HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-25; City Council; 6179-2; Workshop on Seaway/Cooke's Interim GrowthAGENDA BILL
INITIAL: TH:ar
AGENDA BILL NO: t* / V *7 "" Jf . i <*<n 'Inn. « , T **f DEPT- HD.
DATE: August 25 , 1981 CTy. ATTy. \ /
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING _ CTY. MGR.^
SUBJECT:
WORKSHOP ON SEDWAY/COOKE'S INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT
bTATEMENT OF THE MATTER:
The planning consulting firm of Sedway/Cooke has conpleted their report on
"Interim Growth Management." By the nature of the topic itself, and the
complexity of the report, it is important to review it thoroughly.
Planning staff considers the most important part of the report the conclusions
and recommendations. Essentially, Sedway recommends that a combination of
existing and new approaches should be coordinated to provide a method of public
facilities management.
The workshop meeting is intended to promote discussion of the report, and
hopefully, answer the Council's questions.
Staff will be prepared to return at the next available regular Council meeting
with a recommendation on acceptance of the report for contract payment
purposes. This will be a brief item, possibly under consent topics.
In late August, planning staff will be prepared to present a specific
recommendation on how Sedway's report should be implemented. This will be a
workshop meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
None.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None at this time. If at a subsequent meeting, Council accepts the report for
payment purposes, final payment will be made to Sedway. ($4000 of a total of
$40,000).
RECOMMENDATION
If Council is satisfied with the consultant's work, direct staff to return at
the next available meeting with a recommendation for payment.
EXHIBITS
Information packet for discussion
(Sedway"s report was previously distributed to Council for the June 9, 1981
meeting)
8/25/81 Council approved staff recommendation and directed them to move forward
as explained above.
WHAT SEDWAY/COOKES RECOMMENDATIONS
DO NOT PROPOSE
, THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TO PHYSICALLY CONSTRAIN GROWTH
ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
, THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TO CONSTRAIN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
(DEVELOPERS/LAND OWNERS),
. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TO CONSTRAIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
(CITY, STATE, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, ETC,),
. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE A QUOTA OR POINT SYSTEM TO
REGULATE DEVELOPMENT.
. THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TO PHASE OR TIME NEW DEVELOPMENT
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY.
OVERVIEW OF INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT
. MAJOR QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE CONSULTANT BY
COUNCIL
1, WHAT IS GROWTH POTENTIAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN?
2, WHAT ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE?
A, ARE THEY ADEQUATE NOW?
B. WILL THEY BE ADEQUATE .IN THE FUTURE?
3, WHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS TO GROWTH?
4, SHOULD THE CITY RESTRICT OR CONSTRAIN GROWTH
TO ENSURE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES/
FACILITIES?
5, IS THE CURRENT METHOD OF MANAGING PUBLIC
SERVICES/FACILITIES ADEQUATE?
MAJOR TASK OF CONSULTANT
RECOMMEND A SYSTEM THAT WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO
PROVIDE "ADEQUATE" LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES
AND/OR FACILITIES TO DEMAND IN A TIMELY MANNER,
SEDWAY/COOKE'S CONCLUSIONS
, THE GROWTH POTENTIAL OF THE CITY (BASED ON THE
GENERAL PLAN) IS APPROXIMATELY 160,000 PEOPLE AT
BUILDOUT,
, CURRENTLY PUBLIC SERVICES/FACILITIES ARE AT VARIOUS
LEVELS OF ADEQUACY, HOWEVER, ALL ARE AVAILABLE.
, IF RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE IN PFF PUBLIC
SERVICES/ FACILITIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT BUILDOUT,
, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IDENTIFIABLE CONSTRAINTS TO
GROWTH BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES/
FACILITIES,
i*
. GROWTH LIMITATION TO ENSURE AVAILABLITY OF SERVICES/
FACILITIES MAY BE ILLEGAL,
, THE CITY SHOULD INITIATE A SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT UTILIZING EXISTING PROCEDURES
AS A BASIS,
SEDWAY/COOKED RECOMMENDATIONS;
CREATE A PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FORMULATE/ADOPT A PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT
RAISE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
COMPONENTS OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT SYStEM
1, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — BUDGETARY PROCESS
(EXISTING PROCEDURE)
2. PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE — FUNDING SOURCE (EXISTING
PROCEDURE)
3, BENCHMARKS -- LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS (NEW)
EXAMPLE:
PARKS AND RECREATION ~ BENCHMARK: 5 ACRES OF
DEVELOPED PARK PER 1000
POPULATION/
FIRE PROTECTION ~ BENCHMARK: MAXIMUM
RESPONSE TIME - 5
MINUTES
NOTE: A FULL DISCUSSION OF THE BENCHMARKSIS CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX OF THEREPORT - PAGES A 1 THROUGH A 18,
4. TRACKING DEVELOPMENT TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ON
FACILITIES AND SERVICES -- BOOKKEEPING PROCESS
(NEW)
DEFINITION:
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
11/26/79
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT is A PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY
DETERMINES THE AMOUNT (WHAT), LOCATION (WHERE) AND
RATE (WHEN) OF GROWTH TO MATCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S
ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES, THIS PROCESS INDIRECTLY AFFECTS ENVIRON-
MENTAL QUALITY AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND CHARACTER,
GOAL:
ULTIMATEOBJECTIVE:
NTERIM'ECTIVE:
PROVIDE CARLSBAD'S RESIDENTS WITH THE FULL RANGE
OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES AND HUMAN SERVICES THAT WILL
ENSURE A LIFE OF QUALITY FOR ALL, (TfU* U a pana-
phiaAe, o<j the. ove.na.tL goat A tate.me.nt of, the. Cafit&bad
Ge.ne.fial Plan. )
GUIDE THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY SO THAT
GROWTH OCCURS IN AN ORDERLY, FUNCTIONAL AND COMPAT-
IBLE MANNER WHICH ASSURES THAT ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF THE EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION OF THE
CITY, (Th^A i.i> a pan.aphn.aAe. o& the. ove.n,atl Qoatt>
Atate.me.nt ion. the. Land IMe EJte.me.nt and Pub£-cc
Ete.me.nt o £ the. Can.l*bad Ge.ne.ial Plan.}
IMPLEMENT AN IMMEDIATE PROCESS BY WHICH TO ACHIEVE
THE ULTIMATE GOAL AND OBJECTIVE,
SERVICES/FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY
COUNCIL FOR SEDWAY/COOKE TO EVALUATE
1, WATER
2, SEWER
3, SCHOOLS
4, PARKS AND RECREATION
5, POLICE
6, FIRE
7, LIBRARY
8, CIRCULATION
9, DRAINAGE
10. ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES