HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Report of the Citizens Committee to Study Growth; 1989-01-01REPORT OF THE
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
JANUARY, 1989
MEMBERS
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT CAGGIANO, VICE-CHAIRMAN
TOM ERWIN
MATT HALL
MARY ANN IZNER
ELAINE LYTTLETON
JAMES MCCORMICK
STAFF
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PHIL CARTER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
CHARLIE GRIMM, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
STEVEN C. JANTZ, ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER
BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER
BOBBIE HODER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
ANN FERGUSON, WORD PROCESSOR/MINUTES CLERK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
APPENDIX 1
CIRCULATION REPORT 8
DWELLING UNIT/POPULATION REPORT 46
OPEN SPACE REPORT 64
WAS TEW AT ER TREATMENT REPORT 71
WATER RECLAMATION REPORT 77
APPENDIX 2
LETTERS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS 97
BACKGROUND
The formation of this committee was in direct response to the recommendations
made by the Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. This 25 member citizens committee met between January and June
of 1985 to review the land use element of the City's General Plan. The committee
made numerous recommendations, one of which was to appoint an ongoing citizens
committee to study the impacts of growth.
The specific recommendation made by the 25 member citizens committee was as
fol1ows:
"Appoint a citizens committee of seven to study and assess the
impacts of growth in Carlsbad and to keep the citizens informed of
the facts. In January of each year, hold a public hearing with the
Council based on an annual staff report containing data on increases
in population, dwelling units, traffic, crime; on the availability
of cost of city services including water; on the economic health of
the community and the industrial, commercial and tourist activity.
The focus will be on city services and the quality of life."
As a result of this recommendation and the specific requirements of the City's
Growth Management Program, the City Council on December 22, 1987 appointed a
committee of seven citizens to study and assess the impacts of growth in
Carlsbad.
INTRODUCTION
Much has happened since the Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan made its recommendation to appoint this committee.
In late 1985 the City Council decided to create a new comprehensive Growth
Management Plan. Most of the recommendations made by the 25 member Citizens
Committee to Review the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan have been
incorporated into the City's comprehensive Growth Management Program. In
November of 1986 the City's Growth Management Program was placed on the ballot
and ratified by the citizens of Carlsbad.
The Citizens Committee to Study Growth held its first meeting in April of 1988.
This committee has continued to meet on a monthly basis through January of 1989
and has completed its work as directed by the City Council.
CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE
The original recommendation to form a citizens committee was made prior to the
Growth Management Program being developed and implemented, therefore the
Citizens Committee to Study Growth was charged with Reviewing the City's Growth
Management Program to determine how it's working. Where the Committee felt it
to be appropriate, they were directed to suggest changes or modifications to
refine the program.
-1-
PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE
As a result of the Committee's charge, a great deal of time was spent reviewing
how the Growth Management Program was created and specifically reviewing each
of the components of the program. Staff provided the Citizens Committee to
Study Growth with a great deal of information to explain step by step how the
Growth Management Program was developed and how it is being implemented. They
were also provided with data on population and dwelling unit increases;
projections of future development and population patterns; and traffic
projections. At their initial meeting, the Committee received a verbal review
of City actions since the Land Use Review Committee met in 1985. The Committee
received information in the following areas as summarized below and copies of
the reports reviewed by the Committee are attached in Appendix 1.
May 16, 1988 - Circulation Report.
May 23, 1988 - Population/Dwelling Unit Report.
June 27, 1988 - Open Space Report.
August 17, 1988 - Wastewater Treatment Report.
November 18, 1988 - Water Report and Presentation by Ralph Anderson.
Following each of these staff reports, the Committee asked numerous questions
to obtain a better understanding of the topic being reviewed. It was through
these discussions that the Committee began to identify issues and to formulate
its recommendations to be made to the City Council. Attached as Appendix 2 are
letters from Committee members regarding these issues. Complete minutes from
each meeting are on record in the Planning Department. The Committee's
recommendations are contained in the following sections.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon all of the information received and reviewed by the Committee, the
following recommendations are being made to the City Council:
1. Dwelling Unit Limitation.
Recommendation:
That the City Council refer to the Planning Commission the task of
drafting a specific policy to be adopted by the City Council which
would create a formal procedure detailing the guidelines for how and
when to allocate any excess residential dwelling units in a
quadrant. If following the adoption of all the Local Facilities
-2-
Management Plans within that quadrant, additional residential units
remain below the Proposition E residential dwelling unit cap. Such
a policy could include the following criteria:
Density bonus required to comply with the State mandated
Housing Element Programs.
Allocation of dwelling units to properties proposing to change
from non-residential to residential based upon the following
findings:
a) The new property was zoned for other than residential
use on July 1, 1986.
b) The new property is compatible for residential use
without major mitigation.
c) The density of the new project does not exceed the
Growth Management Control Point for the original
project.
d) The density of the new project is compatible and does
not exceed the Growth Management Control Point of any
surrounding residential property.
Allocation of additional units in exchange for the provision
of some additional public facility not required as a part of
the development process as long as it is within the existing
density range.
The Committee also emphasized it should not be mandatory that excess
units be allocated if they become available. It would be acceptable
not to reach the ultimate residential dwelling unit caps established
by the adoption of Proposition E.
2. Circulation.
Recommendation No. 1:
That the City Council direct the Planning Commission to prepare and
adopt a formal procedure which would establish a system to require
developers along Circulation Element Roadways to offer the City an
irrevocable offer of dedication for all lands within the required
setback. This would ensure that if at some point in the future
additional right-of-way was needed to expand a circulation facility
that the land would be available to do so.
-3-
Recommendation No. 2:
The Committee feels it is important to emphasize that a greater
effort needs to be made in responding to specific concerns of
citizens regarding traffic safety issues and considering alternative
solutions in a timely manner.
3. Open Space.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council forward to the Citizens
Committee currently studying the City's Open Space Plan and
Programs, the following issues:
1) Should the use of powerline easements count toward the 15%
Growth Management performance standard open space;
2) Should the use of private or planned residential development
open space count to meet the Growth Management Performance
Standard;
3) Should residential lots be downsized in return for acquiring
public open space.
4. Water.
Recommendation:
That all available potable water sources and storage facilities
which service the City of Carlsbad should be inventoried and an
ongoing list maintained of water availability from each of these
sources and storage areas.
5. Water Reclamation:
Recommendation No. 1:
That the City continue to work toward completing its Water
Reclamation Master Plan and to begin developing programs to
encourage conservation through the use of increased education of the
citizenry.
Recommendation No. 2:
Following the completion of the Water Reclamation Master Plan, the
City Council should consider creating a specific standard to be
added to the Growth Management Program dealing with this public
facility.
-4-
6. Economic Study.
Recommendation:
That an economic analysis of the City's existing General Plan be
made as soon as possible to ensure that when the City is built out
needed funds will be available to maintain the high level of
services and facilities which the City is constructing through the
Growth Management Program.
7. Parks.
Recommendation:
That in Park Districts 2, 3, and 4 (the northeast quadrant,
southwest quadrant and southeast quadrant) that the City not count
joint use agreements or lease arrangements towards meeting the
City's Growth Management performance standard for parks.
8. Drainage.
Recommendation:
That the City Council direct staff as part of the current review and
update of the Drainage Master Plan to include a section which would
address the drainage runoff which goes into lagoons. Specifically,
that the City take measures to ensure that the necessary actions and
restrictions be made a part of the upcoming revised Drainage Master
Plan to avoid polluting the City's lagoons with run-off from
developed areas.
9. Solid Waste.
Recommendation:
That the City be cognizant of the fact that future solid waste
handling is the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad to determine
how to resolve and mitigate its own future solid waste while not
relying on other jurisdictions to take care of our demands.
10. Future of the Committee.
Recommendation:
It was recommended that a Citizens Committee to Study Growth be an
ongoing committee to reconvene twice a year and receive quarterly
reports to maintain an independent review of the City's Growth
Management Plan, to review growth patterns, to ensure compliance
with Proposition E, and to be available at any time during the year
to convene to review and address a new concern or issue arising as
a result of growth. It is further recommended that the City Council
-5-
re-appoint the current members of the Committee to serve this next
year due to the complexity of the information they have just
covered. This appointment and subsequent appointments should have
staggered terms of one (1) two (2) and three (3) years to provide
continuity to the membership of the Committee.
-6-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 16, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
SUBJECT: CIRCULATION
The purpose of this is to provide you an outline of the verbal
presentation which will be given at your May 23rd meeting.
CIRCULATION REPORT - OUTLINE
1. Circulation Standard
No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any
road segment or intersection out of the zone which is
impacted by development in the zone shall be projected
to exceed a Service Level C during off-peak hours, nor
Service Level D during peak hours. Impacted means
where 20% or more of the traffic generated by the Local
Facility Management Zone will use the road segment or
intersection.
In simple terms, the standard requires that at an
intersection during peak hours for a driver to sit
through no more than one complete cycle and during off-
peak hours to be able to pass through the intersection
during one single cycle. For road segments, the
calculation of Level of Service is more complicated and
is explained in greater detail in Exhibit "A" entitled
"Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of
Local Facilities Management Plan Transportation Impact
Studies".
2. Background Circulation Studies
The City has prepared three comprehensive traffic
studies which have all been incorporated into the
informational base for the Growth Management Program.
Each of these studies were conducted in order for the
City to predict future traffic impacts and needed
improvements. Each traffic study established a fee for
development as a basis for generating the necessary
funds to provide the improvements identified by these
studies. The fee established in each study was
determined by the potential future number of trips
generated by each type of development.
STAFF REPORT
May 16, 1988
Pacre 2
La Costa Traffic Impact Fee Study
The City Council adopted a Traffic Impact Fee
following a comprehensive study on May 6, 1986 for
the area shown on Exhibit "B".
Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District
The City Council on August 12, 1986 adopted a
Resolution establishing a bridge and thoroughfare
benefit district so that fees could be collected
to ensure that needed improvements could be made
at the 1-5 freeway at the interchanges of La Costa
Avenue, Poinsettia Lane and Palomar Airport Road.
The bridge and thoroughfare benefit district is
shown on Exhibit "C".
Northern Area Traffic Fee Study
The City Council approved an interim traffic
impact fee on July 8, 1986 for the northern two-
thirds of the City not covered under the La Costa
Traffic Impact Fee Study. The interim traffic
impact fee is still in effect for this area of the
City and the overall Citywide Traffic Impact Study
which will incorporate the La Costa Traffic Impact
Fee Study into this larger traffic study is still
underway by the Engineering Department. Exhibit
"C" shows the northern area traffic impact fee
area.
3. Local Facilities Management Zones 1-6
The information contained in each of the three
previously discussed traffic studies was used in
analyzing the impacts of traffic in the first six Local
Facilities Management Zones prepared by staff. In
essence each of these traffic analyses looked at three
conditions:
- Existing
Existing plus Committed, and
- Future
A discussion of how the analysis of traffic was
conducted for these zones will be discussed further at
your meeting.
STAFF REPORT
May 16, 1988
Page 3
4. Local Facilities Management Zones 7-25
Circulation Guidelines
In an effort to ensure that each of the traffic
studies and circulation sections prepared for the
Local Facilities Management Plans are consistent,
the City along with the assistance from several
traffic consultants developed a detailed and
comprehensive manual for preparing the traffic
analysis for Growth Management. Attached is
Exhibit "A" entitled "Guidelines and Instructions
for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management
Plan Transportation Impact Studies."
A complete discussion and overview of how the
circulation guideline manual was established and
how it is being implemented and used will be
discussed at your meeting.
5. Monitoring
The City is currently in the process of establishing a
request for proposals to conduct traffic counts at
numerous intersections throughout the City as well as
along major road segments. An up-date of the RFP
process will also be given during your meeting.
Attachments
1. Exhibit "A" - "Guidelines and Instructions for the
Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan
Transportation Impact Studies", dated February 9, 1988.
2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Impact Fee Areas
3. Exhibit "C" - Bridge & Thoroughfare District
10
EXHIBIT mAJ
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE
PREPARATION OF LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT STUDIES
Engineering & Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
February 9, 1988
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER SUBJECT PAGE
1 Introduction and Summary 1
2 Existing Traffic Criteria 2
3 Trip Generation and Peak Hour Criteria 3
4 Criteria For Identifying Impacted Road
Segments and Intersections 5
5 Criteria for Intersection Capacity and
Level of Service 8
6 Road Segment Capacities and Level of Service 10
7 Buildout Traffic Projections 13
8 Procedures for Phasing Analysis 14
9 Basis for Increases in "Background" Traffic . 19
10 Impact, Mitigation and Street Inventory
Analysis Requirements 21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX SUBJECT
Appendix 1 Growth Management Ordinance
Appendix 2 Intersection Capacity Analysis
Appendix 3 Series 6 Travel Forecast Projections
12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Local Facilities Management Plans are required to be prepared pursuant to the
City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program, Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. A copy of the ordinance is provided in Appendix 1.
Contents of each plan shall follow the outline established by Section 21.90.110
of the Growth Management Ordinance. In addition, plans shall be consistent
with and implement the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan adopted September
23, 1986 (CC Resolution 8797).
The purpose of this manual is to provide general guidelines and instructions
for the preparation of circulation chapters of Local Facilities Management
Plans. In addition, it is intended that an adequate circulation system be
implemented in order to provide a safe and efficient street system in response
to planned growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service (LOS). See
Page 9A and 12 for definitions of level of service.
This manual includes nine chapters in addition to this introductory and summary
chapter. In the following chapters, all aspects of preparing transportation
impact sections of Facility Management Plans are discussed. Documentation of
the criteria necessary for preparing the plans is provided.
13
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING TRAFFIC CRITERIA
Existing traffic volumes shall be obtained from one of the following sources:
1. The City's traffic count program (ADT volumes only).
2. Latest edition of SANDAG regional traffic flow maps. These counts are
obtained from the City's traffic count program and do not always
represent the latest traffic counts available.
3. The Barton-Aschman Traffic Impact Fee Study Report. This report,
which can be obtained at the City's front counter, contains peak hour
traffic counts and turning movements for most of the major existing
intersections in the City.
4. If existing traffic counts do not exist for a roadway link or
intersection or the existing information is deemed out of date by the
Traffic Engineer, the consultant may conduct their own field count.
In the case of ADT volumes the consultant may request that the City
update their counts or provide a count for a road segment that has
not been previously counted. The City's Traffic Engineer will determine
if such requests can be incorporated into the City's ongoing traffic
count program.
CHAPTER 3 - TRIP GENERATION AND PEAK HOUR CRITERIA
To calculate project average daily trip generation, peak hours and in/out splits,
SANOAG rates (July 1986 or later) shall be used. Figure A indicates the current
trip generation rates that are to be used for various land use types. The City
Engineer reserves the right to determine the appropriate trip generation rate
category when there are several alternatives to choose from.
Adjustment to daily trip generation calculations may be made to account for
internal/external splits. Adjustment for mixed use and multi-destination linked
trips are permitted. All adjustments, however, must be fully documented and
are subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
15
r aae-:s:= 9 a s a ssss S S 3=*S £££«««ee9ss =;;;*** *s*s* "' ( S !S 9 «ttt*ftfr »•« » «£ ;.1
ii;{
i v.I *.l 'Ii •. ;sJ»»
* -' - •„**.•
* I I »J|l
8 8«* * •II I » * *oa* —-=. a-Ssg s:• * a .• * € a o o 0 a a * * • * * H o * * * o -II ! ii! 1 H 111! iiilii iliiiifjilii
P
,1111 "
.|! i
4& Iti'?? -•l!'f?«|^H:Js|
• I ll£>illl:iii s fifrl\ i i
sI fillJJH
5 III
1II ill sii |
n i HI lii ^lll
i !?ijiniiiilJ. *nii
Hi' ill 8>iJ iiW"I11 Ii u :>«»«
1;;
i ?
!
i
QC
i
i
3 Os
0 Xu. >-
K O
10!,
= 5-,;
;i»'«
1
t*lII
-> i » ^
I'SHiJ Hi•* "*» Sill
Ii
I:
59iiil
i
i
sss sss
SSS S=2
£4£ llttl
sss t«s
i;
>s
I!:."?
I ^
1 Ii i!
i
•jit jjhi r
S 5
S S< ?
t S 9 9 ESSS99S
* * S S
SSS=S 9
3 9 * 99 sJ§ i § ii§i
! 8 J****
§ *:lll fisii
5?£5*o »u
- J It! 11. i.) ]iiiH|'Hli|!i]]iilj^ii»
~ t 1i ui o
^i
Hi
i !?
I -s °
?i
>3i
IIS0 .^)I T ff. u £
«¥ Si *S 3
O
16
CHAPTER 4 - CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING IMPACTED ROAD SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS
The performance standard for circulation reads as follows:
"No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any road segment or
intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the
zone shall be projected to exceed a service level C during off-peak
hours, nor service level 0 during peak hours. Impacted means where
twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facilities
Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection."
It is recognized that wording of this standard is subject to some interpretation.
Therefore, the City Engineer in conjunction with the Planning Department has
prepared the following clarification to the standard;
1. All road segments and intersections within and immediately adjacent
to the zone boundary shall be considered impacted by the zone at all
phases.
2. For the purpose of determining which intersections and segments are
impacted by 20 percent or more of the zone traffic, only external
traffic shall be considered. In other words, only trips into and out
of the zone are counted. Trips internal to the zone are not counted.
3. Impacts to the external roads and intersections shall be considered
during each zone phase. The circulation report for the zone should
provide impacted traffic maps by phase, similar to the included sample
maps.
4. Unless specifically requested by City staff, off-peak hour impacts
need not be considered. (See section discussing level of service
criteria).
The attached Figures B and C illustrate the preferred format for showing distribu-
tion percentages by phase.
17
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
B/B7
FIGURE B
PHASE 1
TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
PACIFIC KIM
U.S.A. INC.
18
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE
FIGURE C
PHASE 6 & 7
TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
8/87 U.S.A. INC.
CHAPTER 5 - CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTION CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Generally, levels of service (LOS) at signalized intersections will determine
how well a street system is expected to accommodate projected traffic flows.
In the following sections of this chapter, three alternative methods for determin-
ing intersection levels of service are discussed. Any of the three methods may
be used for determining a LOS for particular location and phase of development.
Method 1 - Generalized Procedure
This method is recommended for use in all cases in order to determine the general-
ized intersection LOS. For all intersections operating at LOS "A"-"C" when
determined from this method, no further analysis will be required. For each
intersections found to be operating a LOS "D" or lower, further analysis is
required.
Either manual or computer spreadsheet analysis techniques (see Appendix 2) may
be used for Method 1. The following criteria shall be used in determining the
LOS.
Method 1 - Generalized Procedure
Criteria Assumption
Peak hour percent 10%
Service volumes through lane 1700 VPHG*
Service volume turn lane 1500 VPHG
Service volume split phase 1600 VPHG (all lanes)
20
Alternative criteria Assumption
Service volume all lanes 1600 VPHG
and conditions
*VPHG - Vehicles per hour of green per lane
Method 2 - Heavy Demand Procedure
Intersections found to be operating at LOS "D" or lower are likely to be high
volume intersections at the crossing of two significant arterials, or at or
near freeway interchanges. For these locations, a more detailed procedure for
analysis is necessary using different criteria. The following criteria may be
used for heavy demand locations. The City Engineer reserves the right to certify
if a location is to be considered to be a heavy demand location.
Method 2 - Heavy Demand Procedure
Criteria Assumption
Peak hour percent 8%
Service volume through lane 2000 VPHG
Service volume turn lane 1800 VPHG
Note: Special signal phasing such as overlap or split phasing may be con-
sidered when using this procedure.
Method 3 - Empirical Procedure
This procedure is to be used when due to special circumstances, such as geometries
or close intersection spacing, an empirical method would provide better analysis
results. Actual measurements of service volumes may be used, however the recom-
mended practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers must be followed.
These types of studies and the LOS analyses based upon them must be performed
by or under the direct supervision of a registered Traffic Engineer.
21
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Uvtl of
Service
TRAFFIC QUALITY Nominal Range
of ICU (a)
B
Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted
by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear
with no vehicles waiting through more than
one signal cycle.
Operating speeds beginning to be affected
by other traffic; between one and ten percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal
cycle during peak traffic periods.
Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and
30 percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
recommended ideal design standard.
Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods; often used as
design standard in urban areas.
Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an Inter-
section can accommodate; restricted speeds;
71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have
one or more vehicles which wait through
more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods.
Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages
of long duration; traffic volume and traffic
speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be
less than the volume which occurs at Level of
Service E.
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81- 0.90
0.91- 1.00
Not Meaningful
(a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various level of
service versus level of service E for urban arterial streets.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual. Highway Research Board Special Report 87,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1965, page 320.
22
CHAPTER 6 - ROAD SEGMENT CAPACITIES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The level of service determination for street segments shall be determined
using a two phased approach, as follows:
1. The first approach is to utilize the attached roadway segment level-
of-service chart (Table 1). This chart was prepared by the City in
cooperation with Weston Pringle and Associates and Urban Systems
Associates, Inc. The figures in the table were derived by assuming
Average Daily Traffic Volumes for the City's various roadway classif-
ications.
Using methods derived from the Highway Capacity Manual a range of
service levels was determined. This method provides a very generalized
approach for determining road segment levels-of-service and should be
used to broadly predict the timing of arterial upgrades. The minimum
level-of-service allowable using this approach is a C level. More
specific timing can be determined utilizing method 2 described below.
2. For existing roads with known geometries, traffic characteristics, side
friction influences and traffic volumes the second approach may be
utilized. This method is to analyze peak hour volumes in conjunction
with the appropriate Highway Capacity Manual methodology to determine
actual roadway levels of service. The minimum acceptable level of
service using this method is a D level.
23
oin nn ooof-«,t-CM o o om r* CMCM vo H•• *i •»CM VO HCM H iH8d" in"
o^fn^nin
s^r sin
in"n
O
CMCM
^CMCM
Oa\oo
^co
O^rCM
^nCM
oin o ovo r. ooin vo r*
o*»n
VOCM o"CM
O
(o
VO
Ii
8
vo VO
Table 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
ROADWAY SECTIONS
LEVEL OF NOMINAL RANGE OF
SERVICE VOLUME TO CAPACITY
RATIO
A Low Volumes; primarily free flow operations. 0.00-0.60
Density is low and vehicle can freely maneuver
within the traffic stream. Drivers can maintain
their desired speeds with little or no delay.
B Stable flow with potential for some restriction 0.61-0.70
of operation speeds due to traffic conditions.
Maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The
stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are
not subject to appreciable tension.
C Stable operations, however the ability to maneuver 0.71-0.80
is more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes.
Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail but
adverse signed coordination or longer queues cause
del ays.
D Approaching unstable traffic flow where small 0.81-0.90
increases in volume could cause substantial delays.
Most drivers are restricted in their ability to
maneuver and their selection of travel speeds.
Comfort and convenience are low but tolerable.
E Operations characterized by significant approach 0.91-1.00
delays and average travel speeds of one-half to
one-third the free flow speed. Flow is unstable
and potential for stoppages of brief duration.
High signal density, extensive queuing, or signal
progression/timing are the typical causes of the
delays.
F Forced flow operations with high approach delays at Not meaningful
critical signalized intersections. Speeds are reduced
substantially and stoppages may occur for short or
long periods of time because of downstream congestion.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209, Transportation Research
Board, 1985.
25
CHAPTER 7 - BUILDOUT TRAFFIC PROJECTION
Buildout traffic projections for the City shall be based upon the SATOAG Series 6
Constrained General Plan Model run completed in 1986 or the latest series run
available. This model run is subject to updating in the near future using the
Highway 78 corridor study and Series 7 projections. When this run is complete
and satisfactory to the City it will be utilized for buildout projections.
Some of SANOAG buildout model projections may have obvious flaws. These could
be due to model deficiencies or an inaccurate representation of traffic area
zones and their connectors. In such cases, the traffic engineering consultant
shall utilized good engineering judgement and make their best estimate of the
traffic assignment. Such deviations shall be noted in the traffic study and
all assumptions documented. The Engineering Department shall consider and
approve each such deviation on a case by case basis.
26
CHAPTER 8 PROCEDURE FOR PHASING ANALYSIS
Traffic circulation scenarios should be analyzed for the following conditions:
1. Existing
2. Year 1990
3. Year 1995
4. Year 2000
5. Buildout
The included phased circulation maps shall be utilized for the purpose of deter-
mining the arterial circulation system assumed to be in place for each time
phase. Each zone plan shall provide for assumed road segments which are impacted
by that zones' traffic. This provision shall be made even if the zone plan
traffic analysis does not indicate a need for the assumed road segment at a par-
ticular time phase. In such cases, the traffic consultant must petition the
City Engineer to have the phased circulation maps formally revised. The traffic
consultant shall submit a supporting traffic analysis which includes specific
provision for proposed development in impacted zones and adjacent areas.
Each phasing scenario shall provide level of service analysis for the impacted
roads and intersections. Where a deficiency is identified a mitigation
improvement shall be proposed. The proposed mitigation should in most cases be
adequate to handle the buildout condition. Subsequent phase analysis should
then assume installation of the mitigation has been completed.
27
OC;ANSII>€
sH 70 !
£*GO
SRll
;;•:
:$iMit$m:*-'(
twSfcaooNSm \
MONROE ST
It"
vw
A»U* HSDtOHD*.
::0:::-tA«OOW:::;.::;.;::
•k
••••^^^
A,
/
^
^>o
_ •.-••(
• •• ••. ""* € f ,'
• I."*
•
•r — •
t ;o
°r !r" :<* !O m ••..:• /. • • <» •
Sv-ftc> *< '— •x/°
t
•£
••
' CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS
/
/
/
/
•••«••
'•••%
••
/
^.°^fe ^'l'
PACIFIC OCEAN
AVENIDAENCINAS
*t^fo.^O. I AiRPOnr ,,1 -^^.flO
"><'-;.. l—-^*.-* I CAMINO^^-^.
^..^'VIDA
RO8LE
,poiNser;.
*jft
^
^i
^L»\» ••-
•ATIOUITO* LAOOI
^• • • .*..! • • • • ./••••*" '••••_ *•
. . \
^/ ALICANTE ROAD
tn ^'
>y*
^>X
r/
^
Ml SIGN
ESTANCIA :'
PHASED CIRCULATION 1990
OLIVENHAIN
RD
2 LANE
4 LANE
6 LANE 28
OCEANSIOE
VISTA
PACIFIC OCEAN
CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS
AVENIDAENCINAS
N
PHASED CIRCULATION 1995
2 LANE
4 LANE
6 LANE —~~29
QCEANsine
VISTA
PACIFIC OCEAN
CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS
AVENIDA ENCINAS
N
PHASED CIRCULATION 2000
2 LANE
4 LANE
6 LANE
30
QCEANsme
VISTA
PACIFIC OCEAN
CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS
>*•.. ++ MISION
* ""*r'tf-*\ ESTANC
AVENIDA ENCINAS
N
OUVENHAIN
RD
PHASED CIRCULATION BUILDOUT
31
CHAPTER 9 - BASIS FOR INCREASE IN BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
To determine future traffic projections,each zone traffic report shall assume a
background traffic volume increase of three percent compounded annually. In
addition the projected zone traffic growth shall be superimposed on the assumed
traffic growth predictions. In this way an approximate traffic growth rate of
six percent will be obtained.
The City Engineer may require higher projected volume increases on certain
regional arterials or where projected rates of growth are known to exceed the
assumed three percent rate. Appendix 3 included with this report presents the
SANOAG Series 6 Travel Forecast Projections which serve to justify the assumed
three percent yearly traffic increase.
32
CHAPTER 10 - IMPACT MITIGATION AND STREET INVENTORY ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
For each proposed mitigation the zone plan prepared shall provide a detailed
project description, diagram and cost estimate. The description shall briefly
explain the improvements to be made, major utility relocations, and right-of-way
acquisitions necessary. Each description shall be accompanied by a diagram of
the existing street conditions and the proposed improvements and right-of-way
acquisitions. The information to be included on the diagram is as shown on the
attached list of inventory requirements. Cost estimates shall be based on the
latest approved version of the City of San Diego cost estimates for bonding
purposes. Each cost estimate shall include provision for engineering, improve-
ments, utility relocations, grading, right-of-way acquisition, construction
traffic control and a 15% contingency cost.
33
INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR
EXISTING STREET INTERSECTIONS
A. Dimensions
1. Curb to curb width
2. Lane widths
3. Sidewalk width
4. Median width
5. Curb to right-of-way distance
6. Dimensions of islands; free right
7. Other details to adequately describe
B. Improvements
1. Edge: P.C.C. curb & gutter; A.C. berm; none
2. Sidewalk: P.C.C.; A.C.; none
3. Median: Raised, painted; Dirt; none
4. Wheelchair Ramps: Yes, no, location
5. Other improvements
Control
1. Lane Directions: Thru; left turn; bike; etc.
2. Signal; stop; yield; none
3. If signal, left-turn arrow?
D. Obstructions (within about 25')
1. Type: Slope, up or down; bldg.; other
2. Curb to obstruction distance
3. Length of obstruction
4. Utility equipment to be moved
5. Additional right-of-way required
\"
RESIDENTIAL
PASEO DEL NORTE
JfiL
RESIDENTIAL
fil
4*
D 10'
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
INTERSECTION vtu 35
SOUTHWEST. INC.
EMUINCEMS » flAKMmS ' iUBVtVOIIS • MSI AVtNWA CNCINAk. MJITE A. CAHUMAW, CA MM* Itltl UU|«ai
PASEO DEL NORTE
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
36
•UILDOUT CONDITIONS
vtu SOUTHWEST, INC.
ENdNUHk • CLANNtMt • tlMVEVOM
• Mil AVENIDA ENCINA*. WJITt A. CAMLSBAO. CA ttMt (tit) Ml 'Ma
r
NOTE - not included.
APPENDIX 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
37
APPENDIX 2w
T
'
•f
P
+»
d*>
#M»
A tUgftfojc Placate ami AddacuiigAw ---• -. ^^-
September 22, 1987
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
This letter contains an explanation of the Intersection Capacity Utilization
(ICU) analysis computer spreadsheet used by Weston Pringle and Associates.
The computer spreadsheet program is Lotus 123. Use of the spreadsheet requires
the Lotus 123 program and an IBM compatable computer with a minimum of 265K of
memory. The ICU spreadsheet itself requries only 45K of memory and many such
files can be easily stored and retrieved on a single 360K floppy disk.
Exhibits 1 and 2 contain the ICU spreadsheet printout. (The spreadsheet is best
printed out on a 11 x 8.5 paper as opposed to 8.5 x 11 letter size paper.)
Exhibit 1 contains the A.M. peak hour and Exhibit 2 contains the P.M. peak hour
ICU analysis printout. Both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour analysis are contained
on the same spreadsheet but are automatically printed out on separate pages. The
printout in Exhibit 2 is numbered from 1 to 24, each representing a different
column, row or item on the spreadsheet. The following numbered explanations
correspond to these numbers. The explanation of Exhibit 2 is directly
applicable to Exihibit 1 except for those areas that are interconnected, as
described below.
1. Lettered abbreviations for the 12 intersection turning movements.
2. Existing lane geometries. Input manually.
3. Proposed lane geometries. Input manually.
4. Existing capacity per lane. Computed automatically.
Turning movement capacity 1600vphg.
Through movement capacity 1700vphg.
Capacities are changeable,
5. Proposed capacity per lane. Computed automatically.
6. Existing intersection traffic volumes (manual intersection count
data). Input manually.
38
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SMITP 110 . nnicoTriM PAI
-2-
7. Estimated future intersection traffic volumes, other than project
(zone) volumes. Input manually.
8. Estimated project (zone) intersection traffic volumes. Input manually.
9. Volume/capacity ratio for existing volumes with existing intersection
geometries. Computed automatically.
10. Identification of critical north-south and east-west volume/capacity
ratios for existing volumes with existing geometries. Computed
automatically.
11. Volume/capacity ratio for existing plus "other" traffic volumes
with existing intersection geometries. Computed automatically.
12. Identification of critical north-south and east-west volume/capacity
ratios for existing plus "other" volumes with existing geometries.
Computed automatically.
13. Volume/capacity ratio for existing plus "other" plus project traffic
volumes with existing intersection geometries. Computed automatically.
14. Identification of critical north-south and east-west volume capacity
ratios for existing plus "other" plus project volumes with existing
geometries. Computed automatically.
15. Volume/capacity ratio for existing plus "other" plus project traffic
volumes with proposed (column 3) intersection geometries. Computed
automatically.
16. Identification of critical north-south and east-west volume/capacity
ratios for existing plus "other" plus project volumes with proposed
(column 3) geometries. Computed automatically.
17. North-south volume capacity ratio critical sums. Computed automatically.
18. East-west volume capaicty ratio critical sums. Computed automatically.
19. Intersection clearance factor. Set at .05, but values are chageable.
20. ICU value (north/west critical sums plus east/west critical sums plus
critical sums plus clearance valje.)
21. Level of Service. Computed automatically.
22. ICU spreadsheet file name. Input manually (automatically copied to
the A.M. peak hour spreadsheet.)
23. Project name. Input manually (automatically copied to the A.M.'peak
hour spreadsheet).
24. Intersection indentification (note directional notation). Input
manually (automatically copied to the A.M. peak hour spreadsheet).
39
-3-
We trust that this information will be of assistance. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP:hld
O >- H-
ac a.Ul ZK- UO ui 3-> 1* Sox a. *»Ul 4 >
ac
Ul »-z u
t- Ul CJ
0 >+ ac• a.x +Ul
C9z ee
— Ulf- ac CJ
X O >Ul +
u
t- Oto «s
XUl
PROJECTVOLUMEOTHERVOLUMEEXISTINGVOLUMEPROPOSEDCAPACITYC9 >-
1- O01 <— a.x <Ul U
COUla. zO <ac -ia.
C9Z
»- CO(O Ul— zX <Ul — 1
MOVEMENT« * • *oozooooooooz
* • * «t*-min-to »- KI o «- M
ooooo ooooo
* « • •
ooooo ooooo
« * # •in PJ co o -o •- co -j- co h-o «- o «- PJ «- o o «- ry
ooooo ooooo
o in o oin •- o >» »- •»K. in PJ « to PU
oomino in in oco co »- o r\j co o o co o>«-<M»-in>- •* O> >» -O CO
vfM^OfM^O in^«—
oofo«^^inc<j*BP<j<ofM*ri*)
oo >ooooooooOOVIOOOOOOOOIA
ooooooooooooooooo ooooo* pg ^ X) pg ^ pj >o <o rvj
ui ' ui
a: orUi Ik
^ni^^rwo-ni^^NO
iSSErfSSsiESiSS
r.o
fs.
o
Kl•O
O
^
o
H
Z
VI
_i
i-
aco
NORTH/SOI(
o
o
03
O
00
o
H
X
VI
o
t-
O£
O
EAST/UE!<\jV
o
0
00
N
UlZ
Ul
ICU SPEADSHEElinoo
8
o
ino
o
ino
o
n
Ul
ee
Ul
u
)
30 C
g o az
So "t- CD 0
3 H-
O VIv> ui a
to a3 3
• ^N - NORTHBOUNCE * EASTBOUND1 s 1 FFT T xc0
•oo
PJ
inin
*"
jj
o
H
Ul
>
U
i
:
c
« u: c_i 0 -
1 Ul >N 0
_J U• <
Sc
• CO -u-t- 3
• O u. z -1 H H
3f -
U
H
COO
CO
z
UlII
: -ii <
1 U
* DENOTES CRI1
O
h-<IM
ae o.ui xH- UO ui 3+ O• ae cjIU + >aeUl t-X U>- Ul U°0><f oe• o,
X +
Ul
u oeat ui
— X CJ
— O >x +
Ul
(9
H- Oto x.
Ul
PROJECTVOLUNEIUae xUl 3X -15§EXISTINGVOLUNEPROPOSEDCAPACITY(9 >-
t- U
— O.X <Ul U
IU
o <
0.EXISTINGLANESUl
IU
O
K. O »» Kl in «O CO <O O S.oozooooooooz« * • ••» o o» «- M PJ in ^J s. eo•- <M ^- O Kl »- in «- »- O>o o o <- o ooooo
* • « ••* O O> Kl O CM O <O K. CO«-•-»- ^ Kl ^- Kl »-•-•»
ooooo ooooo
0 •-•-•- CM •- •- O O r-
ooooo ooooo
o o o oin ^ in v co -»KI -» co in co K
o ui mo omooino ft o -o o r\j •- KI rj -*^•-moKi cocMo-inm
•O «» »- in in ^ in ^ »» o N.
oo -ooooooooootnoooooooocn
ooooooooooooooooo ooooo•« CM *> <O CM 4> <M <O -O (M«- Kl «- •- Kl »- K» «- »- Kl
Ul Ul
ae ae
Ik Ik
^M-^IMO-~-^CMO
i^^^^i55
OCM
CM
O
COCM
O
X
VI
I—
oeu
NORTH/SOt(
K.KlOO
O•o
0
•o
CM
H
X
iT CRITIC)IU
fxh
oo
I
Ul
IU
CU SPEADSHEE1inooino0
ino
ino
H
Ul
Z
ee
Ul
u
a
|l
>- e
O VU> u
W3•t
N « NORTHBOUNlF * FASTRnilMno•oKlCM
N.in
Oxin
*u
«a
CM
Xa
i ae
N
THROUGH, RIAI i?pnH U
•••- Ul
+ t-t- aU- 31
IU-J II
» VI
-I ai
j
jC» H
> Ul> a• ^
£: SERVICEriCAL NOVEHi> o —oe_1 UIU> in
IU Ul_1 t-0II ZUltn oo
APPENDIX 3
SERIES 6 TRAVEL FORECAST PROJECTIONS
Population
Household Dwelling Units
Daily Trips Per Capita
Total Person Trips
Average Auto Trip Length
Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled
Daily Auto Trips:
Driver
Passenger
Auto Occupancy -
Center City Work Trip
Daily Transit Riders
Percent Transit Rider
(Mode Split)
Total Daily
Daily Commercial Air
Passengers
Daily Commercial Air
Operations
1985
2.1M
0.7M
4.4
8.7M
7.4mi
43. OM
5.8M
2.2M
1.25
120,000
1.3%
21,900
278
1995
2.4M
0.9M
4.6
11. 1M
7.8mi
57. 7M
7.4M
2.8M
1.27
171,000
1.5%
34,200
345
2005
2.8M
1.1M
4.8
13. 2M
S.lmi
70. 3M
8.7M
3.5M
1.34
325,000
2.5%
46,600
425
1985-2005
% Increase
+34%
+57%
+9%
+52%
+10%
+64%
+50%
+59%
+7%
+190%
+91%
+113%
+53%
YEARLY
Increase
5J - 2.85%
20
5fl - 2.5%
20
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EXHIBIT "B"
NORTHERN AREA INTERIM
FEE
mm* AREA BOUNDARY
Clly ol CnHOta
\ \ \
\X
7 ^
JANUARY 1987
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
EXHIBIT 'C*
CANNON RD
POINSETTIA LN V
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Clly ol CarlitadGrowth Management frtjft
JANUARY 1987
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
May 23, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: DWELLING UNIT/POPULATION REPORT
Background
In December, 1985 as a result of a recommendation from the
Citizens Committee to Review the Land Use Element, the City
Council reduced the permitted residential density ranges in
the City. The reductions were as follows:
FROM TO
RL 0 to 1.5 0 to 1.5
RLM 0 to 4 0 to 4
RM 4 to 10 4 to 8
RMH 10 to 20 8 to 15
RH 20 to 30 15 TO 23
RVH 30 to 40 Delete
Subsequently, in May, 1987, the Council also passed an
ordinance which eliminated residential density credit for
environmentally sensitive or constrained lands.
In order to prepare the initial phase of the Growth
Management Plan; the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan, and to determine the impact of the density reductions,
staff made a projection of the number of dwelling units that
could be developed at the ultimate buildout of the City. The
methodology for preparing the projection was made part of the
Citywide Plan and is attached as Exhibit 1. Just by way of
comparison, the previous Land Use Element projected that
there would be 80,112 dwelling units in the City at buildout.
Under the Growth Management Plan, the projection was revised
to 54,599. Translating this to population estimates, the
previous Land Use Element estimated the buildout population
at 208,291 persons. Under the Growth Management Plan, the
estimate has been revised to 134,914.
Dwelling Unit Limitation
In July, 1986, the City Council decided to make the buildout
dwelling unit projection, including the quadrant breakdown,
part of the City-sponsored growth management initiative on
the November, 1986 election (Proposition E) . This was done
to lock-in the density reductions previously approved by the
Council and to provide an additional guarantee that the City
46
had adequately planned for needed public facilities on a
Citywide basis. Proposition E passed and the dwelling unit
projection became a dwelling unit limitation which cannot be
exceeded without a vote of the citizens. As part of the
preparation for the drafting of Proposition E, staff was
asked to confirm the dwelling unit buildout projection.
Because it was being proposed as a dwelling unit limitation,
more detailed assumptions and determinations had to be made.
Staff will explain the more detailed methodology to the
Committee and provide examples at the Citizens Committee
meeting.
Local Facilities Management Plans -
Confirming Dwelling Unit Projections
As part of the preparation of a Local Facilities Management
Plan for any of the 25 facility zones into which the City has
been subdivided, a more detailed analysis and buildout
projection of dwelling units is required. For example, a
1:200 scale map is used in the zone analysis to more
accurately identify environmentally-constrained areas and to
determine net acreage calculations in each density range.
When the Citywide Plan was prepared, a 1:1000 scale map was
used (5 times smaller). Because the Citywide and quadrant
dwelling unit projections were passed by the voters as a
limitation, it is essential that any inconsistencies be
identified before a zone plan is prepared. The buildout
projections from each zone plan must also be coordinated
with other existing and future zone plans so that the
quadrant dwelling unit caps are not exceeded. Staff will
have some exhibits available at the Citizens Committee
meeting which show the detailed analysis that is done for
each zone to make buildout projections and to confirm
compliance with Proposition E.
Update on Dwelling Unit Projections for
Local Facility Management Zones
Attached as Exhibit 2 to this report is the status on the
process of confirming buildout dwelling unit projections for
the 25 facility zones. The totals are:
Buildout Projection Confirmed - 17 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 2 Zones
Remaining - 6 Zones
25
Exhibit 2 also gives a quadrant-by-quadrant breakdown.
Although the numbers are "tight" in some areas of the City
and there has been a need to make some adjustments within and
between certain zones, staff has found that overall the zone
dwelling unit projections are consistent with those made when
the Citywide Plan was prepared. At this time, staff does not
believe that any additional Citywide restrictions on
permitted density will have to be made to comply with the
dwelling unit limitations of Proposition E.
Status of Dwelling Unit Development Activity
Exhibit 3 attached to this report provides some information
on how the Growth Management Plan has impacted dwelling unit
development activity. The chart on this exhibit shows a
comparison of the number of dwelling units issued from 1975
to 1987 and a projection for 1988 - 1990. The Growth
Management Plan was formally adopted in 1986. At that time,
a moratorium was placed on the issuance of building permits
for residential units except for those projects that had
already started construction or projects with final maps
(over 4,000 units). The projection for 1988-90 is staff's
best guess based on the number of zone plans approved, the
phasing schedules contained in the plans and the lead time
needed to take residential projects from approval to actual
construction.
As indicated on the chart, staff anticipates a significant
reduction in the number of dwelling units over the next few
years. Past that time, it is very difficult to estimate the
number of dwelling units that will be issued permits because
it depends on so many factors; market demand, state of the
economy, compliance with the facility performance standards
of the Growth Management Plan. Over a longer projection
period (i.e, 10-15-20 years) staff has estimated that the
number of building permits issued for dwelling units would
average-out to around 1,250 per year.
Exhibit 4 to this report contains a comparison of population
increases from 1980 to 1988. It is very difficult to compare
the results of this information directly with the information
on dwelling units issued for the following reasons:
1) Population estimates are based on dwelling units that
are occupied versus dwelling units for which permits are
issued and there can be a significant lag time between
the two.
2) Building permits for dwelling units issued are
identified at the end of the year while the population
estimates are for January 1 of the previous year.
3) The percent of population increase is a very relative
figure and depends primarily on the existing population
size of the City being analyzed. For example, a small
City could add 3,000 people and it would represent a 20%
increase in population while a very large City could add
30,000 people and it would only represent a 2% increase.
The information contained in Exhibit 3 shows that the number
of building permits for dwelling units has reduced
significantly over the past couple of years. In comparison,
Exhibit 4 confirms the principle that whenever a new
residential growth control measure is adopted by a City, it
usually takes 3-5 years to see a resultant reduction in
population increases.
arb
5/17/88
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION IV. BUILDOUT A S S U M P T I O N S A N D PROJECTIONS
In order to adequately assess and plan for Citywide public
facilities and services, it was necessary to project the level of
development that can be anticipated to the ultimate buildout of
the City. These projections take into consideration recent
ordinances adopted by the City which reduce residential density
and restrict the overall future intensity of development
throughout the City.
The process used to estimate the total number of dwelling units
in the City at ultimate buildout is relatively straightforward.
Using the City's General Plan map as a basis, all of the land
uses shown were entered into a computer by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) using a process known as
"digitizing." The computer converted this digitized information
into gross acres for each land use designation. Environmentally
constrained areas were also digitized and converted into acreage
figures in the same way. Constrained areas included slopes
greater than 25 percent; beaches, wetlands, floodways, other
water bodies, major roadways, railroad tracks, major power line
easements and riparian and woodland habitats. The primary
sources used in identifying these areas included previous
environmental impact reports prepared for projects throughout the
City and a Citywide slope analysis map. To obtain net
developable acres, all of the 100 percent constrained acres and
one-half of the areas shown as 25-40 percent slopes were
subtracted from the gross acreage figure for each land use
category. In this way, a net developable acreage figure could be
established for the overall City, for each quadrant of the City,
and for each of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones.
The net developable acreage figure was then multiplied by the
number of dwelling units allowed per acre using the City's
"Control Yield" density ranges, which are listed below:
Residential Land Use Control Yield
RL 1.0
RLM 3.2
RM 6.0
RMH 11.5
RH 19.0
The Control Yield densities represent either the midpoint of the
City's adopted density ranges or actual experience using existing
developments within each land use category.
By applying the Control Yield densities to the net developable
acreage figures, an estimate of the total number of dwelling
units at full buildout can be derived. To carry the process one
step further, the per capita household size data provided by the
50
State Department of Finance can be used to estimate buildout
population. The data indicate that the City of Carlsbad had an
average household size of 2.471 persons on January 1, 1986.
The same type of calculations were used to estimate the total
number of square feet of industrial and commercial land uses at
buildout. However, instead of residential density ranges, a set
of assumptions regarding site coverage for industrial and
commercial development was applied to the net developable acreage
figures. It was assumed that every net developable acre of
industrial/commercial, would result in a maximum square footage
yield of 40%.
The methodology described in the previous paragraphs was used to
provide a basis for determining the amount and types of public
facilities that will be needed to adequately serve the City at
buildout. However, it has a number of acknowledged short-
comings. For example, the digitizing process itself is not 100
percent accurate, and when applied to small geographical areas,
such as Local Facility Management Zones, some inaccuracies can
occur. A much more accurate means of providing the same
information would be via a parcel-level Geobase system, however,
such systems are very complex and require a substantially longer
time frame to implement. Therefore, concurrent with the
development of the overall Growth Management Program, the City
has begun work on developing such a Geobase system, which, at
some point in time will supplant the methodology described in the
previous paragraphs.
Likewise, the dwelling unit estimates at buildout represent a
straight conversion of acres to units, with no regard to the
number of units already existing or approved throughout the City.
This may result in inequities within certain zones where
development has previously occurred under less constraining
conditions or using higher density ranges than those represented
by the Control Yield. In those cases, remaining development will
have to occur at densities lower than the Control Yield figure.
Despite these recognized shortcomings, the approach and
methodology used within the Cityw-ide Facilities and Improvements
Plan has been found to be quite adequate for the purpose to which
it was intended, namely long-range facility planning. Therefore,
until the parcel-level Geobase system described earlier is
implemented, this approach will be used to provide the baseline
estimates needed for both mid-term and long-term facilities
planning.
Other planning assumptions used in preparing the Citywide
projections included:
1. Dwelling unit projections do not include any density
increases for special housing projects such as senior or
low income projects.
51
2. Hotel, motel, time-share, board and care, and housing
units without individual kitchen facilities which do not
qualify as dwelling units in the building code were not
considered as units for the purpose of dwelling unit
calculations.
3. Likely changes to the City's Land Use Plan from a
residential to non-residential use.
The projection made for the total number of dwelling units in the
City at ultimate buildout has been translated into a Density
Control Map (see Figure 3). The map shows existing, future and
remaining dwelling units for each quadrant of the City.
Figure 4 (Citywide Acreage Information) shows the number of acres
in each land use category which was used to make the Citywide
projections for ultimate buildout.
Figure 5 (Projected Dwelling Units and Population at Buildout)
shows how the acreage was converted into projected dwelling unit
and population totals.
Figure 6 (Dwelling Unit Summary) provides a summary of existing,
approved and remaining dwelling units in the City.
The information regarding buildout projections and assumptions is
needed to determine the required demand for public facilities and
services as growth occurs. The methodogy for projecting dwelling
units at buildout, a "control yield*, follows the procedure which
has always been used by the City in implementing the density
ranges of the Land Use Plan. It is important to formalize this
procedure as part of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan since the projection has been translated into ultimate
demand for public facilities and services. If the "control
yield" is not closely adhered to, then the planned facilities and
improvements may not be adequate.
52
MA*«0»Ltr
NORTHEAST QUADRANT
DWELLING UNITS
EXISTING
FUTURE
2.209
«. 166
8.439
FIGURE 3
DENSITY CONTROL
SEPTEMBER 16, 1986
NORTHWEST QUADS ANT
DWELLING UNITS
EXISTING
FUTURE
CANNON NO
POIN8ETTIA LN
10.133
8.844
18.977
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
0 WELLING UNITS
EXISTING
FUTURE
2.192
10.867
12.859
LA
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
DWELLING UNITS
EXISTING
FUTURE 8.327
10.801
17.338
. MCLftOSEAVB
53 City of Carisbad
SEPTEMBER 16, 1986
FIGURE 4
CITYWIDB ACREAGE INFORMATION
GENERAL PLAN .
LAND USE DESIGNATION GROSS
100%
CONSTRAINED
25%-40%
SLOPE NET
RESIDENTIAL:
RL
RLM
RM
RMH
RH
Low (0-1.5)
Low-Med (0-4)
Medium (4-8)
Med-Hi (8-15)
High (15-23)
1,824
7,935
2,638
1,231
243
270
710
184
110
8
379 1,364
660 6,895
156 2,375
79 1,081
5 233
COMMERCIAL :
CBD
C
N
RC
TS
0
RRE
RRI
RS
Central Bus Dist
Community
Neighborhood
Recreation
Travel Services
Prof'l 6 Related
Extensive Retail
Intensive Retail
Regional Service
70
321
49
108
191
333
32
119
39
0
41
11
30
31
80
0
5
0
70
280
38
78
160
253
32
114
39
INDUSTRIAL:
PI
OTHER:
E
J
H
HC
P
G
U
NRR
OS
RR
FW
MAJ
MIN
COL
Planned Ind
Elementary School
Jr. High School
High School
Continuation School
Private School
Government Facility
Public Utilities
Non-Res Reserve
Open Space
Railroad
Freeway
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector St
2,175
200
79
202
4
17
268
158
382
4,398
117
213
525
510
541
148
9
0
10
0
0
0
19
2
2,078
117
213
525
510
541
2,027
191
79
192
4
17
268
139
380
2,320
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL 24,920 5,652 1,279 18,629
City of Carlsbad
SEPTEMBER 16. 1 986
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Projected Dwelling Unit and Population at Buildout
LAND USE
RL
RLM
RM
RMH
RH (& RVH)
NON-RES
NET
ACRES
1,364
6,895
2,376
1,081
233
6,680
18,629
CONTROL
YIELD
1
3.2
6
11.5
19
D.U.s at
BUILDOUT
1,364
22,065
14,252
12,430
4,488
54,599
POPULATION
at BUILDOUT
3,371
54,522 i
35,218
30,713
1 1,090
134,914
ASSUMPTIONS
1) PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT 2.471 AS PER
THE STATE DEPT. OF FINANCE
55 City of Carlsbad
FIGURE 6
SEPTEMBER 16. 1986
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DWELLING UNIT SUMMARY
EXISTING
39%
REMAINING
42%APPROVED
19%
EXISTING
APPROVED
REMAINING
BUILDOUT
21,121
10,298
23,180
54,599
56 City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 2
MAY 17, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: Planning Department
UPDATE OH DWELLING UNIT PROJECTIONS FOR LOCAL FACILITY
MANAGEMENT ZONES
Attached Exhibit "A" shows the zones where the buildout
dwelling unit numbers have been confirmed and those zones
which have submitted projections which are in the process of
being confirmed. The totals are:
Buildout Projection Confirmed - 17 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 2 Zones
Remaining - 6 Zones
Attached Exhibit "B" shows the buildout dwelling unit numbers
for the zones which have been confirmed:
A breakdown by quadrant is as follows:
NORTHWEST QUADRANT
I. Zone Status
Confirmed Projection - 5 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 1 Zone
Remaining - None
II. Total Dwelling Units Confirmed and Remaining
Zone 1 - 12,220
3 - 252
5 - 0
8 - 1,225
24 - 443
SUBTOTAL - 14,140
Remaining Per Prop. E - 1.837
TOTAL - 15,977
57
NQRTTTRAST QUADRANT
I. Zone Status
Confirmed Projection - 2 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 1 Zone
Remaining - 3 Zones
II. Total Dwelling Units Confirmed and Remaining
Zone 2 - 2,578
Zone 7 - 2.337
SUBTOTAL - 4,915
Remaining Per Prop. E - 3.520
(Zones not yet confirmed)
TOTAL - 8,435
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
I. Zone Status
Confirmed Projection - 5 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 0 Zone
Remaining - 2 Zones
II. Total Dwelling Units Confirmed and Remaining
Zone 4 - 3,065
Zone 6 (portion) - 599
Zone 9 - 894
Zone 19 - 3,270
Zone 20 - 2,491
Zone 22 - 866
SUBTOTAL - 11,185
Remaining Per Prop. E - 1,674
(Zones not yet confirmed)
TOTAL - 12,859
58
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
I. Zone Status
Confirmed Projection - 5 Zones
Pending Confirmation - 0 Zones
Remaining - 1 Zone
II. Total Dwelling Units Confirmed and Remaining
Zone 6 (portion) - 8,589
Zone 10 - 633
Zone 11 - 3,595
Zone 12 - 1,888
Zone 18 - 2.094
SUBTOTAL - 16,799
Remaining Per Prop. E - 529
(Zones not yet confirmed)
TOTAL - 17,328
Attachments: Exhibits "A" & "B"
59
EXHIBIT 'A*
EXHIBIT A
BUILDOUT PROJECTION CONFIRMED
BUILDOUT PROJECTION PENDING CONFIRMATION
60
air <x CoiibiaGrowin Mvugtmw* Pioyim
-M-/ ' 1 v
JANUARY 1987
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLANS
EXHIBIT "B*
443
ZONE:
866
EXHIBIT B
CONFIRMED BUILDOUT DU'S
1-12,220
2- 2,578
3- 252
4- 3,065
5- 0
6- 9,188
7- 2,337
8- 1,225
9- 894
10- 633
11- 3,595
12- 1,888
18- 2,094
19- 3,270
20- 2,491
22- 866
24- 443
Clly of ClrtlMO
61 \\
JANUARY 1987
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLANS
EXHIBIT 3
Q
UJ
D
CO
CO
D
_j
<
LJo
CQ
in
CD
00
O
<N00
°°.
CN
en
COcq
CN"
O
O
CD
00
CD
uO
CM
O
rOCO
O
OO
CN
O
O
CN
into
CM
CDCO
CD-^
00
CD
CO
OCD
CD
00
00
CO
00
CO
CO
LD
00
00
oo
CN
CO
CO
o
CO
CD
in
d
o
CD
Ico
CO
o:LJ
0.
00
LJo;
Q
LJ
I—
O
LJ
-O
Oo:o_
01o:<
LJ
(spuosnoL(j_)
62
EXHIBIT 4
CO
00
unUoQ.
LU
CO
LUo:
CJ
O
o_o
CL
LU
O
LU
(J
LU
Q_
IT)
O
LO
Ocn
ro
O
00
cr>
LO
CDoq
CM"
LO
00
00
00
CO
00
LO
00
co
rO
00
00
oo
o00
cr
bJ
ia
UJ
It-
CD
D
Z
tnro<u
oc
3aoa.
ra0)
O
63
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 27, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: Planning Department
OPEN SPACE REPORT
Background
As part of the Land Use Element Review of 1985, the Citizens
Committee passed a motion that there was adequate open space
designated in the General Plan. At that time, the General
Plan Map designated approximately 4,500 acres as open space
or less than 20% of the total land area in the City.
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that there was
not adequate open space designated in the Plan.
The City Council eventually supported the minority opinion
and as part of the Growth Management Plan, a series of new
open space ordinances, requirements and standards were
adopted. As a result, the amount of open space will almost
double (to approximately 40%) from what the General Plan Map
showed when the Citizens Committee reviewed the Land Use
Element in 1985.
Open Space Provisions of Growth Management Plan
As a result of the Citizens Committee recommendations, the
following open space standards and requirements were adopted
and incorporated into the Growth Management Plan.
1. Open Space Ordinance - Restricts the development of
certain environmentally-sensitive, open space lands
including beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways,
steep slopes, wetlands, riparian and woodland habitats
and other significant environmental areas as identified
in the environmental review process. Prohibits density
credit for these lands.
2. Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard-
Requires an additional 15% of the total land area in
each undeveloped facility management zone to be set
aside for permanent open space. The 15% cannot include
any environmentally-constrained land. Examples of the
areas which would qualify for meeting the 15%
requirement would include greenbelts, pocket-parks,
trails, increased setbacks along scenic corridors, and
open space links between environmentally-sensitive
areas. The 15% also cannot include required community
parks or school playgrounds.
64
JUNE 27, 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 2
3 . Hillside Ordinance - Greatly restricts the amount of
grading that can be done on hillside property. Limits
the .overall volume of grading (maximum 10,000 cubic
yards per acre) , the height of cut and fill slopes
(maximum 30 feet) and the design of the grading
(contouring, building setback from canyon ridges) .
Prohibits development of 40% slopes. Requires a
Hillside Permit for any project proposed on hillside
land (15% or greater slope).
4. Natural Resource Inventory - Shows the generalized
location of significant natural resource lands in the
City. The inventory map is to be used as a tool for
planning future open space areas, for identifying
environmentally-sensitive lands and for updating the
open space section of existing Master Plans.
5. Revised Planned Development Ordinance - Requires all
Planned Residential Development (PRO) projects to
provide 200 square feet of common open space area per
dwelling unit for recreational purposes. This
requirement applies to residential projects that have
smaller lots or attached single family units. Because
the City does not know how many of these types of
projects will be proposed in the future, open space land
resulting from this requirement has not been included in
any of the estimates for total projected open space in
the City.
6. Residential Park IrT'fl Dedication — Increased the
requirement for park land dedication from 2h acres to 3
acres per 1000 population. In addition, requires total
park land dedication to be made with the first final map
in a Master Plan area rather than incremental
dedication.
7. Industrial Park Tvind Dedication — Requires developers in
the City's industrial corridor to construct or fund an
open space area(s) to provide recreational facilities
for the employees working in the corridor.
In developing the new open space provisions of the Growth
Management Plan, considerable thought went into how open
space could be increased without requiring the citizens of
Calrsbad to have to condemn, acquire or purchase otherwise
developable, privately-owned property. The first two
provisions listed above (1 Open Space Ordinance and 2 Open
Space Performance Standard) are the key to addressing this
issue. The Open Space Ordinance restricts the use of
environmentally-constrained areas and no density credit is
given. Most property owners understand and agree that these
65
JUNE 27, 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 3
areas should be restricted from development. The Open Space
Performance Standard requires an additional 15% of land to be
set aside for open space purposes. Because this cannot be
environmentally-constrained land and is otherwise entirely
developable, density credit is given. The density credit for
this 15% additional land area was calculated into the
dwelling unit limitation of Proposition E approved by the
voters .
Local Facilities Management Plans
Open space was determined to be an essential public facility
under the Growth Management Plan just like the other
facilities (i.e, sewer, water, circulation). As such, the
Facilities Management Plans for each one of the 25 zones into
which the City was divided must address open space. In
preparing the Facilities Management Plans, two open space
items are addressed: 1) The environmentally-constrained
areas which are restricted from development and excluded from
density calculations are more precisely identified. This is
done using a detailed 1:200 scale map; 2) the zone plan must
show how the 15% additional open space performance standard
will be met as development occurs.
General Plan Map
The City's General Plan map shows the generalized boundaries
of presently designated open space areas. The map is not
meant to reflect precise boundaries of open space areas and
does not include all the future open space areas that will
result from the open space provisions of the Growth
Management Plan. Many of the areas will be revised and
expanded as part of meeting the Growth Management Open Space
Performance Standard or as part of the City's program to
update all the existing master plans.
of Increased Open Space As a Result of
Growth Management Plan
The three most recently approved Local Facilities Management
Plans provide examples of a comparison of the amount of open
space previously-designated on the General Plan Map and what
was actually required under the new open space provisions of
Growth Management. The three zone plans are Zone 11 (La
Costa Southeast) , Zone 12 (La Costa Southwest) and Zone 19
(Hunt) . Exhibits A, B and C (attached) show an acreage
comparison of what was designated on the General Plan (G.P.
Map) and what was required as part of the approved Local
Facilities Management Plans (G.M.P.) for these three zones.
66
JUNE 27, 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 4 __^_^__
For the three zones taken together, the total acreage is as
follows:
G.P. Map
743 Acres
G.M.P
1,850 Acres
Increase
1,107 Acres
Citwide Open Space Projection
As a result of the Citizens Committee Review of the Land Use
Element in 1985 and the subsequent open space provisions of
the Growth Management Plan, staff has estimated that
approximately 10,000 acres or 38*5% of the total land area in
the City is projected to be set aside for open space uses.
There are approximately 25,600 acres in the City. The
projected open space acreage projections are as follows:
II,
III.
Presently shown on General Plan Map -
(Exclusive of environmentally-
constrained land)
Constrained Land
15% Performance Standard
IV. Parks and Special Use Areas
Total
2,078 Acres
- 3,863 Acres
- 2,856 Acres
- 1.094 Acres
9,891 Acres
arb
Attachments:
Exhibits "A", "B" & "C"
67
EXHIBIT A
n -
a.
2
O
o,'""*'oo
c
•^
>•>
1
ooCO
'
ooiCi
I
oo
Tj-
1 '
o oo oi~o r-j
o co
—
68
k '•-
EXHIBIT B
<
K
\ \ X
N '•
\
o o c aCN —
69
EXHIBIT C
< o
o I
<
LJ 2
CJ £
< t
G.
2
O
; 3 o u o s n o u i )
70
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 17, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment for the City of Carlsbad is provided at the Encina Water
Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The Encina WPCF began operations in September
of 1965. The original primary treatment capacity was 4.5 million gallons per
day. Primary treatment capacity was increased to 13.75 million gallons per day
during the three major enlargement phases referred to as Phase I, II, and I la.
After the completion of the Phases III and Ilia, the Encina WPCF has capacity
to treat 22.5 million gallons per day. Ultimately this facility will be able
to treat up to 45 million gallons per day. The Encina WPCF was first designed
to be built out in five separate phases with the first three phases already
complete and Phase IV is projected to start construction in August of 1989 and
to be completed by the end of the year 1991. The Phase IV expansion would allow
Encina to treat up to 36 million gallons per day.
OWNERSHIP OF ENCINA WPCF
Ownership as well as wastewater treatment capacity of the Encina WPCF is shared
on a percentage basis by six independent sewer districts. As shown on the chart
below, the six sewer districts which provide wastewater treatment to their
respective sewer service areas on limited treatment capacity at the Encina WPCF
as well as capacity in the smaller, localized satellite treatment facilities.
71
TREATMENT CAPACITY OWNERSHIP
Agencies Percent Ownership Available Capacity (MGD)
Vista 30.00 6.75
Carlsbad 25.40 5.716
Buena 4.59 1.034
San Marcos 17.78 4.00
Leucadia 16.67 3.75
Encinitas 5.56 1.25
100.00 % 22.50
The Board of Directors for the Encina WPCF is comprised of two representatives
from each of the six agencies within the Encina sewer service area. This group
is called the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC). The members of this Board which
represent each agency is Chaired by two City Council members from those agencies.
TREATMENT AND OUTFALL CAPACITY
Capacity at the Encina WPCF is separated into two categories: treatment capacity
and outfall capacity.
TREATMENT CAPACITY
Treatment capacity at the Encina WPCF is regulated by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems Permit (NPDES). This permit regulates the
allowable treatment capacity and ocean outfall capacity for the six agencies
within the sewer service area. Currently, this permit allows for 22.50 MGD of
72
liquid and solids treatment and up to 27.45 MGD of ocean outfall. The reason
for the increase in the ocean outfall allows for utilization of various satellite
treatment facilities within the Encina WPCF service area. The following chart
lists the agencies, the reclamation facility, and the current reclamation
capacities of these satellite treatment facilities.
Agency Reclamation Facility Current Capacity Ultimate Capacity
Buena Shadow Ridge
San Marcos Meadowlark 2.0 MGD 4.0 MGD
Leucadia Gafner 0.75 MGD 1.50 MGD
Carlsbad Calavera Hills 1.2 MGD 1.2 MGD
As mentioned previously, Phase IV construction is projected to begin in August
of 1989 and to be completed in the year 1991. The Phase IV expansion would
allow Carlsbad to increase its treatment capacity to 9.24 MGD which is
approximately 25.68% of the total capacity of the Encina WPCF. The Phase IV
expansion would also allow for increased treatment capacity for the other
agencies within the Encina sewer service area.
OUTFALL CAPACITY
The Encina Ocean Outfall is a drainage line which transports treated sewage from
the Encina WPCF as well as effluent from the various satellite facilities and
discharges approximately 8,900 feet into the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the Ocean
Outfall has capacity to transport approximately 40.5 MGD. The outfall is
projected to provide sufficient capacity for the six sewer districts to the year
2000. Outfall capacity just as treatment capacity is shared on a percentage
73
basis by the six independent sewer service districts.
CALAVERA HILLS
The City of Carlsbad also holds title to the Calavera Hills Wastewater Treatment
Plant which has the capacity of 1.2 MGD. Construction of the Lake Calavera Hills
Water Reclamation Plant as it now exists was completed in 1981. Since that time
the plant has been turned over to the City of Carlsbad for operation and
maintenance. The plant is now owned entirely by the City of Carlsbad and all
future upgrades and all costs for the operation and maintenance of the plant are
born by the City of Carlsbad. The design capacity of the plant is 1.2 million
gallons per day.
The Lake Calavera Hills Water Reclamation Plant was constructed to provide sewage
treatment to the Lake Calavera Hills Planned Community and developments east of
El Camino Real in the proximity of the Lake Calavera Hills development. This
facility has never been operated as a wastewater treatment plant and additional
improvements are needed for it to operate. The Calavera facility is not
operational at this time and will require the expenditure of approximately 1.1
to 1.5 million dollars to make it operational Operation at the Calavera Hills
plant is estimated to cost $360,000 per year. Comparable treatment at the Encina
WPCF is estimated at $135,000 per year. This plant will only be operated if
there is a need for reclaimed water or if there is a capacity problem at the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility that requires it to operate. The
Calavera Hills Plant is not economical to operate for treatment capacity except
in the absence of needed capacity at Encina WPCF. Although the plant has a
design capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day, the maximum flow which can be
conveyed to the plant through the existing sewer conveyance system is 0.88
million gallons per day. Based on analysis of existing flow data, it is likely
that current treatment capacity will be reached between 1988 and 1990 and that
additional interim capacity will be required to meet the performance standard
as defined in the City's Growth Management Program.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ACTION PLAN
The City Council in May of 1987 adopted an action plan for sewer treatment
capacity which will allow the City of Carlsbad sewer service area to conform to
the performance standard adopted in the Growth Management Program. This action
plan is outlined as follows:
1. Monitor Encina Treatment Plant flows on a monthly basis to determine
actual flow rates and to have an early warning of capacity problems.
2. Actively pursue acceleration and phasing of treatment plant Phase
IV expansion to provide adequate capacity.
3. When Carlsbad's share of Encina flow has reached 5.25 MGD, actively
seek lease capacity from other Encina agencies.
4. When Carlsbad's Encina flow has reached 5.45 MGD, proceed to
activation of the Calavera Hills Reclamation/Treatment Facility.
Plant to be activated when more cost effective treatment measures
are no longer feasible and Carlsbad's capacity and Encina has been
reached.
In compliance with the adopted action plan, the City has been monitoring sewer
flows at Encina WPCF. When flows indicated the City was approaching 5.25 MGD,
the City initiated negotiations with the San Marcos County Water District and
the City of Vista to acquire a lease agreement to ensure additional capacity at
Encina WPCF. The proposed leases, when approved, would provide adequate
treatment capacity until the completion of the Phase IV expansion of the Encina
75
WPCF. Currently the City of Carlsbad is completing an agreement with the City
of Vista to lease an additional 1.2 MGD at the Encina WPCF. This lease agreement
is scheduled to be presented to the Carlsbad City Council within the next month.
The last flow report submitted to the Encina staff has indicated that the
Carlsbad flows have surpassed the 5.45 MGD threshold. Therefore, the City of
Carlsbad has begun a program to prepare for the activation of the Calavera Hills
Treatment/Reclamation Facility as defined in the adopted action plan. The City
is currently exploring alternatives to best activate this treatment facility if
the lease agreements with the City of Vista are not available when additional
capacity is needed.
In closing, the City of Carlsbad is actively pursuing all phases of the action
plan to ensure that there is adequate treatment capacity within the Carlsbad
sewer service area in conformance with the Growth Management adopted performance
standard. Implementation of the City Council's action plan measures will ensure
conformance with the standard through buildout of the Carlsbad sewer service
area.
76
CITY OF CARLSBAD
WATER RECLAMATION 1988-89 PROGRAM
A Report Prepared for
the Carlsbad City Council
By
the Utilities and Maintenance Department
Ralph W. Anderson, Director
July, 1988
77
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
A. IntroductionB. Encina Basin Reclamation Report
C. Mandatory Use ordinance
D. Water Reclamation Master Plan Update
Chapter 1 - Introduction
A. Report Purpose
B. Background
1. Declining Water Supply And Growing Demand
2. Reclaimed Water To Supplement Supply
3. Uses Of Reclaimed Water
4. Existing State Reclamation Use Policies
Chapter 2 - Encina Basin Reclamation Report
A. Background
1. San Diego County Encina Basin Feasibility
Study
2. Formation of Water Authority Reclamation
Advisory Committee (WARAC)
B. Proposed Detailed Facilities Plan Report
C. Conclusions And Recommendations
1. Conclusions
2. Recommendations
Page
iii
iii
iv
v
1
1
1
3
3
5
10
11
12
12
12
Chapter 3 - Mandatory Use Ordinance
A. State Board Loan Program 13
B. Example Use Ordinances 14
1. Irvine Ranch Water District 14
2. City Of Mesa, Arizona 15
3. Clark County Nevada 16
4. Pacific Rim Development 16
C. Conclusions and Recommendations 17
1. Conclusions 17
2'. Recommendations 17
Chapter 4 - Water Reclamation Master Plan Update
A. Past Reclamation Master Planning 18
1. 1978 Overview Report 18
2. 1979 Master Plan Study 19
3. Lake Calavera Reclamation Facility Studies 21
4. Costa Real MWD Non-Potable Master Plan 22
B. Existing situation 22
1. 1979 Master Plan Implementation 22
2. Lake Calavera Water Reclamation Plant 23
3. La Costa Country Club Reclamation 23
4. Agreement With Costa Real MWD 24
5. Pacific Rim Reclamation Planning 25
6. Encina Basin Facility Plan Report 25
78
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Proposed Carlsbad Reclamation Master Plan
1. Master Plan Content -52. Need For Independent Plan. 26
Conclusion And Recommendations 271. Conclusions -_
2. Recommendations *
79
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
San Diego County is again experiencing a threatened drought
situation and water conservation is being strongly encouraged by
State and local officials. Water reclamation is a locally-
controlled method of stretching our existing water supplies.
with imported water supply sources shrinking, local population
and water demand increasing, the cost of potable domestic water
increasing, and the cost of treating sewage increasing,
reclamation has become a prudent, economical method of producing
additional non-potable water for landscape irrigation and lake
repl en i shment .
Several State documents mandate or encourage the use of reclaimed
water in water-short areas of the State for replacing potable
domestic water used for irrigation and landscaping. These
include the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the
Policy anfl Action Plan for Water Reclamation in California and
the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan Report San Diecro
Basin
This report discusses three water reclamation issues that affect
the City of Carlsbad and provides conclusions and recommended
action items on each issue to be considered by the City Council.
Those issues are 1} the need for and funding of the Encina Basin
Water Reclamation Project report, 2) the need for a reclaimed
water mandatory use ordinance in Carlsbad, and 3) the need for an
up-to-date reclaimed water master plan specific to Carlsbad's
boundaries, goals, and needs.
B. ENCINA BASIN RECLAMATION REPORT
In February 1988 the San Dieao Water Reuse Study. Volume V.
Encina Basin Feasibility Study was completed. The study was
authorized by the County of San Diego Office of Special Projects
with State and Federal grant funds. The study identified the
potential water reuse markets within the tributary area of the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and investigated
the feasibility of reclamation within this basin. The study
considers linking four satellite reclamation plants (Shadowridge,
Meadowlark, Gafner and Lake Calavera Hills) and the Encina WPCF
with a common reclaimed water distribution system to serve an
extensive Encina Basin reuse market, including the southern
portion of Carlsbad.
After the initiation of this study, but before its completion,
the San Diego County Water Authority formed its Water Authority
Reclamation Advisory Committee (WARAC) in November 1987, made up
of all public water purveyors and sewering agencies in San Diego
County. WARAC assumed the responsibilities of the former San
80
Diego Region Water Reclamation Agency of which Carlsbad was a
founding member. WARAC's primary mission is to study, consider,
evaluate, and make policy recommendations to the Board of the San
Diego Water Authority (CWA). WARAC has recommended, and the CWA
has approved, a fiscal year 1988-89 budget of $300,000 for
technical assistance to member agencies to study water
reclamation programs. The CWA support is contingent upon 50:50
cost sharing with the agencies sponsoring each project and is
limited to $50,000 (by the CWA) for each individual project.
The Encina Basin Subcommittee of WARAC was formed in the spring
of 1988 composed of representatives of the cities and agencies
tributary to the Encina WPCF, including Carlsbad, San Marcos
County Water District, Leucadia County Water District, Buena
Sanitation District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, San
Dieguito Water District and the County of San Diego. As a model
project the Subcommittee agreed to prepare a scope of work and
solicit proposals from qualified engineering consultants to
conduct a detailed facilities plan for the project conceptualized
in previously referenced Encina Basin Feasibility Study, in June
1988, WARAC recommended approval of a proposal by the consulting
firm of John S. Murk Engineers, Inc. to prepare a detailed
facility plan titled, Encina Basin Water Reclamation Project
Phase I Facility Planning, for an estimated fee of $88,982.
In June 1988, CWA approved the work proposal by the consultant
and agreed to fund fifty percent of the study ($44,492). The
remaining funding is to be shared by six participating agencies:
Carlsbad, San Marcos CWD, Leucadia CWD, Buena SD, Olivenhain MWD
and San Dieguito WD, each contributing $7,415. Carlsbad is,
thus, asked to contribute its share to this study amounting to
one-twelveth the total project cost.
C. MANDATORY USE ORDINANCE
In the State's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, which was
enacted in 1969 and became Division 7 of the Water Code, the
legislature found it wasteful or unreasonable to use potable
domestic water for the irrigation of greenbelt areas, when
adequately treated reclaimed water is available and not
unreasonably costly. This finding would appear to allow
individual cities and agencies in California to adopt ordinances
requiring mandatory use of reclaimed water when available.
Requiring the use of reclaimed water in Carlsbad would encourage
the use of reclaimed water by: providing a market; providing an
incentive for treatment plant owners to update their treatment
levels; forcing newly developing areas to construct dual water
systems; planning for long-term use programs; and assuring long-
term use thereby qualifying for State funding assistance.
The State Water Resources Control Board low-interest loan program
for reclaimed water facilities requires either a long term use
agreement between the purveyor and user, or a mandatory use
ordinance by the agency supplying the reclaimed water.
81
Example reclaimed water use ordinances or policies presented in
this report include: Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine,
California; City of Mesa, Arizona; Clark County, Nevada; and the
recent development map condition for the Pacific Rim Country Club
and Resort in Carlsbad. Of particular interest is the city of
Mesa, Arizona Ordinance No. 2119 adopted October 22, 1986. The
intent of the ordinance is to restrict the use of potable water
for the filling of "artificial lakes" and the irrigation of
"turf-related facilities," which includes parks, golf courses,
cemetaries, road medians, etc. The ordinance requires an
applicant to obtain a permit from the City to fill a man-made
pond or lake and to irrigate landscaped areas of ten acres or
more. Permit approval is contingent upon the lake being filled
or the landscaped area being irrigated with either reclaimed
water, storm water runoff, poor quality groundwater or excess
Central Arizona Project water. Also, the ordinance allows the
City to substitute adequately treated reclaimed water for
existing artificial lakes and turf-related facilities, which have
previously been supplied by the City's municipal system or
another water source. Violation of any provision of the
ordinance may result in up to a $1,000 fine and/or six month's
imprisonment.
Resolution No. 1977-49 of the Irvine Ranch Water District states
its intent to provide its water service applicants, desiring
water for landscape and agricultural irrigation, construction
water, industrial process water, or recreational impoundments,
with reclaimed water in lieu of potable water. Each use must be
approved on a case-by-case basis and the District may determine
in its discretion whether it is necessary or desirable to furnish
the applicant potable water. The District uses the previously
referenced wording in the State's Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Act to impose mandatory use of reclaimed water on its customers.
To encourage and expedite reclaimed water use in Carlsbad, and to
prepare for possible State funding assistance, it is recommended
that Carlsbad adopt some type of comprehensive mandatory
reclaimed water use ordinance.
D. WATER RECLAMATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
•
Carlsbad's previous reclaimed water master plan reports are now
for the most part outdated. Satellite treatment plants proposed
in the late 1970's and early 1980's providing secondary treatment
at a time of sewer moratorium were not constructed in Carlsbad,
with the exception of the Lake Calavera Hills plant. The 1.2
million gallon per day (MGD) Lake Calavera Hills plant has never
been operated, and is inadequate to meet strict reclaimed water
treatment levels for unrestricted irrigation usage. The CWA is
coordinating an effort by the Encina Basin Subcommittee of WARAC
to prepare a detailed water reclamation facilities plan which
includes portions of Carlsbad. However, a comprehensive
reclamation master plan update is needed for Carlsbad as a guide
for funding, constructing, and coordinating a major reclaimed
water distribution system for all of Carlsbad.
82
Several reclamation planning studies have been .prepared in the
past involving Carlsbad including the following: Overview Ty
9Pportunitiea (1978), Citv of
water Reclamation Master Plan study (1979), Environment^
and Faci1Ui?? Plan for a Satellite Sewage
Faeilitv (1978 for the Lake Calavera Hills plant), Propose^
Basin Plan p^aetives Carlsbad and a Portion of the
Hedionda Hydrograph
Water System (1982) ,
Update Report (1983) .
gi^bareas (1980) , Overview for Public Non-
Plan
Lake Calavera ills Reclamation Sstem
The only current reclamation activity on-going in the City is by
the La Costa Country Club for the irrigation of up to 15 holes of
its 36-hole golf course. Reclaimed water is supplied by the city
*qfo La Costa from the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Plant owned by
the San Marcos County Water District. The City has also required
the new Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort to provide reclaimed
water distribution facilities, and City staff is working with
Pacific Rim's owners to provide reclaimed water either from the
Meadowlark plant or the Leucadia County Water District's Gafner
Water Reclamation Plant.
The "Water Service Agreement" executed between the City and the
Costa Real Municipal Water District in May 1983 requires the City
to adopt a reclaimed water master plan. It is recommended that
an updated reclamation master plan be prepared for Carlsbad and
be built on past studies, current research, and Carlsbad's
specific goals and objectives.
83
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS
The following table updates the Department's periodic drought survey of water agencies in California.
The list is considerably longer than the one published in the July 15 issue of Drought Conditions in
California because a greater number of agencies are reporting problems and more agencies have
been interviewed since June. The list now also includes agencies at a third level of difficulty. The nu-
meral in the "Severity Code" column indicates the relative difficulty these agencies are experiencing.
1 = Loss of 25 percent or more of supply. No replacement is available.
2 = Loss of 25 percent or more of supply. Replacement is available but expensive.
3 = Loss of less than 25 percent of supply, with reasonable replacement available
and/or ability to absorb loss through conservation.
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
ALAMEDA
East Bay Municipal
Utility District;
population - 755.000
ALPINE
Markleeville Water
Department;
population - 450
AMADOR
Jackson Valley
Irrigation District;
1,900 acres
Mandatory rationing began June I. Use above 400 gal/household/day is
severely penalized by increased rates. Runoff to EBMUD's Mokelumne
River reservoirs now 33% of average; water supply is 46% of normal.
EBMUD's board proposed to pump Delta water into Camanche Reservoir
to meet downstream irrigation entitlements. A hearing on that proposal
and on the possibility of pumping west into the district's terminal
reservoirs was held before the State Water Resources Control Board;
SWRCB denied the Camanche Reservoir proposal.
Basic supply creek running low, Voluntary conservation has been re-
quested. Back-up well is not assured. An emergency supply from an
adjacent creek is being arranged.
Expects shortages this year. Reservoir storage is 9,000 ac-ft. Current
operations will leave reservoir about 1,000 ac-ft below 1977. District can
survive 1989, if it is like 1988.
BUTTE
Forest Ranch Mutual 3
Water Company
Lime Saddle Community 2
Service* District (above
Oroville);
population - 600
Currently restricting use to 400 gal/household/day. A new well was
brought on line in July. Service is metered.
Restricting outdoor use, noon to 4 pm. Taking 20 ac-ft from Del Oro
Water Co. (at $300/ac-ft; through Paradise Irrigation District) to fill
storage tank for fire protection. Wells are pumping deeper than norm-
ally, limiting production. Service is metered.
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
BUTTE (continued)
Magalia County Water
District;
population - 600;
450 acres
Paradise Irrigation
District;
population • 25.000:
11,250 acres
»
CONTRA COSTA
City of Brentwood;
population - 6,400
East Bay Municipal
Utility District;
population - 356,000
EL DORADO
El Dorado Irrigation
District;
population - 68,000;
138,000 acres
FRESNO
Consolidated Irrigation
District;
145,000 acres
Fresno Irrigation
District;
170.000 acres
Frlant-Kern Canal
Service Area
Restricting outdoor use, noon to 4 pm. A water supply is still available
from Paradise Irrigation District. A planned well will cost about
$30.000. Service is metered.
Restricting outdoor use, noon to 4 pm. Water sources: Magalia and
Paradise reservoirs. Service is metered.
Supplied by local wells, plus purchases from East Bay Municipal Utility
District, which has cut deliveries by 50%. Making up the difference with
wells. If city should lose rest of its EBMUD supply, present wells could
not serve total demand. Also, some wells are contaminated by nitrates.
Two new wells have been on line since mid-July and are expected to
ensure an adequate supply. Voluntary conservation and water aware-
ness program in effect. Serves 2,000 metered connections.
See Alameda County.
In Stage 4 of 5-stage critical water emergency. Has authority to warn,
cite, or fine, or cut water service to, customers violating district's
policy. Sly Park Reservoir storage is at 17,000 ac-ft, well above cri-
teria of 11,000 ac-ft, thus avoiding Stage 5 restrictions. Hazel Creek
Tunnel Project, designed to meet possible 3rd year drought, is being
studied. The district has a temporary permit to purchase 5,000 ac-ft
from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., if needed.
Deliveries reduced 75%. One district-wide irrigation to occur this year
(normally there are three to four). The deficiency is being made up
by ground water pumping.
Deliveries reduced about 50%. Surface supply ended Aug. 1. Will
pump ground water to make up the deficiency.
See Tulare County.
85
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
FRESNO (continued)
Kaweah-Delta Water
Conservation District
Kings River Water
Association
Laguna Irrigation
District;
14,300 acres
GLENN
Orland Unit Water
Users Association
population - 1,065;
20,342 acres
See Tulare County.
See Kings County.
Will leave small allocation in Pine Flat Reservoir. Otherwise this water
would be lost by stream percolation, and it would have been difficult
to allocate small quantity to district's farmers.
Conservation measures in effect. Will have no carryover supply for
1989. Emergency supply from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Black
Butte Reservoir is not available this year. Will inform growers of water
conditions early in 1989 so that crop decisions can be made.
HUMBOLDT
City of Trinidad;
population - 850
KERN
Arden Water Company;
population - 1,500
Country Estates Water
Company
Friant-Kern Canal
Service Area
Kern River Service Area
(Buena Vista Water Ser-
vice District, Kern Delta
Water District, North Kern
Water Storage District);
173,000 acres
Luftenholz Creek is not meeting demands. Quality is poor. Emergency
supply would be trucked in, if needed. Major project is needed as soon
as possible on Little River, Conservation, system loss reductions, and
watershed management program were required to stretch supply.
Presently meeting demand, but system ran out of water on two suc-
cessive nights in August. A major leak was fixed then, and a new
well was connected to the system. Has requested rate increase to
finance system improvements.
Currently meeting demands. Uncertain of ability to do so if 1989 is dry.
May need to lower bowls of pump in one well.
See Tulare County.
Diversions from Kern River were just over 40% of normal. This was
made up from 33% of normal runoff and about 80,000 ac-ft that was
carried over in Isabella Reservoir. The deficiency was made up by
district pumping (North Kern WSD) and individual pumping. These
districts also receive State Water Project water.
86
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
KINGS
Friant-Kern Canal
S«rvic* Area
Kaweah-Delta Water
Conservation District
Kings River Water
Association;
1 million acres
LAKE
City of Lakeport
population - 4,500
Lake County Special
Districts Administration
Paradise Valley
population - 70
Lower Lake County
Water Works;
population - 2,600
(in summer)
LAS SEN
Leavitt Lake Community
Services District;
population • 800
Watermaster Service
Area;
6,500 acres
See Tulare County.
See Tulare County
Kings River runoff about 43% of normal. Entitlements of some member
agencies so minimal that they will carry over storage, rather than accept
water this year. Shortages were met by substantial ground water
pumping. Expects Pine Flat will reach near-record low levels after 1988
irrigation season ends.
Area's chronic water supply problems being compounded by this dry
year. 100% supplied by wells. Supplies now 85% of normal; ground
water level is dropping 6 inches per day. Has asked State Office of
Emergency Services (August) for pipe to pump from Clear Lake and
recharge well field from Scott's Creek. Metered services.
Landscape water is being drawn from Clear Lake. Water level in well
drilled in 1986 did not recover sufficiently from 1987 season. May need
new well. Service is metered.
Voluntary conservation began June 1. New well is producing adequate-
ly. Back-up wells in use earlier than ever. A well at Rancho Sendero,
recent service area addition about 1 mile from Lower Lake, is running
at capacity with occasional outages. Agency can truck water in, if
needed. Metered services.
Questionable ground water supply. May have a problem this year and
next. Service is unmetered.
Supply is 40% of normal. Irrigation started one month ahead of sched-
ule. Expects to be out of water before the end of the season.
87
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNtY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles Depart-
ment of Water and
Power;
639,000 connections
MADERA
Chowchilja Water
District;
62,000 acres
Madera Irrigation
District;
98,000 acres
MARIPOSA
Marlposa Public
Utility District;
population * 1,500
MENDOCINO
Laytonville County
Water District;
population - 1.000
City of Willits;
population - 4,500
Adopted and enforced Phase 1 emergency water conservation ordi-
nances because of water supply and disposal problems; is promoting
residential retrofit and long-term water audit programs. Sources:
Los Angeles Aqueduct, local ground water, and water from the Colorado
River and the State Water Project (through Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California).
Surface supply from Madera Canal and Chowchilla River about 45% of
normal; being supplemented by pumping from private wells. District's
pumping capability was upgraded during 1976-77 drought, but additional
work is needed to restore some wells to service.
Surface water deliveries from Madera Canal and Fresno River were
about 35% of normal. Growers allocated 0.7 ac-ft/acre (1.7 ac-ft/acre
is normal). Ground water from private wells will supplement allotment.
District is providing means of transfer between growers.
Water use regulations still in effect but rationing ended June 7; decided
to drain Stockton Creek Reservoir this fall for repairs. Reservoir is now
about one-half capacity (normally full at this time of year). District also
uses wells and is trying to buy additional wells to firm up supply.
Has a questionable ground water supply due to caving problems in one
well. Other well cannot serve district alone. District is attempting to
identify a reserve supply. Voluntary conservation in effect; may impose
mandatory rationing later this year. Service is metered.
Has asked for voluntary conservation. Usual source, city-owned reser-
voir, storing local runoff: now holding 470 ac-ft (775 ac-ft is normal).
City laid an emergency pipeline to a small lake that could not be used
until Labor Day.
88
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
MERCED
City of Livingston;
population • 6.700
City of Merced;
population - 50.000
Merced Irrigation
District;
90,400 acres
MODOC
Watermaster Service
Area
MONO
Mammoth County
Water District;
population • 5.000;
3.500 acres
MONTEREY
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management
District;
population • 100,000
NAPA
City of Napa;
population - 80,000
NEVADA
Donner Lake Utility
District;
population - 3.000
Currently meeting demands through mandatory watering restrictions.
Uncertain about ability to do so. if 1989 is also dry. Will need well work.
Meeting 1988 demands through voluntary conservation. Some well
work also needed. If 1989 is also dry, a similar program will be followed.
Deliveries reduced by 25%. Some additional water is available at
greater cost. District did not sell water outside its jurisdiction. Defi-
ciencies were made up from individual ground water pumping. District
expects supply to end Sept. 15, six weeks earlier than normal.
Supply is 40% of normal. Irrigation started one month ahead of sched-
ule. Expects to be out of water before the end of the season.
Primary source: surface water; supplemental source: ground water. Dry
year is compounding area's chronic water supply problems. District
is developing treatment plants for two new wells. Conservation meas-
ures include a leak detection program and conservation kits. Outdoor
watering restricted to three times per week.
Meeting demands through voluntary reduction in use. Ground water
pumping is making up some of the deficiency.
Storage in Hennessey Reservoir is 54% of normal; normally at 10,000
ac-ft; Milliken Reservoir (a small reservoir) is at 100%. City ultimately
entitled to 25,000 ac-ft of North Bay Aqueduct water (State Water
Project); however, in 1988, they will take only 4,681 ac-ft. Voluntary
conservation has reduced use 27%.
Dry year is compounding area's chronic water supply problems. Very
heavy weekend use. Supply is 13% below normal. Springs provide
50% of supply. System leaks; needs repair.
89
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
NEVADA (continued)
Nevada Irrigation
District;
population • 26,000;
281,000 acres
PLACER
Placer County Water
Agency;
population - 130,000;
1,400 acres
San Juan Suburban
Water District;
population - 12,000
Will have enough water to meet current requests. Power generation
water is being held in upper system (Bowman Reservoir). District
plans to shorten irrigation season to provide carryover water in the
event of a third dry year.
Supplies are limited. Agency's board has declared water shortage
emergency and called for voluntary reduction in use from Auburn to
Roseville. Up to 25,000 ac-ft can be pumped from the American River
above Folsom Dam, if the need arises. Pumping has commenced.
See Sacramento County.
PLUMAS
Bldwell Water Company
(Greenville);
population - 2,200
Plumas County Service
Area (formerly Quincy
Water Company);
population - 2,600;
1,200 acres
Watermaster
Service Area
RIVERSIDE
Anza Mutual Water
Company;
population - 200
SACRAMENTO
San Juan Suburban
Water District;
population - 20,000
Rationing in effect since April 1. System intake excavation will provide
more water from Round Valley Reservoir. Can pump water below
invert if emergency supply is needed. 520 of 550 connections are
metered.
Mandatory water-hour limits and alternate-day water use. Boyle Creek
is available for emergency supply. Plans to connect to high school
well at a cost of $30,000.
Water supplies are extremely short. Some pastures are drying up.
Dry year is compounding area's chronic water supply problems. Prim-
ary source is ground water. No alternative supply is available. Area has
many undocumented wells.
Water demands will be met but with restrictions and constraints. The
district has a voluntary reduction program and hired personnel to
patrol, warn, and cite water wasters. Also serves part of Placer
County.
90
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
SAN BERNARDINO
Big Horn Mountain*
Water District;
population • 1,000
HI-De«ert Water
District
population - 14,000
Yucaipa Valley Water
District;
population - 25,000
SAN FRANCISCO
City of San Francisco
population -1.2 million
SAN JOAQUIN
North San Joaquin
Water Conservation
District
South San Joaquin
Irrigation District;
63,000 acres
Stockton East Water
District;
population - 220,000;
85,000 acres
Wells provide supplies. No supplemental water is available. Supplies
are below normal but adequate to meet demand. No change in
operations.
Primary source, ground water; secondary source, State Water Project
by way of Mojave Water Agency. Supplies are below normal but
adequate to meet demand. No change in operations. Conservation
ordinances and public information programs in effect.
Supplied by ground water; has no supplemental supply. No water short-
age at present but water level is dropping; will continue to promote
water awareness. Future growth may cause problems. District is limiting
new connections to 300 per year.
Runoff to Hetch Hetchy system was about 50% in 1988. Storage in
the system is down substantially. Mandatory rationing in effect: 10% of
inside use; 60% of outside use. City's goal: overall reduction of 25%.
City's 33 subcontractors in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo
counties are cut back by 25%. City has developed several plans for 1989
operations to ensure adequate supplies in 1990. Also evaluating alterna-
tive supplies.
Will be able to meet demand by supplementing with ground water;
this will replace 8,000 ac-ft normally received from Mokelumne River.
Supply about 50% of normal. In normal year, Stanislaus River supplies
280,000 ac-ft. In 1987, it supplied 235.000 ac-ft. Predicted amount this
year: 160,000 ac-ft. About 25,000 ac-ft is available from upstream
reservoirs. Asking farmers to supplement with ground water. District
is buying about 30,000 ac-ft from 70 wells at $30/ac-ft.
District short of surface water. New Hogan Reservoir had 18,800 ac-ft
available on August 1, which ordinarily would have over 100,000 ac-ft.
Has asked Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation for permis-
sion to dip into minimum pool, as in 1977. District plans to pump 33.000
ac-ft above usual amount to add to surface supply. This may require
deepening of wells. Evaporation and use by Calaveras County leaves
shortage of about 20,000 ac-ft to be made up by ground water.
91
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
SAN LUIS OBISPO
City of San Luis Obispo; 3
population - 39,000
County of San Luis
Obispo Water Service;
population - 100,000
San Simeon Acres
Community Services
District;
population - 250
SANTA BARBARA
Goleta Water District;
population - 70,000
City of Santa Barbara;
population - 75.000
SANTA CLARA
Aldercroft County
Water District;
population - 1,350
Chemiketa Park Mutual 2
Mutual Water Company;
population - 1,350
Idlewlld Water Company 2
population - 300
Redwood Estates 3
Mutual Water
Company;
population - 1,500
Surface water is primary source; ground water is secondary. Supplies
are below normal but adequate for present demand. Conservation
measures in effect; trying for 25% drop in use. Changed rates to
encourage saving. Drilling new well; looking at coastal streams for
more water.
Primary source: surface water; secondary, ground water. No water
shortage this year, but reservoir is getting low. Will have trouble meet-
ing contracts next year if drought continues. Conservation in effect.
Dry year is compounding area's chronic supply problems. Heavy use
in summer (tourism). Sea-water intrusion may cause quality problems.
Conservation measures in place. District may obtain additional water
from Hearst property.
Meeting demand by overdrafting. Lake Cachuma is primary source;
ground water is secondary source. Concerned about carryover for next
year. If storage drops to 50% of capacity by end of season, will tighten
conservation, with rationing a real possibility.
Water supplies below normal but expects to meet demands by in-place
conservation measures. Primary source, surface water; secondary,
ground water.
Already buying instream raw water from San Jose Water Works as
emergency supply. Expects this year will be worse than 1977 drought,
when water was trucked in. Conservation is continuing and rationing
will begin soon unless the rains come.
Same as Aldercroft CWD, above.
Same as Aldercroft CWD, above.
Now meeting demand but rationing may yet be necessary. Agency has
implemented "excess water charge" (double charge for use of more
than 5,000 gallons/month). Worst conditions could require trucks to
bring in water (as in 1977).
92
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
SANTA CLARA (continued)
Santa Clara Vallay 2
Watar Diatrict;
population -1.4 million
Wholesaling agency receiving water from South Bay Aqueduct (SWP),
San Felipe Project (CVP), local reservoirs, and ground water. Some
of district's subcontractors also get water from the Hetch Hetchy sys-
tem, which has imposed a mandatory 25% cut on deliveries to Santa
Clara County. District asking its subcontractors for voluntary cuts of 15%
on all use. Some can use ground water to make up deficits; others
have no alternative. Local reservoir inflow is less than 10% of normal
year, shorting ground water basins. District is monitoring .ground water
levels; found some areas where water levels are about to cause sub-
sidence. Some subcontractors now cutting pumping in critical areas.
More San Felipe water will help but cannot replace all local losses
(receiving 75,000 ac-ft this year; gets 35,000 ac-ft in a normal year).
SANTA CRUZ
Lompico County
Watar District;
population - 1,300
City of Santa Cruz;
population - 75,000
SIERRA
Watermaster
Service Area
Meeting demand through a combination of water-saving ordinances,
voluntary conservation, and a very steep inverse block-pricing structure
in effect since July 1. District uses surface water and three wells.
Surface supplies (primary) from San Lorenzo River, Newell Creek, and
three coastal streams are estimated to be 80% of normal for 1988.
City has very limited pumping capacity; cannot make up the deficiency
with ground water. Comprehensive program of watering regulation,
retrofit, and public relations to encourage voluntary conservation to
meet the crisis. Rationing a possibility but has not been needed yet.
Water supplies are extremely short. Some pastures are stressed.
SISKIYOU
Hornbrook Community
Service* District;
population - 350
Watermaster
Service Area
Municipal lawn watering restricted, 8 am to 7 pm. Usage cut about
30%. Leak detection to begin in September. Rancheria Creek diver-
sions could be moved up to avoid losing water to alluvium. A highly
saline well (4,000 total dissolved solids) could be used in strict emer-
gency. Service is metered.
Supply is 40% of normal. No snowpack. Irrigation begun one month
ahead of schedule. Expects to be out of water before end of season.
Local reservoir well below normal. System outages on weekends.
93
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
SONOMA
Town of Jenner;
population - 600
STANISLAUS
Modesto Irrigation
District;
60,000 acres
Oakdale Irrigation
District;
56,000 acres
Turlock Irrigation
District;
160,000 acres
SUTTER
South Sutter Wat«r
District;
150 irrigators
TEHAMA
Paskenta Community
Services District
population - 200
Diverts water from Jenner Creek, which may go dry. May turn to
scheduled outages or trucking water in. Owner is negotiating with county
to take over total system in the fall.
Surface supplies (1987-88 runoff plus carryover storage) from the
Tuolumne River were about 70% of normal for 1988. This was aug-
mented by ground water from district, improvement district, and indi-
vidual wells. District water run to end about Sep. 15, one month earlier
than usual. Plans to drill four new wells this fall.
Surface supplies (1987-88 runoff plus carryover storage) from the
Stanislaus River were about 50% of normal for 1988. District's water
run ended August 17. Small part of the deficit being made up by dis-
trict and individual ground water pumping. District is currently negotia-
ting with Bureau of Reclamation for New Melones Reservoir water.
Surface supplies from the Tuolumne River about 37% of normal. This
is being supplemented by ground water from District and privately
owned wells. With all these sources, district will be able to supply 48
inches to 60,000 acres and 30 inches to 100,000 acres. Some district
wells had quality problems'and were shut down. Conservative water use
practices being encouraged.
Primary supply, Camp Far West Reservoir, is only one-third of normal.
Releases from storage have been cut so that supply will last through
the season. Planting has been reduced and more ground water used.
Situation has improved. Thomes Creek Intake cleared, and intake flow
has increased. A few polluted privately owned wells are the only
emergency option. Service is metered.
DROUGHT SURVEY: STATUS OF WATER-SHORT AREAS (continued)
COUNTY
and
PURVEYOR
SEVERITY
CODE COMMENTS
TULARE
Friant-Kern Canal
Service Area;
over 30 districts;
820,000 acres
Kaweah-Deita Wat«r
Conservation District;
28 districts;
337.000 acres
Kings River Water
Association
Tule River Association
215,000 acres
(Pioneer Water Company,
Vandalia Irrigation District,
Porterville Irrigation Dis-
trict, Lower Tule River
Irrigation District, Down-
stream Kaweah and Tule
Rivers Association)
TUOLUMNE
Tuolumne County
Water System;
population - 34,000
VENTURA
City of Ventura
population - 90,000
Districts receiving 75% of Class I entitlement and no Class II entitle-
ment (slightly over 40% of normal Friant-Kern Canal supply). Districts
without Class I entitlement will receive no Friant-Kern water. Some dis-
tricts, especially those on the valley floor, can make up deficiencies
with ground water pumping but those on extreme east side of valley can-
not. These have acquired water by exchange with other Friant-Kern
and/or Cross Valley Canal contractors and have, in some cases,
effected redistribution of water within their boundaries.
April-July 1988 runoff estimated to be 35% of normal. Sources;
Kaweah and St. Johns rivers. Tulare Irrigation District may receive
Central Valley Project water via Friant-Kern Canal. More water will be
made available by pumping ground water.
See Kings County.
April-July 1988 runoff estimated to be 20% of normal. Porterville ID and
and Lower Tule River ID will receive 75% of their Class 1 water from the
Friant-Kern Canal, but no Class II deliveries are being made. Ground
water pumping will satisfy additional water needs.
Spring 1988 rains improved water supply. Storage in Lyons and Pine-
crest reservoirs is adequate to meet demands. Voluntary conserva-
tion to cut use 25% continues.
Supplies are one-third each ground water, Ventura River, and Lake
Casitas. City is meeting water demand by overdrawing safe yield of
Lake Casitas. Promoting conservation measures.
95
HAL
Hugh Allan Lyttleton & Associates
Member NSPA, CAIA, ISTC
September 21, 1988
Bud Schlehuber
2720 Jefferson Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Bud;
Subject: Citizens Committee to Study Growth,
Additional Topics
In the paragraph describing our task, two phrases have caught my
eye. One is "to study and assess the impacts of growth" and the
other is "the focus will be on the quality of life".
Clearly as we have looked at population projections, circulation
and open space the emphasis has been on the human condition. In
fact though, growth affects the environment more than it does us.
Shouldn't we also, be examining the stress that growth puts on
our patch of the planet?
How are we going to deal with these following items?:
- Solid waste disposal (comprehensive recycling programs)
- Hazardous waste disposal
- Maximum sewage treatment (keeping our ocean water clean and
disposal of resulting sludge)
- Water conservation and reclamation
- Air quality
- Endangered natural resources (beaches, marine life,
lagoons, streams, birds, animals, and plants.
Naturally, all of these issues and their subsequent long term
mitigation are expensive. However, I think we would be penny
wise and pound foolish not to seriously consider these global
issues. The City of Carlsbad has another opportunity to
demonstrate its leadership on the subject of growth by adding the
environment into its plan.
Am I way off base or should we add this area to our topics?
Yours truly,
,£/
S. Elaine Lyttleton
SEL/tml
cc. Mike Holtzmiller 97
2W2-K C.imino Vidn RoHe • P.O. Box ^ 1 • Carlsbad, CA ^200" (6!^ -58-2059
December 9. 1988
Tom Erwin
7703 Garboso Place
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
REFERENCE: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH RECOMMENDATIONS.
1) PARK FACILITIES REQUIREMENT - Only land owned by the City of
Carlsbad, or in escrow to be acquired by the City of Carlsbad
should be used to satisfy the Park requirement.
2) OPEN SPACE - The -SDG&E easement for high tension lines should
be considered as CONSTRAINED. It should not be counted as
part of the required 15% open space.
3) OPEN SPACE - In our quest for Public open space, we should
not do it by down-sizing residential lots.
*0 OPEN SPACE - The requirement of all Planned Residential Dev-
elopmentTPRD) Projects to provide 200 square feet of common
open space area per dwelling unit for recreational purposes
should be in addition to the required 15$ open space. It should
not be included in the 15$.
5) CIRCULATION - Consideration should be given to constructing
an underpass at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and
El Camino Real.
An overpass would be unsafe due to aircraft on short
final.
6) CIRCULATION - We should require additional "Right of way" on
all Prime and Major Arterial Highways, where practicable. A
minimum of two additional lanes is necessary. No where is this
more clear than on Palomar Airport Rd. which should be the
first roadway addressed.
7) BUILD OUT - 21.90.0^5 should be amended to read. "No resid-
ential development permit shall be approved which density
exceeds the growth management control point for the applic-
able density range".
Findings/Exceptions 1 thru 3 should be eliminated also.
8) BUILD OUT - When property is rezoned from residential to
another use, the homes that were originally allocated for
that property cannot be allocated to another property un-
98
Page 2
less the following restrictions are met.
a) The new property was zoned for other than Residential
use on July 1, 1986.
b) The new property is compatible for residential use
without major mitigation.
c) The density of the new project does not exceed the
growth management control point for the original
project.
d) The density of the new project is compatible and does
not exceed the growth management control point of
any surrounding residential property.
These restrictions are in addition to all existing res-
trictions.
9) WATER - According to the Fall 1988 WATER TALK publication,
"85$ to 90$ of our water comes from outside the County, through
canals which cross the San Andreas fault". "During a major
earthquake these supply lines can be disrupted for up to 6
months - leaving portions of the county without an adequate
supply".
Based on this information it would be prudent to inventory
all potential potable water sources in the local area, and to
keep that list current on an annual basis.
10) SEWER - Water lines to carry treated waste water should be in-
stalled to transport this water through-out the City to those
areas that require large amounts of water. This can include,
but is not limited to, Parks, Golf courses, Common areas, open
space, and agriculture.
The lines should be in close proximity to drainage lines,
and should be physically separated from underground potable
water lines, in the event of breakage.
11) DRAINAGE - Run-off from developed areas should not be piped
into our Lagoons simply for short term financial savings in
this being the shortest distance to sea level.
Sincerely yours,
99
December 13, 1988
Mr. Clarence Schlehuber
4085 Sunnyhill Drive
Carlsbad, California, 92008
Dear Bud:
This is to confirm our phone conversation regarding the
Citizens Committee to Study Growth and suggestions for recommendations
to be made by the committee after the December meeting. The original
duties outlined for this committee were as follows:
"Study and assess the impacts of growth in the City of Carlsbad.
Prepare an annual report containing data on increases in popu-
lation, dwelling units, traffic and crime; on availability and
cost of City services including water; on the economic health
of the community and the industrial, commercial and tourist
activity. The focus shall be on city services and the quality
of life. The report shall be reviewed by the City Council ata public hearing."
Of the above issues the committee has addressed land use and
growth management including zoning; projected density ranges;
traffic circulation projections; some possible adjustment of an
area designated as "residential" to an industrial or non-residential
(proposed hospital) with unused residential units being picked up and
used for "better designed projects" within the quadrant; open space
and the projected water shortage.
Time has not permitted study of the other issues as outlined
in the above description of duties, but I do have the following questions
about matters that were discussed:
l.What practical immediate steps can be taken to enhance traffic safety
on all thoroughfares and to stop the deaths on RanchoSantaFe Road and
LaCosta Avenue. As these tragic dangers go without emergency steps
to alleviate them where is there a logical explanation for a recently
activated stop light with a left turn lane at ElCamino Real and
College going into a divided 4 lane road (landscaped), to a dead-
end one mile in.
2.In view of a predicted and almost certain water shortage, what
are City plans for immediately laying adequate pipes for water re-
clamation; on-going educational educational efforts for water con-
servation and what effect the coming water shortage should have on
plans for a costly municipal golf course requiring constant watering.
3.What are the pitfalls in considering the swapping of residential
unit credits for an industrial installation - even though the swap
is contained'within the quadrant in question.
4.Are plans being considered for a tax structure at the time of Build-
out to support the city and its services.
100
page 2.
Finally, since this committee was formed before growth
management procedures began/ many over-lapping committees have since
been activated and total attention is now being given to monitoring
growth and all attendant matters. Members of this committee include
three Planning Comissioners and all meetings held have been attended
by Planning Department staff who have prepared and presented very
excellent reports. Therefore in view of the duplication of effort
and budget expenditures for staff time it is my opinion that this
committee should be disbanded.
I am happy to have had the opportunity of attending these
meetings and the experience has been educational and enjoyable.
Sincerely,
' >-.
- • ~it •— « c '-^'—''
Mary Ann Izner
cc:Michael Holzmiller
101