19, 1983. 10. AB #7335 - CARLSEAT3 BOULEVARD BmCH PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION PFXUECT. Mayor Casler requested this item be withdrawn from the Agenda for further discussion. I (70) (45) (99) (99) I O& MINUTES COUNCIL \\y 5 % ?&? April 5, 1983 Page 4 MEMBERS Z. 8 2. ITEMS REMOVED FRCM CONSENT CALENDAR: (Continued ) Council agreed to delay this matter until the April 12 X Kulchin alternative methods for resurfacing this lot X Lewis meeting. Staff was directed to present costs on xx Casler Chick X Preswtt X 14. AB #7124 - Supplement #2 - CONTRACT FOR BUEMA VISTA LAGOON. This item was withdrawn and continued until April 19, 1983. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 15. AB #7322 - Supplement #1 - TENTATIVE MAP, CONDCMINIUM PERMIT AND ZONE CHANGE - CT 82-18/CP- 214/ZC-260 - SAMMIS PROPERTIES. The following Resolution was approved and the X Prescott TENTATIVE MAP (CT 82-18) AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT CP-214 xx Chick RESOLUTION NO. 71 79, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS X Kulchin X Lewis following Ordinance was adopted: (one motion) X Casler ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NOF?IM OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON BETWEEN CARLSBAD EOULEVARD AND THE AT&SF RAILI33AD. ORDINANCE NO. 9678, AMGNDIJSG TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSEW3 MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM A-70 (COUNTY) To DM-(Q) ON PROPEF3Y GENERALLY LOCATED ON ?HE NORTH SIDE OF BATIQUITOS LAGCCN BmEN CARLSFAD BOULEVARD AND THE AT&SF RAILIDAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. 16. AB #7321 - Supplement #1 - TENTATIVE MAP, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, MASTER PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT - CT 83-1/CP-226/"-149(K)/SP-l71(C) - SWELL INDUSTRIES. The following Resolution was approved and the Casler X following Ordinances were adopted: (one motion) Lewis X Kulchin Chick RESOLUTION NO. 7180, APPROVING A 12 LMT/120 UNIT X xx Prescott TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 83-1 ) AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT X (CP-226) ON PROPEFtW GENERAI;LY UXATED ON THE NOrClTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMIN0 REAL AND LEVANTE STREET. ORDINANCE NO. 9676, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9570 AS AMENDED BY ORDIMANCE NO. 9628 AND MASTER PIAN (MP- 149(E)) TO CHANGE THE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL FFOM RLM TO RMH ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED CN THE NOrClTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND LEVANTE SIXEET . ORDINANCE NO. 9677, RESCINDm? AN AMENaMENT !IO SPECIFIC PLAN 171 FOR A MODEL HOME COMPLEX AND SALES OFFICE ON PROPEIITY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND LEVANTE STREET. MINUTES m (114) (99) (31) (114) ' (99) \\p 9% COUNCIL % ?$%? April 5, 1983 Page 5 MEMBERS Z. @ Z. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: (Continued) 1 17. AB #7320 - ZW CODE AMENMUZENT WING ENCROACHMENTS INTO SETBACK AREAS - ZCA-161 - CITY OF CARLSBAD. The following Ordinance was adopted: Casler X Lewis X ORDINANCE NO. 9675, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.46 X Prescott SECTION 21.46.120(2) '10 ALLOW CERTAIN INTRUSIONS INTO X Chick OF THE CARLSEW3 MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF xx Kulchin SIDE AMD REAR YF;RD SETBACKS ADJACENT To PERMANENT OPEN SPACE SUaSECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: (Continued) 18. AB #7326 - REVISIONS To SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. The Council continued this item for one week at the xx Chick the City Attorney. X Kulchin received from Mr. Ladwig necessitated discussion with X Lewis request of Council Member Chick, who stated a letter X Casler Prescott X 19. AB #7327 - CONF'OFWING THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH CHANGES IN STATE LAW REGARDING BINGO GAMES. The following Ordinance was adopted: X Lewis X Casler ORDINANCE KO. 6068, AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE CARLsBAD X Chick MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 1.08 xx Kulchin MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 5.10 SECTION 5.10.090 TO CONFORM WITH RECENT CHANGES IN THE PFNAL CODE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 20. AB #7338 - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT ZONE - ZCA-160 - CITY OF cA;RLsBAD. SECTION 1.08.010(a) AND TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD X Prescott Chris Salmne, Comnity Redevelopment Manager, gave the staff report as contained in the Agenda Bill. Mayor Casler opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Since no one wished to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. The following Ordinance was introduced: Casler X Lewis X ORDINANCE NO. 9679, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.35 Kulchin xx OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF Chick X Prescott SECTIONS 21.35.080, 21.35.100 AND 21.35.110 TD MAKE X PFOCEDURAI; CHANGES !IT3 THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE. 21. AB #7339 - TENTATIVE I", CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND APPEAL OF A VARIANCE DENIAL - CT 83-2/CP-225/t7-346 - STANDARD PACIFIC. Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, gave the staff report. Using a transparency to show the location of the proposed project, and wall maps to 80 MINUTES I I < April 5, 1983 Page 6 show the site plan, he explained the access and features of the project. He also explained the requested variance, and showed the setback requiremnt as required by the Ordinance, and as requested in the variance. Mayor Casler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Bob Allan, 7290 Clairemnt Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, the applicant, addressed the Council, using easel maps to show the floor plans of the proposed patio homes and the townhouses. He also gave a brief history of the property and developmnt of the proposed project. Mr. Allan, speaking in favor of the request for the setback variance, stated this would be the first and only such project in Carlsbad with this setback. He suggested the increased setback on one side would offset the decreased setback on the other side. He stated the Panorama Hills project approved in 1974 has similar approved setbacks, and that project is in the same vicinity. Mrs. Delphine Stafford, 904 Daisy, Carlsbad, addressed Council. She questioned if the project would generate additional traffic on Daisy and expressed concern about same. In response, Mike Holzmiller stated the access to Daisy was a secondary access, and the majority of traffic in the subdivision would use the other access, Since no one else wished to speak on the mtter, Mayor Casler closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Council discussed the various problem which could be encountered with the reduced setback, and noted the requirements were originally established to prevent such problems. Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving CT 83-2/CP-225, per Planning Comission Resolution No. 2090. Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying the appeal of V-346, based on the findings contained in Resolution No. 2091, 114) 22. AI3 #7282 - Supplement #1 - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING PARKING ON RESIDENTLAL IDTS -2CA-154 - CITY OF CARISBAD. Mike Holzmilller, Land Use Planning Manager, gave the staff report, as contained in the Agenda Bill and using a graphic, explained the Ordinance as proposed and effects on parking vehicles in setbacks. 7 COUNCIL /\2$ % %% 8 MEMBERS % $% Casler X Lewis X X Prescott X Chick xx Kulchin Casler X Lewis X Kulchin xx Chick X Prescott X / MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 7 He suggested a change be made in the Ordinance as presented on Page one, line 22 1/2, as follows: Delete the word "or" and add a corn following "boats" to read-"boats, recreational vehicles, or one passenger vehicle may be parked without screening..." Mayor Casler opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. John Gray, 5451 ms Robles Drive, addressed the Council, asking whether in cases where it is not possible to park the RV's to the side of the building the Council would grandfather those situations so the people could keep their RV's. Mrs. Lonnie Pine, 5319 El Arbol, addressed the Council, asking if vehicles should~be parked on paved surfaces. Staff informed her it had to be on a defined surface-can't park on the lawn. Mrs. Pine voiced another concern with automobiles that are stored in a front yard and can't be driven. Staff said this was mvered by another Ordinance regarding inoperable vehicles. The City Manager clarified staff's answer with regard to the defined surface parking by stating in the front yard it has to be on pavement, but in the back yard it could be on the grass. Since no one else wished to 'speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Mayor Casler expressed concern with this Ordinance, inasmuch as there are my places in the City where there is not enough room to store RV's in the side yard or back yard, this could cause a hardship to people. She expressed the opinion that the restriction should not be inposed on people in homes where the space is just not available around their home. It was noted that the Ordinance would be enforced only on a conplaint basis, so there may not be a problem as long as there is no complaint. Also discussed was the possibility of providing an appeal process so an individual could appeal the individual case to Council. The possibility of grandfathering in the cases where a hardship exists was discussed, but it was noted this could defeat the intent of the Ordinance. The following Ordinance was introduced, as amended: ORDINANCE NO. 9668, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.44, OF THE CARLSJ3AD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 21.44.165 TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF VMICLES - +% COUNCIL \\$ %9 "0 &? A MEMBERS .Z. @ .Z. Casler Lewis Chick xx Kulchin X X Prescott X /o MINUTES (28) COUNCIL /\k % %' 8 April 5, 1983 Page 8 MEMBERS % $% 23. AI3 #7340 - PROPOSITION H COMMI'ITEE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES. Mayor Casler made the following presentation: In November 1982, Proposition H was placed on the ballot by citizens petition and initiative. It was passed by 60 percent of the voters and is now a law in the City of Carlsbad. The Ordinance suggested that guidelines may be adopted in order to implement the Ordinance, so the City Council approved the formation of a Cornittee to write the guidelines to interpret the Ordinance. Two City Council Menbers, Mayor Casler and Ann Kulchin, were appointed to the Comnittee, and five citizens from the City made up the rest of the Comnittee: Mr. Straub, Colonel Feld, Mr. Skotnicki, Mrs. Cool and Mr. O'Day. The Comittee met weekly and the first two meetings were an educational process on the revenues of the City government-where the mney came from and how it was used and how it was required to be used. This was beneficial to all of the Conunittee so they understood about the funds of the City and could make a determination whether or not they applied to the Ordinance. The Comittee was not charged with trying to interpret what was in the voters' minds as they voted in November. The Ordinance was now a law and the Comnittee's charge was to interpret that law to the best of their ability. There were long discussions from each Member of the Conanittee on interpretation of the law, and the Comittee fulfilled its charge by writing guidelines. The Comnittee determined that some City funds should not have to be subject to a vote of the people. It was determined that drainage fees assessed on certain properties were not taxes. They were paid for by the developer and should never be subject to the Ordinance. Park-in-lieu fees, which are allowed by State law for the City to collect from each developer, must be spent within five years within the area from which collected, and that should not be subject to the Ordinance. This is governed by State law and does mt affect anyone existing in the City at this time. Public Facility Fees, paid by the developer, are not paid by anyone living in the City, but which are a requirement by the City for each new development, should not be subject to the Ordinance. These fees will bring new capital improvements into the City. The Comnittee also determined that gifts to the City of land or buildings or any kind of funds would not apply to this Ordinance, except gifts given for non- specific purposes would be subject to the Ordinance. Sewer construction funds collected from new accounts, should not be subject to the Ordinance, and water funds collected for new developments should not be MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 9 subject to the Ordinance. There is a portion of water funds which would be subject to the Ordinance if they were to be used for capital facilities, The Conunittee also determined separate legal entities within the City, the Parking Authority, Building Authority and the Housing and Redevelopment Conmission, exist separately from the City and the funding for those entities should not be subject to the Ordinance. Any time any general fund mney from tax mney exceeded one million dollars, it would be subject to the Ordinance. The Comnittee looked over the Capital Iqrovemnt Program and one project, which is the Public Safety Center to be built at El Camino and Palomr Road, did have a million and a half dollars of tax mney, so the Comnittee felt that should go to a vote of the people. When the charge was made that the City Council or the Comittee which worked on the guidelines had tried to subvert the Ordinance, that was not true, There is a section of the Ordinance which allows any project which had received prior discretionary approval to be exempt from the Ordinance. The Conunittee determined the Public Safety Center project should be put to a vote, but it could have been exempted because of the vested right clause. Five guidelines were passed by the Connnittee. RECESS : Mayor Casler called a recess at 7:46 p.m. and Council reconvened at 8:OO p.m. with all Council Menbers present , Mayor Casler opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. A. J. Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, addressed Council. Mr. Skotnicki make the following presentation on behalf of ACT: Even a cursory reading of the proposed guidelines would reveal that those guidelines would effectively gut the inplementation of Proposition H, now titled Ordinance 1255, and, thus subvert the mandate given the Council by 6,900 of its constituents at the polls last November. ACT, as the sponsor of the $1 million initiative, feels obligated to those citizens to interpose the strongest possible objections to the Conunittee reconnnendat ions. In actuality, there should be little doubt in the understanding of Proposition H, except by those who wish to emasculate it, It was very carefully and deliberately crafted to be readily understood by all the voters, not just those with law degrees, but at the same time provide a sound basis for action. The Ordinance refers to the "City of Carlsbad" as the place to which it applies. Now, we believe that title is meaningful and a valid description of @ace to all of us. The Municipal Code defines the "City Of - COUNCIL /\k % %' 3 MEMBERS % $% MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 10 Carlsbad" as that portion of the incorporated territory of the City of Carlsbad, and in Section 2.48.030 it says "City" refers to the City Council, the governing body of City or any duly authorized management employee. * "hat's not so, according to the guidelines, wherein it is arbitrarily proclaimed that the Building Authority, the Parking Authority, and the Housing and Redevelopment Comission are not in the City of Carlsbad, and, thus, beyond the reach of the taxpayers and voters in the City of Carlsbad. Where are these authorities located? Those off-shoots of the institutional structure are legal gimmicks devised solely to evade limitations and constraints on the Council's ability to spend public funds. For ex-le, the Parking Authority was created to give away $6 million, approximately, in sales taxes to coerce/induce a developer to build a shopping center. Without the gimnick the giveaway would be illegal. Despite the fact that Propsition H spelled out in detail how the $1 million spending limitation was'to be coquted., the City Staff and the Comittee ignored that detail and created an entirely new procedure to suit their own purpses. In the preamble to the Proposition we used the word "tax" once and then only assocated with the word "burden". The City Attorney took that phrase and references in the preamble to Proposition 13 and the Gann Initiative and said "city funds" which we used in the operative parts of proposition meant only "tax mnies" . Neither the City Attorney or the Conunittee gave our attorney or the ACT Board of Directors the credit of having enough knowledge of the English language and public funds to have used the word "taxes" if that was what we intended. Of course, we did not. We meant "city funds" and we used city funds to mean all mnies except categorical grants and those derived from special assessment districts. That is precisely what the ordinance states. Without any legal basis, whatsoever, the City Attorney translates "city funds" into "city taxes". In attempting to provide for an escape for the vesting provisions of the ordinance, the guidelines recornend adding the phrase "other appropriate grounds". That amounts to a "license to steal". 1 As a basis for this amendment of the ordinance, the Attorney uses pre-existing contractual agreements. ACT wuld expect the voters to accept a legal, pre- existing contract, if it could not be easily and legally avoided as preempting the requirements of the ordinance. In any case, to suggest "other appropriate grounds" to cover such a limited possibility is unreasonable. /W COUNCIL /\k 3 %* ? MEMBERS % %% ~ ' /s MINUTES COUNCIL /\y % %' % April 5, 1983 Page l1 MEMBERS % $% As to the guideline regarding the phasing of projects to avoid the $1 million limitation, we recognize that some large projects must be phased. The ordinance does not prohibit phasing. In the final analysis what is or is not a "reasonable" phasing would have to be determined by a court of law. As to the final guideline regarding the addition of a 30-day limitation to institute a suit against a Council determination that a specific project is exerrpt from the $1 million limitation, ACT contends that amounts to an addition to the ordinance and would be a blatant violation of that paragraph which prohibits additions, amendments, or repeal without a vote of the people. It might well be construed to violate the due process clause of the Constitution. As you undoubtedly realize, the massive affirmative vote on Proposition H reflected a distrust of the City Council of some significant proportion, If you should adopt the recomndations before you, you will confirm that distrust. Acceptance of the guidelines, as offered, will exempt all of the $1 million plus projects now in the C.I.P., except perhaps, the City Operations Center, and undoubtedly, every new project in the future. Your actions will also reveal better than any of your past claims as to whether or not you are responsive to your constituents. Mr. John Gray, 5451 Los Robles Drive, addressed the Council in opposition to the guidelines. He stated the Proposition H Comnittee was hand-picked to interpret the Ordinance. There was only one representative of the 6,900 voters who passed the Proposition, and he got disgusted and withdrew. Mr. Gray asked how the Comittee could exclude funds that are in the City Treasury and spent under the direction of the City Council, He stated the Council is still fighting Ordinance 1255 mre than a year after the citizens forced it upon them, and if they use these guidelines as an escape, that will confirm the public distrust of them. Mr. Harry Haubert, 1241 Tamarack Avenue, addressed the Council. He read from the arguments signed by Council contained in the voters' panphlet which states that every project would require a vote, including the sewer expansion. He stated Council knew what was covered by this Ordinance before the election, and Mr. Haubert asked why they needed a Comnittee now to tell them what it meant. 1 I MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 12 By saying the developer fees are excluded, he questionec if this was the same Proposition H. He asked how could the Council be believed again. They had opposed the Proposition before the election and then they put two Council Members in charge of the Cornittee. Mr. Haubert compared this to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. He stated the voters who read the pamphlet fully intended to require a vote on all fees- including developer fees. Mr. Haubert asked if the will of the people means anything and questioned how the Council could take the interpretation of the Connittee instead of the people. The Council represents the people--not the Comittee. Mr. Hugh Vickery, 5192 Carlsbad Boulevard, addressed the Council. He stated when Council was asked before before the election, they said they were against it, but if it became a law, they would work with it, The people voted for the Ordinance and he urged Council to listen to those people. He stated it was wrong to set up a false Comittee to interpret that Ordinance. He concluded saying the Ordinance could be amended or appealed only by a majority of the voters and suggested letting the public say if it is wrong or right. Mr, Glenn McComas, 1265 Cynthia Lane, addressed the Council in favor of the guidelines. He stated Mr. Skotnicki left the impression that millions of dollars were paid to smne outside of this City by this City for a parking lot for May Company, and that was false. Not one dime was paid by anyone from this City for that lot. The stores themselves paid for that lot by bond, and there was no cost to the taxpayers for that bond, Mr. McComas stated he knows of a will that would leave over a million dollars to the City, and he stated if it has to go to a vote, it is not right. The one million dollar limit was understandable; but that is only one tenth of one percent of the true value of the City of Carlsbad, Mr, McComas stated that no corporation would operate under that setup, Mr. McComas stated the Codttee had done nothing to hurt the Ordinance--that it needed interpretation and it was made properly and was legal. Mr. Michael Straub, 3360 Monroe, addressed the Council as a Member of the Codttee, stating they had a real task, as it was a very simple Ordinance addressing a mmplex issue and required a lot of interpretation. Mr. Straub stated the City does a lot of planning for development, to locate parks, fire stations, libraries, etc., and they put a dollar value on those future requirements, The people who mve to tam and buy a home pay for their portion of the future public facilities. He indicated if the Ordinance were interpreted as some would see it today, the City would vote whether to spend that fee for facilities after it was collected, I I - 3 COUNCIL /\b %.Pw /o %p/ MEMBERS .;t tp Z. April 5, 1983 MINUTES Page 13 - When the mney cones from the general population, this Ordinance should apply. He stated he believed the guidelines were fair and would protect the taxpayers. Mr. Bob Ladwig, 3289 Donna Drive, addressed the Council adding his support to the Comittee remmndations for guidelines. He stated that Council mkes the finding that projects are consistent with the General Plan because developers pay the Public Facilities Fee bo ensure facilities can be provided to meet the demand of new development. Mr. Pat O'Day, 2705 Sonbrosa Street, spoke to the Council as a Member of the Guideline Comittee. The public facility fee paid by the developer is pursuant to a contract with the City for added facilities caused by the development itself. He stated everyone benefits from payment of the fee. The developer knows he will be able to market his project. The benefit to the City is it will not be burdened by the development and the development would pay its own way. Those people searching for housing in North County rely on City facilities being built to serve them when needed. These funds may be in the City's bank account-but they are in trust for new residents. Don't believe it was the intent of Proposition H to allow the City voters to tell them whether they will get the needed facilities. It was not the intent of the Ordinance to interfere with the normal day-to-day business of the City. If there were a fast-developing area and the citizens had to vote on whether to allow facilities-just putting that to a vote would polarize the City. The uncertainty created could affect businesses thinking of locating here, housing facilities for the coqany itself as well as the new residents. Mr. O'Day remmended adoption of the guidelines. Mr. Andrew Wilson, 1743 Mallow Court, spoke to the Council, stating he had come to the meeting to be educated. He felt he could not leave unchallenged one statement made in opposition--the innuendo that the City Council acts with a rubber stamp and with the intent to defraud the public intent and usurp the power of the people to govern themselves through public officials. He stated he was proud to be a resident and voter in Carlsbad and proud of the way it is managed. In conversation with the staff of the City and Members of the City Council, and in conparison with the corrrplexity of governing a mmunity such as Carlsbad, Mr. Wilson felt these people were doing the very best they could and the citizens have a very fine City to show for the way it is run. In conclusion, . Mr. Wilson stated he worked here, lived I here, and enjoyed and admired the people for the contribution they make. 7 MEMBERS COUNCIL \Y %?$ Z. %j @ 'P, Z. 1 0 April 5, 1983 MINUTES Page 14 ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. Wayne Bischoff, 1085 Laguna, spoke to the Council. Mr. Bischoff stated that less than half of the voters voting last November voted for Proposition H; 4,000 voted against it, and several didn't vote either way because they didn't understand it. The citizens elected the Council Menhrs, and should not tie their hands so they can't run the City. Mr. Bischoff stated that the developer doesn't really pay the developer fee, it is actually the people who buy the homes. That fee is built into the price, and if the people of Carlsbad voted not to have those facilities, it would be unfair. Mr. Bischoff stated the Committee had made the correct interpretation. Mrs. Margie Cool, 2510 Unicornio Street, addressed the Council as a Member of the Codttee, and stated she went on the Comittee with an open mind to find out what Proposition H was, and as a meer of no special group. She stated there were three major concerns after reading the Ordinance. The first major area of concern was the wordage "city funds" and interpretations. She stated other speakers had addressed that, so she would not. The second problem that seemed to arise when the Comittee looked at the Ordinance was there was no time limitation on people who wished to question Council decisions on areas concerning vested interests and phasing. With no time limit, it seemed that a person could institute a law suit and tie up public facilities already started because it could be done at any time. The Comittee addressed the problem and came up with a 30-day limitation. The third and most difficult problem was the interpretation of phasing. The problem with phasing is the interpretation of when it is being used to circumvent, and that depends upon the viewpoint of the individual and whether it affects their interest or apinion. Mrs. Cool read from the guidelines regarding phasing and how the Cornittee protected the voters from circumventing. Mrs. Cool stated the guidelines were formulated to clarify a complicated Ordinance and allow the City and the City Council to function efficiently and have a government which does represent all of the citizens of Carlsbad, She stated the people who did not vote on the Proposition needed to be considered, and the City Council should represent all the people, not just a segment. Mr. Dennis Mahon, 3981 Gloria Lane, addressed the Council stating the Comnittee had done an excellent job and he urged the Council to support them. / - COUNCIL /\b %.Pw "0 +.p/ MEMBERS Z. (2, Z. 'I MINUTES /\b %p%.;r April 5, 1983 Mr. Bill Rybum, 2019 Estero, Oceanside, and 3021 State Street, Carlsbad, spoke to the Council, stating he was neither for or against and did not core here to speak on this matter. He wanted to remind people that everything of importance appears on the Council's Agenda and everyone could speak on it. .He stated the government of Carlsbad is held in high esteem as one of the best in San Diego County. He stated the City is well-run and he expressed his appreciation. He also mmented that from these Council Chambers has come an Assemblyman and a Congressman. Mr. Harold Clarke, 824 Caminito Del Reposo, addressed the Council, stating he agreed with everything Mr. Rybum had said. Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed at 9:02 p.m. Mayor Casler stated there seemed to be some question about the City Council making the decision the City had to have guidelines. She again noted that the Ordinance made such a provision. Council Member Kulchin stated there was talk that Ordinance 1255 was illegal. Council Member Kulchin stated the guidelines were workable and consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, and she thanked the members of the Comittee for their time and efforts. Council Member Lewis comnted that most of the Council had worked against Proposition H, because they did not believe in it. Once it was passed, they accepted the concept of the Proposition, but there was a problem understanding what it meant. He stated he took the information to some people who never attend Council Meetings-and asked them how they voted. Those who voted for the Proposition were asked what their intent was, and they answered "How my tax dollar is to be spent." He stated the Council represents all citizens. He stated the Comnittee did an excellent job, and expressed disapproval and concern about the comnts about license to steal, dishonest or distrust and lack of confidence. Council Member Chick reiterated the comnts of the Mayor regarding formulating guidelines to implement Proposition H. He also stated that Mr. Skotnicki was a strong advocate for developer fees when he was on the Council. He stated the developer fees are contractual in nature and there is an implied contract that the City will build the public facilities when they are needed. Council Member Chick stated the guidelines the Comittee offered for the Council should be accepted. Council Member Prescott stated the developer fees were established to relieve the burden on the present population and shift it to the new residents arriving. COUNCIL /o $, % Page l5 MEMBERS Z. (SI Z. /v MINUTES I (105) (70) COUNCIL \{b %.Pw "0 $,p, April 5, 1983 Page l6 MEMBERS + 8 + , He continued stating that during the election last fall, he taked with people and found most of them felt they were voting on their tax money as far as Proposition H was concerned. €!e noted the Comnittee was representative of the entire comnity. The Council adopted the guidelines of the Proposition Casler X H Comnittee. Lewis X Kulchin xx Chick X Prescott X DEPAR"4ENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS: Redevelopment 24. AB #7201 - Supplement #1 - PROJECT SELECTION FOR ADDITIONAL NINTH YEAR BLOCK GFWJT FUNDS. Chris Salomne, Comnity Redevelopment Manager, gave the staff report as contained in the Agenda Bill. Council recognized Mr. Harold Clarke, 824 Caminito Del Reposo, who asked them to endorse Mr. Salomne's requests as presented. Mr. Bill Ryburn, 3021 State Street, addressed the Council, stating he agreed with Mr. Clarke and wanted to state this money was not given to the owners, but was loaned and had to be paid back. The following Resolution was adopted: Casler X Lewis X RESOLUTION NO. 7181, REQUESTING ADDITIONAL PROJECTS Kulchin xx SELECTION FOR FUNDING UNDER NINTH YEAR Co"4ITY Chick X DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PIIOGRAM. Prescott X Parks and Recreation 25. AB #7341 - MACARIO CANYON PARK AGRICULTURAL LEASE. Dave Bradstreet, Director of Parks and Recreation, gave the staff report on this item, as contained in the Agenda Bill. Mayor Casler stated it had been the custom in the sale of City land to have an auction and she asked the Council if this procedure should be followed on the lease of this land. Council Member Lewis expressed the opinion that if an auction were intended, it should have been advertised that way in the beginning. Since the sealed bid .procedure was advertised and the bids were accepted, Council should follow through and award to the high bidder. Council discussion reflected concurrence with the ariments of Council Member Lewis. oj MINUTES April 5, 1983 Page 17 I I The Council adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 7 1 82 , APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARISBAD AND PACIFIC ELITE, INC, TO LEASE APPROXIMATELY 75 ACRES OF LAND AT MACAR10 CANYON PARK FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR To .I EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Engineering 26. NUMBER NOT USED. (26 1 27. AB #7306 - Supplant #I - JWES DRIVE ASSESSMEfaT. This item was withdrawn and continued until April 19, 1983. (99) 28. AB #7343 - AGREEPENT FOR ENGINEERING PLAN CHECKING (45) SERVICES AND REVISION TO INCREASE PLAN REVIEW FEE. Mayor Casler asked that this item be deferred until the end of the Meeting, if time permits, Planning 186) 29. AB #7344 - REQUEST TO ADDESS COUNCIL - MR. RICHARa S. GRWT. I Mr. Grumet, 9747 Business Park Avenue, San Diego, addressed the Council detailing the contents of his letter dated March 18, 1983. Mayor Casler expressed concern, and Council concurred, that seniors could not afford to buy, which is why it was set as apartments. Concern was also expressed about ability to regulate resale of units. Council decided to take no action on Mr. Grumet's proposal. City Manager .I (113) 30. AB #6919 - Supplement #1 - SDG&E FUEL (ENCINA POWER PLANT) - SP-144. The City Manager gave a brief report on this item, referring to the information contained in the Agenda Bill. Mr. Glenn McComs addressed the Council and stated this burning of medium sulfur fuel would save one million dollars per mnth, or twelve million dollars a year. He stated it should not be delayed since the APCO has given approval, Mr. Richard Smith, Air Pollution Control District, responded to Council query, stating he supervised the staff who did the test of the emission. Mr. Smith explained the testing procedure and the mnitoring. Brief Council discussion reflected their concern was for what comes out of the stack. - - MEMBERS COUNCIL \$ ""0% * %q 6 9/ Z. Casler X Lewis X Kulchin X Chick xx Prescott X Casler X Lewis X X Prescott X Chick xx Kulchin cpd MINUTES (28) a April 5, 1983 COUNCIL \\B %ow "0 $, p/ i Page l8 MEMBERS Z. tp Z. The Council determined that the burning of the medium X Prescott caused for the City. xx Chick Control District standards and there are no problems X Kulchin Specific Plan as long as emissions met Air Pollution X Lewis sulfur oil is consistent with Condition 6 of the X Casler Building 31. AB #7345 - INDUCE" RESOLUTION FOR MOR'EACZ RmTENuE. Martin Orenyak, Director of Building & Planning, gave the staff report, stating this was not a comitment by the City to build this or any other project on the property--just that the City Council would direct the City Staff, City Attorney and Mr. Orenyak to work with the people and put Mortgage Revenue Bond together. The Council adopted the following Resolution of Casler X Inducement: Lewis X Kulchin xx RESOLUTION NO. 71 87, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL X Chick PROJECT. X Prescott Due to the time, Mayor Casler announced Item #28 would be continued to the next meeting. CLOSED SESSION: Council adjourned at 9:59 p.m., to a Closed Session. Mayor Casler announced that litigation would be discussed. Council reconvened at 10:13 p.m., with all Council Members present. Mayor Casler announced that litigation had been discussed and no action taken. ADJOURNMENT: By proper mtion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m., to Tuesday, April 12, 1983, 6:OO p.m., in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, bAfl-7 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk Harriett Babbitt, Minutes Clerk