Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
; ; GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; 1980-08-01
EUMINARYyREPORT INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by SEDWAY/COOKE Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers San Francisco, California in association with LYNN SEDWAY + ASSOCIATES Urban Economists Son Rafael, California August 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Background I Purpose of Study . 2 GROWTH POTENTIAL Ultimate Development 3 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Scenario I: Uncontrolled Growth 10 Scenario II: Managed Growth I I Comparison of Development Scenarios 11 Development Phasing 16 PUBLIC SERVICE IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL Framework for Evaluating Public Services 26 Public Services: Existing Conditions and Implications of Growth 27 Water Supply 28 Sewer Services 36 Parks and Recreation 40 Police Protection 49 Fire Protection 50 Library Services 56 Street Circulation 59 Drainage 62 Physical Administration Facilities .65 •FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL Methodology 69 Analysis of City Costs 69 Analysis of City Revenues 79 Public Facilities Fee 88 Determination of Public Facilities Fee 90 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary 98 Recommendations 103 APPENDICES: A - Methodology and Assumptions for Determining Growth Potential B - Sensitivity of Growth Potential Estimate C - Comparison of Growth Management and Public Facilities Fee Analysis D - Formulas for Projecting Public Service Demand E- Persons Consulted Bibliography INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The rapid growth of the City of Carlsbad in recent years has placed a tremendous burden on the City's public services. The City's growth potential, attractive lifestyle and living environment are, in part, reflections of the City's ability -to provide adequate public services and facilities. In an era of fiscal stringency, it has become increasingly difficult for cities to maintain, much less improve, public services. Part of the problem has been that cities have failed to take a realistic perspective of their growth potential and to evaluate their public service require- ments in light of that potential. In order to understand this relationship between growth, public services, and fiscal realities, the City Council of Carlsbad approved Resolution No. 6154 on April 15, I960. The resolution called for an assessment of the City's public services in light of both present and future demands. Sedway/Cooke, urban and environmental planners and designers, in association with Lynn Sedway & Associates, urban economists, were contracted by the City to perform the analysis and to recom- mend a process that would allow the City to anticipate future development and public service demands. The services being addressed in this study include: water sewer schools parks and recreation police fire library circulation drainage - • physical administration facilities It should be emphasized that this is not a comprehensive growth management program. The scope of this project calls only for an evaluation of the City's public services and the development of an interim growth management system that can be adapted as more information becomes available and as the General Plan revision program proceeds. The forces affecting growth and the reasons for wanting to manage growth go far beyond the supply and demand of public services. Environmental considerations, adequate and affordable housing, community design and aesthetics, energy conservation, and community diversity and liveability should all be integrated into a comprehensive growth management program. However, because public services are key factors in shaping the pattern and rate of development, they are a good starting point from which to structure a growth management framework. PURPOSE OF STUDY The intent of this preliminary report is to present a system by which the City can anticipate future public service limitations and ensure that growth occurs in a manner that is compatible with public service availability. In developing the system, three basic questions have been considered. First, what is the ultimate growth potential of the City? The growth potential provides an estimate of future public service requirements. Two important facets of growth influence the provision of public services: the spatial distribution of the growth and the rate of growth. Spatial considerations relate to where the growth will occur and thus where public services must be provided. The rate of growth determines how rapidly the services must be provided. Two different growth scenarios illustrating uncontrolled sprawl and managed growth are presented to. illustrate the cost implications of how the City develops. Second, how does one evaluate the adequacy of a public service, and what is the present status of Carlsbad's services? The approach proposed provides a quick assessment of each of the ten services and also indicates if the service is approaching a minimum acceptable level. The mechanism relies on the concept of an early warning system that alerts the City when demand is reaching a level that will deplete the availability or quality of the public service unless some action to remedy the situation is undertaken. Third, how adequate is the City's current method of financing public service expansion and improvements? The City has recentjy implemented a public facili- ties fee assessment that is designed to finance the public facilities needs of future growth in the City. In light of the City's growth potential and public service demands, the third task of this study is to assess the adequacy and equity of the public facilities fee and to recommend revisions, if necessary. This is a preliminary report and is intended primarily to elicit comments on the approaches, assumptions, and materials presented. Comments from the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the City departments are sought in order to make the interim growth management process a useful and meaningful one. Following a 10 day review period, the City will forward its comments for consi- deration by the consultants in preparing the final report to be submitted in September. GROWTH POTENTIAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CONTINUED GROWTH Carlsbad is located on the Pacific coast just 30 miles north of the San Diego metropolis. Well served by freeway and rail access, the City is conveniently located within commuting distance of employment centers in the City of San Diego and in Orange County. Figure I shows Carlsbad in its regional context. The tremendous growth experienced in this region has not left Carlsbad unaffected. In fact, Carlsbad and the North County area are among the fastest growing areas in San Diego County, which during the past decade was one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. In 1970, the City accounted for I.I percent of the County's population; by 1970, the City's share of the County's population had jumped to nearly 2 percent. Several factors suggest this trend, rather than one of slower growth, is likely to continue. First, the amenities which draw in-migrants, the primary source of population increase, to Carlsbad and San Diego—the weather, the ocean, the healthy atmosphere, and the lifestyle—will continue to attract people. Second, a major employment base is developing around Palomar Airport. This will encourage residential development to house employees, commercial development to meet local service needs, and further industrial development. Third, several large planned communities are either being developed or are proposed that will greatly increase the City's population over the next fifteen years. Figure 2 shows the population trend in Carlsbad. ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Methodology and Assumptions "Buildout" is that level of development when the City is fully developed. It is a function of the land available for development and the land use policies which dictate how the land is to be used. There are several ways of determining the ultimate development capacity of the City. The approach used here is based on land capacity as defined by the City's General Plan. Acreage measurements were made for all residential, commercial, and industral lands identified on the General Plan. These include all lands within the City's sphere of influence, both the City its as well as the unincorporated pockets of land under the County's jurisdiction. Areas designated as open space or public were not included as part of the inven- tory. The residential acreage was multiplied by the governing densities in order to derive ultimate number of units. The General Plan residential categories are given as ranges, and one approach to presenting the City's growth potential would be to indicate the maximum and minimum number of units permitted according to the Plan. This approach provides an estimate of the- ultimate population range, but does not indicate where, within the range, Carlsbad will most likely fall. In terms of public service management, facilities can be greatly undersized if the low population estimate is used; or facilities can be greatly oversized if the high population estimate is used. To avoid this problem and thus provide a better basis on which to plan public services, a specific density for each area was derived based on conversations wilh the City planning department. Some areas identified [5 Figure 1 I REGIONAL SETTING Figure 2 CARLSBAD HISTORICAL AND FUTURE GROWTH TRENDS Cumulative Population 100,831 1960 1970 1980 1985 Year 1995 20OO >2000 14,699 as low-medium density (0-4 dwelling units per acre) were determined to be developed at 1.0 dwelling units per acre while other areas were determined to be developed at 3.9 dwelling units per acre. It has been common experience here and in other communities that residential developments seldom attain the maximum permissible density. Consequently, in most cases, the specific density chosen was the median of each density range. (Incidentally, this approach to determining buiidout population, with some refinements, is the same as that used in the public facilities fee analysis.) The methodology and assumptions for determining the City's growth potential are further explained in Appendix A. Buiidout Statistics The amount of land presently developed in Carlsbad for residential, commercial, or industrial uses is only 27.8 percent of the land designated for these activities, as estimated from aerial photographs and information available from the City planning department. This suggests that more than 70 percent of the City's developable land area is presently vacant and that a substantial amount of development is in store for the community. The present population, according to the January I, 1980, estimates of the State Department of Finance, is 35,500 persons. By comparison, the methodology used in this study results in a present population of 34,102, of which 292 reside in the unincorporated portions of the City's sphere of influence. At buiidout, the City is expected to have: a population of 100,831 persons a housing stock of 39,524 residential units, of which nearly 75 percent will be " " at densities of 10 or less dwellings units per acre (assumed to be single-family or duplex residences) an average household size of 2.55 persons an average residential density of 4.3 dwelling units per net acre 630 net acres of developed commercial lands nearly 1,840 net acres of developed industrial land. Table I indicates the amount of existing land development as a percentage of the amount potentially developable according to the General Plan. Because the level of development determined here is significantly different than that in the public facilities fea Analysis, Appendix C attempts to account for some of the differences between the two analyses. TABLE i LAND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN CARLSBAD Land Use Percent of Existing Net Acreage Ultimate Net Acreage Buildout City County Total City County Total Residential Single-family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 2104 235 426 387 16 -0. -0- 52 2120 235 426 439 6476 555 628 1235 2073 38 3 602 8549 593 631 1837 24.8 39.6 67.5 21.1 In order to get a better idea of where this growth will occur, the City is divided into five significant subareas that correspond approximately to the City's satellite reclamation plant drainage areas. The boundaries of these areas are depicted in Figure 3, and the ultimate buildout in each of these areas is presented in Table 2. The development potential is a rough surrogate for the public service demand. In terms of population, Encina North and La Costa will place the greatest demand on public services. However, in terms of providing public services, the most dramatic effect of growth will be noticed in Lake Calavera and Palomar where services will have to meet the needs of ultimate populations more than nine times greater t'-an existing populations. The tremendous amount of industrial develop- ment potential in Encina South and Palomar will require expansion of present service levels, particularly for water, sewer, and circulation. The ability of the City and the special districts to provide timely and adequate services is intimately linked to how rapidly development proceeds. Excessive rates of growth can over- whelm the City's fiscal and personnel resources. Issues and implications of the rate and location of development are discussed in the next section. ^_Buena Vista \,•-—Lagoon •.:rJW-ake Ca avera ~Agua Hcdionda_ELagoon ••:-:-:-:-:^->?^-:-:-:-:-:<-:-:-:-:-/-:<-:-:-»:-:-:-:-:-:-x-:-:-:-:-:¥x:x:x:::x:::::«:-:-:-:-:\:-:-:-x-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-/:-:-:-:-:-:-?7!:'rr»:-:-:-:-:-:-:«:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:i Figure 3 SIGNIFICANT SUBAREAS =— Encina Lake Calavera Hills Palomar Airport L .^ La Costa City of Carlsbc 8 .north! TABLE 2 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY SIGNIFICANT SUBAREA ENCINA NORTH ENCINA SOUTH LAKE CALAVERA PALOMAR LA COSTA LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (units) Single-Family Multifamily Total COMMERCIAL Net Acres Sq.ft. x 1000* INDUSTRIAL Net Acres Sq.ft. x 1000* Existing Ultimate 3,732 3,365 7,097 268 4,377.8 -0- 5,938 4,340 10,278 272 4,443.1 -0- Existing Ultimate Existing Ultimate 1,619 45 1,713 9 147.0 104 1,698.8 8,129 1,095 8,775 90 1 ,470.2 522 8,526.9 452 -0- 452 1 16.3 -0- 4,099 60 4,159 17 277.7 4 65.3 Existing Ultimate Existing Ultimate 165 -0- 165 76 1,241.5 335** 5,472.2 4,312 -0- 4,312 !26 2,058.2 1,311 21,415.2 2,318 1 ,375 3,693 72 1,176.1 -0- 6,493 5,058 11,551 126 2,058.2 -0- Assuming 25% building coverage and 1-1/2 floors. **lnc!udes 167 acres of airport facilities. CITY TOTALS: Existing Ultimate Residential (Units) Single-family 8,286 28,971 Multifamily 4,785 10,553 Commercial (Net Acres) 426 631 Industrial (Net Acres) 439" 1,837 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS In public facilities planning the primary concerns involve where public services need to be provided and, more importantly, when. Where growth will occur is determined by the City's General Plan. When growth will occur is a much more elusive question. Growth can be affected by the national economy, by regional growth policies, and by regional job and housing opportunities. However, growth is largely a reflection of the City's attitudes toward growth and its ability to provide public services. To illustrate the point, two divergent perspectives influencing the rate of development in the City are described below. SCENARIO I: UNCONTROLLED GROWTH The question of when growth should occur, if at all, is rarely addressed by com- munities. The General Plan which is supposed to embody the community's aspira- tions and goals typically avoids the issue of development phasing. Yet, this omission is easily understood in light of the traditional American ethic of growth. The arguments for growth were and still are convincing: "Growth stabilizes or improves the local tax situation by broadening the tax base and reducing per capita tax burdens; "Most growth 'pays its own way' and, even though some growth may have costs which exceed new tax revenues, the overall benefits counterbalance the direct costs; "New development brings a broader range of goods and services to the community through secondary and tertiary, as well as primary, growth; "Growth improves local wage levels and brings greater flexibility in job opportunities to existing resident-workers, women not currently employed, and young persons who might otherwise leave the community for employment possibilities; "Growth brings a wider range of choice in housing types and locations; and "Development and expansion eventually result in improved community facili- ties such as fire and health services, roads, school, and so forth."* In addition to these reasons for encouraging growth, Carlsbad possesses an inviting climate, location, and lifestyle. Under Scenarios I this growth ethic would prevail, provided that the services are either available or will be provided by the developer. Accordingly, development would be allowed to occur wherever and whenever it is proposed. *The Urban Land Institute. Management & Control of Growth, Volume I. Edited by Randall W. Scott. 1975. pp. 5-6. 10 SCENARIO II: MANAGED GROWTH Recently, and most noticeably in the I 970's, the traditional growth ethic has been challenged. In many instances throughout the country, rapid growth has overbur- dened public facilities and services. Many communities are faced with the need to provide additional services at high "catch-up" costs and at a time when the finan- cial pursestrings are being drawn ever tighter. Furthermore, uncontrolled growth has resulted in: loss of environmental resources; conversion of prime agricultural lands; lengthy commutes and automobile dependency because housing and employ- ment opportunities are not in proximity to one another; inefficient use of infrastructure and land resources; loss of town/neighborhood character; and loss in perception of one's territory and, thus, sense of security and well- being. Although there are many reasons for managing growth, this study focuses only on public facilities. Scenario II recognizes the potential implications of uncontrolled growth and therefore attempts to stage the development in conjunction with the provision of adequate public services. A direct application of this philosophy would be to encourage development in areas where public services and facilities are largely available and to discourage development that requires new services. Furthermore, under Scenario II, the City has the option of controlling the location and rate of growth through its decisions on public service availability. COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Scenario I, uncontrolled growth, is assumed to be synonymous with sprawl, development in a "leapfrogging" pattern, some distance away from existing development. It is distinguished from Scenario II which is a pattern of managed growth which encourages growth within or adjacent to developed areas. The provision of municipal services under Scenario I is frequently costlier and less efficient. The need to extend service is usually accompanied by the need for additional personnel and equipment. New major capital outlays are also asso- ciated with infrastructure essential to serve sprawl developments. Public Service Costs There are two major cost considerations in providing public services. The first consideration is the distribution of total costs between fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are those associated with the use of resources such as land, buildings and heavy machinery. They cannot be varied for a given set of capital facilities. Variable costs are those such as labor and supplies which can be varied. The second consideration is the capacity at which the capital facilities are operating. For public services requiring large investment in capital facilities, such as sewage and water systems and major roads, fixed costs are likely to represent a large per- centage of total costs. If excess capacity existed, per-unit service costs would decrease, since the fixed costs would be spread over more users. However, if operations are at capacity, additional service demand would either stretch existing facilities beyond their minimum level of service or necessitate invest- ment in new capital facilities, both of which often increase per-unit costs. Developers can offset part of these costs by providing the facilities or improve- ments or by contributing funds through a facilities fee or some other mechanism. For public services in which variable costs represent the larger share of total costs, per-unit costs of service are less likely to be affected by increases in service demand and total costs. Costs for these types of services—which would include police protection and other personal government services—are determined much more by the quality of service provided than by the quantity of services provided, per se. It is considerably more difficult to assess developers a share of increased variable costs than to assign a portion of fixed cost. Cost considerations applicable to the provision of the major public services are discussed below. Water and Wastewater Services These services can affect the rate and location of development. Scenario I can result in costly extensions of underutilized facilities. According to representa- tives of the water districts serving Carlsbad, there is adequate water supply from the County Water Authority to meet anticipated development. Existing distribu- tion lines cover most of the area likely to develop and are of sufficient capacity so that expensive programs to extend lines and upgrade the lines are minimal. In general, the greatest cost advantages can be gained by encouraging development to" occur where water storage and distribution facilities are already on-line and have excess capacity. Because much of the water supply facilities are in place and are provided by independent districts, the cost differences between Scenarios I and II in terms of water supply appear negligible. The capacity of the wastewater treatment plant at Encina was a very real and serious obstacle to development at the outset of this study. The Carlsbad Sewer Service Area had used nearly all of its allocated treatment plant capacity. However, in June I960, the regional plant was rerated to 16 million gallons per day (mgd) from 13.75 mgd and capacity will be increased to 18 mgd by 1982-1983. Concurrently, the City has embarked upon a satellite wastewater reclamation program that will provide wastewater services to each of the City's significant subareas. The plants serving the City will all be on-line by 1985. The effect of these events has been to remove any constraints to development. For the most part, there is no rationale for encouraging development towards one area over another. However, because the City is responsible for the operation of the plants, to the extent that energy costs for pumping are significant, a scattered pattern of development would cost more than one emphasizing development in areas of infill or adjacent to existing developed areas. Public Schools In general, cost efficiencies due to growth are possible only if underutilized facili- ties are available in local school districts and growth is encouraged in those 12 districts. Capital expenditures, probably resulting in increased per-unit service costs, would be required if classroom facilities were needed to accommodate a growth in students. Because the school problem is acute everywhere in the City, both Scenarios 1 and II would involve capital expenditures and potentially have the effect of slowing the rate of development. Operating costs, which account for the majority of total school costs, typically rise in proportion to increases in students if student-teacher ratios remain somewhat constant. Increased student-teacher ratios could result in lowered per-unit operating costs, although at the risk of a possible decline in the quality of education. Higher operating costs are likely on a per-unit basis for the Scenario I. This scenario can seriously burden the school district's ability to provide quality education services. To the extent that Scenario II encourages growth near schools with available space, it can minimize the transportation costs of busing students. Parks and Recreation The provision of parks and recreational facilities require large initial investments and variable costs fluctuate little as a function of population. Parks and other recreational facilities, or in-lieu payments, have traditionally been provided by the developer, and the City expenses have been for maintaining the facilities. As development increases and, subsequently, park use increases, the City's expenses may increase slightly but proportionately less than the population increase. The fiscal implications of park acquisition, development, and maintenance are unlikely to be very different under either scenario and will not affect development. Police Protection Police protection service can gain certain efficiencies with growth, especially under Scenario 11 which allows more optimal deployment of patrols. Managed growth also permits increased efficiency with respect to the use of communica- tions equipment and stations. Unmanaged growth, in contrast, does not facilitate optimal use of officers because the areas to be patrolled are so dispersed. Because costs of police protection are determined more by the level of quality than population served, costs will be lower for a compact pattern of development than a dispersed pattern of equal population. It can also be noted that, although law enforcement demand correlates roughly with population, it is also influenced by the socio-economic makeup of residents and visitors. Fire Protection To a large degree, the provision of fire protection services represents a fixed cost. Once a station is established with full-time personnel, the total cost of providing services to an area is roughly the same whether fire crews respond to one or five fires per day. This characteristic allows for efficiencies of service resulting from Scenario II (if development occurs as infilling or adjacent to already developed areas), and if the level of growth does not overburden the capacity of existing personnel and equipment. Therefore, growth usually results in a lowering of the per-unit costs of providing fire protection services if stations are more efficiently utilized. Even if increased service demands require addi- tional personnel or equipment to maintain existing service quality but do not necessitate the construction of new stations, somewhat lower per-unit service 13 costs could result. In contrast, Scenario I would negate these efficiencies because the stations would not be optimally located and outlying areas would be inade- quately served, unless the development is large enough to warrant another station. In any event, the level of service for fire and police protection will not affect the rate of development. Library Library services involve large capital investments and the variable costs are determined by the quality of service. Carlsbad has established high standards for itself as a community so that the per capita costs may be higher than elsewhere. The efficient use of a library depends entirely on its accessibility. Under Scenario I, it is more difficult to locate the optimal site for a branch or central library because population is less concentrated. However, in terms of constraining the rate of development, the availability of libraries is not a major determinant. Circulation It is difficult to generalize about the relationship between public per-unit costs and increased community size. A minimum amount of roads are necessary for even a small community. An increasing population will require more roads, but proportionately less than the increase of population, and per-unit costs are likely to decrease. This favorable situation lasts until congestion in developed areas occurs. Then, in order to maintain the prior level of service, either new roads which are very expensive to build in developed areas, or a public transit system, both of which are likely to raise per-unit costs would be required. Even more growth, however, may again lower per-unit costs, if public transit usage increases. Carlsbad is generally in the first situation where congestion is limited to certain areas and times. Scenario I may require the premature extension of the circulatior. system at high per unit costs. These costs would, nevertheless, decrease as surrounding development occurred. Infill could exacerbate traffic conditions where it occurs in areas with already congested streets. The absence of street capacity may encourage developers to look towards less congested areas, although numerous transportation system management techniques can be employed to bring traffic conditions to acceptable levels. Drainage Drainage is similar to circulation in thaf a minimum network is necessary to prevent flooding. As development occurs additional facilities will be required but proportionately less than the increase in population. Most of these costs will be borne by the developer, and it is not expected that there will be significant cost differentials between Scenarios I and II. Physical Administration Facilities It is not possible to generalize about the effects of growth on the costs of provid- ing general government services. Because some services are supplied whether an area is large or small (such as components of municipal or agency administration), the marginal cost of serving a level of growth may be slight, resulting in lower average (or per-unit) service costs. Other genera! government services may lose efficiency at higher levels of output that could accompany growth. It is also possible that the increased size of communities may raise expectations for certain urban services, which might have been inefficient to provide and not expected for small levels of population and development. These latter two considerations, loss of efficiency and higher expectations, may result in additional per-unit costs. Certain operations such as the service/maintenance yard can be provided more efficiently when growth is managed and not dispersed. ^ Other Costs Aside from public service costs, there are other costs that distinguish sprawl from infill. Social costs are those costs incurred by society as a whole. An increase in pollution and energy usage (e.g., gasoline to reach downtown services and resultant pollution costs) are examples. These costs are likely to be greater under Scenario I than under Scenario II. Spillover costs are those that fall on other servicing entities (e.g., the increased busing costs to the schools). A significant cost associated with Scenario I is the dilution of services. This cost is manifested as a decrease in the quality of service; for example when police or fire response times increase because of the need to patrol a larger geographical area without an increase in personnel or equipment. -_ Opportunity costs ore those that are incurred by providing service at the expense of other needs. Each of thse costs are unquantifiable; their impacts are seen more in the decline in the quality of services than in one's pocketbook. In summary, some services benefit by encouraging a managed growth pattern that permits development as services become available and favors development that occurs as infill. Other services such as physical administration facilities are affected little under either scenario. Police and fire protection are prime examples where per unit costs for service can be reduced (if the level of develop- ment does not cause the service to fall below a minimum acceptable level). Similarly, Scenario II growth diminishes the likelihood of extending services, such as roads, water and sewer lines, and drainage facilities, long distances only to be underutilized. The disadvantage of encouraging infill is evident in areas where services are already at capacity. Schools, right now, may be the biggest factor likely to constrain development. Ultimately, the buildout population will be reached, but the absence of school capacity can postpone the time when that occurs. The increased costs associated with sprav/l have caused local governments to consider the equity of passing on increased costs to taxpayers as a whole. Con- trolling sprawl development can minimize increases in the cost of services, as noted above. In the absence of adequate infrastructure contribution by the developer, Carlsbad may elect to allow development only where public facilities are adequate, thereby more carefully regulating the timing of increased capital 15 costs and extended services. A development phasing schedule that complies with the objectives of Scenario II and thus avoids the public and social costs of Scenario I is presented in the next section. DEVELOPMENT PHASING * The main rationale for managing growth in Carlsbad is so that the City has adequate lead time to provide for adequate services. If done solely on the basis of available sewage capacity, the City because of the satellite reclamation plant program, could be developed by 1985. However, various other factors, aside from public services, come into play when the phasing of development is considered. For example, growth will be influenced by agricultural land preservation policies, the project planning of large planned communities, and regional growth plans. The most realistic and preferred growth scenario is one that: takes advantage of excess capacity in infill areas; phases development with the availability of sewage capacity as provided by the satellite program; defers development in agricultural lands; recognizes the project phasing of the City's major planned communities; and is keyed to the County's schedule for urban development in unincorporated areas. Figure 4 describes these considerations as they relate geographically in Carlsbad. Areas are identified by years by which they can expect to be developed The areas shown in white are assumed to be existing development, presently develop- able, or open space. Areas potentially developed by 1985 reflect the project phasing for Lake Calavera Hills and Rancho La Costa, development proposals in the airport vicinity, and the availability of water, sewers, and roads. Areas poten- tially developed by 1995 include the remaining vacant land in the City, except for two areas: a narrow stretch of land west of 1-5 and south of Palorhar Airport Road, and the agricultural lands north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Development in these areas is deferred until after 1985 because they require the construction of new roads, are beyond the five minute response time of existing fire stations, or are slated for development during the 1985-1995 period in accordance with a planned community. Areas potentially developed by 2000 include all areas within the Carlsbad sphere of influence . Designation of these lands for development only after 1995 reflects County land use policies regarding urban development of unincorporrated lands, lack of major capital facilities, and the City's objective of preventing premature elimination of prime agricultural land. The County Regional Growth Management Program identified the unincorporated areas in Carlsbad as future urban development areas.* The concept is to encourage urban ^Development in these areas prior to 1995 is permitted at a minimum parcel sizes of 10 acres. Smaller parcels will be permitted only when an area is annexed to an adjacent city or development is conditioned upon annexation. 16 ''Buena Vista Lagoon <$/ JS?&JJiiis$jjii$ vI*^*X'I*X*I*I'I*X*X*I'I*I"t*I'.^i'*H trj*r i^^."? *7*7^| JT Tr^^Lake Calavera rj—! GV^,100V, 5?*,I2£* f *""i*X'*vM*. ^".cr?*>r^'t*^*-^' * * •'•ii^*"*"."l***'"-'-''*'/i ^fcje***.;.;/.;.;.;.;.Vyr** |v.-.- .•. fV^p.W*k*->»*WV*i j.-."'t*7\T*r-!vi*T'*^^""lr^sk***** ix-XvXvX-x-x-x-Xvxt:i*x-x*x*<rT<;fii*V.'.V. *Jnv^Pt»*->ri»«-MB a.-.'.*.*.*.*.'.'.'.*. ^-H» I /•x^x^x-xix-xix;:-^^::.^ Dam Agua Hedionda*!*"-I VXXX_X 1 "Lagoor^^- *• - ^\m frMm Vis.-": Figure 4 DEVELOPMENT PHASING v<^ ;;?^::pf:l/^- • r. :*.• .......^.. .•.-.*.•.-.- i.* I*......> ^w i-.-.-.v.^.-.•.•.•.;.•.;.^ fe::x;:-'?i::-i.: Batiquitos ,.<-"-fI.>H L •*:•:•:•:•>' "^Sj-agoon ,-^v-i1 x-^«r \lfjr.-?f.-.4.y ,, ^^-r*'-'' V< ^^.. :Jil\\<&^S 4\\,a Costa iCX^i 2000 1995 1985 Agricultural Preserve City of Carlsbad .north 17 densities by holding the land in reserve until it becomes desirable for urban development. Carlsbad has ample vacant land that should be encouraged to develop prior to the unincorporated areas. County lands identified as potentially developable prior to 1995 are so categorized because they are immediately adjacent to City areas that have public services. The City's agricultural lands' objective recommends the City preserve agricultural lands wherever feasible. The guidelines outlined in the General Plan direct the City to favor urban development in the least productive areas and to utilize measures to prevent premature dvelopment. These objectives and guidelines have been respected and consequently these areas are the last to develop in the City. Figure 4 illustrates a number of public land use and service policies. It identifies when areas may be developed as determined by these policies. How much of the areas are developed is determined largely by market decisions which respond to the regional and national economy and to the developers' perceptions of how much the City can "absorb"; that is, how many units of housing or square feet of com- mercial space can realistically be built and occupied. Thus, within each of the time periods, only a fraction of the developable land will be absorbed. A determination of development phasing is best performed after a market analysis has analyzed residential, commercial, and industrial demand in the region. Work undertaken for the City's Housing Element and studies conducted for large scale private developments can be used to derive a realistic absorption rate. A review of current development projects and discussions with the City planning depart- ment has led to general conclusions about the absorption rates for some areas of the City. In other areas, assumptions were made, assumptions which can be readily revised as better information becomes available. The assumptions are identified in Appendix A. Figures 5 and 6 show the projected phasing of residen- tial, commercial, and industrial development in the City. Although rapid growth is expec!3d in Carlsbad, the assumptions made regarding its phasing result in an unusually high rate of growth during the 1980-85 period. It can be expected that some of this development will occur in the subsequent period because the exor- bitant interest rates prevailing at the start of the period will have deferred housing demand until mortgages can be obtained at more reasonable rates. Furthermore, additional sewage treatment capacity whether through the Water Pollution Control Facility at Encina or the satellite reclamation plants will not be available until after mid-way through the 1980-85 period. These are fine-tuning adjustments that can easily be made. The important parameters affecting development are those public policies, identified at the outset of this section. Tables 3 through 7 indicate where the City's growth will occur over time. Not unexpectedly, the Lake Calavera and La Costa subareas account for most of the City's growth between now and 1985. Between 1985 and 1995, major residential development continues to occur in La Costa, and the City's industrial sector, particularly in the Palomar subarea, expands tremendously. By 1995, the City's population is 85 percent of its buildout figure, and commercial development is nearly complete. After 1995, much of the City's growth is concentrated in the Encina South and Palomar subareas. 18 Figure 5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING 28,971--- Low Density Units High Density Units *Exl«t!ngUnlU Figure 6 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING 631 —- 426—- Commercial Net Acres Industrial Net Acres * Emitting UnlU TABLE 3 DEVELOPMENT PHASING IN ENCINA NORTH RESIDENTIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Total Units Population 3,732 3,365 7,097 18,516 1,243 585 1,828 4,753 963 390 1,353 3,382 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,938 4,340 10,278 26,651 COMMERCIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Net Acreage Square Feet 268 4,377,780 4 65,340 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 272 4,443,120 INDUSTRIAL - (None) 21 TABLE 4 DEVELOPMENT PHASING IN ENCINA SOUTH RESIDENTIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Total Units Population 1,619 45 1664 4,342 637 240 877 2,280 1,980 582 2,562 6,405 1,208 228 1,436 3,590 2,685 -0- 2,685 6,444 8,129 1,095 9,224 23,061 COMMERCIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Net Acreage Square Feet Net Acreage Square Feet 9 147,015 Existing 104 1 ,698,840 39 637,065 -0- -0- INDUSTRIAL 1980-1985 1985-1995 1 105 1,715,175 -0- -0- 42 686,070 1 995-2000 188 3,070,980 -0- 90 -0- 1,470,150 After 2000 Total 125 522 2,041,875 8,526,870 22 TABLE 5 DEVELOPMENT PHASING IN LAKE CALAVERA RESIDENTIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Total Units Population Net Acreage Square Feet • Net Acreage Square Feet 452 -0- 452 1,179 Existing 1 16,335 Existing -0- -0- 2,516 1,131 39 21 2,555 1,152 6,643 2,880 COMMERCIAL 1980-1985 1985-1995 16 -0- 261,360 -0- INDUSTRIAL 1980-1985 1985-1995 4 -0- 65,340 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 1 995-2000 -0- -0- 1 995-2000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- After 2000 -0- ' -0- Af ter 2000 -0- -0- 4,099 60 4,159 10,702 Total 17 277,695 Total 4 65,340 23 TABLE 6 DEVELOPMENT PHASING IN PALOMAR RESIDENTIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Total Units Population _ Net Acreage Square Feet Net Acreage Square Feet 165 -0- 165 430 Existing 76 1,241,460 Existing 335* 5,472,225 1,002 952 -0- -0- 1,002 952 2,605 2,380 COMMERCIAL 1980-1985 1985-1995 20 30 326,700 490,050 INDUSTRIAL 1980-1985 1985-1995 353 623 5,766,25 10,176,705 654 -0- 654 1,635 1995-2000 -0- -0- 1 995-2000 -0- -0- 1,539 -0- 1,539 3,694 After 2000 -0-' -0- After 2000 -0- '-0- 4,312 -0- 4,312 10,744 Total 126 2,058,210 • Total 1,311 21,415,185 *167 acres in airport facility; not designated industrial on General Plan. 24 TABLE 7 DEVELOPMENT PHASING IN LA COSTA RESIDENTIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Units Single-Family Multifamily Total Units Population 2,318 1,375 3,693 9,635 1,784 2,131 3,915 10,179 2,087 1,552 3,639 9,098 304 -0- 304 760 -0- -0- -0- -0- 6,493 5,058 11,551 29,672 COMMERCIAL Existing 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 After 2000 Total Net Acreage Square Feet 72 1,176,120 22 359,370 27 441,045 5 81,675 -0- -0- 126 2,058,210 INDUSTRIAL - (None) 25 PUBLIC SERVICE IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL This section of the report documents the existing levels of service for the ten identified public services and discusses the implications of growth on the provision of these services. The primary sources of information for existing condition were personal interviews with representatives of the various services. The accurateness and timeliness of the data reflects the information received during the interviews. Secondary sources of information consulted included recently prepared environmental impact reports, budget reports, and planning studies. (A list of persons contacted is found in Appendix E.) Appendix D contains the projection formulas used to determine, public service demand resulting from new development. Examples are also provided to illustrate how the formulas are 'used. FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING PUBLIC SERVICES A workable and useable public services management program must be based on the idea that the City can influence the location of private development. The interim growth management program is not intended to halt or stimulate development — it is to enable the City to recognize the implications of development without adequate services and to stage the provision of public services to meet anticipated demand. Accordingly, a management program should alert the City to potential shortages early enough to avoid a crisis situation. Generally speaking, services can be separated into three categories, according to how their availability will influence development. The first category contains those services that have absolute threshold capacities beyond which the service breaks down. Water, sewer, and school services, to a lesser extent, fall into this category. Once capacity is fully utilized, additional development generally results in severe service problems that can only be remedied by mandatory actions to limit demand. In extreme cases, a building moratorium may be enacted. The second category contains those services that also have absolute threshold capacities but inadequate service levels will not seriously constrain development. Circulation and drainage systems fall into this category. Streets have established design capacities but alterations in street width, signaiization, or turning lanes can increase capacity. Alternatively, if a road becomes too congested, travelers can take other routes. Similarly, on-site retention of stormwaters and reductions in impervious groundcover can enable development to proceed without adversely impacting drainage systems. Future development will be affected by inadequate road and drainage capacity, but not deferred as would occur if capacities were unavailable for those services in the first category. If the service is near or at capacity, development approvals may be subject to conditions requiring the developer to avoid impaction of the affected service. Finally, there are a number of services that do not have fixed physical capacities. The following public services fall into this category: parks and recreation, police and fire protection, library, and physical administration facilities. Development may continue to proceed even if these services are below a minimum acceptable level; however, the effect is a dilution of service that detracts from the City's quality of life. 26 Service levels for categories one and two can be measured as a percentage of capacity utilized. For example, if enrollment in a school district is A,000 students and the capacity of the district's permanent and portable facilities is 5,000 students, the service level would be 80 percent of capacity (4,000 * 5,000). This type of measure is inappropriate for category three services because they do not have fixed physical capacities. In order to evaluate the levels of service for the services in the third category, desired operating levels, based on levels in cities of comparable size and on interviews with representatives of the services, are used. Examples of such measures include the number of police officers per capita, the time to respond to fires, and library space per capita. To enable the City to monitor development and to anticipate when such growth will impact public service availability, the concept of an early warning system has been devised. The system identifies benchmarks for each service while service is still being provided at an acceptable level. However, the benchmark indicates that subsequent development will adversely impact service levels and will ultimately result in service provision below minimum acceptable levels. Whenever possible, benchmarks are defined to alert the City that a particular service is approaching a capacity level. The first benchmark indicates there is still adequate lead time to head off a crisis situation. Thus, "Benchmark 1" for sewers indicates that 5 years hence plant capacity will be exhausted and that it is now time to study policy alternatives to avoid inadequate capacity. These alternatives may include slowing growth, collecting fees to finance additional capacity, or studying the feasibility of requiring developers to provide wastewater facilities to meet the projected flows from their development. Similarly, "Benchmark I" for schools may suggest that developer's fees should be collected for school facilities, that development should be encouraged where school capacity is still available, that interdistrict busing cf students should be examined, or that double sessions be considered. Benchmark I is established so that the City still has the opportunity to consider options. In contrast, Benchmark II defines the point at which capacity is exceeded or public health or safety is endangered. At this point, direct actions, often involving mandatory decrees, are required to avoid aggravating the crisis situation. The building moratorium imposed on Carlsbad in 1977 because of inadequate sewage capacity is a relevant example. For category three services, Benchmark II represents a serious decline in the quality of service. PUBLIC SERVICES: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH This section is organized to provide the reader with a concise overview of the ten public services. Each overview consists of three parts a description of existing conditions, the relevant benchmarks and an assessment of the implications of growth. 27 WATER SUPPLY Existing Conditions t Water for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural consumption is supplied to Carlsbad by five water supply agencies. With the exception of the City of Carlsbad Water Utilities Division, all of the agencies purchase water from the San Diego County Water Authority. The City Water Utilities Division receives its water directly from the Costa Real Municipal Water District (MWD), which nearly serves the entire Carlsbad sphere of influence. The County Water Authority has responsibility for the importation of all water into San Diego County and the regional distribution of this water through two aqueducts. Figure 7 shows the boundaries of the five agencies serving Carlsbad. The developed northwest portion of the City is served by the City Water Utilities District. This agency is currently the largest distributor of water in the City, last year having sold approximately 5,000 acre-feet. (An acre-foot of water is 325,850 gallons.) Domestic consumption accounts for the vast majority of water used (85 percent); industrial and agricultural demand are relatively minimal (about 7-8 percent each). The agency has no direct allocation from the County Water Authority but receives its supply from Costa Real MWD. Future development will occur predominantly in the Costa Real service area. Consequently, it is the ability of this district to purchase water that will determine the City's ability to meet future demands for water. Currently Costa Real MWD distributes roughly 2,500 acre-feet, in addition to what it supplies to the City Water Utilities Division. Its allocation from the County Water Authority far exceeds its service area's present demand. In 1979, the district's allocated right was estimated to be 2.27 percent of the County Water Authority's water supply (or 20,362 acre-feet); in I960, \\ is approximately 2.4 percent. The immediate question that cornes to mind is, "will this be adequate to meet future demands?" The district appears more than adequate to supply water, because a district's allocated right to purchase water is tied to the growth of its assessed valuation. In general, a district's entitlement is approximately equal to the ratio of the assessed valuation of the district to the total assessed valuation of all County Water Agency member agencies. Consequently, residential, commercial, and industrial growth within a district will result in an increase in assessed valuation which enables the district to receive an increased allocated right to purchase water. As described earlier, the high rate of growth experienced in the North County and Carlsbad is likely to continue so that, relative to other areas, the assessed valuation (and thus water allocation) will increase. Moreover, the County Water Authority has never refused a request for water and quite member agencies occasionally draw several times their allocated right. In terms of the distribution system, Costa Real has an adequate network. The district's connections to the two regional aqueducts, provides a water supply capacity of roughly 66,600 acre-feet per year. By comparison, total water consumption within the district in 1979 was only 11,135 acre-feet. Major water pipelines have been installed to serve nearly all developable portions of the district. Reservoirs owned and operated by Costa Real and the City Water Utilities Division provide a storage capacity of over 200 million gallons (195 of which is stored in Squires Dam). 28 Figure 7 WATER SERVICE DISTRICTS HI City of Carlsbad Water Service District Costa Real MWD ' San Marcos MWD liiiii OSivenhain ;:!!;! Buena Colorado MWD SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad .north Olivenhain and San Marcos MWDs provide water to the southeastern portion of the City. Combined, they sold approximately 3,000 acre-feet last year. Because substantial growth is expected in the Olivenhain service area as a result of the Rancho La Costa development, the district in conjunction with the San Marcos and Costa Real MWDs have recently completed a joint construction program to provide additional water supply and storage. Buena Colorado MWD and Vista irrigation district also provide water to the City, but at minima! levels. Vista supplies water for agricultural purposes, and Buena Colorado serves the area around the raceway. Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the projected demand for water will fully utilize the design capacity of the water distribution system within five years. Benchmark II is reached when the demand for water exceeds the design capacity of the water distribution system. Implications of Growth Potential Table 8 projects residential consumptive demand, based on the amount of new development within each water district, as described in Table 9. New residential development will triple present water consumption. Over 60 percent of the future demand will occur in Costa Real where the amount of industrial acreage will increase 3.7 times over present levels of development. Nevertheless, development in Carlsbad is not likely to be constrained by the lack of water. The ultimate population of 100,000 v/ill not overtax the capacity of the water distribution system. Construction of extensions of water mains will be minimal as the majority of the area can be served by existing lines. Connections to the distribution network will be financed by the individual developers requiring water. TABLE 8 RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND BY WATER DISTRICT (acre-feet per year) Existing Potential Buildout District Demand Demand Demand Carlsbad 2,438.5 1,651.3 4,089.8 Costa Real MWD 1,156.0 5,158.6 6,314.6 Olivenhain 495.5 1,198.1 ' 1,693.6 San Marcos MWD -0- 266.9 266.9 Buena Colorado MWD -0- 31.0 31.0 Total 4,090 8,305.9 12,395.9 30 TABLE 9 DEVELOPMENT IN CARLSBAD'S WATER DISTRICTS Existing Potential Buildout Water District^ Development Development Development Carlsbad Residential (units) Single-family 4,425 3,225 7,650 Multifamily 3,365 2,025 5,390 Commercial (net acres) 277 29 306 Industrial (net acres) 93 101 194 Costa Real MWD Residential (units) Single-family 2,491 14,168 16,659 Multifamily 1,195 2,280 3,475 Commercial (net acres) 66 122 188 Industrial (net acres) 346 1,280 1,626 Olivenhain Residential (units) Single-family 1,370 2,342 3,712 Multifamily 210 1,478 1,688 Commercial (net acres) 7 54 61 Industrial (net acres) -0- -0- -0- San Marcos MWD Residential (units) Single-family -0- 851 851 Multifamily -0- -0- -0- Commercial (net acres) -0- , -0- -0- Industrial (net acres) -0- -0- -0- Buena Colorado MWD Residential (units) Single-famly -0- 99 99 Multifamily -0- -0- . -0- Commercial (net acres) 76 -0- 76 Industrial (net acres) -0- 17 17 31 SEWER SERVICES Existing Conditions The City of Carlsbad falls within the sewer service areas of Carlsbad, San Marcos County Water District, and Leucadia County Water District (see Figure 8). All flows collected in Carlsbad are treated at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The Encina facility, which also services the Vista, Buena, San Marcos, Leucadia, and Encinitas Sanitation Districts, began operation in 1965 with a capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Plant expansions in 1971 and 1976 raised its operational capacity to 13.75 mgd. Because average daily flows have been at or above capacity since 1977, all member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers Regional Sewage System with the exception of Vista and Encinitas Sanitation Districts imposed construction moratoriums in their service areas. Facility improvements have recently enabled the design capacity to be rerated to 16 mgd which is enough to accommodate approximately 9,000 more residential units within the Encina service area, roughly 2,250 of which are expected in the City of Carlsbad. In order to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate future development opportunities, the Joint Powers Regional Sewage System has already begun to expand the treatment facility still further to 18 mgd. The 18 mgd expansion is expected to be complete in 1983. With this expansion all infrastructure (i.e., sewer lines, pump stations, force mains, etc.) will be enlarged to accommodate the future capacity level of 45 mgd. Of Encina's 13.75 mgd capacity, the City of Carlsbad has an allocated treatment capacity of 3.43 mgd. The rerating to 16 mgd and the facility expansion to 18 mgd will raise the City's allocation to 4.0 mgd and ^,5 mgd, respectively. In addition to the Encina facility expansion, the City has adopted a master plan to provide additional interim sewage treatment capacity and at the same time encourage wastewater reclamation through the construction of individual satellite, treatment facilities. These facilities would be located in the Encina service area near existing sewer trunks and possible reclaimed water markets (see Figure 8). A total of five wastewater reclamation plants are proposed for ultimate development: Buena Vista, Calavera, Palomar Airport, Batiquitos, and Encina. The Buena Vista treatment plant is located in Oceanside but will be integrated as part of the master plan. The Calavera treatment plant is already under construction to serve the northeastern section of Carlsbad. Although the planning for this facility was completed independent of the master plan, the treatment plant will ultimately be incorporated into the overall wastewater reclamation system. Table 10 describes the phasing and capacity of the system. 32 V/ -fBucnaVii"/ ,,«»?!:z;Lagoori _~ ;i, —» m^_ • ^ J[Squires Dam ^1ARJ\IRPORTj C -»lr\ nrt a r 'A T~. .-iT-l «H-_ POLLUTION CONTROL^- ^„.., ,.-.:„,— .-,., .,™,^,.-,T<—i - - -"IFACILTY Figure 8 SEWER SERVICE AREA Carlsbad Sewer Service Area lEncina Facility) £ Leucadia Ccunty Water District San Marcos County Water District SOURCE: City of Carlsbad, Waste Water Reclamation Master Plan Study Reclamation Treatment Plants: Under Construction O Proposed City of Carlsbad . north 33 TABLE 10 PHASING OF SATELLITE PLANT CONSTRUCTION (million gallons per day) Treatment Plant By 1985 By 1995 By 2000 Calavera I.23 !.2 1.2 Palomar Airport 2.5 5.0 5.0 Batiquitos1 0.2 0.4 0.4 Buena Vista - - 0.5^ Encina2 -0- 0.9 min 0.9 Total System Capacity 3.9 7.5 8.0 The Batiquitos Reclamation Facility would serve areas to the north and west of Batiquitos Lagoon and would have a capacity of 0.4 mgd. However, because of uncertainties over its economic feasibility, this plant may never be constructed. o"The provision of reclamation facilities is a part of the Encina treatment plant expansion program. Thus, the Encina reclamation facility does not add any additional capacity, beyond the capacity improvements already scheduled for the Encina system. Actual capacity increases resulting from the satellite waste- water reclamation program totals 6.6 mgd by I 995. For the period between I 995 and 2005 capacity can be enlarged up to a limit of 18.0 mgd to accommodate any specific industrial reuse thai develops. oActual capacity is limited to 0.5 mgd until additional disposal capacities are provided. The Buena Vista plant is currently deactivated but can be made operational as the need for it arises. However, the market for reclaimed water in the area is limited, and wastewater from Carlsbad would be available only in limited quantity at Buena Vista. Given the Encina plant expansions and the construction schedule of the wastewater reclamation program, the City will have an allocated capacity to accommodate at least 7.7 mgd by 1985. All the satellite facilities will be privately constructed but publicly owned. They will ultimately be linked together to provide reclaimed water as demand requires. All excess reclaimed water would be discharged through specific lines designed for discharge purposes. If the satellite treatment plant program is continued in the City, much of the future demand for treatment capacity within the City could be satisfied by the satellite facilities, and Carlsbad may not need to participate in the next scheduled expansion of the Encina plant. Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the projected average daily flows and service commitment requirements will equal the capacity of the treatment plant, within five years. * Benchmark II is reached when average daily flows and service commitment requirements equal treatment plant capacity. Implications of Growth Potential Base on the projection formula found in Appendix D, the sewage flows from each of the significant subareas has been projected. These flows are then compared to the capacity of the Encina and satellite facilities in Table 10. TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS WITH TREATMENT CAPACITY (in millions gallons per day) Significant Subareas Enema North Encina South Lake Calavera Palomar* La Costa City Totals Projected Sewage Capacity** Flows by 1 985 2.56 1.00 0.78 1.45 1.87 7.66 8.10 Flows by 1995 2.87 L72 1.06 2.60 2.73 10.98 12.20 Ultimate Flows 2.87 3.12 1.06 3.14 2.81 13.00 min 12.20 *Assumes all industrial flows are of a character that can be handled at the satellite plant. **Assumes the Calavera plant has only 0.5 mgd capacity by 1985 but is operational at 1.2 mgd thereafter; no facility is constructed at Batiquitos; the Buena Vista plant does not treat Carlsbad sewage; San Marcos has reactivated its 0.6 mgd plant by 1985; and Leucadia does not construct a satellite plant. Comparing the projected flows with the existing and proposed capacity at Encina and the various satellite treatment plants, reveals that: 35 The satellite plant proposed for the Palomar area is expected to have a capacity of 5 mgd which should adequately meet the needs of the service area. In fact, based on the assumptions used in this study, a 5.0 mgd plant may not be necessary. The plant proposed for the Lake Calavera service area will not handle the anticipated flows by 1985 unless additional disposal capacity is provided; after 1985 the facility should be able to accommodate the ultimate flows. San Marcos MWD is in the process of reactivating its satellite plant in th La Costa area and Leucadia is considering a 2.75 mgd plant. The ultimate capacity of these facilities, 3.35 mgd, would be sufficient to meet the anticipated ultimate sewer demands from La Costa. When these facilities come on-line will affect the flows received at Encina. If for example, the proposed Leucadia plant is not ready to accept La Costa flows by 1985, the flows not handled by San Marcos will have to be treated at Encina, as they presently are. The remaining portions of the City, Encina North and Encina South, will generate flows of 3.56 mgd by 1985, and 4.59 mgd by 1995. The present plant expansion to 18 mgd will handle these flows; however, additional capacity may be needed to accommodate flows from Costa by 1985 if the proposed Leucadia facility is not on-line. Although Citywide the sewage capacity appears to be able to accept all flows, the excess capacity is attributed primarily to Palomar where capacity is 5.0 mgd but flows are only 2.6 mgd. Subtracting Palomar's flows and capacity, the total sewage flows by 1995 are 8.38 mgd and the projected capacity is 7.2 mgd. Thus, unless additional capacity is provided, Benchmark II will be reached before 1995. SCHOOLS Existing Conditions Existing service levels are described in terms of current enrollment, space availability (number of student spaces available before reaching capacity) and school capacities for those districts serving Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad, and its sphere of influence, is served by the Carlsbad Unified School District, San Marcos Unified School District, the San Dieguito Union High School District and the Encinitas LJnion Elementary School District. The boundaries of the respective districts is illustrated in Figure 9. Service levels are adequate for those schools where current enrollment is less than capacity. Carlsbad Unified enrollment is currently near 90 percent of estimated capacity. Schools within the San Marcos district that serve Carlsbad are at 92 percent of capacity. All available classroom space within the San Dieguito and Encinitas schools serving Carlsbad are utilized. The percentages of capacity utilized are based only on the schools serving the Carlsbad sphere of influence. Table 12 shows school enrollment and capacity figures for individual schools and for the districts (including schools not serving Carlsbad). 36 :::::::::?.:. a;:...,.::.::..:. {U^LU««~«* • • oon:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::?::::::::::::::::::::::::::-.! n ^. Batiquitos . ...::::• "H. Lagoon; :::.v*^::....' ^**...^-- 'j^--' Figure 9 SCHOOL DISTRICTS Carlsbad Unified Vista San Marcos Unified San Dieguito/Encinitas Union SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad .north SPACE AVAILABILITY Carlsbad Unified School District K-6 Buena Vista Jefferson Magnolia Pine Kelly 7-8 Valley Jr. High 9-12 Carlsbad High School La Palma Cont. High School San Marcos Unified School District Alvin Dunn San Marcos Jr. High San Marcos High School San Diequito Union High School District (No Elementary) Oak Crest Jr. High San Dieguito High School Encinitas Union Elementary School Flora Vista Capri TABLE 12 IN SCHOOLS Enrollment 4,319 440 485 532 341 301 597 1,497 126 4,927 644 706 1,265 5,480 890 1,999 2,886 595 520 SERVING Capacity 4,958 550 500 532 350 400 900 1,600 126 5,152 688 793 1,348 5,692 983 1,785 2,081 540 567 CARLSBAD* Space Availability 639 110 15 0 9 99 303 103 0 225 44 87 83 212 93 -214 (-805) -55 47 %of Capacity 87.1% 95.6% 96.3% 138.7% *The district figures include schools outside of Carlsbad. Source: School districts and County of San Diego. 38 Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when enrollment projections indicate that school capacity of the affected district will be reached within five years. A school district's total facility capacity is defined as the maximum number of student spaces (permanent and portable) within the district which can accommodate students on a conventional time schedule. Because busing between schools within a given district is possible, an overcrowded situation in one school service area can be relieved by using available space at another school. Therefore, it is the district capacity that is important for assessing adequacy rather than the capacity of individual schools. Benchmark II is reached when enrollment projections equal or exceed the district- wide capacity. Implications of Growth Every school district now serving Carlsbad is beyond Benchmark I and Encinitas Union Elementary School District is well beyond Benchmark II. Further growth of any of the school districts should recognize the limitations of the districts to accommodate additional students without expanding, providing portable facilities, or developing new schools. Table 13 indicates the number of single-family and multifamily units that can conceivably be built within each of the school districts. TABLE 13 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN CARLSBAD Existing Potential Buildout Development Development Development Carlsbad Unified Single-family 5,908 15,983 21,891 Multifamily 3,780 2,085 5,865 San Marcos Unified Single-family 993 2,159 3,152 Multifamily 780 1,020 1,800 San Dieguito/Encinitas Single-family Multifamily 1,385 210 2,543 2,678 3,928 2,888 Based on the student generation factors and the number of units potentially developable in Carlsbad, an estimate of the ultimate number of students in the City can be determined. Table 14 presents the information for each of the 39 districts by grade level. The last column shows whal- percent of future growth can be accommodated within the existing school facilities. TABLE 14 PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT AT BUILDOUT % of Projected Students Accommodated by Carlsbad Unified San Marcos Unified San Dieguito Union Encinitas Union K-6 3,621 536 - 716 7-8 1,703 267 641 - 9-12 1,703 267 641 - Total 7,027 1,070 1,282 716 at Present Facilities 9.1 21.0 16.5 0 Assuming 500 students per elementary school, 1000 students per junior high, and 2000 students per high school, the following facilities will be required by each school district: Carlsbad - 7 elementary schools; I junior high; and I high school. San Marcos - I elementary'school; insufficient students to warrant additional junior high and high school, but will crowd existing schools. San Dieguito - insufficient students to warrant an additional junior high, but. will create crowded conditions; I high school. Encinitas - the district is already beyond Benchmark II, so that future growth will require additional schools. Portables will be required to alleviate conditions where crowding is experienced. The high rate of growth expected over the next 15 years could be dampened if school facilities cannot be provided in a timely manner. PARKS AND RECREATION Existing Conditions The City owns approximately 90 acres of landscaped area, parks and median strips (see Table 15) and has an additional approximate 600 acres in land banks for future parks (see Table 16). 40 TABLE 15. PARK ACREAGES AND LOCATIONS A. CITY PARKS I. DEVELOPED PARKS OWNED/MAINT ACRES I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. Holiday Park Car Country Park Pio Pico Park Oak Park Maxton Brown Park Maxton Brown Extension Laguna Riveria Park Chase Fields Magee Park Harding Community Center LaCosta Canyon Park Cadencia Park City City City City City City City City City City City City CITY PARKS LEASED/MAINT Rotary Park Cannon Park Pine Field High School Tennis Cts. Levante School/Park* Magnolia Athletic Field** Kelly Park (school park) R.R.* S.D.G.E.* J/A* J/A* J/A* J/A* J/A* 5.4 1.0 .8 .4 1.4 2.1 6.8 2.3 3.0 1.5 9.0 4.1 37.8 ACRES 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 7.0 4.2 4.0 19.9 ADDRESS 3200 Pio Pico Drive SIOOPaseoDel Norte 2600 Pio Pico Drive 303 Pio Pico Drive 500 Laguna Drive 2415 Carlsbad Boulevard 4900 Kelly Street 3400 Harding Street 258 Beech Street 3096 Harding Street Pueblo St. & Rena Ct. ADDRESS 2900 Washington Street 100 Cannon Road 3300 Harding Street 3400 Monroe 3036 Levante Drive Valley Street Park and Kelly Drives TOTALS A & B A = 37.8 B = 19.9 57.7 (58.0' acres) *Leasing Agencies R.R - Railroad S.D.G.E. - San Diego Gas & Electric J/A - Joint Agreement with School District **Area to be Under Park Maintenance ***To be Developed "Updated figure from Parks and Recreation Director David Bradstreet, 58.00 acres 41 TABLE 15. PARK ACREAGES AND LOCATIONS (Continued) II. LANDSCAPED AREAS C. LANDSCAPED AREAS OWNED/MAINT ACRES 1. Grand Ave. Beach Access City 2. Elm Ave. Beach Access City 3. N. Ocean St. Beach Access City 4. Greenwood Park Facility City 5. City Hall/Library City 6. Santa Fe Glens Corridors City 7. Utility/Maint. Yard City 8. Skyline Reservoir City 9. Ellery Reservoir City 10. Elm Reservoir City 11. Woodbine Slopes City 12. Spinnaker Hills Banks City 13. Polly Lane City 14. Bienvineda Circle City 15. El Carnino Island City 16. Las Flores Triangle City 17. Palomar Triangle City 18. Carol Place City 2.2 3.0 .2 .8 .5 .5 14.0 3.7 .1 .2 2.0 .2 3.5 .1 31.6 ADDRESS 2900 Ocean Street 3000 Ocean Street 2000 Ocean Street 1166 Elm Avenue 1200 Elm Avenue 29, 30, 3IOOQuebrada Cr. 3100 Segovia Way 405 Oak Avenue 4300 Skyline Drive 2100 Jan is Way Donna Drive 39-400 El Camino Real 200 Lagoon Drive 3600 Polly Lane 1865 Bienvineda Circle 2500 El Camino Real 1300 Carlsbad Boulevard 5500 Carlsbad Boulevard 800 Carol Place D. LANDSCAPED AREAS LEASED/MAiNT ACRES 1. H.U.D. House 2. Chamber of Commerce A.5 ADDRESS 2800 Jefferson Street 650 Elm Avenue TOTAL C & D C =31.6 D .= .5 32.1 TOTALS A, B, C, & D. A = 37.8 B = 15.9 C = 31.6 D = .5 85.8 (90.12) ^Updated figure from Parks and Recreation Director David Bradstreet, 89.60 acres, May 28, I 980. TABLE 16. PROPOSED AND UNDEVELOPED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Acres/With Acres/Open Total Planned Fee Title Space Easement Acres 1. Carrillo Ranch Park 10.28 7.00 17.28 (S. Palomar Airport Rd., E. El Camino Real) 2. Fuerte Park 3.66 - 3.66 (El Fuerto Btw Alicante & Alga Road) 3. AltaMiraPark 6.00 5.00 11.00 (E. Paseo Del Norte @ Alta Mira Development) 4. Cannon Lake Park 6.00 — 6.00 (200 Cannon Road) 5. Larwin Park (Tanglewood) 10.31 24.00 34.31 (E. ECR @ Elm Extension) 6. Carlsbad Community Swim 5.00 — 5.00 Complex (3400 Monroe Street) 7. San Marcos Canyon Park — 250.00 250.00 (San Marcos Canyon From Ra/icho Sante Fe to Golfcourse) 8. Occidental Park 9.53 21.55 31.08 (W. 1-5 @ Poinsettia) 9. Alga Park - 6.20 6.20 (S. Alga Rd @ water reservoir) 10. Hosp Grove Park 4.00 23.00 27.00 (N. Elm @ eastern end) 11. San Marcos Creek Park 10.70 ' 4.00 14.70 (W. Rancho Santa Fe @ Questhaven) 12. Calaveras Hills North Park — — 5.00 (near proposed Calaveras Dev.) 13. Stagecoach Park / — 28.00 28.00 (S. Rancho Santa Fe Road., E. Olivehain Road) 43 TABLE 16. PROPOSED AND UNDEVELOPED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (Continued) Acres/With Acres/Open Total Planned Fee Title Space Easement Acres 14. Lake Calaveras Park — — 10.00 (Calaveras Lake) 15. Calaveras Community Park — — 10.00 (Calaveras Lake) 16. El Camino Glens — 5.00 5.00 17. Levante Canyon Park 13.00 - 13.00 18. La Costa North Park ' — -- 15.00 19. HUB* 92.00 - 92.00 170.48 373.75 584.23 (591.00)' *Leased from S.D.G.E. Updated figure from Parks and Recreation Director David Bradstreet, May 28, 1980. 44 Current service levels are inadequate. This evaluation is based on three criteria: developed park acreage, availability of recreational activities, and personnel standards. The City, according to national standards, is deficient in terms of developed park acrage and active recreational facilities. These standards do not, however, include the beaches which definitely offer active recreational activities. *The most common method of quickly assessing the adequacy of a community's park and recreation services is to compare the community's developed park acreage against the recommended national standards. Generally, it would be appropriate to compare the present supply of recreational services against the standards recommended in the City's General Plan, which in the case of Carlsbad is 30 acres per 1000 population.* However, the Plan is being revised and the standards are likely to be changed to reflect more closely the national standards. In the absence of explicit park acreage policies, this study followed the public facilities fee analysis which was based on the national standards. Additionally, by using the same standards a better comparison of park acreage requirements and the fiscal implications of future growth under the two analysis can be made. The evaluation of recreational services is presented in Table 17. TABLE 17 EVALUATION OF CARLSBAD'S LOCAL PARKS Existing demand for parks = 5 acres/1000 population x current population estimates = 5 acres/1000 population x 35,500 (State Depart- ment of Finance 1/1/80 estimate) = 177.5 acres Existing parks = 57.7 acres (if HUB Park is included, 149.7 acres; however, it should be remembered that the standard here applies to local parks) Unmet demand = I 19.8 acres = 1.6 acres/1000 population *The 30 acres per 1000 is to be divided accordingly: a 5 acres devoted to regional facilities, 15 acres to local facilities which may include combinations of local parks, ria'ing and hiking trails, school pay areas that have been designed for public recreational use, and other public facilities which meet the general populous needs. The national standard being applied in this study of 5 acres/1000 population refers to developed local parks (i.e., neighborhood and community parks) only and does not include the other facilities described as local facilities in the General Plan. In effect, when all these other facilities are substracted the 15 acres, the park share may very well be near 5 acres. The City's recreational services can also be evaluated in terms of how well they meet national standards for active recreational facilities. As a word of caution, national standards represent the average facility requirements for cities of a particular size. They do not account for any special considerations such as location, climate or demographic profile which all affect the demand for different types of recreational facilities. These considerations should be addressed in the upcoming General Plan revision. In the interim, the following national guidelines are used to evaluate services for communities with population between 20,000 and 35,000. (See Table 18.) Other recreational facilities identified as desirable by parks and recreation staff include community centers, theaters, multi-use athletic fields, and racquetball courts. TABLE 18 DEMAND FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Type of Facility Softball Diamond Baseball Diamond Community Center Skating Rink (Artificial) Swimming Pool (Indoor) Swimming Pool (Outdoor) Tennis Courts Basketball Courts Public Golf Course Carlsbad Active Guidelines I diamond per 3,000 I diamond per 6,000 I center per 25,000 I rink per 25,000 I pool per 10,000 I pool per 5,000 I court per 1,000 I court per 500+ I course per 25,000 Estimated Number of Facilities Demand 7-12 4-6 1-2 2-3 20-14 40-60 Existing Facilities I adult, 4 little leagu 3 schools -0- -0- -0- I proposed 4 (plus high school) 2 (plus schools) -0- (I private) Source: James A. Peterson and Richard J. Schroth, Guidelines for Evaluating Public Parks and Recreation, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, 1978, p. 7. A portion of Carlsbad's demand for active recreation facilities may be met by including school facilities. A joint use agreement with Magnolia, Levante, and Pine schools has been established, whereby the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for any maintenance and utility costs associated with recreational use. In exchange, the facilities are available to the public during specified hours. Kelly Elementary School is also made available for public use, although its maintenance is performed by the County. 46 A third criterion for evaluating the adequacy of service is the ratio of maintenance workers to acres of developed park lands. This ratio is used to convey the relative maintenance levels of various landscaped areas. . This generalization is made without regard to the type of park or the landscape materials and planting to be maintained. Existing maintenance levels are one maintenance person to eight acres of developed park lands. This ratio is adequate but not at the optimal level of one to seven suggested by the Parks and Recreation Department. In addition to maintaining and upgrading city parks, the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Carlsbad sponsors numerous sports activities, classes and special events. The Department's recreation programs are self-supporting, fees charged to be deposited into five separate trust accounts. Salaries for the particular activity are then drawn from the appropriate account. Surplus amounts in these accounts will either be used for supplies for activities or go back into the general fund. Current 1980-81 estimated operating costs can be broken up into five categories including park maintenance, tree maintenance and weed abatement, new programs, other recreation, and administration. Overall per capita operating cost estimated from the 1980-81 operating budget is $24.38. The department has a staff of 26 composed of the following: Administrative personnel - 4 Parks: supervisorial - 2 Parks: trees and weeds maintenance - 5 Parks: turf maintenance - 12 Recreation: supervisorial - 3 Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the ratio of park acreage to population will will fall below 5 within three years. Three years is a conservative estimate of the time required to adequately plan, acquire and develop recreational sites. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of park acreage to population is 5 or less per 1,000 population. Implications of Growth Potential The majority of the existing park acreage in Carlsbad is concentrated in the older portion of the City, within the area defined here as Encina North. (The only exception is La Costa Community Park.) As the population disperses and the existing parks become less convenient, additional park space will be required to meet the recreational needs of Carlsbad. The ultimate amount of park space required, according to the buildout population and the park acreage standard, is about 500 acres. (This is significantly less than the 1,092 acres required by the public facilities fee analyses.) On a citywide basis, the park acreage, according to national standards, should be split half and half between neighborhood parks and community parks. New growth in the City will create a demand for 167 acres of neighborhood parks and 167 acres of community parks. Included within these parks, or provided elsewhere in other facilities or through arrangements with the school districts will be a demand for the following recreational facilities: 47 Estimated Demand Recreational Facilities Generated by New Population Softball Diamond 22 Baseball Diamond 11 Community Center 2-3 Skating Rink 2-3 Swimming Pool (indoor) 6-7 Swimming Pool (outdoor) 13 Tennis Courts 66+ Basketball Courts 133+ Public Golf Course 2-3 In terms of providing adequate facilities, meaning not only sufficient but also accessible parks, the 500 acres of required park area should be near the population. Table 19 shows the distribution of park acreage according to the City's subareas. TABLE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF REQUIRED PARK ACREAGE BY SIGNIFICANT SUBAEA Significant Subarea Encina North Encina South Lake Calavera Palomar La Costa Ultimate Population 26,651 23,061 10,702 10,744 29,672 Required Park Space (Acres) 133 115 54 54 148 The phasing of park development will follow residential phasing. A neighborhood park should be provided to serve clusters of about 4,000 persons. A community i park should be developed when a sufficient population base exists to support its I facilities—roughly 10,000 persons. j A major community park with recreational facilities and community centers could be supported in each of Encina North, Encina South, La Costa. An additional one j could be provided convenient to future residents of the Lake Calavera and Palomar subareas, or, alternatively, smaller neighborhood centers serving 10,000 ; persons each could be provided. i 48 POLICE PROTECTION Existing Conditions I The Carlsbad Police Department is responsible for protecting the City, and for cooperating with thirteen other county law enforcement agencies in a mutual aid pact. The agreement provides that neighboring law enforcement agencies will respond to calls from the Carlsbad Police Department should the need arise, and vice versa. Table 20 shows 1977 and 1978 data on criminal activity, available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for'Carlsbad. While 1979 - 1980 FBI Crime Index data is not available, Caption Kellogg of the Police Department stated that all criminal activities have increased. Adequate response times become increasingly difficult as the development pattern becomes more dispersed. While development is presently concentrated within the northwestern part of the City, more recent developments have occurred at distances as great as 10 - 15 miles away. Consequently, the existing police force must cover a large geographical area, and unless the force is expanded, the time required to respond to calls would increase. TABLE 20 CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN CARLSBAD, 1977-1978 1977 1978 Murder • 3 I Rapes 12 15 Robbery 41 49 Aggravated assault 85 125 Burlgary 596 670 Larceny/theft 1,134 1,235 Motor vehicle theft 155 167 Crime Index Total 2,026 2,262 Source: FBI, Crime in the United States, 1977 and 1978, Uniform • Crime Reports. Currently, the Police Department has approximately 48 officers giving the department a ratio of officers to 1000 population of 1.4. According to the representatives of the department a minimum acceptable ratio would be 1.6 officers per 1000 population. This standard appears reasonable given that the national average is 2.1 for cities with similar population (25,000 - 50,000) is 1.7 and for the western states. 49 Based on a standard of 1.6 sworn officers per 1000 population, Carlsbad should have a force of 57 officers. The police force requires not only additional personnel but also expanded facilities. A department representative noted that funding for the additional officers alone will not achieve adequate service levels. The current lack of space for operations (as described later under physical administration facilities) must also be rectified. Additional operation facilities should be designed for the specific needs of law enforcement—leased space will not be adequate. The estimated 1980-81 department per capita cost is $46.55. The Police Department is funded by the General Fund. Benchmarks The number of police officers per 1000 population is used as a criterion to evaluate adequacy of service. While space availability is another important criterion (as mentioned above), the primary purpose of this service standard is to evaluate the adequacy of police personnel. Benchmark I is reached when population projections indicate that the ratio of police officers to 1000 population will be 1.6 within two years. Two years is the estimated time frame to recruit qualified personnel and to ensure that adequate funding will be appropriated. The Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of officers to 1000 population is less than 1.6. Implications of Growth Potential New development in the City is expected to increase the City's population by nearly 67,000 persons. This level of growth will require an additional 107 officers, or more than twice the present police force. Although this appears to be a significant expansion in the police department, it is half the increase expected by the Public Facilities fee analysis. FIRE PROTECTION Existing Conditions The Carlsbad Fire Department presently consists of three fire stations providing service within the City's sphere of influence. Station locations and associated manpower are as follows. Station //I. 1275 Elm - South of Elm Avenue between Pio Pico Drive and Highland Drive. Four firefighters and one engine with 1250 gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity. Station #2. Within the triangular area bounded by El Camino Real to the east, Arenal Road to the north and Estrellade Mar to the southwest. Four firefighters and one engine with 1250 gpm pumping capacity. 50 Station #3. South of Chestnut Avenue between El Camino Real and Catalina Drive. Three firefighters, two paramedics and one engine with 1000 gpm pumping capacity. Current fire station locations provide a first engine response time of five minutes or less to approximately 70 percent of the structures within the City's sphere of influence. The department can respond and control fires requiring less than 1500 gpm pumping requirements; most of these responses are for single family dwelling fires. At a minimum, all structures in Carlsbad should be within a five minute running time. Consequently, there are areas in the City that receive less than adequate service—particularly Palomar Airport and the southwest quadrant of the City around 1-5 and Poinsettia. Table 21 and Figure 10 shows the running times to various points in the City from existing fire stations. Existing fire department service levels necessitate a mutual service agreement with neighboring communities. For structural fires occurring north of Chestnut Avenue, the City of Oceanside automatically responds. Similarly, Encinitas responds to fires occurring in the southern portion of the City. As part of the agreement, Carlsbad reciprocates and responds to calls from other cities. Although this arrangement is beneficial as it makes other firefighters and equipment available to suppress larger fires in the City, it can also compromise Carlsbad's ability to meet the needs of its residents. In particular, whenever Carlsbad automatically responds to San Marcos' calls to the south, the southern portion of Carlsbad is left with low levels of protection. The department has 45 employees, eleven firefighters, and two firefighter/para- medics staff the three stations at any one time. Its per capita cost for 1980 - 81 is estimated at $36.36. The Fire Department is currently funded by the General Fund. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) performs periodic evaluations of cities' fire departments. Their evaluation of the Carlsbad water supply shows that the City water systems during a period of 2-5 days of maximum consumption with the outage of a plant or a supply main, are slightly below the recommended fire flow of 4000 gpm in addition to maximum consumption for the area. The ISO report also recommends that additional standard hydrants be installed to provide an approximate distribution commensurate with the fire flow needs at all locations. Standards contemplate a distribution of 120,000 square feet per hydrant for a fire flow of 3000 gpm. This corresponds to an average spacing of 350 feet between hydrants. Residential districts with buildings of normal size and separation generally require 1000 gpm or 160,000 square feet per hydrant corresponding to a hydrant spacing of 400 feet. Where buildings are considerably set back from streets, on site or yard hydrants may be necessary to satisfy the standards. Benchmarks Fire Chief Thompson identified the minimum acceptable level of service as a five minute running time to all buildings in Carlsbad. Running time is the time required to reach the site of the fire and is calculated by dividing the fire engine speed (miles per hour) by the distance to the fire. Benchmark I is reached when 750-800 additional dwelling units develop outside the 5 minute running time. 51 TABLE 21 RUNNING TIMES FROM EXISTING FIRE STATIONS (in minutes:seconds) Fire Station //I #2 #3 X Palomar Airport Road & Paseo Del Norte 5:15 12:00 7:12 5:15 Palomar Airport 9:54 6:36 7:30 0:54 Palpmar Airport & El Camino Real . 8:51 5:24 6:27 0:00 Beckrnan Ind. - El Camino Real 8:24 7:00 6:00 Paseo Del Norte & Camino Estrada 6:27 10:24 8:24 6:27 Alga&Alisma 13:48 3:36 11:33 5:06 La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real 13:48 1:12 11:24 4:57 La Costa Ave. & Calle Madero' 15:00 2:48 12:36 6:09 Olivenhain Rd. & Amargosa (Ponderosa) 16:39 5:00 14:15 7:48 Elm & Carlsbad BIvd 1:03 18:12 3:27 9:45 Tamarack & Carlsbad Blvd. 2:24 16:24 4:48 9:00 Cannon Road•& Carlsbad Blvd. 4:21 13:48 6:45 7:03 State & Laguna 1:39 19:00 4:03 10:12 Catalina & Chestnut (Station//3) 2:24 14:00 0:00 . 6:27 Highland & Ratcliff 1:21 18:24 3:27 9:27 Poinsettia & 1-5 7:03 8:00 9:27 — Daisy & Iris 8:33 10:00 10:57 Madonna Hills 6:54 5:51 4:39 1:39 1275 Elm Station//I 0:00 12:54 2:24 8:51 Arenal Rd & El Camino - Station #2 12:54 0:00 10:30 4:03 El Fuerte & Cacatua * 15:18 3:54 12:54 6:27 Rancho Carlsbad - El Camino Real 5:51 18:36 3:27 3:00 End of Cayenne Lane (6400) - 5:24 13:03 ' 6:36 *Running times are based on the following average speeds: Station //I - 1.5 min. per mile Station #2 - 2.0 min. per mile Station #3 - 1.5 min. per mile Station #X - 1.5 min. per mile Speed variations reflect the topography in the vicinity of the station. _X_ Represents a phantom station located at the Intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. 52 k ix .4ij£:Lagoof»rpnniBT k ^ :;^ij||l*)\ / ;H-.y:TrrE-gJHK-ani.i p3ir:.n^4|aiffim- fclffifeujiMgE:;rH+HH-'tWWtTfffi-fl'T-t- - - Figure 10 FIRE PROTECTION Estimated 5 Minute Run Time: Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Fire Stations: H Existing D Proposed SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 53 .north Benchmark II is reached when 1500 additional dwelling units develop outside the 5 minute running time. Benchmark II indicates that service response may not enable firefighters to prevent severe structural damage. An additional criterion to assess the demand on fire service imposed by future development is adequacy of water supply and is described by the concept of "required fire flow." Required fire flow is the rate of flow needed for fire fighting purposes to confine a major fire to the buildings within a block or other group complex. Therefore Benchmark I can also be triggered if the proposed development results in the City being unable to meet the minimum required fire flow, recommended by the Fire Department. In terms of paramedic service, Benchmark I is reached when population projections indicate the ratio of paramedic units to 60,000 persons will fall below one within 2 years. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of paramedic units to 60,000 persons is at or less than one. Implications of Growth Potential Fire stations will be required in several locations to adequately provide fire protection services to the community. The distribution and timing of this growth will naturally influence fire station deployment. As a basis for planning, all portions of high-value business and industrial sections, with structures of the size presently and mainly existing in the City, should be within 1-1/2- and 2-mile running distances from an engine and truck company, respectively. For other structures, distances should not exceed 3 miles; at distances of 5 miles or more, both running time and the probability of extensive structural' damage increase. Also, company concentration requirements for first and multiple alarms should be satisfied. Any plan for station location should be based on sound studies of probable future extent of City area and structural concentrations, and on the existing and proposed network of any major arterial streets. As noted in the public facilities fee analysis, the adequacy of fire protection services is primarily a function of the response time required to reach different poins in the City. Consequently, the reduced growth potential identified in this study would require the same number of stations as the public facilities fee analysis. Encina North can accommodate additional growth without the need for an additional station. Encina South is the area of greatest growth potential and a station in this area will be needed to protect the 22,000 buildout population and the extensive industrial development. Lake Calavera, with over 8,000 units ultimately, is partially protected by Stations //I and //3. However, its eastern and southern portions are less adequately protected. La Costa is currently served by Station //2, although the spread of growth to the east and south will require the addition of another station. The distribution and intensity of growth at buildout is likely to require four additional fire stations in order to provide minimum acceptable levels of service and prevent severe structural damage. These locations, as suggested by the City Fire Department, are identified in Figure 10. More specifically, proposed Station //4a would be located within a mile east of the intersection of Palomar Airport 54 Road and 1-5; Station //5 would be located north of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real; Station //6 would be in the area between El Fuerte and Rancho Santa Fe Road on Alga Road; and Station #7 would be located in the area of Levante and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Station /Mb is suggested as a possible site to replace Station /Ma as development occurs further to the south and when Alga Road is linked with- Poinsettia Road. This deployment of fire stations would adequately cover all structures in the City within the minimum acceptable 5 minute running time. The development phasing tables for each of the significant subareas, along with Figure 4, suggest three stations could be justified'over the next five to ten years. Station //7 at Levante and Rancho Santa Fe and Station //5 at Palomar Airport Road at El Camino Real would most appropriately meet the fire protection needs anticipated for the I960 and 1985 period. Station #7 would protect the residential development expected in the southeast area of the Rancho La Costa development, and provide the backup protection needed in the City when one unit gets called to assist San Marcos. Assuming Melrose Road and the northwest extension of El Fuerte are constructed during this period, proposed Stations //5 and //7 in combination with existing Station //2, may be able to provide adequate protection for the area that would be served by Station //6. Station //5 would provide protection to the rapidly growing industrial area and to the airport; however, there will not be sufficient residential development in this area to warrant a station until the 1985 to 1995 period. For the southwest quadrant of the City, referred to here as Encina South, new residential development alone would trigger Benchmark I during the 1980 and 1985 period. However, the existing development in Encina South, south of Palomar Airport Road and straddling 1-5, is presently inadequately served. Thus, the level of development expected in this area by 1985 will trigger Benchmark II. • The provision of adequate fire protection services should be concerned wiin the following additional items, as described in evaluation of Carlsbad's Fire Department by the Insurance Services Office. With recent trends toward the production of multi-story residential structures at higher densities, such as condominiums and townhouses, there exists a demand for appropriate fire fighting equipment. A fourth engine company equipped with at least a 750-gpm pumper should be placed into service as soon as practicable to assist other companies and/or to maintain a normal initial availability of fire department service for all sections of the City. The apparatus should be equipped as recommended in N.F.P.A. Pamphlet No. 19, titled "Automotive Fire Apparatus" and manned with the standard complement of 6 men. Department manning should be improved to provide fully effective operations of each company unit needed for first alarm response and initial attack on major structural fires. The ISO evaluation recommended manning each of the five engine and one ladder companies with 6 full-time on-duty men. Until such time as addition of full-time men becomes practicable, arrangements for response of off- shift members should be continued and possibly improved. Each off-shift member shown by records to be responding on first alarms is credited as 1/3 of an on-duty fireman. Members responding on other than first alarms receive less credit. 55 LIBRARY SERVICES Existing Conditions The City of Carlsbad is served by one central library containing 23,400 square feet located at 1250 Elm Avenue. The library is currently open a total of 61 hours per week and staffed with 20 full-time and 15 part-time employees. Projected book circulation for fiscal year 1979-80 is conservatively estimated at 349,000, a 4.5 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. In addition to conventional services, the library provides special services and activities identified in Table 22. i At a population of 35,500, library space standards suggest a central library of 21,300 and 28,400 square feet.* Carlsbad's central library falls within this range; however, since 1977, the demand for library space has been greater than available supply. Current budget allocations are described as inadequate to meet the facility needs for shelf space and to serve an estimated 1,000 daily users. Furthermore, the children's department at the Carlsbad City Library must expand from its limited 1,200 square foot area or reduce services. The need for space is important, but Library Director Georgina Cole notes that the location of future library space is of paramount concern. Specifically, Director Cole feels that if the construction of branch libraries occurs before a new, larger main facility is properly located, more towards the "south-east", then the ability to adequately serve future citzen needs will not be realized. The library is currently funded by the General Fund and receives some money from the California Library Services Act. Book fines and xerox machine revenues generated are put into the General Fund. Present 1980-81 per capita cost is estimated at $1 9.54 per capita. Benchmarks The total amount of library space (calculated from square feet/capita standards) is used as a criterion to evaluate the minimum level of adequate service. Availability of adequate space is an important standard which measures the ability of the library to provide shelving space, reader space, staff work spacCj and special activity spaces such as children's reading rooms. *The upper range was calculated using 0.8 square feet per capita, recommended in the 1978 Holt Report, "Master Plan //1 I for the Carlsbad City Library". The lower range was determined using an alternative library space standard of 0.6 square feet per capita for cities in the 35,000 to 100,000 population range. (Source: Wheeler and Goldhor, Practical Administration of Public Libraries, pp. 554, 1962). 56 TABLE 22 SPECIAL SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES PROVIDED BY LIBRARY REFERENCE Reference questions answered FY 1978-79 23,705 Items borrowed on interlibrary loan from other libraries 2,333 Items lent on interlibrary loan to other libraries 428 AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES Circulation of 8 and 16 mm motion pictures 8,239 Circulation of slide, 8 and 16 mm film projectors 1,285 Cleaned and inspected 25,835 records and 9,694 cassette tapes TECHNICAL SERVICES Total books catalogued FY 1978-79 6,452 Total records catalogued 467 Total cassette tapes catalogued 320 CHILDREN'S SERVICES 133 Storyhours were given with a total attendance of \ 8,652 Weekly film programs attendance 4,000+ Special monthly programs « attendance 5,000+ Summer Reading Club attendance 1,000+ BOOKMOBILE Circulation of materials FY 1978-79 8,858 (an 81 percent increase over FY 1977-78) ART AND PUBLIC RELATIONS/SPECIAL PROGRAMMING 52 wall and showcase exhibits and 24 bulletin board displays were scheduled and mounted. 13 miscellaneous library programs were scheduled and presented including lectures, demonstrations, music, drama, etc. A monthly Arm Chair Travel film/lecture series was presented. SHUT-IN SERVICES Circulation of materials to the home bound FY 1978-79 5,583 SERVICE TO THE HANDICAPPED Bi-monthly visits by Low Vision Specialist from the Braille Institute—appointments made and monitored by library staff- approximately 150 people served FY 1978-79. 57 Benchmark 1 is reached when population projections indicate that the ratio of central library space in (square feef) to population will fall below 0.6 within five years. Five years represents the time estimated to plan, finance and construct new library facilities. This time frame may be reduced by building smaller branch facilities or adding additional bookmobiles. For branch libraries, Benchmark I is reached when population within a 1-1/2 mile radius, is expected to reach 25,000 persons within five years. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of central library space (in square feet) to population is 0.6. For branch libraries, Benchmark II is reached when population within a 1-1/2 mile radius is 25,000. Implications of Growth Potential The ultimate City population of 100,000 persons, can support a central library of 80,000 square feet. Given the preference of the community—namely, that of higher library standards than other communities—the actual space could be larger. Branch libraries amounting to 60,000 square feet can be supported if located in areas highly accessible to potential users. By 1985 the population of the City will have reached 60,563. The ratio of existing library space to population would be below 0.6, and consequently, some expansion of the existing library space should be considered. In terms of location, the primary consideration is accessibility. "A library is a service organization intended to serve people. Therefore, •it should be centrally located where it will be accessible to the largest number of potential readers and information seekers... This means that it should be near the center of general community activity, i.e., the shopping and business district. Just as dime store opeators study the flow of pedestrian traffic before locating one of their units, so should library planners consider carefully the best location to reach John Q. Public". Source: Joseph De Chiara and John Hancock Callender, Time-Saver Standards for Building Types, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973, p. 280. By 1985, the distribution of population in the City will be such that 31,000 are located in the northern half (Encina North and Lake Calavera) and 20,000 in the La Costa area. Although a centrally located library, toward the "south-east", would best serve the accessibility requirements, such a location would not enjoy the level and intensity of activity that the current site offers and therefore would function less effectively as a service organization. During the subsequent period, 1985 to 1995 a greater dispersion of development occurs, as Lake Calavera develops to its buildout potential and Encina South and Palomar begin to attract residential development. It may be justifiable to relocate the central library during this time period, if the site chosen meets the fundamental criterion of being in a place often frequented by people, where there is a heavy concentration of retail stores, office buildings, banks, public transportation, and parking facilities. 58 If accessibility is important for the successful operation of a central library it is essential for a branch library. Branch libraries are devoted to serving the immediate neighborhoods and will be very much underutilized if located in a remote or uncongenial area. Accordingly, the benchmarks have been designed to ensure that there is a sufficient population to support a branch library. The only area of the City that can justifiably do so in the near future is Encina North, which, of course, is the present location of Hie central library. It is assumed that once the central library is relocated, the present facilities can adequately function as a branch library. The facility is large enough to serve the population buildout in Encina North. The La Costa subarea will trigger Benchmark I by 1985 or shortly, thereafter, and a branch library could be constructed in that area between 1985 and 1995. Development in Encina South will not be sufficient to justify a branch library until after the year 2000. Similarly, residential development in the Lake Calavera and Palornar subareas individually will never be sufficient to enable a branch library to function effectively (using the suggested standard); however, their combined populations could, and it may be feasible to consider a branch library accessible to both subareas when their combined populations reach the 20,000 threshold, around the year 2000. In the interim, because the community places high value on library services, branch libraries can be developed but limit their scale of operations (i.e., fewer hours, staff, books, etc.) should be limited. STREET CIRCULATION Existing Conditions The local circulation system is for the most part centered in the area Encina North subarea. Within this area there are two major shopping districts, the central business district along the coast and a regional shopping center at the intersection of State Route 78 and Ei Camino Real. The central business district is served by a grid street system with its principal accesses being Elm Avenue in the east-west direction, State Street in the north-south direction, and Jefferson Street from the regional shopping center. The regional shopping center which is somewhat to the east of the central area is served by State Route 78 in the east- west direction and El Camino Real in the north-south direction. Average daily traffic volumes for major roads are indicated in Figure I I. Two north-south major arterials, Carlsbad Boulevard and El Camino Real, and two east-west major arterials, La Costa Avenue and Palomar Airport Road, provide the principal means of movement within the City. No other major roads provide access to areas east of El Camino Real. Carlsbad Boulevard (Highway 101) actually performs a dual travel function by providing direct local and secondary regional coastal access. Access to and from the Carlsbad area is provided by two freeways, Interstate 5 in the north-south direction ana' Route 78 in the east-west direction. These two freeways provide the bulk of regional travel service to and from the City. Interstate 5, in particular, offers almost direct coastal access by means of five interchanges within the City limits. However, there are specific problems with several of the interchanges: Tamarack Avenue west of the freeway needs to be widened but is hampered by existing development; Poinsettia Avenue does not yet connect the freeway; and the Palornar Airport Road bridge over 1-5 will eventually need to be widened. 59 Figure 11 1980 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6.5, 17.0, 80.4 etc. VEHICLE TRIPS IN THOUSANDS CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS, *». . «. , « . SOURCE: Comprehensive Planning Organization City of Carlsbad .north The present street circulation capacity has been described by representatives of the City Engineering Department as adequate; however, there are instances when congestion problems occur. Seasonal congestion along the coast in the area bounded by Palornar Airport Road to the south, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad to the east, the Buena Vista Lagoon to the north and the beach areas to the west has occurred during summer months. Another issue within this area is the beach parking problem. The Coastal Commission report on Carlsbad's public works notes that: Approximately 50 percent of people frequenting the beach on the weekends arrive between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The average vehicle occupancy for recreational trips, to the coastal resource areas is consistently found to be over three persons per vehicle. Even with this level of ridesharing, parking accessibility and traffic congestion are the principal factors influencing beach use. Safety problems involving pedestrian and bicyclist conflict with vehicular traffic are not uncommon. (California Coastal Commission, "Technical Support Paper, Public Works," April 23, 1980, p. 44) With future city and regional population growth, traffic volumes for streets in the coastal area may frequently peak at 85 to 95 percent of available street capacity. Drivers can expect to wait through more than one traffic signal cycle during short peaks, and there may be longstanding automobile queues on critical approaches to intersections. Members of of the City engineering staff noted that problems also occur during special sporting events such as major gatherings at the raceway and during the holiday season at the regional shopping center. These situations however ore not problems which necessitate the'construction of a costly circulation systems. On the other hand, certain new developments, particularly industrial ones such as the proposed Anderson's Split Pea Restaurant near the El Camino Real and Palornar Airport Road intersection could be a source of future congestion. Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is in the 70 to 80 percent range. At this volume, circulation can still be described as good; i.e., movement is relatively unhampered. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and back- ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but on the whole, traffic conditions are tolerable. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of traffic volume (peak hour) to capacity during peak times is above 80 percent. Service levels range from fair to poor to a "forced flow" of traffic depending on the percent of road capacity utilized. In the 80-90 percent range, cars are required to wait through more than one traffic signal cycle during short peaks. The 90-95 percent range produces some longstanding vehicular queues on critical approaches to intersections and delays may be up to several signal cycles. A forced flow, over 100 percent, represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or in the cross street 61 may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Implications of Growth Potential As much of the City area is only recently beginning to experience significant development, the opportunity exist to develop a circulation system that will operate effectively. The circulation system as currently planned in the City's General Plan offers excellent mobility via its arterial network throughout the City. The information contained in this study will provide the basis for reevaluating the adequacy of the system, in terms of capacity, when the General Plan revision begins. The layout and functional classification (e.g., secondary, major, or prime arterial) may not change much because the basis for the growth potential determined in this study is the City's existing General Plan. This study provides an indicatin of when various portions of the circulation system could be built. For example, such of the proposed system in the La Costa subarea should be built over the next 15 years in order to accommodate the development phasing of the Rancho La Costa master plan. Similarly, the construction of College Boulevard and Elm and Tamarack Avenues is expected over the next 10 years in conjunction with the development of Lake Calavera Hills. Major improvements to El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will be required between 1985 and 1995 when much of the City's industrial sector is expected to develop. Signalization along El Camino, in particular, will be required to ensure smooth traffic movement. As a major employment center, the number of commuters from outside of Carlsbad, as well as people from within Carlsbad, will greatly increase the traffic volumes currently experienced on these roads. Therefore, it would be advantageous to complete other north-south arterials, such as College Boulevard, Melrose and El Fuerte, to relieve some of the traffic flow on El Ca-nino Real. Presently, the only access to the airport area from the east- west direction is Palomar Airport Road. Other proposed east-west major arterials include Cannon Road and Poinsettia/Alga. However, the extension of Cannon Road eastward travels through the San Diego Gas & Electric easement ar>d development intensity along its route to El Camino Real is not expected to be significant until late in the 1985 to 1995 period. Similarly, the Poinsetta/Alga Road connection traverses the area immediately north of. the Batiquitos Lagoon which is not expected to develop until after 1995. The development east of El Camino Real and the heavy traffic volumes expected on Palomar Airport Road may, nevertheless, require that construction of these roads to improve traffic flows occurs sooner. i A more accurate asssessment of the impacts of the potential on the circulation system can be made when the City revises its Circulation Element. DRAINAGE Existing Conditions Natural drainage is affected by the topography of the area. Within the Carlsbad area, there are four natural drainages that follow an east-west pattern from the mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The principal streams draining the area include 62 Bueno Vista, Aguas Hedionda and San Marcos Creeks. Buena Vista originates in the San Marcos Mountains and empties into Buena Vista Lagoon at the north end of the City. The Agua Hedionda Creek terminates at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the central portion of Carlsbad, and the San Marcos Creek drains into Batiquitos Lagoon at the southern end of the City. To a large extent, urbanization can disrupt these natural flow patterns by reshaping the landform and altering the course of waterways. Consequently, it becomes necessary to provide storm drain systems to remove stormwaters from the land surfaces and to protect property from possible inundation. Flood plain management has relieved many of the more serious potential flooding and drainage problems. With the commencement of the Flood Insurance Program, the mapping of the flood plains, and the enactment of flood plain management ordinances by the City, potential hazards in the flood plains of Buena Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and San Marcos Creeks have been avoided. Nevertheless, localized drainage problems still exist, particularly in the older, developed portions of the City. An existing storm drain system collects and disposes of stormwaters from these areas which include the downtown business area. The spine of the system is a network of pipes running along State Street, Washington Street, Laguna Drive, and Grand Avenue. This system is inadequate, however, as complaints of localized flooding are common during major storms. The majority of the problems lies along the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks where the water draining from the mountains to the east tend to collect. The City is currently designing the State Street storm drain system to intercept flows before they reach the tracks. The line will extend from Oak Street along the tracks to the Buena Vista Lagoon where it will discharge the stormwaters. The largest diameter pipe that can be installed in this part of the City is 72", not large enough to handle the 100 year storm which requires an 88" pipe. The present pattern of development precludes the ability to put in a larger sized facility. This system will relieve the major flooding problems in the downtown business area, where the City has had to sandbag and pump stormwaters in the past. The need for such a facility has long been recognized, but the biggest obstacle has been funding. The portion of the State Steet system that is currently being designed is being financed with funds from the General Fund. There are several problem areas within the older portions of the City that need to be addressed before the drainage system can be considered adequate. However, the key obstacle to rectifying the situation lies in the cost of the projects. In the newer areas of development, developers can be assessed an acreage fee to cover the costs of installing the drainage system. In the older portions where development has already occurred, this financing mechanism is not available. t Specific areas identified by Les Evans, the City Engineer, for drainage improvements include Laguna Drive and State Street. (For a full schedule of proposed improvements, the City's recently prepared Master Drainage Plan should be consulted. The Plan, when adopted by the City Council, will establish the list of projects required to upgrade the City's drainage system and indicate the priority of the various projects.) Currently, the City Engineering Department is proposing to install storm drains running south from Laguna along Madison and Roosevelt Streets. The City is also considering the feasibility of extending the State Street system south from Oak Street to Agua Hedionda. This storm drain would eventually provide a continuous drainage system along the railroad track that would intercept all flows and discharge them into the lagoons. The Coastal Commission and State Department of Fish and Games are concerned with potential siltation problems and other adverse impacts on the lagoon ecology caused by the inflow of stormwaters. Consequently, special attention will be required in designing these facilities and environmental impact reports will have to be prepared. Although this system will go a long ways towards providing the City with a much more adequate system, it still leaves areas of localized flooding. Furthermore, because it does not provide capacity up to the County Flood Control District's standards, it will not provide an optimal desired level of protection. In the undeveloped portions of the City, the opportunity to design adequately sized facilities should prevent any significant drainage problems and afford the City an acceptable level of service. Benchmarks Design criteria for the construction and operation of storm drain systems are specified in the San Diego County Flood Control District Design and Procedure Manual. For drainage areas greater than one square mile, facilities should be designed to handle the 100 year frequency storm. (In any given year, a storm of this magnitude has a one percent chance of occurring.) For drainage areas less than one square mile in size, the system should be sized so that the 100-year flood can be contained within the street right-of-way; the 50-year flood can be contained within the paved street width up to the top of the curb; and where storm drains are required, a 10-year storm, at the minimum, can be accommodated. Implications of Growth Potential The need for, and size of, drainage facilities is determined primarily by the topography of the drainage area and the intended land use. Typically, as an area becomes increasingly urbanized, the percent of impervious groundcover increases. In other words, more and more of the land is covered by roads, buildings, and pavements that do not allow stormwaters to percolate .into the ground. As a result, larger drainage facilities are required than if the land were less urbanized. The City's Master Drainage Plan was developed using the same land use development assumptions used in this study; i.e., the intensity defined by the City's General Plan. Consequently, the facility requirements outlined in the Master Drainage Plan can be assumed to reflect the needs of the growth potential described in this study. The phasing of drainage facilities should reflect the phasing of development illustrated in Figure 4. The priorities, assigned to various drainage facilities, in the Master Drainage Plan should be reevaluated in light of the development phasing discussed in this report. Preliminary cost estimates prepared in the Master Drainage Plan suggest that adequate facilities required by new development will cost about $21,374,171. PHYSICAL ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES Existing Conditions The City Hall is centrally located in the older part of the City, or Encina North. Surrounded by residentially and com'mercialiy zoned areas, it is near the City's central business district. It was constructed in 1968 and composed of two structures: the smaller structure (approximately 2,500 gross square feet) currently houses the Council Chambers and a small conference room and the main building (approximately 14,000 square feet) is divided into three sections that house the general government, community development and law enforcement operations. Seventy-five parking spaces occupy the west side of the complex with an additional twelve spaces in the rear. Although each of the three sections within the main structure is nearly 5,000 gross square feet, the net useable space amounts to only 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. This amount of space is difficult to work with because it is too large for a single organization unit but too small to accommodate two. The layout of the building with a single corridor running through the middle of the eastern portion of the building prevents anything except small offices that open onto the hallway. According to the SUA Inc. report, larger areas of space (between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet) are preferred for planning more efficient layout patterns. The City Hall complex currently houses general government offices which provide the core support services of the City governments; community development including those departments responsible for City development planning and project maintenance; and police operations. The space presently occupied and the space required for these operations are indicated in Table 2°. The present space is 'clearly inadequate. TABLE 23 COMPARISON OF EXISTING WITH ESTIMATED SPACE REQUIREMENTS* Present Amount of Amount of Space Facility Space Occupied Required* City Hall General Government Community Development Law Enforcement Service Yard 33,979 6,037 4,548 3,356 20,038 64,540 10,862 10,489 10,122 33,067 *SUA, Inc., Facilities Requirements Plan, 1978, p. !-8. 65 Other physical administration facilities not included within the City Hall complex include: Facility Parks and recreation building and yard 1166 Elm Avenue Parks and recreation storage garage Knowles and Pio Pico Housing Authority 2777 Jefferson Avenue Utility Maintenance Yard 405 Oak Street Holiday Park House 3213 Eureka Place Buena Vista reservoir site Buena Vista Way Function/Size offices and yard .5 acres storage/work space housing authority program 700 net sq. ft. of useable space maintenance 1.33 acres offices/recreation center 650 net sq. ft of useable space storage/transfer station None of these other facilities except the Housing Authority and Buena Vista Reservoir have adequate space for their existing uses. The costs of general government, including the executive and legislative bodies, their staffs, city clerk and city attorney, are not sensitive to small additions in population. Per capita general government costs can decline slightly with small additions to population. Genera! government operations are funded by the General Fund and will serve a 1980-81 population of approximately 35,500 at an estimated per capita figure of $31.23. Benchmarks Space requirements developed in the SUA Inc. report were based on assumptions on the number of personnel and the space requirements for each class of personnel. As population increases, so will the number of government employees and operations required to meet the needs of the growing community. The criteria to establish adequate levels of physical administration facilities are found in the SUA Inc. report which identifies space requirements at different target populations. (The exception described below is the space requirement for law enforcement,) The City should embark upon a construction program for its physical administra- tion facilities through the City's capital improvement program several years prior to reaching the target populations. Thus, Benchmark I will be reached when population projections indicate the City will reach 60,000 within five years (for Phase I) and 100,000 (for Phase II). The sequence of steps that have to be 66 considered in order to ensure that sufficient lead time is available to provide adequate facilities when the target population is reached includes: establishing financial capability, selecting and acquiring sites, selecting specific alternatives, selecting planning/design team, developing plans, selecting construction team, constructing, selecting office equipment, and moving. The target space requirements are reported in Table 24. TABLE 24 ESTIMATED SPACE REQUIREMENTS AT TARGET POPULATIONS Population 60,000 100,000 General Government Community Development Service Yard Operation: Office Shops/Storage Law Enforcement 21,850 13,780 4,871 40,815 45,686 20,000 24,426 14,799 4,931 46,010 50,941 25,000 The SUA, Inc. report projected 95 police department employees when the City reached 60,000 persons and 134 employees when the City reaches 100,000. Using the service standards contained in this report, the sworn officers alone would be greater than the SUA, Inc. figures. By buildout, the City should have about 160' sworn officers, and a total staff of about 175-180 persons. Nevertheless, changes in space requirements between 60,000 and 100,000 reflects a greater need for records and files rather than personnel. Much of the increase in personnel is likely to be in the number of patrol officers which according to the SUA, Inc. report do not have individual work stations, and therefore would not affect space requirements. It is assumed that the following personnel classes which would affect space requirements would exceed by 1-4 officers the number indicated in the SUA, Inc. report: detective, juvenile officer, special investigator, and sergeant officer in patrol operations. The increase in patrol officers would also presumably increase locker room, exercise room, training rooms, lounge space requirements. The net effect of these increases in space requirements, without following the same methodology used by SUA, Inc., can only be estimated. Thus, until better information is available, it is assumed 20,000 square feet is more appropriate for a population of 60,000 and 25,000 square feet for a population of 100,000. 67 Implications of Growth Potential Several steps can be taken to improve the crowded conditions within the existing City Hall complex. Most cost-effective would be to reorganize existing spaces to use them more efficiently. However, given the basic deficiency of available space, other efforts must be made to increase the amount of useable area. The City has taken action to condemn the land adjacent to and north of the library, to the east of the City Hall. Several departments such as planning, building and engineering could move into the new facility. The present building could be utilized by police and general government operations. Because there is a seemingly large amount of vacant land where new facilities could be built, there are few constraints to providing sufficient space for government use. The greatest concern is the short time frame before the first target population is reached, and the fact that the present space is so inadequate. The first target population is expected to be reached within the next five years. Consequently, if the City hopes to continue operating efficiently without having to deal with overly cramped work areas, it should begin to investigate the possibility of expanding or constructing new facilities, in accordance with the space needs described in the SUA, Inc. report. An important consideration is that the next target population of 100,000 will be reached v/ithin fifteen years, so that in order to avoid the new City Hall from becoming obsolete within fifteen years, an alternative may be to consider the construction of a facility to accommodate and serve the ultimate population and in the interim the space can be rented out. Eventually, the police operations as well as the service yards, which account for over half of the space requirements, should be located in a more central location. Planned communities of El Camino and in the La Costa subarea will shift the population center of the City to the southeast. Land is available in the vicinity of the Palomar Avenue where facilities could be provided. Optimistically, the operations could be moved within two years, although a more reasonable time frame would be 3-4 years. 68 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL The fiscal impact analysis of projected growth in Carlsbad is analyzed herein. Included are analysis of city expenditures and revenues. The public facilities fee is reviewed for its adequacy in funding necessary infrastructure improvements to serve projected new development. The analysis is performed at three different points in time: 1985, 1995 and 2000. All comparisons of costs and revenues are made in current dollars. METHODOLOGY A comparable cities method has been used to predict costs for Carlsbad in the three periods. This method takes into account marginal costs, those additional costs incurred to serve new development. These marginal costs are of particular significance due to the City's projected high rate of growth in the near future (projected at 12 percent/year between 1980-1985). An assessment of the marginal costs associated with projected growth is more realistic than an analysis of existing costs because it takes into account the present and potential capacity of relevant public facilities, and the costs of providing needed additional capacity. In order to take into account Carlsbad's own pattern of expenditures along with the experience of cities growing to like population levels at similar growth rates, a comparable cities analysis to costs is done. The comparable cities method is as opposed to other fiscal impact techniques, the preferred one to use when significant increases in population size and growth rate. It differs from a service standard method that can better be used with small population increases and no changes in rates of growth. ANALYSIS OF CITY COSTS An evaluation of costs associated with City services begins with an analysis of the current budget. Future costs are then projected using appropriate multipliers. Budget The 1980-81 General Fund expenditures by all departments have been divided into four subareas: general government, public safety (police and fire), public works (water, sewer, roads, and drainage), recreation/culture (parks/recreation and library). Each subarea has been increased by various (non-departmental) expenses included in the General Fund. These additional expenses are placed in one of the four sub-areas based on the nature of their use. In addition to the division of General Fund expenditures by sub-areas, expenditures in two other budget categories are included: Community Development Block Grant and Revenue Sharing. These funds are included in General Fund subarea expenditures because they are integral parts of the City's expenditures and are not supported directly by user fees. 69 TABLE 25 SUB-AREA BUDGET EXPENDITURES 1980-81 Pop: 35,500 Operating Public Safety Fire $1,340,117 $ 48,1361 Police 1,686,239 128,263 Building Department " 255,062 Civil Defense 1,400 Non Departmental Community Assistance 5,290 Contingencies 2 144,446 144,446 TOTAL: $3,432,554 $320,845 Per Capita $96.69. : $9.04.'.' General Government City Council 26,751 2,000 City Manager 145,621 • 275 City Clerk . 10,110 General Government Admin. 116,682 5,450 City Attorney 96,609 Finance • ' 113,752 18,310 Treasurer 3,881 300 Central Service 71,820 4,200 Purchasing 30,729 Personnel 109,720 75 Planning 496,910 1,425 Non Departmental Insurance & Bonds 701,332 Community Programs 40,955 1911 Acts 6,500 . Audit 4,000 Dues & Memberships 14,050 1 Retirement 931,467 Contingencies 2 48,115 48,115 Housing - Com'l. Dev. 15,432 610 Redevelopment - Hum. Serv. 18,131 150 Revenue Sharing 3 140,450 TOTAL: $3,002,567 $221,360 Per Capita $84.58 $6.24 70 TABLE 25 (Cont.) SUB-AREA BUDGET EXPENDITURES 1980-81 Pop: 35,500 i Operating Capital Public Works Public Works Administration . $ 44,037 Util. M. Director . 19,696 Engineering 478,657 $ 750 Streets 606,120 52,750 Mech. Main — 1,755 Waste 9,324 5,500 Gen. Govt. Bldg. Main 76,400 9,100 Solid Waste , 325,062 Non Departmental Leases — 232,000 Contingencies 2 144,446 144,446 Other Funds Block GrantK 20,410 364,620 Revenue Sharing ..' _' •—''' :. 802,150 TOTAL: $1,724,152 $1,613,071 Per Capita $48.57., $45.44 Library/Recreation Library 722,890 4,635 Park & Rec- 848,917 76,060 Non Departmental Senior Citizens 29,100 Contingencies 2 96,296 96,296 Other Funds Revenue Sharing 3 ' — 307,400. TOTAL: $1,697,203 $484,391 Per Capita $47.80 .$13.64 Large capital items have been depreciated over time, e.g., fire truck. ___•.... Contingency fund allocated as follows: 1/3 to Public Works, 1/3 to Public Safety, 1/3 to other subareas. Total amount $866,677. Division is based on schedule of Continuing Appropriations, 7/1/80. Total amount - $530,000. 71 With the initial division of four subareas and the integration of the non- departmental Block Grant and Revenue Sharing expenditures, total expenditures are derived for each four subareas (see Table 25). The expenditures are divided by the estimated I960 population of 35,500 to arrive at the following per capita costs. Operating Capital Total General Government $ 86 $ 6 $ 92 Public Safety 97 9 106 Public Works 49 45 94 Recreation/Culture 48 14 62 $280 $ 74 $354 It is these current city expenditures that must be projected with growth. Any shortfall in revenues to meet these projected costs must be attributed to new development and new service infrastructure costs. Future Costs Associated With Development Future costs for Carlsbad are determined through comparison with costs of cities that have grown from similar population sizes at similar growth rates to new population levels. Costs are projected through the c~e of multipliers which .indicate the relationship of average expenditures of cities of various sizes and growth rates (see Tables 26 and 27). These were derived from research done by R.W. Burchell & D. Listokin utilizing National Bureau of Census data.' For example, as the city grows at 13 percent a year from 35,500 to 57,000, its expenditure pattern is characterized by current and future multipliers. The ratio of the new multiplier to the old is multiplied by existing per capita expenditures to reflect the City's future costs. The multipliers summarized from Tables 26 and 27 are as follows: *The Fiscal Impact Handbook estimating local cost and revenues of land development, R.W. Burchell & D. Listoken, 1980. 72 1985 1995 2000 12% Average 4% Average .9% Average Yearly Yearly Yearly Sub-Area Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate • i General Government ! Operating 1.21 I .88 Capital 1.97 I .26 ;;| Public Safety " ! Operating 1.24 I .98 . I Capital 1.78 I .83 j Public Works : Operating .98 I 1.07 i Capital 1.48 I .79 f Recreation/Culture < Operating 1.37 I .94 i Capital 1.95 I .35 •! Explanation of Multipliers The multipliers in the comparable cities method stress the typical infrastructure costs of cities of a similiar size and growth rate projected for Carlsbad. Development can result in significant increases in the costs associated with public services. A capital expenditure multiplier can be two or more since each develop- ment pushes the City to a new service threshold. This method shows the service costs to existing residents. The multipliers are used to convert current per capita costs to per capita costs in a subsequent time period (Tables 28, 29,30). Per capita costs for 1980 and 1985 are listed below. 1980 1980-1985 1985 Subarea Per Capita Multiplier Per Capita General Government Operating $ 85 x 1.21 = 102 Capital 6 x 1.97 = 12 Public Safety Operating 97 x 1.24 = 120 Capital 9 x 1.78 = 16 Public Works Operating 49 x .98 = 48 Capital 45 x 1.48 = 67 Recreation/Culture Operating 48 x 1.37 = 65 Capital " 14 x 1.95 = 27 73 TABLE 26 CURRENT AND FUTURE EXPENDITURE MULTIPLIERS Current Expenditure Multipliers Period 1978-80: Current Annual Growth Rate 16% Operating: Capital: 1980-85: Current Annual Growth Rate 12% Operating: Capital: 1985-95: Current Annual Growth Rate 4% Operating: Capital: General Government 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.97 1.21 1.97 Public Safety 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.78 1.24 1.78 Public Works 1.00 1.00 .98 1.48 .98 1.48 Recreation/ Culture 1.00 1.00 1.37 1.95 1.37 1.95 Future Expenditure Multipliers 1980-85; Future Annual Growth Rate 12% Operating: Capital: 1985-95 Future Annual Growth Rate 4% Operating Capital 1995-2000; Future Annual Growth Rate .9' Operating Capital 1.21 1.97 1.21 1.97 1,06 .51 1.24 1.78 1.24 1.78 1.21 1.48 .98 1.48 .98 1.48 1.05 1.17 1.37 1.95 1.37 1.95 1.29 .68 TABLE 27 OPERATING/CAPITAL'EXPENDITURE MULTIPLIERS* Period 1980-85: Operating Capital 1985-95: Operating Capital 1995-2000: Operating Capital *The Fiscal FUTURE _ CURRENT ^ General Government 1.21 1.97 1.00 1.00 .88 •26 Impact Handbook XPENDITURE RATIOS Public Safety 1.24 1.78 1.00 1.00 .98 •83 , R. W. Public Works .98 1.48 1.00 1.00 1.07 •79 Burchell Recreation/ Culture 1.37 1.95 1.00 1.00 .94 .35" and D. Listokin 1980, p. 103 - 107. 75 TABLE 28 OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ::•••••-: FOR 1985 Sub-Area General Government Operating: Capital: Public Safety Operating: Capital: 1980 Per Capita $84.58 6.24 96.69 9.04 X Multiplier 1.21 1.97 1.24 1.78 New Per Capita $102.34 12.29 119.90 16.09 (Pop: 57,000) New Total $5,833,380 700,530 6,834,300 917,130 Public Works Operating: Capital: Recreation/ Culture Operating: Capital: 48.57 45.44 47.80 13.64 .98 1.48 1.37 1.95 47.60 67.25 65.49 26.60 2,713,200 3,833,250 3,732,930 1,516,200 Operating Expenditures: Capital Expenditures: Total Expenditures: $19,113,810 6,967,110 $26,080,920 76 TABLE 29 OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR 1995 Sub-Area 1985 Per Capita x Multiplier New Per Capita (Pop: 77,500) New Total General Government Operating: Capital: Public Safety Recreation/ Culture Operating: Culture: $102.34 12.29 65.49 26.60 1 1 1 1 $102.34 12.29 65.49 26.60 $7,931,350 952,475 Operating: Capital Public Works Operating: Capital : 119.90 16.09 47.60 67.25 1 1 1 1 119.90 16.09 47.60 67.25 9,292,250 1,246,975 3,689,000 5,^211,875 5,075,475 2,061,500 Operating Expenditures: $25,988,075 Capital Expenditures: 9 ,472,825 Total Expenditures: $35,460,900 77 TABLE 30 OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR 2000 Sub-Area 1985 Per Capita x Multiplier New Per Capita (Pop: 81,100) New Total General Government Operating Capital. Public Safety Operating Capital Public Works Operating Capital Recreation/ Culture Operating Capital $102.34 12.29 119.90 16.09 47.60 67.25 65.49 26.60 .88 .26 .98 .83 1.07 .79 .94 ..35 $90.06 3.20 117.50 13.35 50.93 53.13' 9 .31 $7,303,866 259,520 9,529,250 1,082,685 4,130,423 "4,308,843 4_, 992, 516 755,041 Operating Expenditures: $25,956,055 Capital Expenditures: 6,406,089 Total Expenditures: $32,362,144 78 ANALYSIS OF CITY REVENUES It is necessary to analyze revenue sources and costs for the time periods ending in the years 1985, 1995 and 2000, to better evaluate the current two percent public facilities fee. This will enable evaluation of what the fee should fund to offset additional costs to the City due to development. This section analyzes existing revenues and estimates future revenues in current dollars for the time periods ending in \ 985, 1995 and 2000. The major revenue sources are property tax, sales tax, other general fund revenues, and special funds. Property Tax The property tax is the largest revenue source, accounting for approximately 29 percent of total General Fund revenues. In 1979-80, Carlsbad received $2.5 million in property tax revenue. Proposition 13 stipulates that property taxes may be levied at a maximum of one percent fair market value. Under Proposition 13, property that has not transferred ownership since 1975-1976 is assessed at the 1975-1976 assessed value, plus a two percent annual increase. New development and property transfers are taxed -at one percent of current fair market value. Future property taxes are projected based on the assumption that the mandates under Proposition 13 will remain in effect. Consequently, new development in the City is multiplied by the I percent tax rate, prescribed by Proposotion 13. The new development upon which the property tax revenues are projected are presented in Table 31. Projections for property tax revenues are calculated for the years 1985, 1995 and 2000 in Tables 32, 33, and 34, respectively. Property tax projections are based on the following assumptions: 1. New average single-family home price: $120,000. New average multifamily home price: $50,000 (Based on County Assesor's Office, Mr. Zwart, 7/17/80. Carlsbad Assessor's Office, Mr. Miller, 7/17/80.) 2. Current construction cost for commercial development: $45 per square foot. Current construction cost for industrial development: $30 per square foot. (Means Cost Data, 1980, and conversation with Tom Hageman, Planning Department, Carlsbad. 3. Property tax revenue return to the City on each tax dollar paid: $.20. (This is based on total amount of assessed valuation of secured valuation of secured property for 1979-80. ($316,031,218 x .04 = $12,641,248) for Carlsbad under the amount returned to the City, $2,500,000.) TABLE 31 DEVELOPMENT PHASING CITY-WIDE TOTALS 1985 Pop: 56,982 Additional Development by 1985 1995 Pop: 77,525 Additional Development between 1985-1995 2000 Pop: 81,090 Additional Development between 1995-2000 After 2000 Pop: 85,052 Additional Development after 2000 Residential Density (In Units) Single Family (0-10 Units) Multi-Family (Over 10 Units) 5,868 2,995 6,014 2,203 1,426 1,651 Commercial Development (In Net Acres) Commercial Acreage 98 57 47 Industrial Development (In Net Acres) Industrial Acreage 334 433 34 22 TABLE 32 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1985 ;In OOP's of Dollars New Single Family Homes x Average Value . 5,868 x $120,000 = $704,160 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 2,995 x $50,000 = 149,750 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor x $/Sq. Ft. 98 x 16,335 x $45 = 72,037 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor x $/Sq. Ft. 334 x 16,335 x $30 = 163,677 New Market Value on Tax Rolls = $1,089,624 Property Tax Rate =' ' ' ' .01 $ 10,896 Percent Returned to City = ; : ' .20 + 10%/Yrs. Reassessed by 12% . __ $2,500,000 x .5 x Ql.12 - .02)5 -1 New Property Tax Revenue = $ 2,179 474 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue $2,500,000 x |(1.02)5 •" "l| (I1io) 5 $ 161 •f 1979 Revenue = $ 2,500 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE = $ 5,314 81 TABLE 33 •PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1995 New Single Family Homes -x 6,014 x New Multi-Family Homes x 2,203 x New Commercial Development Acres x Factor x 57 x 16,335 x New Industrial Development Acres x Factor x 433 x 16,335 x Average Value $120,000 Average Value $50,000 $/Sq. Ft. $45 $/Sg. Ft. $30 -In OOP's of Dollars $721,680 110,150 41,899 212,192 New Market Value on Tax Rolls Property Tax Rate Percent Returned to City New Property Tax Revenue $1,085,921 .01 $ T 10,859 .20 3,172 + 10%/Yr. Reassessed by 12% $5,314 x 1 assessed by 12% ,n .00 x [Jl.12-.02) -1J 3-(1.10)10 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue $5,314 x Ql.02)10 - I] -^~{ + 1985 Revenue ' TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE' 3,265 449 . 5,314 $ 11,2QO 82 TABLE 34 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 2000 New Single Family Homes x Average Value 1,426 x $120,000 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 0 x $50,000 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor x $/Sq. Ft. 47 x 16,335 x $45 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor x $/Sq. Ft. 34 x 16,335 x $30 New Market Value on Tax Rolls Property Tax Rate Percent Returned to City New Property Tax Revenue In OOP's of Dollars $171,120 -0- 34,549 16,662 $ 222,331 .01 $ ' 2,223 .20 $ 445 + 10%/Yr. Reassed by 12% m onn v R v M19- + Yearly 2% Increase on $11,200 x [Tl.02)5 -1 •f 1995 Revenue D9^ «1. uz; "j. All Propei 1_ 5(1,10)^ 1 5 :ty Tax Revenue 2,122 724 11,200 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 14,491 83 4. Ten percent yearly turnover rale of properly. This 10 percent yearly turnover increases in value at !2% per year. (California Association of Realtors, Los Angsies; conversation with Topas Ghosh in Research & Planning, 8/4/80.) 5. Property fox revenue of newly developed resident ia! property is inflated to some extent because of the difficulty in deriving and subtracting the assessed value prior to development. An offsetting factor is the focf that some turnover properties increase by more than 12 percent per year due to the limitations on their 1975-1976 assessed value. 6. A ten percent interest rate for present-worih calculations of future revenue is used. In summary, projected tax revenues are shown below. Period Property Tax Revenue 1985 $ 5,300,000 1995 ' 11,200,000 2000 14,500,000 Sales Tax The statewide sales tax is generally levied at a six percent rate. (Exceptions involve transit districts.) The State General Fund retains 4-3/4 percent, and one percent is distributed to local government. (The remaining one-fourth percent is stipulated for local mass transit.) Thus, Carlsbad receives one percent of all taxable retail saies in the form of this sales tax. The amount of retail sales, and hence the amount of sales tax, depends on the number of residents and the availability of shopping facilities in nearby areas, income levels, and factors such as the proportion of commercial to residential property. Assuming similar incomes, buying patterns and leakage (buying that takes place in adjacent areas and vice-versa) in the future, the saies tax revenue is estimated on a per capita basis. The sales tax revenue summarized from Table 35 follows: Period Sales Tax Revenue 1985 4,919,670 1985 6,689,025 2000 6,999,741 Miscellaneous Genera! Fund Revenues Miscellaneous Genera! Fund Revenues include fees associated with new development (e.g., plan checking fees, subdivision fees, etc.), miscellaneous fees (e.g., library and ambulance fees, etc.), miscellaneous taxes and fines (e.g., cigarette tax, motor vehicle fines, etc.). 84 .TABLE 35V- SALES TAX GENERAL FUND REVENUES OTHER FUNDS .VIil 1979 Revenues Per 1985 Revenues 1995 Revenues 2000 Revenues •Pop: 33,600 Capita 'Pop; 57,000 ' ' Pop; 77,500 'Pop: 81,100 $2,900,000 Sales Tax Sub-Total Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues ^ Transient Tax 536,000 J. 'Franchises 165,000 Business Lies. 270,000 Transfer Tax 140,000 Rental Income 7,000 Alcohol Bev. Licenses 18,000 Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees • 622,000 • HOPTR & BITR 145,000 Trailer Coach In Lieu 90,000 Cigarette Tax 140,000 Mandated Cost Reimbursement 40,000 Refuse Collection 300,000 Ambulance Fees 40,000 Library Fees 7,000 Refuse Admin. Fees 15,000* Miscellaneous 150,700 Vehicle Code Fines " 130,000 $86,31 $4,919,670 $6,689,025 $6,999,741 Sub-Total $2,815,700 $83.80 $4,776,600 $6,494,500 $6,796,180 TABLETS (.Contr. );:.-1 I SALES TAX GENERAL FUND REVENUES OTHER FUNDS Miscellaneous General Fund 1979 Revenues Pop; 33,600 : Interest $i- ; Construction Permits ; §? Zoning Fees ; -v: Subdivision Fees | ''•>' Plan Checking Fee = Engineering Fees 575,000 200,000 30,000 18,000 100,000 95,000 Sub-Total (Misc. General Fund Revenues) Per 1985 Revenues Capita Pop; 57,000 $ 575,000 $5,794,600 1995 Revenues Pop; 77,500 $ 575,000 $7,512,500 2000 Revenues Pop; 81,100 $ 575,000 200,000 30,000 18,000 100,000 95,000. 200,000 30,000 18,000' 100,000 • 95,000 40,000 6,000 36,000 20,000 19,000 $7,459,800 Other Funds Revenue Sharing HOC Block Grants Sub Total 530,000* 385,030* 530,000 385,030 $ 915,030 530,000 385,030 $ 915,030 530,000 385,030 $ 915,030 * 1980-81 Figures Revenues associated with construction activity have been held constant, assuming a similar rate of growth in 1985 and 1995. They have been cut to one-fifth for the year 2000. Interest is held constant. Other miscellaneous revenues are projected on a per capita basis, relating to population levels. Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues are summarized from Table 35 as follows: Miscellaneous General Period Fund Revenues 1985 $ 5,794,600 1995 7,512,500 2000 7,459,800 Other Funds Other fund revenues, with the exception of two, have been excluded as have their expenditures. They are not part of the General Fund, and either do not finance projects that would otherwise be done or are collected from fees. These revenues can be adjusted by adjusting the fees. The exceptions are Revenue Sharing and Block Grant monies which are considered part of the City's expenditure pattern and aid in providing current levels of service. To increase federal grants on a per capita basis would assume relationships among population, income and tax effort remain constant, and that the total allocated funds will increase in proportion to inflation and population increases. Federal Revenue Sharing came into existence in 1972 through Title I of the State and Loca1 Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, ond when it expired in 1976, a new bill (P.L. 94-488) extended revenue sharing until September 1980. The formula for determination of revenue distribution is based primarily on population. The new law allows local government to set policy regarding expenditures. Some Revenue Sharing programs appear likely to continue, although the amount of funds- allocated to this program is uncertain. To date, they have been decreased by two percent, pending Senate review.* Thus, these funds have not been increased on a per capita basis but are held constant. Table 36 summarizes the revenues projected for the City. *Based on conversation with U.S. Congressman John Burton's office. 87 TABLE 36 REVENUES (in dollars) Miscellaneous General Year Property Sales Fund Revenues Other Funds Total 1985 5,314,000 4,919,670 5,794,600 915,030 16,043,300 1995 11,200,000 6,689,025 7,512,500 915,030 26,316,555 2000 14,491,000 6,999,741 7,459,800 915,030 29,865,571 THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Currently, the public facilities fee is two percent of building permit value. A three percent fee had been recommended in 1979 by a task force of key City Hall staff "who evaluated building permit values and the costs for necessary capital facilities through buildout. It was determined that the value of public facilities (e.g., parks, new and expanded roads, traffic signals, fire stations, and additional library and administrative space) less the amount required to bring the current population up to standard in these areas was 3.41 percent of the future building permit values.* Recognizing that new development generates additional revenues in~ the form of property faxes and other taxes, a fair fee was thought to be approximately three percent. Failing to pass such a fee by ballot, the City instituted a two percent fee on building permit value. Based on the preceeding cost/revenue analysis for 1985, 1995 and 2000, the current public facilities fee plus additional revenues from new development will not be adequate to finance necessary basic infrastructure needs associated with new development. The cost/revenue analysis indicates that new development will not pay for these infrastructure costs unless an additional fee is imposed. The costs analyzed herein are those associated directly with City services. Other needs attributable to new development, including water and sanitation, are financed through assessment districts and other fees based on the costs of those service districts. School districts are not contiguous with City boundaries and are not addressed in detail in this study. In the decision about what kind of fee would be most otimal, one must consider two criteria, equity and efficiency. Equity is concerned with each person contributing a "fair share" to costs incurred. The problem is in defining "fair share". Usually equity is determined by evaluating "benefits received" and "ability to pay". *"A Public Facilities Fee Analysis", City of Carlsbad. Efficiency refers to the administrative ease of imposing and collecting the fee. Although a fee is deemed equitable, actually determining the amount for each development basis could be exceeding!/ difficult with resulting administrative burdens. These costs must be weighed against the level of equity. A fee imposed on new development based on a percent of building permit value for contribution to existing and future capital infrastructure is highly efficient in that this method has limited administrative costs. It turns out to also have a high degree of equity. Attempts to differentiate those new developments needing new capital facilities from those with access to existing public facilities are difficult. New development, regardless of location, has not contributed to infrastructure as did development existing prior to the passage of Proposition 13. Also, the new "infill", as opposed to sprawl development may need those services already functioning at capacity. Thus, in the interests of equity and efficiency, it is assumed that new development should contribute equally to infrastructure, regardless of location. In reality, all new development will benefit from existing or new infrastructure - and thus it should pay its "fair" share. Moreover, it is not clear that equity is sacrificed in the simple, efficient implementation of a flat fee on new development. A more complicated fee might even mean more crowding of existing facilities and less in the public facilities fee pot for new facilities. It would be exceedingly difficult to explain why those paying higher fees in "sprawl" areas still do not receive all services. (Some services would only be instituted at a minimum population level.) Also difficult to quantify are infrastructure fees to development occurring in areas with adequate public facilities. Comparable Cities Analysis and the Public Facilities Fee Cost/Revenue Analysis - 1985, 1995, 2000 A review of projected costs and revenues in 1985, 1995 and 2000 shows significant deficits accompanying projected development. TABLE 37 ANNUAL COST/REVENUES (in million dollars) TIME PERIODS 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate 12% 4% Less than 1% Expenditures $26 $35 $32 Revenues 17 26 30 Deficit $797 $"M $T27 89 Thus, in periods of significant growth, significant annual deficits would be incurred in the absence of offsetting fees. The annual deficit incurred from providing necessary infrastructure for new development is estimated ah $9 million from the present through I 995. Need for Public Facilities - 1985, 1995, 2000 Based on projected growth the capital facilities need generated by new development have been projected for each time period with the appropriate costs. Summarized from Tables 38, 39, arid 40, the following costs for public facilities are generated in each time period, ending in the following years: 1985 - 30,000,000 1995 - 31,000,000 2000 - 3,000,000 The deficit projected in the time periods directly corresponds to the City's need for infrastructure. As the growth rate drops to less than one percent, the deficit becomes extremely small since almost all of the infrastructure is in place. This analysis shows the potential deficit in the absence of offsetting fees, if the City were to keep current standards and purchase infrastructure as population growth dictates. The deficit rises with infrastructure needs and population growth, and falls as the growrh rate drops to almost zero. As long as the growth rate is high the per capita multipliers do not decrease substantially. Once full bui'dout occurs, sometimes shortly after the year 2000, the infrastructure costs per capita decline. It is during the rapid growth period that the high costs are incurred to provide the necessary infrastructure. If should be noted that if it were possible :o encourage builtout in a much shorter time span, the comparable cities analysis indicates it is possible the same per capita cost would be offset by larger property tax revenues. Since Proposition 13 severely limits the City revenues and no significant additional revenues are forthcoming from other state or federal sources, it is apparent that the funds for infrastructure expenditures will need to come from the developments associated with the additional servicing needs. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Setting the Public Facilities Fee The public facilities fee needed with new development as projected (Table 31) can be determined from a comparison of revenues generated with the existing two percent fee. These are evaluated along with projected costs for public facilities attributable to new growth. Tables 41, 42, and 43 evaluate the costs of new facilities in the three time periods. A summary follows: TABLE 38 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIOD - 1980 THROUGH 1985* Costs (in dollars) 115 acres park @ $60,000/acre = 6,900,000 ' Improvements @ 56,000/acre = 6,440,000 20,000 sq.ft. police building @ $60/sq.ft. = 1,200,000 70,000 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 235,200 Land, 2-1A acre @ $60,000/acre = 135,000 Fire station = = 443,023 Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre . = 45,000 Paramedic unit = 56,000 46,000 sq.ft. administrative facilities @$50/sq.ft. = 2,300,000 105,800 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 355,488 Land, 10 acres @ $60yOOO/acre = 600,000 Traffic signals ($5, i 12,800 x .43) = 2,198,504 Street widening ($21,840,000 x .43) = 9,391,200 TOTAL $ 30,299,415 *Needs attributable to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis", and have been updated with information derived from the' Engineering News Record Index, Means Cost Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. 91 TABLE 39 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIODS - 1985 THROUGH 1995 Costs (in dollars) 120 acres park @ $60,000/acre = 7,200,000 Improvements @ $56,000/acre = 6,720,000 2 fire stations @ $443,023 = 886,046 Land, I-1/2 acres© $60,000 ' = 90,000 Main library, 55,543 sq.ft. @ $50/sq.ft = 2,717,150 Land, 3-1 /2 acres @ $60}000/acre = 210,000 Parking, 88,868 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 298,596 Books, 1.3 x 55,543 @ $9/book "= 649,853 Branch library, 12,025 sq.ft. @ $50/sq.ft. = 601,250 Land, 3/4 acre = 45,000 Parking, 19,240 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 64,646 Books, 1.3 x 12,025 @ $9/boo!< = 140,692 Street widening (21 ^840,000 x .41} = 8,954,000 Traffic Signals ($15,112,800 x .41) = 2,096,248 TOTAL $ 30,733,881 *Needs attributable to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis", and have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Cost Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. 92 TABLE 40 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIOD -'1995 THROUGH 2000* Branch library, ! 1,299 sq.ft. @ $50/sq.ft. = $ 595,000 Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre . = 45,000 Parking, 19,040 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.f t. = 63,974 Books, 1.3 x 11,300 @ $9/book = 139,230 Street widening ($21,840,000 x .08) = 1,747,200 Traffic signals ($5,112,800 x.08) = 409,024 TOTAL $ 2,999,428 *Needs attributable to new growth have been projected by Service Standards .Costs from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis", and have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Cost Dato (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. 93 I1 ME_PERIOP ENDING YEAR 1285 " 1995 2000 (in million dollars) Need for new facilities 30 31 3 Accumulated funds for public facilities fee @ 2 percent public facilities fee 14 14 3 Deficit (16) (17) (0) Factors for increasing the two percent fee to offset the cost of facilities in the relevant time periods can be obtained by dividing the amount needed by the amount in the fund and multiplying by two percent. 1985: 1995: 2000: = 30/14 = 31/14 = 3/3 = 2.14 = 2.21 1 x .02 = x .02 = x .02 - 4.3% 4.4% 2% If these fees were imposed the analysis indicates the public facilities necessary for new growth would be adequately funded. However, given the difficulty in projecting growth and revenues over extended time periods, the factors analyzed herein should be reassessed at five years intervals. TABLE 41 AMOUNT IN PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND 1985 New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 5,868 x 1,800 x $35 = $369,684,000 New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 2,995 x 800 x $30 = 71,880,000 Commercial Development (from Chart 8) 72,037,000 Industrial Development (from Chart 8) = 163,677,000 Total Building Permit Value = $677,278,000 PFF @ 2% .02 PFF REVENUE 1980-85 = $ 13,545,560 95 TABLE 42 AMOUNT IN PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND 1995 New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 6,014 x 1,800 x $35 = $378,882,000 New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 2,203 x 800 x $30 = 52,872,000 Commercial Development (from Chart 9) = 41,899,000 Industrial Development (from Chart 9) _ = 212,192,000 Total Building Permit Value = $685,845,000 PFF @ 2% . .02 PFF REVENUE 1985-95 $ 13,716,900 TABLE 43 AMOUNT IN PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND 2000 ;New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $Sq.Ft. 1,426 x 1,800 x $35 = = .$89,838,000 New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $Sq.Ft. = -0- 0 x 0 x 0 Commercial Development (from Chart 10) 34,549,000 Industrial Development (from Chart 11) 16,662,000 Total Building Permit Value = $141,049,000 PFF @ 2% . .02 PFF REVENUE 1995-2000 = $ 2,820,980 97 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY The City of Carlsbad over the recent past has experienced tremendous growth. In 1975 the City's estimated population was 19,200; by 1980, the population had soared to an estimated 35,500—an amazing 85 percent increase in only five years. While most of this growth is centered in the older portion of the City between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons, it has also begun to appear elsewhere. The rapid rate of growth and the .distribution of that growth has had a significant impact on the City's public services. In the wake of Proposition 13, it has been difficult for cities to maintain these services at their former levels. This interim growth management program was initiated by the City Council with the intent of identifying the City's potential for growth, discussing the impacts of this growth on the City's public services, and recommending a strategy for ensuring that the provision of adequate public services is phased with future development. Potential for Growth The City's potential to grow was reviewed in light of existing public policies regarding land use. The City's General Plan provided the basis for making an estimate which was then revised to reflect community plans, agricultural preservation policies, and environmental constraints. The City's population at byildouf (i.e., when the City is fully developed) will be 100,831 persons, housed in 39,524 residential units. The single-family residential housing stock will more than triple between now and buildout, and the multifamily units will more than double. (Even more multifamily units can be expected depending on redevelop- ment areas in the central business distric..) Commercial acreage is currently at 67.5 percent of its ultimate capacity. In contrast, industrial development has only just begun to tap its enormous potential of over 1,800 acres. !n order to evaluate the impacts of this growth, an effort was made to distribute the growth into different subareas and then within each subarea to phase the development over time. The five subareas and their ultimate populations are indicated below: Ultimate Subarea Location Population Encina North Between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons, generally west of El Camino Real 26,651 Encina South Between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons, west of the airport at its northern end, and 23,061 west of El Camino Real at its southern end Lake Calavera The area around the Lake Calavera Hills development and extending south to El Camino and east to the City limits 10,702 98 Ultimate Subarea Location Population Palomar The airport area, south of Lake Caiavera, and extending east to the City limits 10,744 La Costa The southeast quadrant of the City, east of El Camino Real and south of the airport subarea 29,672 Not unexpectedly, the City's population will be much more dispersed when it is fully developed. The prevailing character of the community with the exception of the central business distr ict will be "low density residential, at slightly more than four dwelling units per acre. The commercial acreage will be concentrated in Encina North around the present downtown and the regional shopping center. The industrial development will be concentrated in the Palomar subarea. A critical concern in public facilities planning is when will development occur. Without this knowledge, public facilities planners can reach a point where the development levei and rate in the City will overwhelm the service and in some cases, development may have to be curtailed, which is what happened when the Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities could no longer accommodate wastewater flows. Consequently, some time was devoted to determining how fast growth would occur in Carlsbad. A number of factors entered the picture, the more prominent ones being the City's wastewater reclamation plan, the Local Coastal Program's policies regarding agricultural preservation, the County's intent for the unincorporated lands in the center of Carlsbad, and the national economy. Two scenarios were generally described. One, allowing growth to occur without concern for where and when it did; the other, emphasizing a need to manage development so that it occurred in concert with the provision cf public facllitisc and services. Generally, there are widespread fiscal differences between these two scenarios. This was no different in the case of Carlsbad, although the costs appeared to be less pronounced because the agencies poviding service that require intensive capital expenditures (water, sewer, schools) are independent agencies, separate from the City. Nevertheless, other concerns involving community image, liveability, energy conservation, affordable housing, and environmental protection, as well as public service provision, seem to favor a more managed rate of growth. Four time frames were defined: 1980-1985, 1985-1995, 1995-2000 and after 2000. These periods were chosen because they match the Comprehensive Planning Organization's time periods, but more importantly, because they are appropriate for public services planning. Thus, the first five year period, or the short term, corresponds to the five year time frame of the City's capital improvement program. The next period, 1985-1995 is the intermediate planning phase, and after 1995 can be considered long range. The City will continue to experience a very high rate of growth over the next five years, although not quite as substantial as during the 1975 to 1980 period. (It is felt that this level of development may be slightly high given the market conditions prevailing at the beginning of the period and the effect of the sewer moratorium which was only recently rescinded.) 99 Population Cumulative Population 1980 1980-1985 1985-1995 1995-2000 after 2000 34,102* 26,461 24,126 5,985 10,137 60,563 84,709 90,694 100,831 *State Department of Finance estimates 35,500. During the first time period, much of the City's growth occurs in the La Costa and Lake Calavera subareas. Between 1985 and 1995, Encina South begins to develop and the La Costa subarea is also still experiencing substantial development. A large portion of the City's industrial potential is realized during this period. During the 1995 to 2000 period, much of the City's development activity is concentrated in the Encina South area. After 2000, Encina South and Palomar are the areas where development is most active:. Impacts on Public Services In order to assess the adequacy of the public services and to determine how development proposals would affect the supply of various services, a set of criteria and projection formulas were devised. The criteria, or benchmarks, were designed to inform the City when public service demand was beginning to affect supply. The projection formulas provide a standard set of equations to assess the impacts of development on public services. These formula11 and examples of how they are applied are contained in Appendix D. An evaluation of Carlsbad's present service levels, using the benchmarks as gu<Je- posts to indicate the severity of the supply problem, is presented below. SERVICE Water MEASURE OF ADEQUACY Benchmark I: design capacity of distribution system reached in 5 years. Benchmark II: water demand fully using design capacity PRESENT ADEQUACY Adequate Sewer Benchmark I: projected average daily flows equals design capacity in 5 years. Benchmark II: average daily flows equal design capacity. Adequate, but probably near Benchmark I (better information is needed on commercial and industrial flows). 100 SERVICE MEASURE OF ADEQUACY PRESENT ADEQUACY Schools Parks and Recreation Police Protection Fire Protection Library Services Benchmark I: projected enrollment will equal school capacity in 5 years. * Benchmark II: enrollment equals school capacity. Benchmark i: less than 5 acres of developed parks/ 1000 population within 3 years. Benchmark 1!: fewer than 5 acres/1000 population Active recreation facilities I maintenance worker/7 acres of developed parks Benchmark I: less than 1.6 officers/1000 population within 2 years. Benchmark II: less than or equal to 1.6 officers/!000 population. 5 minutes running time to cover 100 percent of City's structures. Benchmark I: 750-800 additional dwelling units outside 5 minute running time. Benchmark II: 1500 additional dwelling units outside 5 minute running time. Benchmark I: less than 0.6 square feet per capita within 5 years. Benchmark II: space require- ments equal space capacity. Flora Vista Magnolia, La Palma Continuing High School, San Dieguito High School, Flora Vista are inade- quate. All districts are beyond Benchmark I and Encinitas is beyond Bench- mark II. Inadequate (although addition of beaches and school facili- ties would improve assess- ment) Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate except around Palomar Airport and southwestern portion of the City. Adequate, but beyond Benchmark I 101 SERVICE Circulation Drainage Physical Administration Facilities MEASURE OF ADEQUACY Benchmark I: traffic volume to road capacity is between .7 and .8. Benchmark II: traffic volume to road capacity is greater than .9 Containment of 100 year storm within street right- of-way. 64,540 square feet required presently; 101,000 square feet when population reaches 60,000; I 15,000 square feet at 100,000 PRESENT ADEQUACY Adequate, Benchmark I reached occasionally along the coast and at the regional shopping center. Adequate, except in older portion of the City where locdlized problems occur. Inadequate Strategies to Ensure Adequate Service Protection Two identifiable work products resulted from this task. First a thorough evaluation of the City's public facilities fee, which the City adopted in order to finance capital facilities required by new development was undertaken. In the wake of Proposition 13 and its severe impact on the ability of cities to raise revenueSj cities are even more concerned with fiscal consequences of new development. The fiscal impact of projected growth in the City of Carlsbad was addressed in response to concerns about the projected costs and revenues associated with new development and the resulting fiscal impact. In response to previous concerns, the City of Carlsbad has already instituted a public facilities fee to offset additional infrastructure costs associated v/ith new development. The adequacy of this fee was also analyzed. Determination of marginal costs associated with minimal increases in growth is possible through analysis of specific costs associated with the new development. However, in the absence of a far more lengthy and costly study, this method was not practical nor accurate in assessing the public costs associated with significant growth over a period of several years. Therefore, a "comparable cities method" was employed to determine expenditure levels for the City at higher population levels. The comparable cities method uses the subject city's own pattern of expenditures and growth, and relates it to the experiences of other cities growing to similar population sizes at similar growth rates. Future revenues were projected to estimate shortfalls below necessary expenditure levels associated with development. Additionally, costs of new and expanded public facilities to service the population increases, by time periods, were estimated and compared to projected marginal revenues from the public facilities fee arid taxes. 102 The analysis concluded the public facilities fee is necessary to expand existing facilities and provide for new ones required by population growth. A recommendation is made to increase the public facilities fee to meet capita! neds associated with new development. The second work task concerning strategies to ensure adequate facilities resulted in a management ordinance that incorporates the benchmark concept and proposes a mechanism for coordinating residential development to avoid undue burden on the City's public services is presentd. The system is based on a review process that favors development proposals where services exist and have available capacity. RECOMMENDATIONS This study clearly reinforces the need to evaluate public services in light of a city's potential to grow. Consequently, it is recommended that the City monitor its development and its implications for public service supply using the formulas contained in Appendix D. The growth management study is only in its infancy and additional information developed during the General Plan revision or provided by the I 980 Census should be incorporated. In order to ensure adequate funds to finance capital facilities, the following recommendations are made: The public facilities fee is designed to cover increased costs above other revenues generated by existing development. The costs included are infrastructure costs attributable to new growth as a whole. Any costs more specifically attributable to a development should be paid directly by that development. Public facilities fee revenues are used to fund new and expanded library facilities, public administration facilities, police, fire, and parks as well as traffic signals and road widening. Other roads are expected to be funded almost entirely by the new development. A sprawl development would have higher road construction expenses, and tend to dilute services (e.g., fire response time, library accessibility, etc.). However, direct costs on the Public Works and Public Safety attributable to sprawl appear to be negligible. Acquisition and development costs for park lands should be incorporated into the public facilities fee, but park land dedication should be given a credit against the public facilities fee. This credit for park land dedication should be made only when the park land is needed and in the right location. i It was concluded that to generate enough revenues to offset expenditures in the three time periods, the public facilities fee should be in the following amounts as a percentage of costs based on building permit: 1980-1985: 4.3% 1985-1995: 4.4% 1995-2000: 2% As part of a continuing growth management process, the fee should be reevaluated again in 1985, and in five year intervals thereafter. 103 It is understood that ihe public facilities wii! be provided when population levels are adequaie to ensure efficient service levels. Thus, sprawl development will not be approved where adequate services cannot be provided at reasonable per capita costs. Finally, in order to monitor development and to ensure that it does not result in services that are less than minimally acceptable, it is recommended that the City Council review the following proposed ordinance for amendment to the Carlsbad zoning ordinance* 104 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 21, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS The City Council of the City of Carlsbad does ordain as follows: Section I; Purpose The City of Carlsbad is experiencing intense pressure for rapid residential development in the community. Based on the development pressure encountered in the recent past and various development constraints, such growth is projected to occur in highly dispersed locations. In response to this anticipated increase in growth rate and its dispersal, the City will soon commence an update of its. General Plan and capital improvements program to determine the appropriate uses of lands within the City. However, the City is also aware that services and facilities as well as policy • can determine the location and scale of residential development, and that public and private finances can determine the adequacy of such services. Hence, the City is completing a study of public services and a process to control and responsed to services. The study shows that, absent City control of the timing and sequence of residential development and the imposition of development fees, the ability of local government to serve both existing and new development will be seriously impaired,. Consistent with the findings and recommendations of this study, the City hereby establishes the following policies and objectives: (a) Promote a continuing pattern of development which maximizes the utilization of available public facilities and services and minimizes the costs of providing new public facilities and services. (b) Establish and maintain an acceptable level of community services and facilities. (c) Coordinate a program of continuing capita! improvements with other governmental agencies within the City's planning area designed to ensure complete availability of public facilities and services so that ail developable land in the City is ultimately capable of development in accordance with sound planning principles. In furtherance of developing such a land use policy consistent with these objectives and policies, the City of Carlsbad has devised and is continuing to develop and refine a growth management program as an integral part of the City's land use regulatory process. The growth management program is designed to achieve maximum efficient utilization of land. The initial phase of the program focuses on public services and facilities. Upon completion of the General Plan other aspects will be encompassed, including environmental management, social 105 balance, economic health and sound physical form. !n particular, the program deals with: water, sewer, schools, parks/recreation, police, fire protection, library, circulation, drainage and physical administration facilities. The purpose of this ordinance is to implement the City's growth management program by conditioning Residential Development Uses, as defined herein, on the present and projected availability of such public facilities and services. It is the purpose and intention of this ordinance to treat the residential development of land as a special use, approval of which is conditioned, pursuant to this ordinance, on the availability or planned availability of these enumerated services and facilities. The review and approval process herein has the effect of coordinating the rate and location of Residential Development Uses so as to avoid the creation of undue burden and hardship on the ability of the community to respond to residential development and, at the same time, protecting the interests of the private sector by ensuring that land owners will be accorded a right to develop in accordance with the City's land use regulations at such time as public facilities and services are made available to the property. The issuance of a Residential Development Permit, however, does not exempt the subject property from compliance with all other provisions of lav/ pertaining to the development of land in the City of Carlsbad, but rather serves as a condition precedent to the establishment of Residential Development Uses throughout the City. Section 2; Application Procedures (a) No building permit shall be issued, Planned Community Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, tentative map or tentative parcel map approved for any Residential Development Use unless a Residential Development Permit has first been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. (b) The provisions of this ordinance shall be inapplicable to the construction of a single-family residence on an existing single lot of record or the remodeling of any existing dwelling. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the construction of a dwelling or dwellings on any lot created on or after (date). (c) Definitions (1) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential purposes, including one-family, two-family and multiple dwellings, but does not include hotels. (2) "Residential Development Use" or "Residential Development" shall mean the construction of dwellings on one or more parcels of land and shall include the subdivision of land for the residential development thereof. (3) "Residential Development Permit" shall mean a permit granted pursuant to this ordinance. (4) "Will be available" in reference to the future availability of a particular service or facility shall mean that such service or facility is planned to be available within one (I) year from the date of application hereunder, pursuant to the applicable capital improvement program. 106 (5) "Capital Improvement Program" shall mean that document adopted by the legislative body of I he applicable public entity, which establishes goals and priorities with respect to the development of capital improvements and the provision of applicable services and facilities to serve Residential Development Uses. (6) "Guidelines" shall mean written standards established and adopted by the legislative body of the appropriate public entity, as may be amended from time to time. • (d) A Residential Development Permit application shall be submitted to the Planning Director concurrently with subrnittal of environmental data required in connection with the subrnittal of a tentative map or tentative parcel map or an application for the issuance of a building permit, Planned Community Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit dealing with residential use if no tentative map or parcel map is required. Said Application shall include such information as may be required to evaluate the Application pursuant to the Standards set forth in Section 3. The form, content and fee for said Application shall be prescribed by resolution of the Carlsbad City Council. The Planning Director shall request reports from appropriate departments and other appropriate governmental agencies as may be required to evaluate the proposed Residential Development Use pursuant to Section 3. Planning Director shall render a decision regarding the granting or denial of a Residential Development Permit within 60 days after the Application is submitted. The Planning Director shall render such decision by transmitting written findings and conclusions to the applicant and any other interested person requesting same, in writing. Upon transmit!al of the decision of the Planning Director granting a Residential Development Permit and upon request of the Applicant, the application for a building permit, Planned Community Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, tentative map, or tentative parcel map, as the case may be, shall be eligible to be filed as prescribed by the Municipal Code. The Planning Director shall publish notice of said decision once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City and shall mail notice of said decision to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the property under consideration, using for this purpose the last known name and address of such owners as are shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County Assessor. Such notices shall identify the property under consideration and shall include a statement as to whether a Residential Development Permit was granted or denied. Section 3; Standards No Residential Development Permit shall be issued unless the proposed residential development use attains at least 65 Development Points and the minimum number of Development Points in all the categories specified hereinbelow, in accordance with the evaluation standards set forth in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this Section 3, provided that if less than units are eligible, then the next highest rated development up to that number shall be approved. 107 Evaluation shall be made by projecting the availability of the applicable facility, service or personnel pursuant to the applicable capital improvement plan or budget as of one year following the date of application as impacted by all existing development and all proposed development for which Residential Development Permits have been granted and have not lapsed. Development Points • (a) WATER SUPPLY 15 Points (minimum of 10 points required) (I) Supply: Development points shall be allocated based on the overall adequacy of water provided by independent districts of the City. (i) Water system is projected to be operating at design capacity in 5 years or more. 15 (ii) Water system is projected to be operating at design capacity within 0-5 years. 10 (ii!) Water system is at or above design capacity, but water conservation measures which will reduce usage from 10-25% have been instituted. 5 (iv) Water system is at or above design capacity with no conservation measures instituted., 0 (b) SEWAGE TREATMENT AND SEWER (I) Sewage treatment capacity 10 points (a minimum of 8 points required). (i) Projected Average Daily Flow will equal current plant capacity in more than 5 years. 10 (ii) Projected Average Daily Flow will equal current plant capacity within 0-5 years. 8 (iii) Projected Average Daily Flow has reached or surpassed current plant capacity. 0 108 (2) Sewer Line Capacity (no minimum required). Development Points shall be allocated based on the distance (as measured along the center line of existing public rights-of-way) between sewer lines with capacity to serve the development and the sewer hookup point for the proposed development as follows: (i) Distance of 100 feet or less 4 (ii) Distance of 660 feet or less 3 (iii) Distance of 1/2 mile or less 2 (iv) All others . I Notwithstanding the point allocations of paragraphs (I) and (2) above, the Planning Director shall award alternatively six (6) development points if septic tanks, approved by the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control [Board, pursuant to the applicable policies and regulations of each entity, will serve the proposed residential development, and all lots in such development are 2 acres or larger. As conditions to qualification under this paragraph, applicant shall submit a septic tank feasibility study demonstrating the suitability of the site for the use of septic tanks. (c) SCJHOOLS lli points (a minimum of 5 points totr1 required) Development points shall be awarded based on certification by the applicable school district superintendent with respect to the following matters: The current or projected availability, as determined pursuant to the school district's capital improvement program, of permanent school facilities with sufficient capacity for the students generated by the proposed residential development use. The number of students generated by c proposed residential development use will be determined pursuant to guidelines adopted by the applicable school district. The current or projected availability as determined pursuant to the applicable school district's capital improvement program, of portable classrooms with sufficient capacity for the students generated by the proposed residential development. 109 Development points shall be awarded based on the availability of capacity within the school district likely to be utilized to serve the proposed development. (1) Availability of school capacity: * (i) Enrollment projections for the school district indicate that school capacity will be reached in 5 or more years. 5 (ii) Enrollment projections for the school district indicate that school capacity v/ill be reached within 0-5 years. 3 (iii) Enrollment projections have reached or exceeded school district capacity. 1 (2) Use of ameliorative mechanisms for inadequate sites: (i) School capacity is expanded by portable classrooms or non-legally required intradistrict busing. 3 (ii) School capacity is expanded by either portable classrooms qr_ intradistrict busing. • 2 (iii) School capacity is expanded by both portable classrooms and intradistrict busing. I (iv) School capacity is expanded by both portable classrooms on an inadequate site and by intradistrict busing. 0 (d) PARKS AND RECREATION 10 points total (a minimum of 5 points total required) Development points shall be awarded based on three determinants: adequacy of neighborhood and community parks, determined by acreage; availability of active recreational opportunities; and ratio of maintenance workers to developed park lands. 10 (I) Ratio of neighborhood and community parks per 1000 population: (i) Population projections show exceedence of 5.0 acres of developed park per 1000 popu- lation in more than three years. (ii) Population projections showing exceedence of 5.0 acres of developed park per 1000 popu- lation within 0-3 years. (Hi) Population estimates show current exceedence of 5.0 acres of developed park per 1000 population. (2) Ratio of recreaHonal facilities per 1000 population: (i) Population projections show exceedence of need for predomi- nant portion of appropriate facilities in more than three years. (ii) Population projections show exceedence of need for predominant portion of appropriate facilities within 0-3 years. (iii) Population estimates show current exceedence of need for predominant portion of appropriate facilities. (3) Ratio of maintenance workers to acres .of developed park lands: (i) Current staff meets or exceeds the required ratio of one maintenance person per eight acres of park lands. Notwithstanding the point allocations of para- graphs (I) through (3) above, the Planning Director in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Director shall alternatively award five (5) develop- ment points, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed residential development will satisfy all park acreage, recreational facilities, and maintenance standards. (e) POLICE PROTECTION 10 poinfs (minimum of 5 points required) (1) Police Protection: (i) Police officers exist in a ratio of more than 2 officers per 1000 population. 10 (ii) Police officers exist in a ratio between 1.6 and 2 officers per 1000 population. 8 (iii) Police officers are less than 1.6 officers per 1000 but are projected to exist in such ratio within two years. 6 (iv) Police officers are less than 1.6 officers per 1000 and are projected to remain at such level or lower for more than two years. 4 (f) FIRE PROTECTION 10 points (minimum of 5 points required) (1) Fire department response time to all dwellings within the proposed residential development (with less than 4750 other dwellings outside 5 minute running time). (i) 3 minutes or less 10 (ii) 3 to 4 minutes 8 (iii) 4 to 5 minutes 7 (iv) More than 5 minutes 5 (2) Fire department response time to all dwellings within the proposed develop- ment (with 4750 to 5500 other dwellings outside a 5 minute running time). (i) 3 minutes or less 7 (ii) 3 to 4 minutes 5 (iii) 4 to 5 minutes 4 (iv) More than 5 minutes 3 112 (3) Fire departm'ent response time to all dwellings within the proposed development (with more than 5500 other dwellings outside a 5 minute running lime). (i) 3 minutes or less 5 (ii) 3 to 4 minutes 3 (iii) 4 to 5 minutes 2 (iv) More than 5 minutes I Notwithstanding the current citywide and project response times determined pursuant to this subsection, five (5) Development Points shall be awarded if adequate on-site protection is provided by the applicant. "On-site protection" includes combination detectors and automatic fire sprinkler systems located within each proposed dwelling. The adequacy thereof shall be determined pursuant to guidelines adopted by the City of Carlsbad Fire Department. (g) LIBRARY SERVICES 5 points (no minimum required) (I) Library Services: (i) An average of .60 square feet or more of library space per capita currently exists. 5 (ii) An average of .60 square feet of library space will be reached within five years. 4 (iii) An average of .60 square feet of library space per capita does not exist and is not projected to be reached within five years. 2 (h) STREET CIRCULATION 10 points (minimum of 6 points required) Residential development impacts not only immediate circulation patterns but also the City's overall road network, including primary and secondary arterials. The determination of design capacity (ninety percent (90%) of the 13 maximum capacity of a roadway) as currently improved and the effect of the proposed residential development use thereon shall be made by the City engineering department based upon a traffic engineering analysis supplied by the applicant. (i) The projected ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is below 70 percent. 10 (ii) The projected ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is between 70 and 80 percent. . 8 (iii) The projected ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is 80-90 percent. 5 (iv) The projected ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is more than 90 percent. 3 (i) DRAINAGE 7 points (minimum of 5 points required) (I) Drainage: (i) "Adequate downstream capacity" for a 100 year, flood as defined pursuant to guidelines adopted by the City is available or will be available to the proposed residential development. 7 (ii) "Partially adequate downstream capacity" for a 100 year flood as defined pursuant to guidelines adopted by the City is available or will be available to the proposed • residential development. 5 (iii) All others 3 (j) PHYSICAL ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES 5 points (no minimum required) (I) Physical Administration Facilities: 114 (i) Physical administration space is not more than 10% less than actual needs. 5 (ii) Physical administration space is between 10-30% less than actuaf need. 4 (iii) Physical administration space is more than 30% less than actual need but additional space sufficient to raise it to level (ii) is projected within the following four years. 3 (iv) Physical administration space is more than 30% less than actual need without any additional space projected for completion beyond four years. 2 (k) ENERGY SUFFICIENCY (To be added upon completion of General Plan Update) (I) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (To be added upon completion of General Plan Update) • " ' (m) NATURAL RESOURCES (To be added upon completion of General Plan Update) (n) NATURAL HAZARDS (To be added upon completion of General Plan Update) (o) SITE DESIGN (To be added upon completion of General Plan Update) Section A; Severabiiity In the event any word, phrase, clause, sentence or category contained in this ordinance is for any reason held to be an unlawful basis for the issuance or denial of a Residential Development Permit, such invalidity shall not impair the validity of any other part of this ordinance and it is hereby declared that everything therein would have been enacted as the basis for the issuance or denial fo a Residential Development Permit without any such invalid part. If an entire category included within Section 3 is found to be invalid, the total number of development points required for the issuance of a Residential Development Permit shall be reduced by the number of development points available under the invalid category. 115 Section 5; Development Without a Residential Development Permit The City Council states its intent to revise its Capital Improvement Program to provide services for the total buildout of the City within a reasonable time period. Section 6; Advancing the Date of issuance An applicant may advance the date of the issuance of a Residential Development Permit with the consent of the City Council, as provided hereinbelow, by providing or agreeing to provide such improvements as will bring the development within the required number of development points for earlier or immediate development. Any agreement shall be secured by either a cash deposit or surety bond sufficient to cover the cost of the proposed improvement, the form and sufficiency of which shall be determined by the City Attorney and the amount of which shall be determined by the City Council. The City may enter into reimbursement agreements with the applicant with respect to any such improvements provided by thke applicant. At any time after the submittal of an Application for a Residential Development Permit, but within 90 days after the decision denying such Permit is final, developer may resubmit an application which proposes to provide for such improvements as will bring the development within the required number of development points for issuance of a Residential Development Permit. The form and content of such reapplication shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt of such application a public hearing shall be set before the City Council in the manner provided for public hearings on appeals as set forth in Section 10 hereof. If after public hearing the City Attorney is satisfied with the form and sufficiency of the security and the City Council is satisfied with the amount of the security for the proposed improvements, the Council shall issue a Residential Development Permit. Section 7; Assignability of Residential Development Permits All approved Residential Development Permits shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site which was the subject of the application. Section 8; Other Uses Nothing herein contained shall prevent such land from being used for all other permitted uses other than a Residential Development Use, as are authorized by the Municipal Code.t Section 9: Appeals; Relief Any person aggrieved or affected by a decision of the Planning Director in granting or denying a Residential Development Permit may appeal to the City Council as to such decision at any time within 10 days after the date upon which notice of said decision was made. An appeal to the City Council may be taken by filing a letter of appeal, in duplicate, with the Planning Director by concurrently paying a fee in an amount established by the City Council resolution for such appeals. Such letter of appeal shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. The Director shall set a public hearing before the Planning Commission 116 within 30 days after the letter of appeal is filed, if such time limit is practically feasible. The Director shall give notice of such hearing upon the appeal by publishing a notice setting for the date, time, place and purpose of hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not less than 10 days prior to the date of such hearing. The Director shall also give mailed notice of the date, time, place and purpose of such hearing to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property under consideration, using for this purpose the last known name and address of such owners as are shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County Assessor. The Planning Commission shall have the power, after public hearing, to review and reallocate the point awards made pursuant to Section 3. Section 10; Application Fees The form and content of the Application and fee for each Residential Development Permit application pursuant to this section shall be as established by Resolution of the City Council. Such fee as established shall be payable at the time the application is made. The Planning Director may reject any application not submitted in conformity with this ordinance and/or the City Council resolution provided for herein. Section 12; Lapse of Residential Development Permit A Residental Development Permit shall lapse and become void 18 months following the effective date of the permi". unless prior to the expiration of 18 months from the date of issuance, a uuilding permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the Residential Development Permit Application. The Residential Development Permit may be extended for one period not to exceed six months if the City Council shall determine that such extension will not prejudice any ofhe" property owner who may wish to obtain a Residential Development Permit for such other property. Once a residential Development Permit has lapsed, no application for a new Residential Development Permit shall be accepted for the same property or any portion thereof for at least six months after the date upon which the permit lapsed without the consent of the City Council. ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this day of . Mayor of the City of Carlsbad Attest: (SEAL) City Clerk 17 APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR DETERMINING GROWTH POTENTIAL 1. Acreages for residential, commercial, and industrial lands are estimated from the City's General Plan using the "dot count" method. Each dot can be translated into an acreage figure using appropriate conversion factors. Thus, by counting the number of dots within a specified area, one can determine the acreage of that area. The dot screen used offers 97 percent precision. 2. Land to be retained as an agricultural reserve (south of Agua Hedionda) is subtracted from the developable land supply. The special treatment, non- residential reserve areas are counted as industrial land and the combination district is treated as commercial land. 3. Residential acreages are estimated for each of the residential land use categories of the General Plan shown in Table A-1. TABLE A-1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITIES General Plan Residential Density Assumed Average Land Use Categories . (dwelling units/acre) Density Low Density 0-1.5 I Low Medium Density 0-4 3 Medium Density 4-10 -7 Medium High Density 10-20 15 High Density 20 - 30 25 The number of potential dwelling units is determined by multiplying the assumed average density, shown in the third column of Table A-!, by the appropriate residential acreages. The densities are based on past development experience and should provide a relatively good estimate of what is likely to be developed. In certain areas environmental considerations, land use policies, or development proposals suggest densities lower than the assumed average; consequently, those figures are used where appropriate. 4. The residential acreages determined in Step 3 are gross acreages, which include traversing streets, alleys, and drives and proposed schools. In order to determine the amount of land to be used for residential purposes only, it is assumed the streets, alleys, etc. account for 33 percent of the land area. Thus, the acreage figures estimated in Steps I and 2 are reduced by 33 percent. The gross residential acreages are further reduced wherever the General Plan indicates a proposed school as follows: Acreage School - Reduction Elementary 10 Junior High 20 High 30 Continuation High 20 5. The net residential acreage estimated for each density range is multiplied by the assumed density to arrive at the number of housing units. 6. Figure 4 in the report identified when certain areas could be developed in terms of present land use policies and expected sewer availability. The figure does not indicate what land will be developed — only what land is potentially developed. If all land identified as developable by 1985 is developed, the City's population would be an astounding — and unrealistic — 81,000 by .1985. Consequently, assumptions have to be made on the City's absorption rate, the rate at which land in the City is developed. In order to reflect accurately the rate of development, a market study needs to be performed; however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, some estimate can be made based on the development phasing programs of large scale projects planned for the community and on historical rates of growth. The following assumptions were made for each of the City's signficant subareas. Encina North Residential - by 1985: 50% of the single-family residential infill areas (blank areas) plus 60% of areas designated as developable by 1985; 60% of the infill multifamily residential areas by 1995: fully developed Commercial by 1985: fully developed Encina South Residential - 1980-85: City 50% of the infill areas 25% of the area developable by 1985 County No development 1985-95: 1995-20: - After 2000 City 50% of the infill areas 75% of the area developable by 1985 60% of the area developable by 1995 County 60% of the infill areas 60% of the area developable by 1985 • 25% of the area developable by I 995 City 40% of the area developable by 1995 25% of the area developable by 2000 County 40% of the infill areas 40% of the area developable by 1985 25% of the area developable by 1995 City 75% of the area developable by 2000 County 50% of the area developable by 1995 plus full development of the area developable by 2000 Commercial/Industrial - by 1985: City/County - 100% of area developable by 1985 - by 2000: City/County - 100% of the area developable by 2000 Lake Calavera Residential - by 1985: - by 1995: 65% of the area developable by 1985 fully developed Commercial/Industrial by 1985: fully developed Palomar Residential - by 1985: - by 1995: - by 2000: after 2000: Commerical - by 1985: - by 1995: 50% of all infill areas plus 50% of area developable by 1985 remaining 50% of infill areas, 30% of area developable by 1985, and 25% of area developable by 1995 remaining 20% of area developable by 1985 and 25% of area developable by 1995 fully developed 50% of airport area developable by 1985 plus 25% of area just north of La Costa and developable by 1985 fully developed Industrial - by 1985: 35% of the area developable by 1985 by 1995: fully developed La Costa Residential - by 1985: 60% of the infill areas plus 50% of the area developable by I 985 by 1995: remaining infill areas, and areas developable by 1985, plus 50% of the area developable by 1995 by 2000: fully developed Commercial - by 1985: 50% of the areas developable by 1985 by 1995: remaining areas developable by 1985 plus 50% of the areas developed by 1995 by 2000: fully developed Although a conscious effort has been made to reduce the potentially developable areas within each time frame, the growth rate is stili very high. By 1985, an additional 10,177 units are estimated to be built, an average of 2035 units per year. Nearly two-thirds of this development is expected to occur in the Lake Calavera and La Costa areas. Realistically, this rate of growth appears to be high, yet the Comprehensive Planning Organization in their Series V projections estimated only a slightly lower rate of growth — and those projections were based on assumptions of inadequate sewer capacity. The next 10 year period reveals a greatly reduced growth rate of 965 units per year. Nevertheless, at the end of this period in 1995, the City will be at 85 percent of its buildout population. Between 1995 and 2000, development slows to 730 units per year. Regardless of what assumptions are made on the rate of development, the ultimate buildout population, based on land use policies, and the resultant public service demand are the same. The assumptions on the rate of development will influence when those services must be provided and naturally result in a different type of cost-revenue distribution. 7. The following average household sizes are used to convert residential units to population: Average Household Period S|ze of Unit; Current 2.609 1980-85 2.6 1985-95 2.5 1995-2000 2.5 Post 2000 2.4 Alternatively, the population in some examples is based on an average household size of 3 persons for single-family and 1.5 persons for multifamily. This approximation buildout results in a population within 2% of the method described above. 8. To convert commercial and industrial acreages to floor space the following formula was used: Commercial/Industrial Acreages X 0.67 X 0.25 X 43,560 sq.ft./ac X 1.5 floors = Commercial/Industrial Floor Space. Where: 0.67 is the factor to convert gross acreage to net acreage. 0.25 assumes that 25 percent of a building site is covered by the building; the remaining 75 percent is used for driveways, parking lots, landscaping, and setbacks. The building acreage figure is multiplied by 43,560 to convert acreage into square feet. Commercial and industrial buildings are assumed to average 1.5 floors. APPENDIX B SENSITIVITY OF GROWTH POTENTIAL ESTIMATE Many assumptions are inherent in the calculation of the growth potential, as outlined in Appendix A. A revision of any of these assumptions will naturally alter the growth potential and its public facilities and fiscal implications. However, the process of revising the assumptions as more information becomes available is essential for planning the capital improvements program and budget, among many other things. To the extent possible, the assumplions reflect the most current and realistic information available. The intent of this section is to explore generally the effect of changes to three of the more sensitive assumptions: densities, household size, and developable land supply. They are considered sensitive because a slight revision in any of these variables can significantly affect the ultimate population. DENSITIES Whenever possible the existing or proposed densities as indicated by proposed planned communities are used instead of the density ranges indicated on the General Plan. Where this is not possible, an assumed average density is used to calculate the number of housing units. The assumed average density reflects the median of each density range . It has been observed historically that communities seldom develop to the maximum density permitted by the general plan. This may result from zoning restrictions, environmental regulations, or market conditions; therefore, it was assumed that a realistic assessment of future development should nc. consider buildout at maximum densities. For comparative purposes, however, the minimum and maximum number of dwelling uknits have been estimated, along with populations in Table B-l. The determination of growth potential did not take into account areas that redevelop at higher densities, even though such development densities were consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the density estimated for the downtown areas was 15 dwelling units per acre, although the General Plan permits up to 30 dwelling units per acre. The effect of recalculating the development potential for this area would greatly increase the number of multifamily units projected for the City. At the higher density of 25 dwelling units per acre, the area bounded by Oak Street on the north, Chinquapin Avenue on the south, and Washington Street on the east could include 3, ISO multifamily dwelling units, 1,260 units more than is currently estimated. This addition of 1,260 more units means a population increase of 3,213 persons, assuming the overall city average of 2.55 persons per household. TABLES-1 COMPARISON OF GROWTH POTENTIAL UNDER VARYING DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS* LOW ESTIMATE MEDIUM ESTIMATE HIGH ESTIMATE DENSITY RANGE 0-1.5 0 -4 4 - 10 10 -20 20 - 30 Gross Acres Density Units _Densit^ Units 2,641 7,779 2,769 868 101 I 4 10 20 14,158 Population (@ 2.55 persons/household) 2,641 7,779 11,076 8,680 2,020 82,196 82,100 2 7 15 25 2,641 15,558 19,383 13,020 2,525 53,127 135,474 Density Units 1.5 4 10 20 30 3,962 31,116 -27,690 17,360 3,030 83,158 212,053 Household Sizes. The most recent estimates of household size for Carlsbad are the Department of Finance's January I, 1980 estimate. The average household size 'was 2.61 persons/household, much less than what it was in the 1970 census 3.05 persons/household. This phenomenon of declining household size is typical <">f the rest of the nation and can be attributed to a host of social and economic factors. Most significant have been the decisions by couples to have fewer children and by individuals to remain single. The average household size, determined by dividing the buildout population by the ultimate number of housing units, is 2.55. Elsewhere in the report where it was necessary to distinguish between single and multifamily, it has been assumed that single family units average 3 persons per household and muitifamily units average 1.5 persons per household. This is consistent with current development proposals and reflects the trend towards smaller household sizes, (incidentally, using these assumptions, the City's buildout population would be 102,743, only 1.9% different than the estimate made using varying household sizes.) The Comprehensive Planning Organization in its growth forecasts report an average household size of 2.24 for Carlsbad in the year 2000. Using this figure, the ultimate population of Carlsbad could be as low as 88,000. On the other hand, if household size does not decline but remains at its current level, teh population would be 103,193. Thus, variation of the household size can influence the ultimate population, but not as significantly as density and land supply assumption. Developable Land Supply. The primary source of information for determining land supply is the City's General Plan. Of the variables affecting growth potential, land supply is the most sensitive to decisions by external forces. Both the Local Coastal Program and the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) follow policies to preserve agricultural lands, and their decisions can directly affect the amount of land available for development. The San Diego LAFCo is required by the Knox-Nisbet Act to determine where agricultural lands would be adversely affected if a proposed annexation were approved. In reviewing annexation proposals, the San Diego LAFCo Agricultural Policy discourages annexations "which would allow or likely lead to the conversion of prime agricultural land or other open space uses. . . unless such an action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area." (Agricultural Lands Preservation Policy, San Diego LAFCo, Adopted November 6, 1978). To date, the LAFCo Agricultural Policy has not been applied. Conversations with LAFCo staff indicate the agency would approve annexations of agricultural land provided the City preserved an equal amount of agricultural land elsewhere. The analysis of growth potential has assumed that any prime agricultural land within unincorporated areas will ultimately be annexed and developed according to the policies of the General Plan. The City of Carlsbad LCP Technical Support Paper on Agriculture notes that very little land in the coastal zone is categorized as prime, since, "most soils are classes III and IV, the storie (index) is generally below 80, and livestock is not maintained in the area for commercial purposes (p.6)." The Local Coastal Program has identified 600 acres of prime agricultural land in the coastal zone alone. Currently, 320 acres of this land, located between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons, are within an agricultural preserve subject to the conditions of the Williamson Act. There exists a potential for many other acres of land to qualify for prime agricultural status since most land can return $200 per acre per year (another criterion for prime agricultural land), but this definition also requires that such lands be planted for three of the last five years. Farmers have avoided planting crops within this time frame in order to remove themselves from the restrictive conversion policies of the Coastal Act and, consequently, have also removed themselves from the dictates of the LAFCo Agricultural Policy. The position of the Local Coastal Commission is to prevent the conversion of any (including non-prime) agricultural land for urban uses. Thus, 1979 acres of land may be removed from developable land supply, rather than the 320 acres (of Williamson Act agricultural preserve) assumed in determining the growth potential. Once the Local Coastal Program is complete, the assumptions can be revised. It is assumed here that the 1659 acres of agricultural land not covered by the Williamson Act would ultimately be developed. In the interim, development would be guided towards areas containing non-agricultural lands. Another factor will certainly further reduce the amount of land potentially developable; namely, environmental conditions. The acreage figures used to determine the number of housing units do not account for areas that may restrict or prohibit development because of excessive slopes, unstable soils, or seismic or flood hazards. The amount of land affected by various environmental constraints will be determined later by the City during the preparation of its Master Environmental Impact Report, and the result should be used to adjust the figures contained in this study. Finally, the zoning ordinance and other land use regulations can restrict development in the interests of public health, welfare, and safety. For example, lands designated for low density may allow developments of up to 1.5 dwelling units per acre. However, the zoning ordinance may designate the area as an exclusive agricultural zone which prevents developments greater than O.I dwelling units per acre (minimum lot size of 10 acres). Similarly, a 10 acre site in an area designated R-l cannot always attain the maximum general plan density for the area. An example is provided below. Area of site = 10 acres x 43,560 square feet per acre = 435,600 square feet Applicable lot coverage in R-l zone = maximum of 40% Buildable area = 435,600 x 40% = 174,240 square feet Minimum lot size in R-l zone = 7,500 square feet Maximum permitted lots = I 74,240 square feet - 7,500 square feet per lot = 23 lots Permitted uses = single family dwellings, tv/o-family dwellings under certain circumstances,'at not less than 7,500 square feet per dwelling Permitted development intensity = 23 single-family units on 10 acres, or 2.3 dwelling units per acre Maximum permitted general plan density = 4 dwelling units per acre Thus, while the zoning ordinance is to be consistent with, and implement, the General Plan, its provisions can reduce the buildouf level indicated by the General Plan. A number of other factors related to public service availability and the national economy can accelerate the City's development, but it is unlikely that they v/ill affect its ultimate development. For example, the availability of sewage capacity may encourage and accelerate development, but this is growth that would ultimately have been permitted anyway. Buildout is a function of land use policies; public service availability influences when that level of development will be reached. APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE ANALYSES Some explanation is necessary to indicate why the growth potential as calculated in this study is so much lower than that upon which the public facilities fee was based. The projected population in this study is half the 200,000 population figure used in the public facilities fee analysis, and the difference is attributed to two primary factors. First, the public facilities fee derived the buildout number of housing units based on gross acreage. This acreage figure increases the development potential by including land that is not actually available for residential development. For example, a 100 acre parcel at 3 dwelling units per acre would contain 300 dwelling units according to the Public Facilities Fee analysis. However, some of that 100 acres will be used for streets, schools or may be undevelopable because of various constraints. Estimates of cities across the country indicate that streets can account for as much as one-third of the land area. Thus, assuming that one-third of the 100 acre parcel is devoted to the circulation system, leaves only 65 net acres for residential development. The effect is to reduce the development potential by 33 percent, resulting in 201 units rather than 300 units. On a citywide basis, the use of gross acreage rather than net acreage has the dramatic effect of increasing the potential number of units by nearly 20,000. At 2.6 persons per household, this translates into an additional 52,000 persons. Additionally, the public facilities fee analysis assumed an average of 2.6 persons per household. Historical1/, the average household size has been declining and this trend is expected to continue. To account for this phenomenon, the following household sizes were assumed: Period Average Household Size existing 2.609 (Dept. of Finance 1980 estimate) 1980-85 ' 2.6 1985-95 2.5 1995-2000 2.5 after 2000 2.4 The effect of reducing the household size with time again reduces the buildout population, but this assumption more realistically reflects future conditions. Second, although land available for residential development (gross acreage) is roughly the same in the two analyses, the percentage of residential land in lower density ranges is greater in the growth management analysis. Table C-i summarizes the differences between the two analyses. Furthermore, the public facilities fee calculation of housing units was based on the median density within each density range. The growth management analysis does the same; however, there are a number of areas where environmental constraints such as steep slopes or natural resources such as agricultural lands suggest that development will occur at a density less than the median density. Consequently, development in these areas are less than what ws determined in the public facilities fee analysis. TABLE C-1 COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT BUILDOUT Residential Areas Growth Management Analysis Public Facilities Fee Analysis Gross % of Gross % of Density Range* Acres Total Acres Total 0- 0- 4- 10- 20- Total 1.5 4 10 20 30 2,641 7,779 2,769 868 101 14,158 19 55 20 6 1 100 1,858 8,637 2,746 1,407 258 14,906 13 58 18 9 '2 100 *For the growth management analysis, the number of acres at each density range is derived by adding the figures for the following specific densities: 0- 1.5: 0.25, 1.0,0-1.5 0-4: 2.0, 3.0, 3.9, 0-4 4-10: 4.0, 6.0, 7.0,4-10 10- 20: 10.0, 15.0, 10-20 20 - 30: 25.0, 20-30 The greatest difference between the two analyses is in the number of multifamily dwelling units. The growth management analysis projects a total of 10,553 such units, in stark contrast to the 48,000 projected !/ the public facilities fee analysis. This difference of 37,447 multifamily units accounts for nearly all of the population difference between the two analyses, (because the number of single family units projected by the two studies is essentially the same). Projected commercial and industrial acreages are fairly close between the two studies, once the gross acreage in the public facilities fee is converted to net acres. Table C-2 shows the differences. TABLE C-2 -' COMPARISON OF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NET ACREAGE AT BUILDOUT Land Use Growth Management Analysis . Public Facilities Fee Analysis Square Feet Gross Square feet Net Acres (x 1000) Acres Net Acres (x 1000) Commercial 631 10,307.4 1,044 699 7,122.1 Industrial 1,837 30,0007.4 2846 1,907 25,547.9 Differences can be partially explained by the different techniques used for measuring areas, and the accuracy limitations of these techniques. The precision of the measurements with both the planimeter, used in the public facilities fee analysis, and the dot screen, used in this study, is approximately 95 percent. In addition, the growth management analysis assumed that the area currently being held for agricultural preservation under the Williamson Act would continue. The public facilities fee analysis treated this land as industrial acreage. Finally, there are currently some lands developed as residential or industrial which on the General Plan are designated as commercial. In particular, there is a 60 acre area along Paseo del Norte just south of Cannon Road that has been classified as industrial/manufacturing which the General Plan identifies as Extensive Regional Retail. Although the net acres of commercial/industrial lands under the growth management analysis are less than under the public facilities fee analysis, the former projects a greater amount of building space. This anomaly is explained by the assumption that commercial and industrial buildings will average 1.5 floors under the growth management study; whereas in the public facilities fees, they were assumed to be one floor. Table C- 3 illustrates the effect of changing the number of stories when all other factors are held constant. TABLE C-3 COMPARISON OF BUILDING FLOOR SPACE UNDER VARYING HEIGHT ASSUMPTIONS Growth Management Analysis Public Facilities Fee Analysis Net acreage 10 10 Percentage in buildings .25 .25 Building acreage (ground level) 2.5 2.5 Number of floors 1.5 I Total building acrage 3.75 2.5 Building square footage 163,350 108,900 The rationale for assuming developments of greater than one story is partly because the zoning ordinance permits building heights of 35 feet, or two stories, in commercial/industrial zones. The public facilities fee analysis was felt to understate the future building space because of trends toward taller buildings. One and a half floors is used because it reflects the predominant existing pattern of low rise development and accounts for future, taller commercial/industrial projects. APPENDIX D FORMULAS FOR PROJECTING PUBLIC SERVICE DEMAND The formulas presented in this appendix have been used to estimate public service demands generated by future development in Carlsbad, They are standard formulas that are commonly used in environmental impact reports and other impact assessment documents. They are intended to give the City, a standardized method of evaluating the public service implications of development proposals. If the various public services for which formulas have been developed have better means of assessing development proposals, then those formulas can be used. These formulas do not purport to estimate future public services demands precisely; they should be used only to gain a ballpark estimate. The application of these formulas is illustrated through examples. The standard situation used in most of the examples involves a proposed development of 400 single-family dwelling units, 120 rnultifamily units, a 10,000 square foot geneal retail store, and a 250,000 industrial area. Water If the developer has not already projected water demand, using a method approved by the City engineering department, the following formula can be applied. Projected water demand = residential consumptive demand + residential non- consumptive demand + commercial demand + industrial demand + agricultural irrigation. where - Residential consumptive demand = 280 gallons per day per dwelling unit.* Residential nonconsumptive demand = 23.2 gallons per square foot of irrigated (landscape irrigation) land per year. A Comrnercial/industrial/agricultural demand = these must be projected on a case-by-case basis because of the potential variation in scale and intensity of development proposals. *Based on assumptions contained in the Local Coastal Program Technical Support Paper, "Public Works", and confirmed by the City engineering department. Example: Residential consumptive demand = number of units x 280 gpd per unit = 520 units x 280 gpd per unit = 145,600 gallons per day = 163 acre-feet per year Residential nonconsumptive demand single family + multifamily nonconsumptive demand Single-family units are in low-medium General Plan density; therefore, average lot sizes are 14,520 square feet. Assuming the impermeable surface (house, garage, driveway, pavement, sidewalk, etc.) covered 3,500 square feet on each lot, the potential land for irrigation would be 10,750 square feet. Single family nonconsumptive demand = 23.2 gallons per square foot of irrigated land per year x 10,750 square feet per unit x 400 units. = 4,309,280 gallons per year = 13.2 acre-feet per year For multifamily units, irrigation, demand is estimated to be 10 percent of domestic consumption. Domestic consumption = 120 units x 280 gpd per unit = 33,600 gallons per day Irrigation demand = 10 percent of 33,600 gallons per day = 3,360 gallons per day = 3.76 acre-feet per year Commercial/Industrial demand 130 acre-feet per year, as projected by the developer. Agricultural demand =0 Total water demand = 309.96 acre-feet per year Sewers Future sewage flows are based on the concept of an equivalent dwelling unit, which represents a standard unit of 246 gallons of sewage per day. All residential, commercial and industrial development can be defined in terms of the number of equivalent dwelling units of sewage they generate. The following schedule is used to estimate sewage flows. Type of Development Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) Residential: Single-family, Condominium, Mobile Home I Residential: Mulfifamily 0.75 Commercial Total building space in square feet/1,800 square feet Industrial ' (40% of total building space in square feet/1,800 feet) + (60% of total building space in square feet/5,000 square feet) Example: Single-family residential EDUs = 400 units x I EDU per unit = 400 EDUs Multifamily residential EDUs = 120 units x 0.75 EDU per unit = 90 EDUs Commercial EDUs = 10,000 square feet/1800 square feet per EDU = 6 EDUs Industrial EDUs = (40% x 250,000 sq.ft./1,800 sq.ft. per EDU) + (60% x 250,000 sq.f t./5,000 sq.ft. per EDU) = 86 EDUs Total Sewage Generated = EDUs x 246 gallons per EDU = 582 EDUs x 246 = 143,172 gallons per day = 0.14 million gallons per day Schools Future student enrollment is typically estimated on the basis of the number and type of households. Each school district serving Carlsbad uses a different "student generation factor" and the appropriate one should be used to determine the impact of a proposed development on a school district's ability to provide adequate educational services. Table D-l indicates the generation factors that should be used to project school enrollment within each of the various school districts. These factors were developed based on surveys conducted for the Rancho La Costa development, and may be revised if the school districts have better information. TABLE D-l STUDENT GENERATION RATES District Carlsbad/San Marcos San Dieguito Encinitas Residential Type Single-family Multifamily Single-family Multi-family Single-family Multifamily Grade Level K-6 .22 .05 .25 .03 7-8 .05 .21 .04. 9-12 .05 .21 .04 Example: Assume 300 of the single family units and 70 of the multifamily units will locate in Carlsbad Unified School District and the rest of the development project will be served by the San Marcos Unified. In Carlsbad: x .22 students per unit) x 0.5 students per unit) K-6 = (300 units (70 units = 70 students 7-8 = (300 units x .10 students per unit) (70 units x .05 students per units) = 34 students 9-12 = (300 units x .10 students per unit) (70 units x .05 students per unit) = 34 students In San Marcos: K-6 = (100 units x .22 students per unit) + (50 units x .05 students per unit) = 25 students 7-9 = (100 units x .10 students per unit) + (50 units x .05 students per unit) = 13 students 9-12 = (100 units x .10 students per unit) + (50 units x .05 students per unit) = 13 students Total Students: K-6 = - 95 7-8 = 47 9-12 = 47 187 Parks and Recreation The required park area is determined by simply multiplying the park standard of 5 acres per 1000 population by the proposed population. If the population is not explicitly identified in the development proposal, it can be approximated by making assumptions on the number of persons per household. On the average, there are 2.55 persons per household-in Carlsbad, or about 3 per single-family and 1.5 persons per multifamily unit. Example: Population = 400 single family units x 3 persons per household + 120 multifamily units x 1.5 persons per household = 1,380 (using an average figure of 2.55 persons per household results in a population of 1,326) Projected park acreage = 5 acres per 1000 population x 1380 = 6.9 acres. Police The estimate of future police protection is based on a service standard of 1.6 officers per 1000 population. In order to evaluate the impact of proposed development on the law enforcement provision within the City, the anticipated development population is multiplied by the service standard to arrive at the number of additional police officers required. These officers may not be required if the existing police force has enough personnel to offer protection to the proposed development. Example: Population of the proposed development was determined to be about 1,380. Projected number of officers required = 1.6 officers per 1000 population x 1,380 = 2 officers Impact Cifywide: Existing population + proposed development = 35,500 + 1,380 36,880 Ratio of present number of police officers to projected population = 48/36,800 x 1,000 = 1.30. Without additional police officers, the level of police protection in the City will be inadequate. This assessment should not be interpreted to mean that the City of Carlsbad will suddenly be victims of a crime wave or that violent acts of crime wjll skyrocket; rather, it may mean that officers will take longer to respond to calls or may result in other subtle changes that will suggest that the quality of the service is less than previously. Fire Protection In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on fire protection service, compare its location with the running times delineated in Figure 10. If the development falls outside of the running time boundaries and exceeds the benchmark number of units, then the Fire Department has the authority to review the proposal and require that it be protected to its satisfaction. An additional station may be required when a substantial development of more than 1500 units were to locate beyond the five minute running time of a fire station. Determination of required fire flow depends on size, construction, occupancy, and exposure of buildings within and surrounding the block or group complex. The required fire flow is computed at appropriate locations in each section of the City. The minimum amount is 500 gpm, and the maximum for a single fire is 12,000 gpm. Where local conditions indicate that consideration must be given to simultaneous fires, an additional 2000 to 8000 gpm is required. A municipality will have domestic and commercial water demands at the time fires occur; therefore, an adequate system must be able to deliver the required fire flow for the specified duration with municipal consumption at the maximum daily rate. The maximum daily consumption is defined by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) as the greatest total amount of water used during any 24-hour period in the past three years. This maximum daily rate, expressed in gallons per minute, is the main usage during the day of peak delivery. In cases where actual use figures are not available, the maximum consumption is estimated on the basis of use in other cities of similar character and climate. Such estimates are to be, at least, 50 percent greater than the average daily consumption, which is defined as the mean daily usage during a one-year period. In order to evaluate the effect of a proposed development on the ability of the paramedic service to operate, perform the following calculation. Existing Paramedic Units - Demand for Paramedic Units = Existing Paramedic — Units p . .. Population - ^ l_ s\.f C3 v s-\ r«v y~* o £±•+ of Proposed 1 + 60,000 personsI population ^ , .\ Development If the result is negative, Benchmark I will be triggered. If the existing population, by itself, divided by 60,000 persons is minus two, then the City is at Benchmark II. Example: The development of 400 single-family units and 120 multifamily units by itself is insufficient in size to trigger Benchmark I. However, if it is in an area where a previous development has gone in and combined the projects exceed 750 dwelling units or adversely impact the require fire flow, Benchmark I may be triggered. Consequently, an additional fire station to respond to the needs of these developments may be necessary, or special on- site design features may be required to minimize the potential loss from fire damage. Impact on paramedic service: Projected population = existing population + project population Existing population = 35,500 (using State Department of Finance estimate) Project population = 1380 Projected population = 36,826 Required number of paramedic units citywide Projected Population 60,000 persons 36,880 ~ 60,000 = . .61 Cit/wide impact = Existing paramedic units - required number of units = I - .61 = 0.39 Since the result is positive, Benchmark 1 has not been reached and it can be assumed that the existing paramedic service will continue to operate adequately. Library Services The projection of library space requirements are based on so many square feet per person in the community. For central libraries a figure of 0.8 square feet per capita is used to estimate space requirements, and a figure of .06 square feet per capita is used for smaller branch libraries. Example: Assume the projected population in five years were to increase 20,000 to about 55,000. Present libraries facilities are 23,400 square feet. Central library space requirement: 0.8 square feet per capita x 55,000 = 44,000 square feet Citywide impact = library space * projected population = 23,400 square feet f 55,000 = 0.43 The result is less than 0.6; the City has gone past Benchmark I—in effect, projected space requirements within five years will exceed the existing facilities and -if an adequate level of library services is to be maintained the City should consider action to expand or construct a new larger central library. Branch library = 0.6 square feet per capita x 55,000 = 33,000 The City in five years will be able to support over 30,000 square feet of branch library space. Branch libraries should be provided only after there is a sizable population, a minimum of 25,000 - 30,000 persons within a 1-1/2 mile radius to support such a facility. Circulation The standard methodology for projecting traffic volumes is a five step process. The basic step is determining the future land uses. This step is critical because the land use will determine the number of trips generated. The number of trips resulting from a particular development will in turn influence the impact on the existing roadways, if any, and in the case where new roads must be constructed, the size of the roadway. These steps are well known and it is recommended that the City continue to use this methodology. The following excerpt taken from the Carlsbad . Local Coastal Program technical support paper on public works, describes the process. 1. Purpose and Application The guidelines and procedures in the review of traffic forecasts and future street needs should be studied for either community plans or land development projects of significant size. These guidelines will provide a consistent basis for a uniform staff review and will ensure future adequate public transportation facilities. These suggested guidelines should apply to community plans, any study which makes a recommendation on street classification or street width which differs from the Genera! Plan, and any proposed development which will generate more than 5,000 average daily trips (ADT), or in which the proposed land use differs from that shown in the General Plan. 2. Criteria and Elements a. Trip Generation; Trip generation should be performed on a detailed basis for the area under study using rates which are derived from San Diego CPO/CALTRANS Traffic Generator reports (if applicable, see Table „ D-2). If local studies are not available, comparable studies in urban areas of the western United States should be consulted for an applicable rate. b. Future Land Use; Future land use, approximately 20 years in the future, should be summarized in detail on a zone-by-zone basis by the quantity of each land use classification. The preferred units of land use are: square footage of floor area for commercial, offices, and industrial; dwelling units and density for residential; acres for open space and parks; rooms for a hotel/motel; and students for educational institu- tions. Land use should be tabulated for not only the project or area under consideration, but also for a sphere of influence around the project or area at least equal to the radius of the project or area. Where land use information is unavailable, a reasonable assump- tion from the community plan or other applicable source should be made in all cases. Land may be considered "vacant" or "undeveloped" twenty years in the future only where this can be reasonably established by reasons of topography, drainage, designation as publicly-owned open space, etc. c- Trip End Summery; The total trip ends generated by applying trip generation rates to the future land use by zone should be summarized for each zone in the study area, as weli as the number (and percent) of intra- zoned trips. d. Trip Distribution; Documenting evidence of performance of an analytical trip distribution is necessary to determine zone-to-zone interaction, as well as zone-to-cordon (internal-external) trips and through trips (cordon-to-cordon). Where appropriate, project studies may use CPO's regional trip tables (or other model outputs) for the trip distribution. The product of trip distribution is a set of trip tables for all zones and cordons in the study area which should be tabulated in the analysis, accompanied by documenta- tion on how the distribution was performed. e. Traffic Assignment; Traffic assignment should be performed using the trip tables and a documented assignment methodology which considers increased travel time on streets which are over capacity. All trips which are not infra-zonal trips shall be assigned to the street network. 3. Analysis An analysis of the traffic assignment should be performed including (but not limited to): (a) comparisons of the assigned volumes to the approximate maximum ADT's as shown in Table D-3; (b) a screenline analysis of parallel routes in a corridor (where parallel routes exist); (c) a level of service analysis; (d) a peak hour analysis of significant intersections (where capacity problems are found); and (e) an analysis of the effect of not constructing planned major transportation facilities in or around the study area. 4. Recommendations After performing the analysis, applicable recommendations should be submitted for review. These include: (a) recom- mended changes in street classification or intersection design; (b) proposed miHgation measures; (c) the party (or parties) responsible for implementing these mitigation measures; (d) how these mitigation measure will improve the level of service; and (e) what specific actions, such as project phasing, are recommended in the event planned major regional transportation facilities are not con- structed. TABLE D-2 TRIP GENERATION FACTORS land Use Residential - A £. A R.I M E N.T (>30 D.U.'s/Acre) " An apartment is a rental dwelling unit located within the same physical structure as at least four other dwelling units on a common lot. Apartments on the average have a smaller floor area than single family homes. The apartments may have individual exterior entry, as in "townhouses" or a common entry as in "flats." Apartment dwellers usually have a smaller family size* and thereby less of a trip making propensity. £OIDO.H!N_!UM (6-29 D.U.'s/Acre) Trip Generation Rate 6.1/D.U, 8/D.U. A condominium is a dwelling which is owned by the occupant, but the land on which the dwelling is located is held in common by all residents. Condominiums often resemble townhouse apartments, or isolated clusters of two-to-four unit apartments. Household characteristics are similar to those of apartment dwellers. ilHik! I A MILL D.W!kk!!li A single family dwelling is a detached home on an individual lot. A parcel with more than one home structurally attached is excluded from this category. Single family homes are generally owned by the occupant, although they may be rented. Covered garages are frequent. Family size and age of occupants vary considerably. 10/D.U. 111 (Senior Citizen Housing) A retirement community is a housing development occupied almost exclusively by retired people. Retirement communities resemble single family developments or apartments. However, occupants are of retirement age and make very few work trips. 4.5/D.U Source of Trip Generation Rate San Dj_egp_ Tra f f i c' Generators C.P.OrTf979) Quick Response Urban Travel^ tsVi ma 1 1 on Techn i qu es Transferable Parameters #187), COMSIS (1978) San Diego Tra f f i c Generators, CTFTO. (T979) Trip Generation IntensTty Factorj Arizona Depart- ment of Transpor- tation (1979) -1- ..endUse Commercial - ''/ Trip Generation Hate Source of Trip Genera tio-n Rote SOPMNG A center under one management which has a regional service area and has one or more' major department stores. 40-80 small specialty stores are 'also common. 35.5/1000 0 (over 1,000,000 P 38.0/1000 0 (500,000 - 1,000,000 0 63.0/1000 0 (300,000 - 499,999 0) 76.1/1000 0 Traffic Genera- tors, C.P.O. IT979') i58.3/iooo 0 40.0/10000 A shopping center containing 11-30 stores serving an area of 20-100 thousand population. The trading radius is one to three miles and has a large supermarket or junior department store as the leading retail outlet. lilliliii^iliil i!t££.£.!lii £111 1 IE A shopping center containing 7 to 15 stores and serving an area of 750 families or a minimum population of 3,000. 'The trading radius is usually less than one mile and has a small supermarket and drug store as the principle retail outlets. Total square footage is often in the 30,000 to 100,000 range, located on 4-10 acres. " R IIII A N. D I N G_ JULIA!! S_T£P>i A freestanding retail store is a single building with separate parking where merchandise is sold to • the ultimate consumer, usually in small quantities. Minor auxiliary services that are independently owned and operated from the major store, can be a part of the retail facility in this category of commercial land use. Freestanding retail stores may be of any size but usually is a function of the merchandise sold and the locality. In general, as the floor area approaches 100,000 sq. ft., the stores lose their "freestanding" character and become part of a shopping center. The number of employees in freestanding retail stores is a function of the sales volume and land acreage and depends on the store type, size, and attractiveness to the consumer. fiHAklll RiiIAU.HAN.1 (Dinner Restaurant) 56.3/10000 An eating establishment of high quality and with turn-over rates generally of at least one hour or longer. All meals are served to customers who are seated at .tables or booths. Examples: Anthony's, Victoria Station and Old Ox. San Pi ego Traffi c Genera- tors, C.P.O. TW2) San Diego Traffic Genera- tors, Caltrans TT977) San Diego TraffjF Generators, uTF.O. (1979) San Dieg(3 Traffic Generators, C.P.O. (1979) Land Use Commercial - (cont'd.) Trip Generation Rate A sit-down restaurant is a restaurant where the majority of the meals are served to customers who are seated at tables or booths within the restaurant. A sit-down restaurant is characterized by a relatively slow turnover of customers. Meals are normally not precooked. Sometimes these are referred to as "Family Restaurants". Cafeteria style and smorgasbord restaurants are in this group even though the food is precooked. Examples: Love's and Denny's. £ A i J_-£ p_0_p_ R.£S_1AL[JRA_N[T A fast-food restaurant is one where a majority of the meals are for the carry-out or take-home patrons. A fast-food restaurant has few, if any, seats. The food is usually precooked, possibly wrapped and sitting under heat lamps ready for quick service to the • customer. Examples: Jack-in-the Box, McDonalds, and Taco Bell. THEATER 834.3/1000 0 0.37/Seat A theater is a building in which motion pictures are shown. Movie theaters are generally open only at night, although some hold matinees. A L 21/1000 0 A commercial office building houses one or more tenants and is the location where affairs of a commercial organization are conducted. 0 C.44/1000 0 A governmental office building is a building that houses the offices and personnel of governmental agencies. .Governmental offices may be grouped in a series of buildings within the central area, as a city or state complex, or may be an isolated building as a Federal Building. Example: California Highway Patrol. G.AS,Q£I_N.£ S.£ii^IC.E iiAT J_ON_ A gasoline service station is a freestanding commercial establishment designed primarily for the sale of gasoline to the motoring public. Maintenance and repair work is sometimes done as well as the sale of auto related accessories. 133/Pump Source of Tri Generation Rate A.U.E.AN_I (Family Restaurant) 435.7/10000 San Pi Traffic Gener tors, C.P.O. •(1979) San Diego Traffic Gener tors,, C.P.O. TT9T9) Orange County Study C.P.O. Traffi Generator Study (Unpublished. 1979) 10th Progress Report on Trj Ends Generatl Research Court Caltrans Dis- trict 4 (1975 Quick Respons Urban Travel Estimation Techniques an Transferable ParametersTNCHRP ?/i87), COMSIS (1978) -3- Land_]Jse_ Commercial (cont'd.) HID I £ A £ 0 F £ J_ ££ A medical office is a building where the businesses and practices relative to the restoration or preservation of health are carried out. A medical office building is usually a centrally located complex of medical offices that serve a wide range of medical needs. Associated uses may include pharmacies and optical. H P_ T £ £ S/M 0 T £ £ IS W ! J_ H CONVENTION £A£]_£J_TY_ ~ ----- This category is defined as a commercial land use establishment offering lodging to transients or highway travelers and also having facilities for formal meetings. These hotels or motels are normally three or more stories high and have meeting rooms. Often restaurants, specialty shops, etc, are also available to patrons and the general public. Trip Generation Rate 90.52/1000 10.5/Room 48.1/1000 0 A car dealer is a freestanding structure normally with open or shed-like parking lots, designed for the sale of new and used cars and trucks. Car dealers also provide maintenance service and the sale of automobile accessories 25.2/1,000 A newspaper publisher is a freestanding structure where newspapers are written and published. Example: Union/Tribune 150/Acre A recreation facility providing facilities for skateboard and/or roller skating in a controlled, supervised setting. Source' of TripGenera t. ion Rote San Dico Traffic Generators^ CaKrans~~0972) Trip Generation Intensi ty Factors, Arizona Depart- ment of Trans- portation (197< Traffic Generators, C'.P.O. 0979) Commercial Office Rate + 20% from C.P.O. Traffic Generator Study (Unpublished, 1979} A comparison of "Tennis Club9 and "Swimming Pool" from Trip Generatio IntenTi ty Facotrs, (1979 and ''Special- ized Recreatio1 in C.P.O.'s Traffic Generators -4- Land Use Commercial (cont'd.) 1 £ A L T H C L U B Trip Generation Rate 26.3/1000 A health club is a specialized recreation facility fea-turing racquetball , tennis, exercising equipment or swimming, though seldom are all of those facilities offered in the same establishment. 61/1000 .0 A savings and loan offers financial services, investment opportunities, savings and loans, often has a small number of employees in a small office. ndustrial - Source of Trip Generatiot Rate C.P.O.'s Traffic Generators Trip Generatio_r 7.3/1000 0 Light industry usually occurs in a freestanding general manufacturing facility. These facilities are often grouped together in "industrial parks". Industrial parks can contain a variety of industrial uses "in a common area. San Diego Traffic Generators istitutional - • £ H. U. R. £ .H (synagogue)120/Church A church is a house of worship. Day care centers, meeting rooms, a ministerial residence, and various other activities may be associated with it. Convalescent hospitals are freestanding institutions designed to provide medical or surgical care for patients with long-term illnesses. Normally such hospitals do not provide emergency room medical treatment. 2.7/Bed 343/Acre / invention facility is a freestanding structure where meetings of clubs, organizations, and fraternal -type groups are held. Example: Scottish Rite Temple. Weighted average of Churches in llth Progress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans Dis- trict 4 (1976) Trip Generatiot l.T.E. T1979T' Trip Generatigj Ijrtenj>_i_tv_ Fac- tors, Arizona Department of Transportation (1979) -5- and Use ducat ion - Trip Generation Rate Source of Trip Generation Rate POUR-YEAR U N I V E R S I T.Y 2.42/Student A four-year university is a major educational facility granting at least bachelor degrees with a four-year curriculum. Four-year universities are normally located on a park-like campus consisting of many buildings. They may be State supported or privately run. Examples: University of San Diego, Eaton College and National University. 1.4/Student A high school is a secondary school normally having a three or four year curriculum. A secondary school may be located on a campus-like setting with associated sports facilities or may be an isolated building. H S.CHOO 1.0/Student Junior high schools are secondary schools designed to educate a group of children in grades which are intermediate between grade school and high school. Junior high schools are normally freestanding and accompanied by athletic fields. ERA P.! S.CH.IDO.L. (Elementary School) Ah elementary school is a school normally having grades 1 through 8 or 1 through 6. An elementary school is usually an isolate! building with an -associated playground. 0.7/Student Traffjc^ Generators, California Department of Transportation (1974) San Diego Traffic Generators Caltrans Trip Generatipr Intensity Fac- tors , Arizona Department of Transportation (1979) Trip Generatioi Intensity fac- tors , Arizona Department of Transportation (1979) her - P A 5/Acre A park is an area set aside for recreational purposes, Parks may have large expanses of green area and often contain playgrounds or picnic areas. El Monte Park Study *Definitions of land use categories were obtained from one or more of the following publications: generation Intensity Factors, Arizona D.O.T. (1979) Diego Traffic Generators, C.P.O. (1979) Generation i\a tes by Tan? Use, City of San Diego, Transportation Planning Division (1975) -6- TABLE D-3ST.U-:CT DESIGN ir Functional Street _CI a r.r. i f icat ion Primary Arterial Major Street Collector Street Local Street (8) Irxiusti-ial Ca-ir.crcial Residential 'Separated Facility Within Street IW (U) Within Road-way (14) Allcr,/ k\ y „ _.tvUTTj-Ajr of lanes 6 4 6 (2) 4 4 4 2 • 2' 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 '(15) Apnrox . Xo.x. APT 47,000 23,000 32,000 25,000 18,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 • 5,000 1.500 700 200 __ — — — — R.O.W. - Widths 122' (J) 98' (1J 122' (3) 98' (3) 88-98' (5) 84-93' (5) 60-70' (7) 70' 84' GO- GO' 56' 52' (9) 50' (9) 12' 10'-16' (12) —20' — Curb (or other) , Width ' 102' 73' 102' 78' • 68-78' 64 ' -78 ' 40-50' (7) 50' 64' 40' 40' 36' , 32' (9) • 30' (9) 8 '-10 '(1C) 10' (13) 5'-8' 20' 4 '-5' (16) Median Width 14' 14' 14' 14' 4' 0-14' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' :. 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' ttinimjm Shoulder . Radius Maximum Width of Curve Grade 8' 1000' 8'-10' (4) 1000' 8'-10' (4) 1000' 8'-iO' (4) 1000' 8'-10' (4) 1000' B'-IO1 (4) 500' 8 '-13' 300' 13' , 200' 8' 200' 8' ' 200' 8' loo- s' . ICO' 8' loo-s' • loo- 15' 15' 15' 100' «•• ate 6^ 6S 1% 7X 1\ ' 12* (6) 12% (6) 8% 8X S% 15s 15^ 15* 15% 1% Grade of St. Grade of St. • 15* Grade of St. 1. /vull contiui u£ access i'ran abutting proper, ty. 2. Used only w!>ere property owners elect and are authorized to construct additional lanes to convert a four-lane prinary arterial to a major street in order to gain access. 3.- Access and parking control at critical locations. Additional width required for double left turn.lanes. 4. 10' wjxxe Sta'~e or Federal design standards apply. 5. 9-3' recjuirod where left turn lanes are needed. 6. 8% in eairicrcial areas. 7. 70' I^.O.rt'. ar»3 50' curb width in industrial arons. 8. Frontage roods or other si;vgle loaded streets- H.O.W. and curb widths nvry be' reduced in residential areas to provide streets of 47/32' (5000 ADT), -J3/2B1 (1500 ADT) and 41/26' (700 and 200 ADT). R.O.W. rray be reduced 5' in carrr.ercial or industrial areas with no decrease in curb width. 9. v.":/:re no parking -will ix- allowed, euro r.o curs wiatn nay DO reaucea to ^ • wirn rig.nt or way wiacn or ^-3' ^K.o.w. 34' wVnU'e siJcw.iik^ are provided scr;.iiat>jly f ru;; sti'ect.'j) . 10. 10' facility where uuiistontiui a.-^unt of tr.H'fic volu-ne is anticipated (e.g., near schools). 11. T.tx:ar.(<i i;; curb to property IIIK; aroi. 12. 16' pi'ovice.-; for (.-•' 1 anisc.ijxv] 5.,.'iaratior; ix-twoTI bikev.uy ;ind roadway along ;rajor/pri;;ury artei'ials. 13. Strcjot licjr.t.-;, hycrarits, etc., acccn::odati.d within j-oVud 10' aren. ' 14. O:.'^-'.>-.y txaitic on each shoulder, no oarkir.i;. Sc'pjrution fran traific lane varies free1. 6" white line to 2' island. 15. sicii.-'.'.aik o;. cx'.c'r. s^de except on sin'/le load'\3 titxe-eta. 16. Mir.i,-;:u;r. clear ur.oa: true tod width - 4' re-si-J-^^.tial aroas, 5' in commercial and indu^urial areas (excludes curb too vidth, fire hydrants, light polos/ transformers, etc.) ivS7L' - T.-X3SC are sUir^Lords, applicable primarily to newly developing areas without unusiul terrain problor^. In difficult terrain ar.u in elder v.evclo:x:d areas where flexibility is lest, they nicy represent only desirable coals which th-_- Example: Residential trip generation Single-family = number of units x trip generation factor = 400 units x 10 trips per unit 4,000 trip's Multifamily = number of units x trip generation factor = 120 units x 6.1 trips per unit = 732 trips Commercia! trip generation = thousands of square feet x trip generation factor = 10 x 40.0 (assuming commercial space is a freestanding retail store) 400 trips Industrial trip generation = thousands of square feet x trip generation factor = 250 x 7.3 (assuming industrial development is an industrial park) 1,825 trips Total trips generated by development = 6,957 trips per day Using an approved assignment and distribution methodology, the trips are "placed" onto the existing or proposed street networks. If peak hour volumes are greater than 70 percent of the road capacity, then Benchmark • I is reached. Drainage The determination of drainage facility needs resulting from a particular development should be based on an assessment of the runoff that the proposed development is likely to cause. The Rational Method and Design Procedure described in the City's Master Drainage Plan should be used to evaluate development proposals and to determine facility requirements. The Rational Method is Q = CiA Where: Q = peak discharge in cubic feet/second C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless) i = rainfall intensity in inches per hour A = tributary drainage area in acres Physical Admin is trot ion Foe i lit ies Determination of physical administration facility space requirements is based on the anticipated number of employees and their individual space requirements at target populations rather than with a population-based formula. The two target populations are those identified in the SUA, Inc. report. Since the report was adopted by the City Council, it was assumed here that the space requirements are an adequate depiction of what would actually be needed, with the exception of those indicated for law enforcement. APPENDIX E PERSONS CONSULTED ( INTERVIEWS, MAY 16th to JUNE 12, 1980. Water Greer, Roger W. Director of Utilities ond Maintenance, Carlsbad City Water District. Hollensworth, Mr. Olivehain Water District. Kubota, Jack. Costa Real Municipal Water District. McKay, Jim. General Manager, San Marcos County Water District. Meadows, William C. General Manager, Costa Real Municipal Water District. Ogden, Buc A. Assistant Engineer, San Diego County Water Authority. Ross, Paul. Associate Planner, Public Facilities Division, Growth Management Department, San Diego County Planning Department Sewer Evan, Les. City Engineer, City of Carlsbad. Hubka, Vern. Growth Management Department, San Diego County Planning. Department. Reid, Dennis M. District Manager, Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Wilson, Karen. Secretary to District Manager, Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. t Police Protection Kellogg, Gene. Captain, Carlsbad Police Department. Rossall, Wally. Captain, Carlsbad Police Department. Fire Protection Thompson, James. Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department. Mr. West. Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department. Street (Circulation) Dossey, Larry C. Principal Civil Engineer, City of Carlsbad. Sargeant, Bob. Traffic Engineer, Oceanside. Stracher, Bill. Traffic Engineering Consultant to the City of Carlsbad. Drainage Allen, Richard H. Principal Engineer, City of Carlsbad. Beckman, Ronald. A. Administration, Public Works, City of Carlsbad. Schools ' Larson, David. Superintendent, San Marcos Unified School District. Dr. Phillips. Superintendent, San Dieguito Unified School District. Mrs. Reader. Office of Business Management, Encinitas Union Elementary School District. Mr. Roberts. Superintendent, Encinitas Union Elementary School District. Parks and Recreation Bradstreet, David. Director, Parks and Recreation Duncanson, Douglas. Parks Superintendent. Library Cole, Georgina D. Library Director, Carlsbad Library. Hoder, Bobbie. Administrative Assistant, Carlsbad Library. Physical Administration Facilities Aleshire, Frank. City Manager. Greer, Roger. Director, Utilities/Maintenance Division. Mannen, Frank. Assistant to City Manager. Finance Bagley, Lynn. U.S. Congressman John Burton's Office. Baldwin, Bill. Assistant City Manager, Carlsbad. Elliott, Jim. Director, Finance Department, City of Carlsbad. Feria, Rick. San Diego County Assessor's Office, Property Tax Department. Hearing, JoAnne. Board of Realtors, Carlsbad. Lewis, Chuck. Executive VP, Diametrics. Little, Susan. State Assemblyman Filante's Office. Mr. Miller. Assessor's Office, Carlsbad. Rowlen, Frank. Assistant Finance Director, City of Carlsbad. Mr. Zwart. San Diego County Assessor's Office. Population and Development Trends City Planning Department: Hagaman, Jim. Director Hageman, Tom. Fioro, Kent. Crosthwaite, Joyce. Comprehensive Planning Organization: Alexander, Rick. Shaef fer, Stuart. Brown, Don. Chamber of Commerce, Carlsbad. California Association of Realtors, Los Angeles. Graph, Betty. Project Planner, City of Oceanside. Gosh, Tapas. Hicks, Jim. Caldwell Banker. BIBLIOGRAPHY Water PRC Toups Corporation. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Technical Support Paper — Public Works, for California Coastal Commission, I960. Sewer Brown and Caldwell. Phase III Enlargement and Upgrading of Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities, for Encina Joint Powers Regional Sewage Agency, 1975. Lowry Associated. Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan Study, for City of Carlsbad, 1979. Montgomery Engineers, Inc. Environmental Impact Report and Facilities Plan for a Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, for City of Carlsbad, 1978. PRC Toups Corporation. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Technical Support Paper Public Works, for California Coastal Commission, I960. Recon. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan, for City of Carlsbad, 1979. Police Protection Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 1977 and 1978. SUA Incorporated. Facilities Requirements Plan, City of Carlsbad, California, January I 978. Fire Protection Carlsbad Fire Department, Goals and Objectives, January 10, 1980. Carlsbad Fire Department. Interoffice Memo: Capita! Improvements for Future Fire Protection. Gage-Babcock and Associates. Report on Cost/Effectiveness Study and Growth Plan for Fire Defenses, December 1973. Hammer, Mark J. Water and Wastewafer Technology, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1975. Street (Circulation) City of Carlsbad. Beach Parking Study, 1979. City of Carlsbad. A Public Facilities Fee for the City of Carlsbad—An Analysis, July 1979. Lampman and Associates. City of Carlsbad—General Plan Circulation Element, for City of Carlsbad, May 1975. ' National Academy of Sciences. Highway Capacity Manual, 1978. PRC Toups Corporation. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Technical Support Paper - Public Works, for California Coastal Commission, 1980. Parks and Recreation City of Carlsbad. General Plan—Parks and Recreation Element, February 1975. City of Carlsbad. A Public Facilities Fee for the City of Carlsbad—An Analysis, July 1979. Hawkins, Fred. "Justifying the Grounds Maintenance Dollar," Western Landscaping News, October I 978. Peterson, James A. and Richard J. Schroth. Guidelines for Evaluating Public Parks and Recreation, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University. PRC Toups Corporation. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Technical Support Paper — Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities, March for . California Coastal Commission, 1980. Library Carlsbad Library. A. New Children's Library in Carlsbad—Do We Really Need It? April 1975. Cole, Georgina. Exhibit "A" (memo to City Manager from City Librarian - Re: Library Master Plan), November 1977. Holt, Raymond. Matching User Needs, A Master Plan for the Carlsbad City Library, March I 973. Holt, Raymond. Moving Ahead: Master Plan II for the Carlsbad City Library, August 1978. Lushington, Nolan and Willis N. Mills. Libraries Designed for Users, New York: Gaylord Professional Publications, 1979. Wheeler, Joseph L., and Herbert Goldhor. Practical Administration of Public Libraries, New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Drcjriage VTN. Master Drainage Plan, for City of Carlsbad. Physical Administration Facilities SUA, Inc. Facilities Requirements Plan, for City of Carlsbad. Miscellaneous County of San Luis Obispo