The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-06-09; City Council; 6179-1; Sedway/Cooke report on Interim Growth MgtAGENDA BILL . INITIAL; TH:LS AGENDA BILL NO: /, / ?9- ^..^fl.-,. JK ^fe / DEPT. HD. W DATE: JUNE 9, 1981 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CTY. ATTY. \j/^O CTY. MGR^ ^fl-Jv SUBJECT: SEDWAY/COOKE REPORT ON INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF THE MATTER: The provision of this report is part of the "Comprehensive Planning Program" adopted through the 1979-80 budget process by City Council. Essentially, the Interim Growth Management program is intended to address and give guidance to the City Council for the timely provision of public facilities. The Comprehen- sive Planning Program encompasses four major components. 1. Interim Growth Management 2. General Plan Review 3. Master Environmental Impact Assessment 4. Permanent Growth Management The sum of these items is intended to provide a "Public Facilities Management Program" or growth management for the city. Sedway/Cooke will present the report for City Council information. City staff will be prepared to return in the near future with a staff recommendation on acceptance of the report for contract payment purposes. A subsequent city staff presentation will review the entire report, its recommendations, and possible courses of action. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. On acceptance of report in fulfillment of contract, a final payment will be made to Sedway ($16,000). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT None at this time. Environmental Review may be necessary in the future steps of the Comprehensive Planning Program depending on specific courses of action. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to return with a recommendation on the acceptance of the report (for contract payment purposes). ATTACHMENTS None; a copy of the report has been distributed to City Council in advance (June 1, 1981). NO ACTION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 1981 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director RE: SEDWAY/COOKE REPORT ON INTERIM GROWTH Attached is the subject report. Mr. Sedway will present the report at the June 9 Council meeting. City staff will present a report and recommendation at a subsequent meeting. 'JCH:TH:jd CC: City Council Ron Beckman • City Attorney City Engineer Roger Greer Parks and Recreation CITY OF CARLSBAD INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF CARLSBAD INTERIM GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by SEDWAY/COOKE Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers San Francisco, California in association with LYNN SEDWAY + ASSOCIATES Urban Economists San Rafael, California May 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Background I CPO Series V Forecast 3 Growth and Services in Carlsbad . 7 Development Phasing 14 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL Methodology 18 Analysis of City Revenues 18 The Public Facilities Fee 28 Determination of Public Facilities Fee 33 Summary 36 SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Findings . • 38 Recommendations 41 Project Review 46 APPENDIX: PUBLIC SERVICES - EXISTING CONDITIONS Water Supply A-1 Sewer Services . ' A-2 Schools A-4 Parks and Recreation A-5 Police Protection A-7 Fire Protection A-9 Library Services A-10 Street Circulation . A-12 Drainage A-13 Physical Administration Facilities A-15 LIST OF TABLES Table I Final Series V Regional Development Forecasts 1978-2000 ft Table 2 Final Series V Regional Development Forecasts 1978-2000, Carlsbad General Plan Area 5 Table 3 Significant Subarea Population 7 Table ft Development Phasing, City-Wide Totals . 20 TableS Projected Property Tax Revenue, 1980-1985 21 Tabled Projected Property Tax Revenue, 1985-1995 22 Table 7 Projected Property Tax Revenue, 1995-2000 23 Table 7A Projected Property Tax Revenue, 2000-Buildout 2ft Table 8 Projected General Fund Revenues 27 Table 9 Expected Future Revenues and Capital Improvement Costs 28 Table 10 Additional Public Facilities, 1980-1985 29 Table II Additional Public Facilities, 1985-1995 30 Table 12 Additional Public Facilities, 1995-2000 31 Table 13 Additional Public Facilities, 2000-Buildout 32 Table Ift Projected Public Facilities Fee Fund, 1980-1985 • 33 Table 15 Projected Public Facilities Fee Fund, 1985-1995 ' 3ft Table 16 Projected Public Facilities Fee Fund, 1995-2000 3ft Table 17 Projected Public Facilities Fee Fund, 2000-Buildout 35 Table 18 Summary . 35 Table 19 Street Widening Totals • 37 Table 20 Summary Table Changes With Developer Assessments 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Regional Setting Figure 2 Significant Subareas Figure 3 Water Service Districts Figure ft Sewer Service Area Figure 5 School Districts Figure 6 Fire Protection Figure 7 1980 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 8 Development Phasing 2 6 9 10 II 13 15 16 APPENDIX: LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Phasing of Satellite Plant Construction Table 2 Space Availability in Schools Serving Carlsbad Table 3 Park Acreages and Locations Table ^ Proposed and Undeveloped Parks and Open Space Table 5 Evaluation of Carlsbad's Local Parks Table 6 Demand for Recreational Facilities Table 7 Criminal Activity in Carlsbad Table 8 Running Times from Existing Fire Stations Table 9 Special Services and Activies Provided by Library Table 10 Comparison of Existing With Estimated Space Requirements Table 11 Estimated Space Requirements at Target Populations A-3 A-5 A-7 A-9 A-ll A-ll A-13 A-15 A-17 A-23 A-24 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The rapid growth of Carlsbad in recent years has placed a tremendous burden on the City's public services. However, the City's growth potential, attractive lifestyle and living environment are, in part, reflections of its past ability to provide adequate public services and facilities, fn an era of fiscal stringency, it has become increasingly difficult for cities to maintain, much less improve, public services. Part of the problem has been that cities have failed to take a realistic perspective of their growth potential and to evaluate their public service requirements in light of that potential. Carlsbad has undertaken a study to analyze and recommend a process that would allow the City to anticipate future development and public service demands. The services addressed in the study include: water sewer schools parks and recreation police fire library circulation drainage physical administration facilities The result is not a comprehensive growth management program. The findings and recommendations can be adapted as more information becomes available and as the General Plan revision program proceeds. The forces affecting growth and the reasons for wanting to manage growth go far beyond the supply and demand of public services. Environmental considerations, adequate and affordable housing, community design and aesthetics, energy conservation, and community diversity and liveability should all be integrated into a comprehensive growth management program. These matters, only touched on in this study, should and doubtless will be analyzed in depth as the general plan is updated. However, because public services are key factors in shaping the pattern and rate of development, they are a good starting point from which to structure a growth management framework. The intent of this summary report is to identify an approach by which the City can anticipate future public service limitations and ensure that growth occurs In a manner that is compatible with public service availability. In developing the approach, three basic questions were considered. I. What is the ultimate growth potential of the City? The growth potential provides an estimate of future public service requirements. Two important facets of growth influence the provision of public services: the spatial distribution of the growth and the rate of growth. Spatial considerations relate to where the growth will occur and thus where public services must be provided. The rate of growth determines how rapidly the services must be provided. 1 . Y Figure 1 x1>x REGIONAL SETTING I 2. How does one evaluate the adequacy of a public service, and what is the present status of Carlsbad's services? The approach proposed provides a quick assessment of each of the ten services and also indicates if the service is approaching a minimum acceptable level. The mechanism relies on the concept of an "early warning" system that alerts the City when demand is reaching a level that will deplete the availability or quality of the public service unless some action to remedy the situation is undertaken. 3. How adequate is the City's current method of financing and programming public service expansion and improvements? The City has recently implemented a public facilities fee assessment that is designed to finance the public facilities needs of future growth in the City. In light of the City's growth potential and public service demands, a third task is to assess the adequacy and equity of the public facilities fee and to recommend revisions, if necessary, as well as to review and assess means for programming facilities.. CPO SERIES V FORECAST On November 4, 1980, the Carlsbad City Council adopted the so-called Series V Forecast prepared by the San ' Diego ' Comprehensive Planning Organization. Although the staff had uncovered various discrepancies in their review of the forecasts, the City nevertheless adopted the forecasts for planning and regional compatibility purposes. The City adopted the forecasts in the belief, and with the assurance of the Comprehensive Planning Organization, that the CPO method would have no substantial effect on short-term forecasts and that the next forecast (Series VI) would incorporate the City's concerns. At the City's, request CPO undertook a further analysis and predicted a "buildout" population of 160,000. This figure corresponds very closely with a'modification of that used by the City for establishing the public facilities fee and with an adjustment in the prediction made by Sedway/Cooke in the earlier preliminary report. Hence, the 160,000 buildout population has generally been accepted by all parties involved. Tables I and 2 below indicate the final Series V forecasts for the City's general plan area and for the City's incorporated area. In order to get a better idea of where this growth will occur, the City is divided into four significant subareas that correspond approximately to the City's satellite reclamation plant drainage areas. The boundaries of these areas are depicted in a Figure 2, and the population in each of these areas is presented in Table 3. The development potential is a rough surrogate for the public service demand. In terms of population, Encina North and La Costa will place the greatest demand on public services. However, in terms of providing public services, the most dramatic effect of growth will be noticed in Lake Calavera and Palomar where services will have to meet the needs of ultimate populations more than nine times greater than existing populations. The tremendous amount of industrial development potential in Encina South and Palomar will require expansion of present service levels, particularly for water, sewer, and circulation. The ability of the City and the special districts to provide timely and adequate services is intimately linked to how rapidly development proceeds. Excessive rates of growth can overwhelm the City's fiscal and personnel resources. Issues1 and implications of the rate and location of development are discussed in the next section. TABLE I FINAL SERIES V REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS 1978-2000 CITY OF CARLSBAD Total Population Household Population Group Quarters Population Occupied Housing Units Single Family Units Multiple Family Units Percent Single Family Household Size Total Civilian Employment Basic Employment Local Serving Employment Total Acreage Total Developed Acreage . Residential Acreage Basic Acreage Local Serving Acreage Vacant Acreage Developable Unusable Gross Residential Density Gross Employment Density 1978 28,462 28,229 233 10,656 7,349 3,308 69.0 2.6 8,983 2,889 6,094 18,811 4,510 2,452 181 455 13,524 9,733 3,790 4.3 14.1 1985 51,841 51,440 401 20,821 14,788 6,033 71.0 2.5 14,702 3,932 10,770 18,033* 7,422 4,893 273 917 10,611 6,821 3,790 4.3 12.4 1995- 84,147 83,627 520 36,254 26,926 9,328 74.3 2.3 21,231 5,821 15,410 18,033* 11,868 8,799 313 1,524 6,165 2,375 3,790 4.1 11.6 2000 93,891 93,316 575 41,501 . 29,943 11,557 72.2 2.2 25,445 7,081 18,364 8,0330* •13,200** 9,800** 313** 1,829** 4,833** 1,043** 3,790** 4.2 11.9 Change Numeric 65,429 65,087 342 30,845 22,594 8,249 16,462 4,192 12,270 8,690 7,428 132 1,374 -8,691 -8,690 0 1978-2000 Percent 229.88% 230.57% 146.78% 289.46% 307.44% 249.37% 183.26% 145.10% 201.35% 192.68% 302.94% 72.93% 301.98% -64.26% -89.28% 0.00% *The City of Carlsbad has determined that CPO inaccurately reported the City's incorporated area as 18,033 acres. The actual incorporated area is 18,81 I acres. Over the next 20 years, it is expected that the City will annex the remaining unincorporated land located within the sphere of influence boundaries/General Plan Area. When this occurs, the City would be 24,301 acres. ***These figures pertain to existing incorporated City area. TABLE 2 FINAL SERIES V REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS 1978-2000 CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN AREA Total Population Household Population Group Quarters Population Occupied Housing Units Single Family Units Multiple Family Units Percent Single Family Household Size Total Civilian Employment Basic Employment Local Serving Employment Total Acreage Total Developed Acreage Residential Acreage Basic Acreage Local Serving Acreage Vacant Acreage Developable Unusable Gross Residential Density Gross Employment Density 1978 28,724 28,491 233 10,758 7,434 3,324 69.1 2.6 10,240 3,813 6,428 24,301* 5,358 2,482 236 462 18,740 13,593 5,147 -4.3 14.7 ^1985 54,216 53,815 401 21,707 15,564 6,142 71.7 2.5 16,861 4,881 11,980 24,301 8,725 5,118 328 1,096 15,372 10,225 5,147 4.2 11.8 1995 93,325 92,805 520 40,241 30,311 9,930 75.3 2.3 24,703 7,287 17,417 24,301 14,379 9,995 383 1,807 9,718 4,572 5,147 4.0 11.3 2000 111,326 110,751 575 49,444 37,154 12,289 75.1 2.2 29,799 8,937 20,862 24,301 . 17,329 12,601 383 2,156 6,768 1,622 5,147 3.9 11.7 Change Numeric 82,602 82,260 342 38,686 29,720 8,965 19,559 5,124 14,434 11,971 10,119 147 1,694 -11,972 -11,971 0 1978-2000 Percent 287.57% 288.72% 146.78% 359.60% 399.78% 269.71% 191.01% 134.38% 224.55% 223.42% 407.70% 62.29% 366.67% -63.88% -88.07% 0.00% *Reported incorrectly by CPO as 24,097 acres. V jF l~"~ >*^ V jFBuena Vistal 1 rrrl_v»iB<-*>w^^| JTT .•.•. Ca avera .-J Squires Dam vv- •••'••• •.•.•'•X't-'''.''.'X-'-X^-^'.'J ig^i;i;;sssi;isse Figure 2 SIGNIFICANT SUBAREAS Encina Lake Calavera Hills Palomar Airport La Costa City of Carlsbad .north TABLE 3 SIGNIFICANT SUBAREA POPULATION •ADJUSTED TO GENERAL PLAN AREA POPULATION* End no Lake Caiavera Palomar La Costa TOTAL Series 39,363 6,902 1,071 16,537 63,873 1985 Adjusted 33,412 - 5,858 909 14,037 54,216 Series 54,897 23,600 6,686 26,349 111,532 1995 Adjusted . 45,935 19,747 5,599 22,048 93,325 2000 Series 61,686 31,677 11,931 28,219 133,513 Adjusted 51,435 26,413 9,948 23,530 1 1 1,326 The Series V population projections are disaggregated into subareas defined by the City. However, the figures for the subareas generated by CPO include lands beyond the City's general plan area. Accordingly, the figure for each subarea has been adjusted downward so that they are consistent with the population totals of the general plan area as shown in Table 2. GROWTH AND SERVICES IN CARLSBAD Recently the traditional growth ethic has been challenged. In many instances throughout the country, rapid growth has overburdened public facilities and services. Many communities1 are faced with the need.to provide additional services at high "catch-up" costs at a time when financial'pursestrings are being drawn ever tighter. Furthermore, uncontrolled growth has resulted in: loss of environmental resources; conversion of prime agricultural lands; lengthy commutes and automobile dependency because housing and employ- ment opportunities are not in proximity to one another; inefficient use of infrastructure and land resources; and loss of town/neighborhood character. Although there are many reasons for managing growth, this study focuses only on public facilities. The potential implications of uncontrolled growth are serious; therefore attempts are made to stage development in conjunction with provision of adequate public services. A direct application of this philosophy would be to encourage development in areas where public services and facilities are largely available and to discourage development that requires new services. The City has the predominant power to control the location and rate of growth through its decisions on public service availability. However, as is shown in the figures below, outside jurisdiction also can exert an influence. The following discussion indicates how each service impacts, and is impacted by, growth. Water ond Wastewater Services These services can affect the rate and location of development. Growth can result in costly extensions of underutilized facilities. According to representatives of the water districts serving Carlsbad, there is adequate water supply from the County Water.Authority to meet anticipated development. Existing distribution lines cover most of the area likely to develop and are of sufficient capacity so that expensive programs to extend lines and upgrade the lines are minimal. In general, the greatest cost advantages can be gained by encouraging development to occur where water storage and distribution facilities are already on-line and have excess capacity. Because much of the water supply facilities are in place and are provided by independent districts, the cost differences of growth alternatives in terms of water supply appear negligible. The capacity of the Encina wastewater treatment plant was a very real and serious obstacle to development at the outset of this study. The Carlsbad Sewer Service Area had used nearly all of its allocated treatment plant capacity. However, in June I960, the regional plant was rerated to 16 million gallons per day (mgd) from 13.75 mgd, and capacity will be increased to 18 mgd by 1982-1983. Concurrently, the City has embarked upon a satellite wastewater reclamation program that will provide wastewater services to each of the City's significant subareas. The plants serving the City will all be on-line by 1985. The effect of these events has been to remove any constraints to development. For the most part, there is no rationale for encouraging development towards one area over another from this standpoint. However, because the City is responsible for the operation of the plants, to the extent that energy costs for pumping are significant, a scattered pattern of development would cost more than one emphasizing development in areas of infill or adjacent to existing developed areas. Public Schools In general, cost efficiencies due to growth are possible only if underutilized facili- ties are available in local school districts and growth is encouraged in those • districts. Capital expenditures, probably resulting in increased per-unit service costs, would be required if classroom facilities were needed to accommodate a growth in students. Because the school problem is acute everywhere in the City, any growth would involve capital expenditures and potentially have the effect of slowing the rate of development. Operating costs, which' account for the majority of total school costs, typically rise in proportion to increases in students if student- teacher ratios remain somewhat constant. Increased student-teacher ratios could result in lowered per-unit operating costs, although at the risk o'f a possible decline in the quality of education. To the extent that growth is encouraged near schools with available space, it can minimize the transportation costs of busing students, Parks and Recreation The provision of parks and recreational facilities require large initial investments. Hence, variable costs fluctuate little as a function of population. Parks and other recreational facilities, or in-lieu payments, have traditionally been provided by the developer, and the City maintains the facilities. As development increases and, subsequently, park use increases, the City's expenses may increase slightly but proportionately less than the population increase. The fiscal implications of park 8 Figure 3 WATER SERVICE DISTRICTS City of Carlsbad Water Service District Costa Real MWD < San Marcos MWD Olivenhain Buena Colorado MWD SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad , north Figure 4 SEWER SERVICE AREA EfEE Carlsbad Sewer Service Area (Encina Facility) rCity of Carlsbad, Waste Water Reclamation Master Plan Study &£& Leucadia Ccunty Water District San Marcos County Water District Reclamation Treatment Plants: Under Construction City of Carlsbad Proposed .north w..... i . .T-IT-^ ......*.......>. ^ ........ ^^r- '\j£b •••••'•'•'••••••'••-'•*•''••• m Hed^nda:|::::::::::::::::::::::::^::::::::^::::\^;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iooo:::::::-::*:::::::::::::::::::::::^:::::::::::::::^ ::::::::::::::•::::::::::::::! ii2''Don::. R.a•r?a>Sr:=r5Sp5* Figure 5 SCHOOL DISTRICTS Carlsbad Unified Vista San Marcos Unified San Dieguito/ Encinitas Union SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 11 .north acquisition, development, and maintenance are unlikely to be very different in any growth pattern and will not affect development. Police Protection Police protection service can gain certain efficiencies with growth. Managed growth permits increased efficiency with respect to the use of communications equipment and stations. Unmanaged growth, in contrast, does not facilitate optimal use of officers because the areas to be patrolled are so dispersed. Because costs of police protection are determined more by the level of security than by population served, costs will be lower for a compact pattern of development than a dispersed pattern of equal population. Although law enforcement demand correlates roughly with population, it is also influenced by the behavior of residents and visitors. Fire Protection To a large degree, the provision of fire protection services represents a fixed cost. Once a station is established with full-time personnel, the total cost of providing services to an area is roughly the same whether fire crews respond to one or five fires per day. This characteristic allows for efficiencies of service if development occurs as infilling or adjacent to already developed areas, and if the level of growth does not overburden the capacity of existing personnel, and equipment. Therefore, growth usually results in a lowering of the per-unit costs of providing fire protection services if stations are more efficiently utilized. Even if increased service demands require additional personnel or equipment to maintain existing service quality but do not necessitate the construction of new stations, somewhat lower per-unit service costs could result. Figure 6 illustrates the large area of the City already adequately served. Library Library services involve large capital investments, and the variable costs are deter- mined by the quality of service. Carlsbad has established high standards for itself as a community so that the per capita costs may be higher than elsewhere. The efficient use of a library depends entirely on its accessibility. In terms of constraining the rate of development, the availability of libraries is not a major determinant. Circulation It is difficult to generalize about the relationship between public road per-unit costs and increased community size. A minimum amount of roads are necessary for even a small community. An increasing population will require more roads, but proportionately less than the increase of population, and per-unit costs are likely to decrease. This favorable situation lasts until congestion in developed areas occurs. Then, in order to maintain the prior level of service, either new roads which are very expensive to build in developed areas, or a public transit system, both of which are likely to raise per-unit costs would be required. Even more growth, however, may again lower per-unit costs, if public transit usage increases. Carlsbad is generally in the first situation where congestion is limited to certain areas and 12 u-iLake Calavera Figure 6 FIRE PROTECTION Estimated 5 Minute Run Time: Station 1 &m Station 2 Station 3 Fire Stations: • Existing D Proposed SOURCE: City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 13 .north times, as shown in Figure 7. Infill could exacerbate traffic conditions where it occurs in areas with already congested streets. The absence of street capacity may encourage developers to look toward less congested areas, although numerous transportation system management techniques can be employed to bring traffic conditions to acceptable levels. Drainage Drainage is similar to circulation in that a minimum network is necessary to prevent flooding. As development occurs, additional facilities will be required but proportionately less than the increase in population. Most of these costs will be borne by the developer. Physical Administration Facilities It is not possible to generalize about the effects of growth on the costs of providing general government services. Because some services are supplied whether an area is targe or small (such as components of municipal or agency administration), the marginal cost of serving a level of growth may be slight, resulting in lower average (or per-unit) service costs. Other general government services may lose efficiency at higher levels of output that could accompany growth. It is also possible that the increased size of communities may raise expectations for certain urban services, which might have been inefficient to provide and not expected for small levels of population and development. These latter two considerations, loss of efficiency and higher expectations, may result in additional per-unit costs. Certain operations such as the service/maintenance yard can be provided more efficiently when growth is managed and not dispersed. DEVELOPMENT PHASING The main rationale for managing growth in Carlsbad is so that the City has adequate lead time to provide for adequate services. Aside from public services, various other factors come into play when the phasing of development is considered. For example, growth will be influenced by agricultural land preservation policies, development of large planned communities, and regional growth forces. The most realistic and preferred growth scenario should be one that: takes advantage of excess capacity in infill areas; phases development with the availability of sewage capacity as provided by the satellite program; defers development in agricultural lands; recognizes the phasing of the City's major planned communities; and is keyed to the County's schedule for urban development in unincorporated areas. Figure 8 describes these considerations as they relate geographically in Carlsbad. Areas are identified by years by which they can expect to be developed. The areas shown in white are assumed to be existing development, presently developable, or 14 Figure 7 1980 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6.5, 17.0, 80.4 etc. VEHICLE TRIPS IN THOUSANDS , M....... CARLSBAD CITY LIMITS SOURCE: Comprehensive Planning Organization City of Carlsbad 15 . north Figure 8 DEVELOPMENT PHASING 2000 1995 1985 Agricu I tu ra I Preserve SOURCE; SAIJDAG City of Carlsbad —. north 16 open space. Areas potentially developed by 1985 reflect the project phasing for Lake Calavera Hills and Rancho La Costa, development proposals in the airport vicinity, and the corresponding availability of water, sewers, and roads. Areas potentially developed by 1995 include the remaining vacant land in the City, except for two areas: a narrow stretch of land west of 1-5 and south of Palomar Airport Road and the agricultural lands north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Development in these areas is deferred until after 1985 because they require the construction of new roads, are beyond the five minute response time of existing fire stations, or are slated for development during the 1985-1995 period in accordance with a planned community. Areas potentially developed by 2000 include all areas within the Carlsbad sphere of influence. Designation of these lands for development only after 1995 reflects County land use policies regarding urban development of unincorporated lands, lack of major capital facilities, and the City's objective of preventing premature eliminatiari of prime agricultural land. The County Regional Growth Management Program identified the unincorporated areas in Carlsbad as future urban development areas. The concept is to encourage urban densities by holding the land in reserve until it becomes desirable for urban development. Carlsbad has ample vacant land that should be encouraged to develop prior to the development of the unincorporated areas. County lands identified as potentially developable prior to 1995 are so categorized because they are immediately adjacent to City areas that have public services. The City's agricultural lands objective recommends preservation of agricultural lands wherever feasible. The guidelines outlined in the General Plan direct the City to favor urban development in the least productive areas and to utilize measures to prevent premature development. These objectives and guidelines have been respected and consequently these areas are likely to be the last to develop in the City. Figure 8 reflects assumptions regarding a number of public land use and service policies. It identifies when areas may be developed as determined by these policies. How much of the areas are developed is determined largely by market decisions which respond to the regional and national economies and to the developers' perceptions of how much the City can "absorb"; that is, how many units of housing or square feet of commercial space can realistically be built and occupied. Thus, within each of the time periods, only a portion of the developable land will be absorbed. 17 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH POTENTIAL The fiscal impact analysis of projected growth for Carlsbad is analyzed herein. Included are analyses of city expenditures and revenues. The public facilities fee is reviewed for its adequacy in funding necessary infrastructure improvements to serve projected new development. The analysis is performed at four different points in time: 1985, 1995, 2000, and buildout. All comparisons of costs and revenues are made in current dollars. METHODOLOGY To assess the impacts of population growth on the City of Carlsbad's ability to provide adequate public services, several factors were examined: 1. Projected population and buildout figures;* 2. City and service district projections regarding existing and future public facilities needs; 3. Projected capital improvement expenditures; 4. Anticipated City revenues and their sources; and 5. The adequacy of the Public Facilities Fee. Marginal costs associated with projected growth were assessed rather than relying on average costs. Marginal costs take into account the present and potential capacity of relevant public facilities, and the costs of providing additional needed capacity. ANALYSIS OF CITY REVENUES The expected City revenue sources and public services costs through the years 1985, 1995, 2000, and buildout** are analyzed to better evaluate the current 2.1 percent public facilities fee. This will better indicate what projects the fee should fund to offset additional costs incurred as a result of development. This section analyzes existing revenues and estimates future revenues in current dollars for the time periods 1980-1985, 1986-1995, 1996-2000, and 2000-bui Idout. *lt should be noted that the City is expected to grow in area during the next 20 years through annexation within the sphere of influence/General Plan Area. Therefore, the analysis will be based on population projections for the GeneralPlan Area. **General revenue sources cannot accurately be calculated for "buildout" as property taxes cannot be calculated as the time period from the year 2000 to buildout is unknown. 18 The major revenue sources1 are the General Fund, Federal Revenue Sharing, Block Grant monies, gas tax revenues, water funds and sewer construction funds. A description of these city funds can be found in the City of Calsbad Capital Improvement Program 1980-1985 (Nov., 1980). With the exceptions of the General Fund and Federaf Revenue Sharing monies, all the funds are limited and/or have restrictions as to the type of projects they can fund. The General Fond is the largest source of city revenues. There are no restrictions on the allocation of General Fund monies except that expenditures must be legal expenses of the City of Carlsbad. As the General Fund is the largest funding mechanism, it has been broken down by its revenue components of property taxes, sales taxes and various city fees to more accurately project future levels. Property Tax The property tax is the largest revenue source, accounting for approximately 29 percent of total General Fund revenues. In 1979-80, Carlsbad received approximately $2.7 million in property tax revenue. Proposition 13 stipulates that property taxes may be levied at a maximum of one percent of fair market value. Under Proposition 13, property that has not transferred ownership since 1975-1976 is assessed at the 1975-1976 assessed value, plus a two percent annual increase. New development and property transfers are taxed at one percent of current fair market value. Future property taxes are projected based on the assumption that the mandates under Proposition 13 will remain in effect. The new development upon which the property tax revenues are projected are presented in Table 4. Projections for property tax revenues are calculated for the years through 1985, 1995, 2000, and buildout. Property tax projections are based on the following assumptions: 1. New average single-family home price: $135,000. New average multifamily home price: $85,000 Source: Mary Ann Schieren, Carlsbad Board of Realtors. Based on multiple list ing data, 1/22/81. 2. Current construction cost for commercial development: $50 per square foot. Current construction cost for industrial development: $30 per square foot. Source: Means Cost Data, 1980. 3. The City receives'approximately $.21 of each property tax dollar paid. (This is based on total amount of assessed valuation of secured valuation of secured property for 1979-80. Carlsbad's share of the property tax (estimated 1980-1981) = 3.1 million.- This figure includes $715,000 state bailout funds. Source: Jim Elliot, City of Carlsbad, 2/6/81. 4. Ten percent yearly turnover rate of property. This 10 percent yearly turnover increases in value at 12% per year. Source: California Association of Realtors, Los Angeles; conversation with Topas Ghosh in Research & Planning, 2/4/81. 19 < H0 — IT) — -f*"VO O CO COCO^ 00^ M3 00^ i/T vcT . — *oo +-3 O2 '5 CD *- 32 M — C "^•^ o o> ,2 s-i ll— *- o o.. ig"jcsXT! > l^^asvs •^4- 4) .0 £ * £ XCM m — co" <f " §^™\ 0 O CM vo tX, CM — C ^CO O yo<*> £Q. O^ 4) U •* Z in 5 £ 3 inI j-* P: < *y z 5 £§ ^ i- -< s < H o g in •£ — ^1§Ssf||l .. T3 4) C Q.-D > OO <£ 4) O °~ Q|"4Jr>UJ — & Q in CO ON «-•£ *II»^ *n /ii ^fc.. \J HJ ^Q."D > n O <f 4) co ON in eg<t in CM coco co^ — vo" CM" • ' r>- co vo cp5 co vo CMr^ r~ ^ £ CO <r co r~ CMvo co r-- vo CM CM •* *k **r*^ •*• Q. Q*^ I«J $il 8*11— x x <uQ_i 1 1 ^0 ^ 5j0_ c *8 SS | ' §L CO ON ^ OD <f • 4-c 4> 4- | \ 1 % H -v J° 0 C CT«= x^ x«2 4> <" 8- °55 ,_ ~ ^> — ~ > h — ^c^> P *• Pc " % 4> Mi! If ? 1 i 15 '.1*1*3111118 i o | -£S. • u u - 4) "OjQ 4) — i-~ 4) ^ ^tr o2 o-§ c— 4) 5 -cJ ? ! 1<f> C7)CO ;—o **• .2 S . .*• JG b••H J.- b*1- ox p TJ . cD </> E•S 153 .!2 £ c f •!- O•i— t/S ^^«- . OT :r*- .t: o0-0 = '. •"•5<n D ' TJ i.«J _ 4> 4)CO ^ 4- CaO O 4)u. ^ i »u o j^uS. 8 -S a, •~ 4) 4) £ ^ K §,- *" R «'~u O u (/) O ^ 04)U- 0 0 u «• | %£ '- °- 1° i *.£4) S -J3w c E o§ i £ 5c .± *t: a .2 U- £ E „. M- 1J O£ o ^ y. 4) *• ^4)€ g -g&E S^. o t «> ^ S D « R>0 Q. ^2 CM 41 ° flj u Q £ >0 o 8 ° S £ -? S | 8| S O i- rn U ° c ^^ rA rt) i«If) V ^j 4) 4) "S3JS j-^, *±-l ^Z*•£ « a o o0 c -^ cc o E „, .= ."i? 1 *« 8 S § - .£°0 * ~ . s&X 4) — 0) ^ 00£ « C g> 4) |=^1 § ll I 1 Si•5 g 3 R | 011 ,m s s r fs. 20 TABLE 5 PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1980-1985 (CUMULATIVE) In OOP's of Dollars New Single Family Homes x Average Value 7,264 x $135,000 = $ 980,640 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 1,233 x $ 85,000 = 104,805 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor* x $/Sq. Ft. 77 x 10,890^ x $50 = 41,927 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor* x $/Sq. Ft. 462 x 10,890^ x $30 = . 150,935 New Market Value on Tax Rolls = 1,278,307 Property Tax Rate = .012 $ 15,340 Proportion Returned to City = .21 New Property Tax Revenue = $ 3,221 Property Tax Increment derived from projected change of ownership (commercial and residential) + 10%/Yrs. Reassessed by 12%* $2,700,000 x .5 x (1.12- .02)5 _ | $ 824 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue* $2,700,000 x (1.02)5- I . . $ 270 + 1979 Base Revenue . = $ ' 2,700 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE $ 7,015 *Floor area ratio is assumed to be .25 average. Hence the factor is 10,890 Sq.Ft. (or 25% X 43,560^) 21 TABLE 6 PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1985-1995 (CUMULATIVE) In OOP's of Dollars New Single Family Homes x Average Value x $135,000 = $ 1,990,845 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 3,788 x $ 85,000 = 321,980 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor* x $/Sq. Ft. 66 x 10,890^ x $50 = 35,937 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor* x $/Sq. Ft. 623 x 10,8900 x $30 . = ' 203,534 New Market Value on Tax Rolls = 2,552,296 Property Tax Rate = _ .012 $ 30,628 Proportion Returned to City = _ .21 New Property Tax Revenue = $ 6,432 + 1 0%/Yrs. Reassessed by 1 2%*$7,015 x 1.00 x (1. 12 -.02)10. | = $ M>154 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue $7,015 x (1.02)10. | $ |(543 + 1 985 Base Revenue = $ 7.015 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ." $ 26,144 *Factor = 10,890 = 43,560 (no. of / ac) x .25 (amount of built area/site) 22 TABLE 7 PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1995-2000 (CUMULATIVE) In OOP's of Dollars New Single Family Homes x Average Value 68,437 x $135,000 - = $ 923,805 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 2,359 x $ 85,000 = 200,515 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor* x S/Sq. Ft. 25 x 10,8900 x $50 = 13,613 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor* x $/Sq. Ft. 188. x 10,890^ x $30 = . 61,420 New Market Value on Tax Rolls = 1,199,353 Property Tax Rate = .012 Proportion Returned to City New Property Tax Revenue + 10%/Yrs. Reassessed by 12%* $26,144 x 1.00 x (1.12-.02)5. | .. $ 8>004 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue $26,144 x (1.02)5. , . $ 2,614 + 1995 Base Revenue . = $ 26,144 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE $ 37,784 *Factor = 10,890 = 43,560 (no. of ^/ ac) x .25 (amount of built area/site) 23 TABLE 7A PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 2000-BUILDOUT* (CUMULATIVE) • In OOP's of Dollars New Single Family Homes x Average Value 8,207 x $135,000 = $ 1,107,945 New Multi-Family Homes x Average Value 4,516 x $ 85,000 = 383,860 New Commercial Development Acres x Factor** x $/Sq. Ft. 37 x 10,890^ x $50 = 20,147 New Industrial Development Acres x Factor** x $/Sq. Ft. 125 x IO,890P x $30 = ' 40,838 New Market Value on Tax Rolls = 1,552,790 Property Tax Rate = .012 Proportion Returned to City New Property Tax Revenue + 10%/Yrs. Reassessed by 12%* $37,784 x 1.00 x (1.12-.02)30 _, = $ 621,509 + Yearly 2% Increase on All Property Tax Revenue $37,784 x.( 1.02)30- I $ 30,643 + 2000 Base Revenue = $ 37.784 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE • $, 693,849 *Buildout is assumed to be the year 2030. **Factor = 10,890 = 43,560 (no. of ^ I ac) x .25 (amount of built area/site) 24 5. Property tax revenue of newly developed residential property is inflated to some extent because of the difficulty in deriving and subtracting the assessed value prior to development. An offsetting factor is the fact that some turnover properties increase by more than 12 percent per year due to the -limitations on their 1975-1976 assessed value. 6. A ten percent interest rate for present-worth calculations of future revenue is used. In summary, projected tax revenues are shown below. Incremental Total Period Property Tax Property Tax Revenue 1979 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 1980-1985 4,315,000 7,015,000 1986-1995 19,129,000 26,144,000 1996-2000 11,640,000 37,784,000 2000-Buildout 656,065,000 693,849,000 Sales Tax The statewide sales tax is generally levied at a six percent rate. (Exceptions involve transit districts.) The State General Fund retains 4-3/4 percent, and one percent is distributed to local government. (The remaining one-fourth percent is stipulated for local mass transit.) Thus, Carlsbad receives one percent of all taxable retail sales within its jurisdiction. The amount of retail sales, and hence the amount of sales tax, is affected by the number of residents, the availability of shopping facilities in nearby areas, income levels, and factors such as the proportion of commercial to residential property. Sales tax projections presented here are conservative estimates of future revenues to the City of Carlsbad. Revenues have been derived using 1980 per capita sales tax spending multiplied by increased population figures. They do not take into account the following: !. Inflation, which will change real revenues if prices of retail goods increase at a higher or lower rate than other costs and incomes. 2. The influx of wealthier people into the area having higher disposable incomes, increasing per capita spending. 3. Buildout of commercial acreage in Carlsbad resulting in a higher sales volume for the area. i 4. Possibility of other regional retail facilities being built in adjacent areas resulting in a smaller market area for Carlsbad retailers and/or lower sales volume. 5. Especially weak auto sales in the base year. 25 6. Incomplete regional shopping mall, with base year sales below potential for such a facility. Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues include fees associated with new development (e.g., plan checking fees, subdivision fees, etc.), miscellaneous fees (e.g., library and ambulance fees, etc.), miscellaneous taxes and fines (e.g., cigarette tax, motor vehicle fines, etc.). Other Funds Federal Revenue Sharing came into existence in 1972 through Title I of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and when it expired in 1976, a new bill. (P.L. 94-488) extended revenue sharing until September I960. The formula for determination of revenue distribution is based primarily on population. The new law allows local government to set policy regarding expenditures. Some Revenue Sharing programs appear likely to continue, although the amount of funds allocated to this program is uncertain. To date, they have been decreased by two percent, pending Senate review.* Thus, these funds have been held constant in revenue projections. Need for Public Facilities - 1985, 1995, 2000 The demand for new capital facilities and appropriate costs have been projected for the years through 1985, 1995, 2000 and Buildojt based on expected city growth. The following costs are summarized from Tables 10, II, 12, and 13. 1985 - 27,000,000 or $5,400,000/yr. 1995 - 47,000,000 or $4,700,000/yr. 2000 - 17,000,000 or $3,400,000/yr Buildout- 33,000,000 or $l,IOO,000/yr. Total 124,000,000 *Needs attributed to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs. Data have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Costs Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Note: Figure estimates for this table are based on the General Plan Area which includes unincorporated areas. *Based on conversation with U.S. Congressman John Burton's Office. 26 oT3 .0 oo JC 'i c 8'CoaEoo 4) +—O4- 1ZI 'oo<4- o in•oJO 8.ocac V4- 4- 3 CD £— j jz4- 'i "•^Of/) 8s. co0) C (Uk* 0COON -oV "a_E 4-CO LU ** COC a> oa IT3 Q.in OCO OCM O O T31> 1 Buildout§ON O COa -8 4- <ul_ u O •u(U a Ixo CO ^•5. a <u 8 oCOON O TJ0)coO.0 -8 <u »_ o •a<u 1 oo co0)I c 0)I 4- IUIo <u I £ 13 O COzI 01 o I "a.| 1o § 27 TABLE 9 EXPECTED FUTURE REVENUES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS* 1985 1995 2000 Buildout General Fund Revenues Other Fund Revenues Total Revenues Costs of Capital Improvements (Tables' 10- 13) (Deficit)/Surplus 15,584,452 915,030 16,499,482 26,61 LJ9I (10,111,709) 39,216,273 9 1 5,030 40,131,303 46,960,062 (6,828,759) 37,601,808 915,030 38,516,838 17,406,779 19,110,059 690,185,491 915,030 691,100,521 32,919,470 658; 18 1,051 *m current dollars This analysis shows the potential deficit in the absence of offsetting fees, assuming .the City maintains current service levels and pursues necessary infrastructure as population growth dictates. In the absence of offsetting fees, the deficit rises with population growth and declines as the growth rate approaches zero in direct relation to the City's demand for infrastructure. In short, it is during rapid growth periods that higher costs are incurred to provide the necessary infrastructure. As full buildout is reached, most capital facilities are already in place; thus the infrastructure costs associated with the remaining development decline. If buildout occurs in a shorter time span than projected here, it is possible that per capita costs could be offset by larger property tax revenues. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE As indicated, additional revenues will be needed to fund future capital improvements as population grows. In 1979, a 3.41% public facilities fee (PFF), was recommended by City Hall staff to'generate needed revenues. The 3.41% figure was derived through an estimation of building permit values and the cost of providing necessary capital facilities. It was determined that the value of the capital facilities (e.g. parks, new and expanded roads, traffic signals, fire stations, libraries, administrative space, et. al.) less the amount required to provide adequate service levels was 3.41% of the expected future building permit values. The City Council determined that developers should pay for certain infrastructure improvements, previously financed by the PFF. The Council also revised the PFF to 2.1% of building permit value. The costs analyzed herein to be paid from PFF revenues are those directly associated with City services. Other needs attributed to new development, including water and sanitation, are financed through assessment districts and other fees based on the costs of those service districts. School districts are not coterminous with City boundaries and are not addressed in detail in this study. 28 TABLE 10 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIOD- 1980 THROUGH 1985* Costs (in dollars) 94 acres park @ $60,000/acre = 5,640,000 Improvements <g) 56,000/acre = 5,264,000 20,000 sq.ft. police building @ $85/sq.ft. = 1,700,000 70,000 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 235,200 Land, 2-1 /4 acre @ $60,000/acre = 135,000 Fire station . = 443,023 Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre = 45,000 46,000 sq.ft. administrative facilities @ $60/sq.ft.** = 2,760,000 105,800 sq.ft. parking @$3.36/sq.ft. = 355,488 Land, 10 acres @ $60,000/acre = 600,000 Traffic signals ($5,112,800 x.35) = 1,789,480 Street widening ($21,840,000 x .35) = 7,644,000 TOTAL = $26,611,191 *Needs attributed to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs and from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis". Data have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Costs Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. **Sedway Cooke, based on a study prepared for City. Note: Figure estimates for this table are based on the General Plan Area which includes unincorporated areas. 29 TABLE I I ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIOD - 1985 THROUGH 1995* 196 acres park @ $60,000/acre Improvements @ 56,000/acre Costs (in dollars) 11,760,000 10,976,000 1 paramedic unit 2 Fire stations @ $443,023 Land, I 1/2 acre @ $60,000/acre 56,000 886,046 90,000 Main library, 75,000 sq.ft. @ $65/sq.ft. Land, 4 acres @ $60,000/acre Parking, 120,000 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. Books, 1.3 x 75,000 @ $9/book 4,875,000 240,000 403,200 877,500 Branch librai /, 15,000 sq.ft. @ $65/sq.ft. Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre Parking, 24,000 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. Books," 1.3 x 15,000 @ $9/book 975,000 45,000 80,640 175,500 Street widening ($21,840,000 x .42) Traffic Signals ($15,112,800 x .42) TOTAL 9,172,800 6,347,376 $46,960,062 *Needs attributed to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs and from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis". Data have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Costs Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. Note: Figure estimates for this table are based oh the General Plan Area which includes unincorporated areas. 30 TABLE 12 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TIME PERIOD - 1995 THROUGH 2000* Administrative facilities, 6,000 sq.ft. @ $60/sq.ft. 13,800 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. Costs (in dollars) 360,000 46,368 I Fire station Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre 443,023 45,000 90 acres parks @ $60,000/acre Improvements @ $56,000/acre 5,400,000 5,040,000 Branch library, 15,000 sq.ft. @ $65/sq.ft. Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre Parking, 24,000 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. Books, 1.3 x 15,000 @ $9/book 975,000 45,000 80,640 175,500 Police building, 5,000 sq.ft. @ $85/sq.ft. 17,500 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. 425,000 58,800 Street widening ($21,840,000 x .16) Traffic signals ($5,112,800 x .16) 3,494,400 818,048 TOTAL $17,406,779 *Needs attributed to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs and from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis". Data have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Costs Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. Note: Figure estimates for this table are based on the General Plan Area which includes unincorporated areas. 31 TABLE 13 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES* TIME PERIOD - 2000 THROUGH BUILDOUT** Costs (in dollars) 230 acres park @ $60,000/acre = 13,800,000 Improvements @ $56,000/acre ' " = 12,880,000 10,000 sq.ft. police building @ $85/sq.ft. = 850,000 35,000 sq.ft. parking @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 117,600 I paramedic unit = 56,000 Branch library, 15,000 sq.ft. @ $65/sq.fti = 975,000 Land, 3/4 acre @ $60,000/acre = 45,000 Parking 24,000 sq.ft. @ $3.36/sq.ft. = 80,640 Books, 1.3 x 15,000 @$9/book = 175,500 Expansion of main branch, 50,000/sq.ft. at $65/sq.ft. = 3,250,000 Books, 1.3x50,000 @$9/book . = 585,000 .Parking, 31,250 sq.ft. @$3.36/sq.ft. " = 105,000 TOTAL = 32,919,470 * All that can be realistically based on population studies. **Needs attributed to new growth have been projected by Service Standards Costs and from "A Public Facilities Fee, an Analysis". Data have been updated with information derived from the Engineering News Record Index, Means Costs Data (published by Engineering News Records), and appropriate inflation factors. Traffic signals and street widening have been divided according to amount of growth in different periods. Note: Figure estimates for this table are based on the General Plan Area which includes unincorporated areas. 32 All future development will require public facilities. Some developments, due to location or scale will require construction of new capital facilities, while others can utilize existing infrastructure without straining service levels. Each new development should pay its "fair share" based on location, project's usage of capital facilities, and its increased burden to service level quality. Two criteria, equity and efficiency, must be considered in any decision to set an optimal public facilities fee. Equity is concerned with each person contributing a "fair share" to costs incurred. The difficulty lies in defining "fair share". Equity is usually determined by evaluating "benefits received" and "amount expended". Efficiency, in this section, refers to the administrative ease of imposing and collecting the fee. The actual determination of the amount to be paid.by each development could be time-consuming and difficult with resulting administrative burdens. Thus, the costs of implementing a public facilities fee must be considered along with the benefits of such a fee. In addition, the question of equity- who will bear the costs and who will gain the benefits - must be considered. A fee imposed on new development based on a percent of building permit value to contribute to existing and future capital infrastructure is highly efficient due to limited administrative costs. It is also fairly equitable as the major burden falls on those who benefit most from the capital investment. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Setting the Public Facilities Fee The public facilities fee needed to provide public services for new development is determined from (I) a comparison of revenues generated with the existing two percent fee, and (2) the projected costs for public facilities attributed to new growth. Tables 14-17 evaluate the revenues from the PFF in 1985, 1995, 2000, and Buildout. The adequacy of the PFF is summarized in Table 18. TABLE 14 PROJECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FUND - 1980-1985 New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 7,234 x 1,800 x $40 = $523,008,000 New Multi-Family Homes • No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 1,233 x 800 x $35 = 34,524,000 Commercial Development = 41,927,000 Industrial Development = $ 150,935,000 Total Building Permit Value = $ 750,394,000 PFF @ 2.1% .021 PFF REVENUE 1980-85 = $ 15,758,274 TABLE 15 PROJECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FUND - 1985-1995 New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 14,747 x 1,800 x $40 = $1,061,784,000 . New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft; 3,788 x 800 x $35 = 106,064,000 Commercial Development = 35,937,000 Industrial Development = $ 203,534,000 Total Building Permit Value = $1,407,319,000 PFF@2.I% .021 PFF REVENUE 1980-85 = ' $ 29,533,699 TABLE 16 PROJECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FUND - 1995-2000 New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 6,843 x 1,800 x $40 = $492,696,000 New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 2,359 x 800 x $35 = 66,052,000 Commercial Development = 13,613,000 Industrial Development = 61,420,000 Total Building Permit Value = $633,781,000 PFF @ 2.1% ^ .021 PFF REVENUE 1980-85 = $ 13,309,401 34 TABLE 17 PROJECTED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FUND 2000-Buildout New Single Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 8,207 1,800 ?40 = New Multi-Family Homes No. x Av. Sq.Ft. x $/Sq.Ft. 4,516 x 800 x $35 = Commercial Development = Industrial Development = Total Building Permit Value = PFF@2.I%v PFF REVENUE 2000-Buildout $ 590,904,000 126,448,000 20,147,000 $ 40,838,000 $ 778,337,000 .021 $ 16,345,077 TABLE 18 SUMMARY* Pop: Capital Improvements Needs Accumulated funds for Public Facilities Fee @ 2.1% Totals: (Deficits)/Surplus Other Revenues** 1985 54,216 27 16 (ID 16 1995 Pop: 93,325 47 30 (17) - 40 2000 Pop: 111,326 17 13 (4) 39 Buildout Pop: 158,523 33 16 (17) *Amounts are in million dollars. **The City of Carlsbad can utilize a portion of these other revenues to offset any deficit. However, it is unlikely that significant funds will be available after covering operating costs and other needs. 35 If developers are assessed for street improvements (i.e. widening) on arterials going through or adjacent to their developments,* the amount of needed City funding for arterials would decrease from $20,311,200 to $13,800,000 or approximately $6.5 million. Thus, the total public facilities need through the year 2000 would be approximately $117 million dollars (based on current dollars). The existing PFF at 2.1% will still generate approximately $75 million over the same time period, leaving a deficit of $15 million. To finance this solely through the PFF, it would need to be raised to approximately 3.3%.** SUMMARY The overall public facilities need until Buildout will be approximately $124 million dollars (based on current dollars). The existing 2.1% public facilities fee will generate approximately $75 million over the same time period leaving a de.ficit-of approximately $49 million. To finance this deficit solely by the PFF, it would have to be raised to approximately 3.5%+. Given the difficulty in projecting population growth and revenues over extended time periods, the factors analyzed herein should be reassessed at a maximum of five year intervals. *Per the recommendations of Les Evans, City Engineer to the City Council, December 9, 1980. The need for the PFF is 3.3%, down from 3.5%, due to developers' additional contribution to infrastructure. **Based on $3,569,831,000 total building permit value through Buildout. The 3.3% would generate approximately $1 17,804,423. +This would generate approximately $124,944,085 between 1980 and Buildout. 36 TABLE 19 STREET WIDENING TOTALS 1980-1985 $7,644,000 1985-1995 9,172,800 1995-2000 3,494,400 $20,311,200. Developers Share City.Share (PFF or other source) 1985 2,474,25^69,744 1995 2,930,04/242,760 2000 1,106,92/887,496 . . - 6,511,200 assessed to 13,800,000 financed from PFF developers** or other City funds* *As per recommendations of Les Evans, City Engineer to the City Council, Dec. 9, 1980. TABLE 20 . • CHANGES IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS/ REVENUES WITH SUMMARY (PER TABLE 19)* i 1985 1995 2000 Buildout Capital Improvement Needs 24 44-16 33 Public Facilities fee @ 2.1% _[6 30 .\3 ' J6 Totals (Deficit)/Surplus (8) (14) (3) (17 Other Revenues** 17 41 39 *Amounts are in million dollars. **Other revenues are itemized in Table 8, General Fund Revenues. The City of Carlsbad can utilize a portion of these other revenues to offset any deficit. However, it is extremely unlikely tha significant funds will be available after covering operating costs and other needs. 37 SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY FINDINGS The City of Carlsbad has experienced tremendous growth in recent years. In 1975 the City's estimated population was 19,200; by 1980, the population had increased to an estimated 35,500—an 85 percent increase in only five years. While most of this growth is centered in the older portion of the City between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons, it is also evident elsewhere. This interim growth management program was initiated by the City Council with the intent of identifying the City's potential for growth, discussing the impacts of this growth on the City's public services, and recommending a strategy for ensuring that the provision of adequate public services is phased with future development. The following is a summary of findings in these categories. Potential for Growth The City's growth potential was reviewed in light of existing public policies regarding land use. The City's General Plan provided the basis for making a growth estimate which was then phased to reflect community plans, city agricultural preservation policies, and environmental constraints. The City's population in the year 2000 will be approximately I I 1,000 persons, housed in over 50,000 residential units. The single-family residential housing stock is expected to more than quadruple, and the multifamily units will more than double. (Even more multifamily units could be expected depending on redevelopment areas in the central business district.) Commercial acreage is currently at 67,5 percent of its ultimate capacity. In contrast, industrial development has only just begun to tap its enormous potential of over 1,800 acres (based on measurement of existing versus potential land use). In order to evaluate the impacts of this growth, an effort was made to distribute the growth into different subareas and then within each subarea to phase the development over time. The four subareas and their year 2000 populations are indicated below: Year 2000 Subarea Location Population Encina Between Buena Vista and Batiquitos Lagoons, generally west of El Camino Real 51,435 Lake Calavera The area around the Lake Calavera Hills ~ development and extending south to El Camino and east to the City limits 26,413 Palomar The airport area, south of Lake Calavera, and extending east to the City limits 9,948 * La Costa The southeast quadrant of the City, east of El Camino Real and south of the airport subarea 23,530 38 Not unexpectedly, the City's population will be much more dispersed when it is fully developed. The prevailing character of the community with the exception of the central business district will be low density residential, at slightly more than four dwelling units per acre. The commercial acreage will be concentrated in the northern portion of Encina around the present downtown and the regional shopping center. The industrial development will be concentrated in the Palomar subarea. A critical concern in public facilities planning is the timing of development. Without this knowledge, adequate planning and provision of public services is difficult. For this reason, the study determined the expected rate of growth for the Carlsbad area. Four time frames were defined: 1980-1985, 1985-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000- Buildout. These periods were'chosen because they match the Comprehensive Planning Organization's time periods, but more importantly, because.they are appropriate for public services planning. Thus, the first five year period, or the short term, corresponds to the five year time frame of the City's capital improvement program. The next period, 1985-1995 is the intermediate planning phase, and after 1995 can be considered long-range. The City will continue to experience a very high rate of growth over the next five years, although not quite as substantial as during the 1975 to 1980 period. (It is felt that this level of development may be slightly high given the market conditions prevailing at the beginning of the period and the effect of the sewer moratorium which was only recently rescinded.) Population Cumulative Population 1980 35,500 1980-1985 18,716 54,2-16 1985-1995 39,109 93,325 1995-2000 18,001 111,326 2000-Buildout 47,197 158,523 During the first time period, much of the City's growth will occur in the La Costa and Lake Calavera subareas. Between 1985 and 1995, Encina South will begin to develop and the La Costa subarea should still experience substantial development. A large portion of the City's industrial potential will be realized during this period. Dui ing the 1995 to 2000 period, much of the City's development activity will be concentrated in the Encina South area. After 2000, Encina South and Polomar will be the areas where development is most active. Impacts on Public Services A summary of Carlsbad's present service levels is presented below, as a point of departure for future projections. Present Service Adequacy Water . Adequate Sewer Adequate 39 Service Schools Parks and Recreation Police Protection Fire Protection Library Services Circulation Drainage Physical Administration Facilities Present Adequacy Flora Vista Magnolia, La Palma Continuing High School, San Dieguito High School, Flora Vista are inadequate. Inadequate (although addition of beaches and school facilities would improve conditions) Inadequate Adequate except around Palomar Airport and southwestern portion of the City. Adequate, but beyond Benchmark I" Adequate Adequate, except in older portion of the City where localized problems occur. Inadequate Strategies to Ensure Adequate Service Protection A thorough evaluation of the City's public facilities fee, which the City adopted in order to finance capital facilities required by new development, was undertaken. In the wake of Proposition 13 and its potential impact on the ability of cities to raise revenues, cities are concerned with fiscal consequences of new development. The fiscal impact of projected growth in the City of Carlsbad was addressed. The City of Carlsbad recently instituted a public facilities fee to offset additional infrastructure costs associated with new development. The adequacy of this fee was also analyzed. Future revenues were projected to estimate potential deficits resulting from increased expenditure levels associated with development. Costs of providing new and expanded public facilities to service population increases were estimated and compared to projected marginal revenues from the public facilities fee and taxes. The analysis1 concluded that the public facilities fee is necessary to expand existing facilities and provide for new ones required by population growth. A 3.5% PFF is recommended to cover necessary infrastructure to accommodate projected growth. The 2.1% PFF in existence, along with developers' contributions, will be inadequate unless other capital funds are forthcoming. 40 RECOMMENDATIONS Fiscal -In order to insure adequate funds to finance capital facilities, the following recommendations are made: 0 Public facilities fee revenues should be used to fund new and expanded library, public administration, police, fire, and park facilities, traffic signals and road widening. Public facilities should be provided when population levels are adequate to insure efficient service levels. o The public facilities fee is designed to cover costs incurred that exceed revenues generated by existing development. The costs included are infrastructure costs attributed to total new growth over time. Though this is a fairly equitable and efficient method of generating needed revenues, costs are still spread over the entire population base. o Any cost burdens that can be directly attributed to a particular development should be paid by that development which receives the benefits. New roads are expected to be funded almost entirely by the new development as the PFF will only fund widening and improvements to exist ing. roads. A sprawl development would have higher road construction expenses, and tend to dilute service levels (e.g. fire response time, library accessibility, etc.). However, the direct costs to the Public Works and Public Safety generally attributed to sprawl appear to be negligible. o The 2.1% public facilities fee has. been determined to be adequate to fund capital improvements provided revenues from the General Fund and other City funds can be used as well. At this time, the potential for alternative funding sources for infrastructure improvements is extremely limited. In the absence of alternative revenue sources, a 3.5% PFF would be needed.* As part of a continuing growth management process, the fee should be reevaluated every two to five years to insure its relevance to community needs and costs. Facilities Programming New California legislation which recently went into effect provides that any city which places a limitation on the number of housing units that may be constructed is required to take into consideration, in the determination of that number of units, the impact on the surrounding region. The implication of this new provision is clear: any system which Carlsbad may impose, whether it explicitly includes a specific number of units or its overall effect were to be the same, would be invalid without a study which documents impacts on the larger San Diego County housing market. Any system which is voter-approved would have to reflect a fair share of the statewide population growth or would have to set a growth rate of no more than the average population growth rate experienced by the state as a whole. *The 3,5% PFF is a maximum, subject to change based on developers' infra- structure contributions, as well as future population figures and growth center locations that may differ from the projections made for the purpose of this study. Hence, the early determination by the Carlsbad City Council that the city should not consider factors other than adequacy of public facilities in approving developments allows the system to be construed only as an extension of the capital improvements program. (It is also a means by which costs of facilities and services are legitimately offset by a public facilities fee.) The system proposed should make clear -that public facilities will be provided only when population levels are adequate to insure sufficient service levels. Thus, because development will not be approved where adequate services cannot be provided at reasonable per capita costs and with reasonable expediency, sprawl development will be avoided as a desirable side-effect of the system. The California planning law, at Government Code Section 65401, indicates that each city officer or commission shall submit a list of the proposed public works recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuing fiscal year. The "official agency" must list and classify all such recommendations and prepare a coordinated program of proposed public works for the fiscal year. The coordinated program is required to be submitted to the city planning agency for review and report to the official agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan. Because of this provision and the recent California decision in Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward, the general plan and the capital improvements program of the City take on new meaning. First, the public works projects of Carlsbad must be in accord with its General Plan. Second, the planning department must have compiled the list of projects and must also have reviewed all projects' conformance with the general plan within 40 days. The immediate consequences of failing to review an annual public works list or a specified project for general plan consistency could be severe: the statute says the project should not be built (emphasis added). The city council can avoid the consequences of this by insisting that they themselves and their constituent departments, and not just the planning department, use the general plan. However, the current Carlsbad General Plan is often vague, lacking in policies clearly identifiable as dealing with public facilities and services, and otherwise inappropriate for handling the programming issues which will arise. Accordingly, to provide suitable city development policies and public facilities policies, it is recommended that the City of Carlsbad undertake the following: 1. Immediately begin the process of revising what is currently an inadequate general plan incapable of being assessed for its public facilities implications. 2. Include as a component element two elements "permissive" under state law: a Public Services and Facilities Element (Government Code Section 65303(e)); along with a Public Building Element (which together could be called a Public Improvements Element). These two elements, when combined, would encompass the wide range of facilities and services considered in this report. 3. Adopt a set of official guidelines for the formulation of the City's capital improvements program which reflect policies on capital improvements and services to be adopted in the general plan. The planning staff should include the following in a capital improvements rating system: .conformance with general plan facilities and development locational goals; anticipated level of utilization; current inadequacy as measured by the benchmarks shown below; avoidance of duplication or overlapping of facilities and services; appropriate channeling of growth; desirability of renovating an obsolete portion of the City's physical plant; reduction of overall costs of maintenance; and availability of external funding. The following are amplifications of these recommendations: I. General Plan Revision. It is recommended that the general plan "be revised comprehensively as soon as possible. This is required because most of the assumptions which undergirded current general plan proposals are seriously in question and others have been irrefutably rejected. Moreover, the City has identified a need for detailed surveys of economic, social and environmental conditions. Many of these have been preliminarily addressed in this report; others would be part of any thorough and professionally done survey which is an integral part of a general plan program. (Efforts to secure "master" environmental assessments or "super-EIRs" have been widely publicized, but recently have been shown to be largely unusable when completed, and highly costly as well.) The City may presently be vulnerable to litigation in terms of internal inconsistency and irrelevance of its general plan. Thus, the attention of the planning staff should be devoted immediately to updating the general plan to reflect whatever new policies may be or will be derived from the local coastal program effort, the public services and facilities study, new census data and population forecasts and projections, and new public services and facilities and public buildings policies. Additionally, the general plan should provide a basis for the assessment of proposed projects of independent special districts which impinge on the growth patterns of Carlsbad. In the case of a dispute with an independent special district, although the City cannot directly control the district's actions, a court is more likely to support the City if its zoning ordinance deals explicitly with the issue and the ordinance is grounded on a sound and up-to-date general plan. Given the recent renewed interest in local self-determination in conjunction with an interest in reforming the local planning law, it may be expected that the general plan will become an even more central document and process in controlling actions of school and special districts. The current, somewhat confused, provisions regarding consistency between local public projects and the local general plan are then likely to be clarified. 43 2. Formulation of Public Improvements Element. This element should not only designate where new facilities will go but should also determine when and at what scale they will be developed. This element could be derived from data in this study, considered together with the modified land use and related policies included in the revised general plan. That element should be in a form which could provide the basis for decisions made on private development proposals (i.e. zoning ordinance revisions) and made on public development proposals (i.e. annual development programs and five year capital improvement programs.). 3. Capital Improvement Guidelines. Carlsbad will have, with this and following studies, a sounder basis for establishing a public facilities fee than will most communities. However, what is still missing is a sound basis for determining what to do with the funding. The current and recent capital improvement programs reflect an intuitive approach - an extrapolation of past needs tempered by some internal balancing among City departments. This does not necessarily lead to soundly located facilities which promote proper development in desirable locations. Instead it is recommended that a systematic approach be used which relates to planning policy. It should include the following steps: o Planning Staff Project Review. All City departments should submit the projects they wish to have considered for the following year's budget. Additionally, the planning department should gather information from related special districts regarding their anticipated capital improvement projects. (Although it is unclear that the City can regulate these projects, it should be aware of the proposals to coordinate and hopefully influence them.) o Proposal Review by Planning Staff. After all feasible projects are identified, the city manager should review the projects for operating cost implications. Additionally, he should set a public hearing on the entire range of proposals to solicit local response to the projects. At the same time, the projects should be reviewed by the planning staff to determine consistency with the Public Improvements Element, and with internal timing issues (that is, there should be coordination in terms of "opening up" new areas for growth). This should involve determinations of the various City departments regarding the phasing of their projects. In order to assess the adequacy of the public services and to determine how development proposals would affect the supply of various services, a set of benchmarks - criteria and projection formulas, were devised. These benchmarks are designed to inform the City when public service demand is beginning to affect supply. The formulas provide a standard set of equations to assess the impacts of development on public services. Service Measure of Adequacy Water Benchmark 1: design capacity of distribution system will be reached in 5 years. Benchmark II: water demand fully using design capacity. Service Sewer Schools Parks and Recreation Police Protection Fire Protection Library Services Circulation Drainage Measure of Adequacy Benchmark I: projected average daily flows equals design capacity in 5 years. Benchmark II: average daily flows equal design capacity. Benchmark I: projected enrollment will equal school capacity in 5 years. Benchmark II: enrollment equals school capacity. Benchmark 1: less than 5 acres of developed parks/1000 population within 3 years. Benchmark II: fewer than 5 acres/1000 population. Benchmark 1: less than 1.6 officers/1000 population within 2 years. Benchmark II: less than or equal to 1.6 officers/1000 population. Benchmark 1: 750-800 additional dwelling units outside 5 minute running time. Benchmark 11: 1500 additional dwelling units outside 5 minute running time. Benchmark I: less than 0.6 square feet per capita within 5 years. Benchmark II: space requirements equal space capacity. Benchmark I: traffic volume to road capacity is between .7 and .8. Benchmark II: traffic volume to road capacity is greater than .9. Benchmark I: containment of 100 year storm within existing street right-of-way is possible. Benchmark H: 100 year storm will cause significant damage. Service Measure of Adequacy Physical Administration 'Benchmark 1: 64,540 square feet required Facilities presently; 101,000 square feet when population reaches 60,000; 115,000 square feet at 100,000 population. Benchmark II: Facilities are less than these amounts. In addition to the above criteria relating to facilities and services, identified on an interim basis as being worthy of analysis, the following criteria or benchmarks are also suggested for inclusion in the CIP review: Housing: facilities which foster development including a significant.amount of low and/or moderate income housing should be encouraged. Agricultural Preservation: facilities which foster development in areas with significant potential for continued economically viable agricultural productivity should be discouraged. Hazard Avoidance: facilities which foster development in areas of significant natural hazard which cannot otherwise be avoided or mitigated should be discouraged. Natural Resources/Open Space: facilities which promote incursions into important natural areas, areas which contain major natural features of public value or open spaces which provide visual or other relief from urbanization should be avoided. PROJECT REVIEW The City should institute a review of large-scale residential projects which includes as a component element an assessment, in terms of formulas or other more general criteria, of each identified service. This will enable city staff to determine if a given request (i.e., by proposed development) for that service can adequately be met. The prior section provided the program by which city staff can anticipate the availability of each public service and the process to provide and distribute these services. That program essentially provided a system for public agency adherence. The complementary component is a means for influencing private sector actions through a regulatory or other management mechanism. The City previously, in this study program, rejected the use of a point-based residential development permit process. The only feasible remaining approach is use of the California Environmental Quality Act and the environmental impact report requirements of the City of Carlsbad to assess the impact on public services and facilities and to require appropriate mitigation measures. The EIR Guidelines of the City of Carlsbad should be amended to include explicit reference to impacts on public services and facilities. This should relate to both direct and secondary impacts derived from the required description of the growth- inducing impact of the project. The following is the basis for such a system of public services impact assessment and mitigations. Included in the services aspects for analysis of the development are the following: Water Supply; Overall adequacy of water provided by independent districts of the City, measured by time frame with which water system is projected to be operating at design capacity. Mitigation: Use of water conservation measures which will reduce usage. Sewage Treatment and Sewer; Sewage treatment capacity, measured by time frame within which projected daily average flow will equal current plant capacity. Sewer line capacity based on the distance (measured along existing public rights-of- way) between sewer lines with capacity to serve the development and the sewer hookup point for the proposed development. Mitigation: Existence of septic tanks, approved by the.City of Carlsbad and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, which will serve the proposed residential development whose lots are of suitably large size. Schools; Current or projected availability or deficit, as determined pursuant to the applicable school district's capital improvement program, of permanent school facilities with sufficient capacity for the students generated by the proposed residential development use. Current or projected availability as determined pursuant to the applicable school district's capital improvement program, of portable classrooms with sufficient capacity for the students generated by the proposed residential development. Mitigation: School capacity is expanded by portable classrooms or non-legally required intradistrict busing. Parks and Recreation; Adequacy of neighborhood and community parks, determined by existing and projected acreage per person, existing and future availability of active recreational opportunities; and ratio of maintenance workers to developed park lands. Mitigation: Provision for the proposed residential development of all required park acreage, recreational facilities, and maintenance standards. 47 Police Protection; Existing and projected ratio of police officers per unit of resident population. Fire Protection; Fire department response time to all dwellings within the proposed residential development. Mitigation: Adequate on-site protection provided by the applicant, including combination detectors and automatic fire sprinkler systems located within each proposed dwelling. Library Services; Existence and projection of library space per capita. Street Circulation; Impacts on immediate circulation patterns and City's overall road network, including primary and secondary arterials, measured by determination of design capacity of the roadway during peak traffic hours as currently imparoved and the effect of the proposed residential development. Drainage; Adequacy of existing or projected downstream capacity for a 100 year flood. Physical Administration Facilities; Physical administration space meeting existing or projected need. Under Section I5085.5(g) of the California Administrative Code, dealing with environmental impact reports, the responsible agency cannot approve a project for which an EIR has been prepared if the agency finds that any feasible mitigation measure within its powers would substantially lessen any significant effect the project would have on the environment. Under various broad interpretations of environmental effect, many of the impacts which could be documented pursuant to the above would be required to be taken into account and mitigations therefor instituted. Aft APPENDIX APPENDIX: PUBLIC SERVICES - EXISTING CONDITIONS This section is organized to provide the reader with a concise overview of the ten previously identified public services. WATER SUPPLY Water for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural consumption is supplied to Carlsbad by five water supply agencies. With the exception of the City of Carlsbad Water Utilities Division, all of the agencies purchase water from the San Diego County Water Authority. The City Water Utilities Division receives its water directly from the Costa Real Municipal Water District (MWD), which nearly serves the entire Carlsbad sphere of influence. The County Water Authority has responsibility for the importation of all water into San Diego County and the regional distribution of this water through two aqueducts. Figure 7 shows the boundaries of the five agencies serving Carlsbad. The developed northwest portion of the City is served by the City Water Utilities District. This agency is currently the largest distributor of water in the City, last year having sold approximately 5,000 acre-feet. (An acre-foot of water is 325,850 gallons.) Domestic consumption accounts for the vast majority of water used (85 percent); industrial and agricultural demand are relatively minimal (about 7-8 percent each). The agency has no direct allocation from the County Water Authority but receives its supply from Costa Real MWD. Future development will occur predominantly in the Costa Real service area. Consequently, it is the ability of this district to purchase water that will determine the City's ability to meet future demands for water. Currently Costa Real MWD distributes roughly 2,500 acre-feet,, in addition to what it supplies to the City Water Utilities Division. Its allocation from the County Water Authority far exceeds its service area's present demand. In 1979, the district's allocated right was estimated to be 2.27 percent of the County Water Authority's water supply (or 20,362 acre- feet); in I960, it is approximately 2.4 percent. The immediate question that comes to mind is, "will this be adequate to meet future demands?" The district appears more than adequate to supply water, because a district's allocated right to purchase water is tied to the growth of its assessed valuation, in general, a district's entitlement is approximately equal to the ratio of the assessed valuation of the district to the total assessed valuation of all County Water Agency member agencies. Consequently, residential, commercial, and industrial growth within a district will result in an increase in assessed valuation which enables the district to receive an increased allocated right to purchase water. As described earlier, the high rate of growth experienced in the North County and Carlsbad is likely to continue so that, relative to other areas, the assessed valuation (and thus water allocation) will increase. Moreover, the County Water Authority has never refused a request for water and quite member agencies occasionally draw several times their allocated right. In terms of the distribution system, Costa Real has an adequate network. The district's connections to the two regional aqueducts provides a water supply capacity of roughly 66,600 acre-feet per year. By comparison, total water consumption within the district in 1979 was only 11,135 acre-feet. Major water A-l pipelines have been installed to serve nearly all developable portions of the district. Reservoirs owned and operated by Costa Real and the City Water Utilities Division provide a storage capacity of over 200 million gallons (195 of which is stored in Squires Dam). Olivenhain and San Marcos MWDs provide water to the southeastern portion of the City. Combined, they sold approximately 3,000 acre-feet last year. Because substantial growth is expected in the Olivenhain service area as a result of the Rancho La Costa development, the district in conjunction with the San Marcos and Costa Real MWDs have recently completed a joint construction program to provide additional water supply and storage. Buena Colorado MWD and Vista irrigation district also provide water to the City, but at minimal levels. Vista supplies water for agricultural purposes, and Buena Colorado serves the area around the raceway. Benchmarks Benchmark 1 is reached when the projected demand'for water will fully utilize the design capacity of the water distribution system within five years. Benchmark II is reached when the demand for water exceeds the design capacity of the water distribution system. SEWER SERVICES The City of Carlsbad falls within the sewer service areas of Carlsbad, San Marcos County Water District, and Leucadta County Water District (see Figure 8). Alt flows collected in Carlsbad are treated at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The Encina facility, which also services the Vista, Buena, San Marcos, Leucadia, and Encinitas Sanitation Districts, began operation in 1965 with a capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Plant expansions in 1971 and 1976 raised its operational capacity to 13.75 mgd. Because average daily flows have been at or above capacity since 1977, all member agencies of the Encina Joint Powers Regional Sewage System with the exception of Vista and Encinitas Sanitation Districts imposed construction moratoriums in their service areas. Facility improvements have recently enabled the design capacity to be rerated to 16 mgd which is enough to accommodate approximately 9,000 more residential units within the Encina service area, roughly 2,250 of which are expected in the City of Carlsbad. In order to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate future development opportunities, the Joint Powers Regional Sewage System has already begun to expand the treatment facility still further to 18 mgd. The 18 mgd expansion is .expected to be complete in 1983. With this expansion all infrastructure (i.e., sewer lines, pump stations, force mains, etc.) will be enlarged to accommodate the future capacity level of 45 mgd. Of Encina's 13.75 mgd capacity, the City of Carlsbad has an allocated treatment capacity of 3.43 mgd. The rerating to 16 mgd and the facility expansion to 18 mgd will raise the City's allocation to 4.0 mgd and 4.5 mgd, respectively. In addition to the Encina facility expansion, the City has adopted a master plan to provide additional interim sewage treatment capacity and at the same time A-2 encourage wastewater reclamation through the construction of individual satellite treatment facilities. These facilities would be located in the Encina service area near existing sewer trunks and possible reclaimed water markets. A total of five wastewater reclamation plants are proposed for ultimate development: Buena Vista, Calavera, Palomar Airport, Batiquitos, and Encina. The Buena Vista treatment plant is located in Oceanside but will be integrated as part of the master plan. ' The Calavera treatment plant is already under construction to serve the northeastern section of Carlsbad. Although the planning for this facility was completed independent of the master plan, the treatment plant will ultimately be incorporated into the overall wastewater reclamation system. Table I describes the phasing and capacity of the system. TABLE I PHASING OF SATELLITE PLANT CONSTRUCTION (million gallons per day) Treatment Plant By 1985 By 1995 By 2000 Calavera 1.23 |.2 1.2 Palomar Airport 2.5 5.0 5.0 Batiquitos' . 0.2 0.4 0,4 Buena Vista - - 0.5^ Encina2 -0- 0.9 min 0.9 Total System Capacity 3.9 " 7.5 8.0 The Batiquitos Reclamation Facility would serve areas to the north and west of Batiquitos Lagoon and would have a capacity of 0.4 mgd. However, because of uncertainties over its economic feasibility, this plant may never be constructed. provision of reclamation facilities is a part of the Encina treatment plant expansion program. Thus, the Encina reclamation facility does not add any additional capacity, beyond the capacity improvements already scheduled for the Encina system. Actual capacity increases resulting from the satellite wastewater reclamation program totals 6.6 mgd by 1995. For the period between 1995 and 2005 capacity can be enlarged up to a limit of 18.0 mgd to accommodate any specific industrial reuse that develops. oActual capacity is limited to 0.5 mgd until additional disposal capacities are provided. Buena Vista plant is currently deactivated but can be made operational as the need for it arises. However, the market for reclaimed water in the area is limited, and wastewater from Carlsbad would be available only in limited quantity at Buena Vista. A-3 Given the Encina plant expansions and the construction schedule of the wastewater reclamation program, the City will have an allocated capacity to accommodate at least 7.7 mgd by 1985. , All the satellite facilities will be privately constructed but publicly owned. They will ultimately be linked together to provide reclaimed water as demand requires. All excess reclaimed water would be discharged through specific lines designed for discharge purposes. If the satellite treatment plant program is continued in the City, much of the future demand for treatment capacity within the City could be satisfied by the satellite facilities, and Carlsbad may not need to participate in the next scheduled expansion of the Encina plant. Benchmarks Benchmark 1 is reached when the projected average daily flows and service commitment requirements will equal the capacity of the treatment plant, within five years. Benchmark II is reached when average daily flows and service commitment require- ments equal treatment plant capacity. SCHOOLS Existing service levels are described in terms of current enrollment, space availability (number of student spaces available before reaching capacity) and school capacities for those districts serving Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad, and its sphere of influence, is served by the Carlsbad Unified School District, San Marcos Unified School District, the San Dieguito Union High School District and the Encinitas Union Elementary School District. The boundaries of the respective districts is illustrated. Service levels are adequate for those schools where current enrollment is less than capacity. Carlsbad Unified enrollment is currently near 90 percent of estimated capacity. Schools within the San Marcos district that serve Carlsbad are at 92 percent of capacity. All available classroom space within the San Dieguito and Encinitas schools serving Carlsbad are utilized. The percentages of capacity utilized are based only on the schools serving the Carlsbad sphere of influence. Table 2 shows school enrollment and capacity figures for individual schools and for the districts (including schools not serving Carlsbad). Benchmarks Benchmark 1 is reached when enrollment projections indicate that school capacity of the affected district will be reached within five years. A school district's total facility capacity is defined as the maximum number of student spaces (permanent and portable) within the district which can accommodate students on a conventional time schedule. Because busing between schools within a given district is possible, an overcrowded situation in one school service area can be relieved by using available space at another school. Therefore, it is the district capacity that is important for assessing adequacy rather than the capacity of individual schools. A-4 Benchmark II is reached when enrollment projections equal or exceed the district- wide capacity. • PARKS AND RECREATION The City owns approximately 90 acres of landscaped area, parks and median strips and has an additional approximate 600 acres in land banks for future parks. Current service levels are inadequate. This evaluation is based on three criteria: developed park acreage, availability of recreational activities, and personnel standards. The City, according to national standards, is deficient in terms of developed park acrage and active recreational facilities. These standards do not, however, include the beaches which definitely offer active recreational activities. The most common method of quickly assessing the adequacy of a community's park and recreation services is to compare the community's developed park acreage against the recommended national standards. Generally, it would be appropriate to compare the present supply of recreational services against the standards recommended in the City's General Plan, which in the case of Carlsbad is 30 acres per 1000 population.* However, the Plan is being revised and the standards are likely to be changed to reflect more closely the national standards. In the absence of explicit park acreage policies, this study followed the public facilities fee analysis which was based on the national standards. Additionally, by using the same standards a better comparison of park acreage requirements and the fiscal implications of future growth under the two analysis can be made. *The 30 acres per 1000 is to be divided accordingly: 5 acres devoted to regional facilities, 15 acres to local facilities which may include combinations of local parks, riding and hiking trails, school pay areas that have been designed for public recreational use, and other public facilities which meet the general populous needs. The national standard being applied in this study of 5 acres/1000 population refers to developed local parks (i.e., neighborhood and community parks) only and does not include the other facilities described as local facilities in the General Plan. In effect, when all these other facilities are substracted the 15 acres, the park share may very well be near 5 acres. A-5 TABLE 5 EVALUATION OF CARLSBAD'S LOCAL PARKS Existing demand for parks = 5 acres/1000 population x current population estimates = 5 acres/1000 population x 35,500 (State Depart- ment of Finance 1/1/80 estimate) = 177.5 acres Existing parks Unmet demand = 57.7 acres (if HUB Park is included, 149.7 acres; however, it should be remembered that the standard here applies to local parks) = 119.8 acres = 1.6 acres/1000 population The City's recreational services can also be evaluated in terms of how well they meet national standards for active recreational facilities. As a word of caution, national standards represent the average facility requirements for cities of a particular size. They do not account for any special considerations such as location, climate or demographic profile which all affect the demand for different types of recreational facilities. These considerations should be addressed in the upcoming General Plan revision. In the interim, the following national guidelines are used to evaluate services for communities with population between 20,000 and 35,000. Other recreational facilities identified as desirable by parks and recreation staff include community centers, theaters, multi-use athletic fields, and racquetball courts. TABLE 6 DEMAND FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Type of Facility Softball Diamond Baseball Diamond Community Center Skating Rink (Artificial) Swimming Pool (Indoor) Swimming Pool (Outdoor) Tennis Courts Basketball Courts Public Golf Course Carlsbad Active Guidelines Estimated Number of Facilities Demand I diamond per 3,000 I diamond per 6,000 , I center per 25,000 I rink per 25,000 I pool per 10,000 I pool per 5,000 I court per 1,000 . I court per 500+ I course per 25,000 7-12 4-6 1-2 2-3 20-14 40-60 Existing Facilities I adult, 4 little league 3 schools -0- -0- -0- I proposed 4 (plus high school) 2 (plus schools) -0- (I private) Source: James AT Peterson and.Richard J. Schroth, Guidelines for Evaluating Public Porks and Recreation, Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, 1978, p. 7. A portion of Carlsbad's demand for active recreation facilities may be met by including school facilities. A joint use agreement with Magnolia, Levante, and Pine schools has been established, whereby the Parks and .Recreation Department is responsible for any maintenance and utility costs associated with recreational use. In exchange, the facilities are available to the public during specified hours. Kelly Elementary School is also made available for public use, although its maintenance is -performed by the County. A third criterion for evaluating the adequacy of service is the ratio of maintenance workers to acres of developed park lands. This ratio is used to convey the relative maintenance levels of various landscaped areas. This generalization is made without regard to the type of park or the landscape materials and planting to be maintained. Existing maintenance levels are one maintenance person to eight acres of developed park lands. This ratio is adequate but not at the optimal level of one to seven suggested by the Parks and Recreation Department. In addition to maintaining and upgrading city parks, the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Carlsbad sponsors numerous sports activities, classes and special events. The Department's recreation programs are self-supporting, fees charged to be deposited into five separate trust accounts. Salaries for the particular activity are- then drawn from the appropriate account. Surplus amounts in these accounts will either be used for supplies for activities or go back into the general fund. Current 1980-81 estimated operating costs can be broken up into five categories including park maintenance, tree maintenance and weed abatement, new programs, other recreation, and administration. Overall per capita operating cost estimated from the 1980-81. operating budget is $24.38. The department has a staff of 26 composed of the following: Administrative personnel - 4 Parks: supervisorial - 2 Parks: trees and weeds maintenance - 5 Parks: turf maintenance - 12 Recreation: supervisorial - 3 Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the ratio of park acreage to population will will fall below 5 within three years. Three years is a conservative estimate of the time required to adequately plan, acquire and develop recreational sites. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of park acreage to population is 5 or less per 1,000 population. POLICE PROTECTION The Carlsbad Police Department is responsible for protecting the City, and for cooperating with thirteen other county law enforcement agencies in a mutual aid pact. The agreement provides that neighboring law enforcement agencies will respond to calls from the Carlsbad Police Department should the need arise, and vice versa. A-7 Table 7 shows 1977 and 1978 data on criminal activity, available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for Carlsbad. While 1979 - 1980 FBI Crime Index data is not available, Caption Kellogg of the Police Department stated that all criminal activities have increased. Adequate response times become increasingly difficult as the development pattern becomes more dispersed. While development is presently concentrated within the northwestern part of the City, more recent 'developments have occurred at distances as great as 10 - 15 miles away. Consequently, the existing police force must cover a large geographical area, and unless the force is expanded, the time required to respond to calls would increase. TABLE 7 CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN CARLSBAD, 1977-1978 1977 Murder 3 Rapes 12 Robbery . 4 I Aggravated assault 85 Burlgary 596 • Larceny/theft 1,134 Motor vehicle theft 155 Crime Index Total 2,026 2,262 Source: FBI, Crime in the United States, 1977 and 1978, Uniform Crime Reports. Currently, the Police Department has approximately 48 officers giving the department a ratio of officers to 1000 population of 1.4. According to the representatives of the department a minimum acceptable ratio would be 1.6 officers per 1000 population. This standard appears reasonable given that the national average is 2.1 for cities with similar population (25,000 - 50,000) is 1.7 and for the western states. Based on a standard of 1.6 sworn officers per 1000 population, Carlsbad should have a force of 57 officers. The police force requires not only additional personnel but also expanded facilities. A department representative noted that funding for the additional officers alone will not achieve adequate service levels. The current lack of space for operations'(as described later under physical administration facilities) must also be rectified. Additional operation facilities should be designed for the specific needs of law enforcement—leased space will not be adequate. The estimated 1980-81 department per capita cost is $46.55. The Police Department is funded by the General Fund. A-8 Benchmarks The number of police officers per 1000 population is used as a criterion to evaluate adequacy of service. While space availability is another important criterion (as mentioned above), the primary purpose of this service standard is to evaluate the adequacy of police personnel. Benchmark I is reached when population projections indicate that the ratio of police officers to 1000 population will be 1.6 within two years. Two years is the estimated time frame to recruit qualified personnel and to ensure that adequate funding will be appropriated. The Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of officers to 1000 population is less than 1.6. FIRE PROTECTION The Carlsbad Fire Department presently consists of three fire stations providing service within the City's sphere of influence. Station locations and associated manpower are as follows. Station #1. 1275 Elm - South of Elm Avenue between Pio Pico Drive and Highland Drive. Four firefighters and one engine with 1250 gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity. Station #2. Within the triangular area bounded by El Camino Real to the east, Arenal Road to the north and Estrellade Me- to the southwest. Four firefighters and one engine with 1250 gpm pumping capacity. Station #3. South of Chestnut Avenue between El Camino Real and Catalina Drive. Three firefighters, two paramedics and one engine with 1000 gpm pumping capacity. Current fire station locations provide a first engine response time of five minutes or less to approximately 70 percent of the structures within the City's sphere of influence. The department can respond and control fires requiring less than 1500 gpm pumping requirements; most of these responses are for single family dwelling fires. At a minimum, all structures in Carlsbad should be within a five minute running time. Consequently, there are areas in the City that receive less than adequate service—particularly Palomar Airport and the southwest quadrant of the City around 1-5 and Poinsettia. Existing fire department service levels necessitate a mutual service agreement with neighboring communities. For structural fires occurring north of Chestnut Avenue, the City of Oceanside automatically responds. Similarly, Encinitas responds to fires occurring in, the southern portion of the City. As part of the agreement, Carlsbad reciprocates and responds to calls from other cities. Although this arrangement is beneficial as it makes other firefighters and equipment available to suppress larger fires in the City, it can also compromise Carlsbad's ability to meet the needs of its residents, l.n particular, whenever Carlsbad automatically responds to San Marcos' calls to the south, the southern portion of Carlsbad is left with low levels of protection. A-9 The department has 45 employees, eleven firefighters, and two firefighter/para- medics staff the three stations at any one time. fts per capita cost for 1980 - 81 is estimated at $36.36. The Fire Department is currently funded by the General Fund. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) performs periodic evaluations of cities' fire departments. Their evaluation of the Carlsbad water supply shows that the City Water systems during a period of 2-5 days of maximum consumption with the outage of a plant or a supply main, are slightly below the recommended fire flow of 4000 gpm in addition to maximum consumption for the area. The ISO report also recommends that additional standard hydrants be installed to provide an approximate distribution commensurate with the fire flow needs at all locations. Standards contemplate a distribution of 120,000 square feet per hydrant for a fire flow of 3000 gpm. This corresponds to an average spacing of 350 feet between hydrants. Residential districts with buildings of normal size and separation generally require 1000 gpm or 160,000 square feet per hydrant corresponding to a hydrant spacing of 400 feet. Where buildings are considerably set back from streets, on site or yard hydrants may be necessary to satisfy the standards. Benchmarks Fire Chief Thompson identified the minimum acceptable level of service as a five minute running time to all buildings in Carlsbad. Running time is the time required to reach the site of the fire and is calculated by dividing the fire engine speed (miles per hour) by the distance to the fire. Benchmark I is reached when 750-800 additional dwelling units develop outside the 5 minute running time. Benchmark II is reached when 1500 additional dwelling units develop outside the 5 minute running time. Benchmark II indicates that service response may not enable firefighters to prevent severe structural damage. An additional criterion to assess the demand on fire service imposed by future development is adequacy of water supply and is described by the concept of "required fire flow." Required fire flow is the rate of flow needed for fire fighting purposes to confine a major fire to the buildings within a block or other group complex. Therefore Benchmark I can also be triggered if the proposed development results in the City being unable to meet the minimum required fire flow, recommended by the Fire Department. In terms of paramedic service, Benchmark I is reached when population projections indicate the ratio of paramedic units to 60,000 persons will fall below one within 2 years. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of paramedic units to 60,000 persons is at or less than one. LIBRARY SERVICES The City of Carlsbad is served by one central library containing 23,400 square feet located at 1250 Elm Avenue. The library is currently open a total of 61 hours per week and staffed with 20 full-time and 15 part-time employees. Projected book A-10 circulation for fiscal year 1979-80 is conservatively estimated at 349,000, a 4.5 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. In addition to conventional services, the library provides special services and activities identified in a table. At a population of 35,500, library space standards suggest a central library of 21,300 and 28,400 square feet.* Carlsbad's central library falls within this range; however, since 1977, the demand for library space has been greater than available supply. Current budget allocations'are described as inadequate to meet the facility needs for shelf space and to serve an estimated 1,000 daily users. Furthermore, the children's department at the Carlsbad City Library must expand from its limited 1,200 square foot area or reduce services. * The need for space is important, but Library Director Georgina Cole notes that the location of future library space is of paramount concern. Specifically, Director Cole feels that if the construction of branch libraries occurs before a new, larger main facility is properly located, more towards the "south-east", then the ability to adequately serve future citzen needs will not be realized. The library is currently funded by the General Fund and receives some money from the California Library Services Act. Book fines and xerox machine revenues generated are put into the General Fund. Present 1980-81 per capita cost is estimated at $19.54 per capita. Benchmarks The total amount of library space (calculated from square feet/capita standards) is used as a criterion to evaluate the minimum level of adequate service. Availability of adequate space is an important standard which measures the ability of the library to provide shelving space, reader space, staff work space, and special activity spaces such as children's reading rooms. Benchmark I' is reached when population projections indicate that the ratio of central library space in (square feet) to population will fall below 0.6 within five years. Five years represents the time estimated to plan, finance and construct new library facilities. This time frame may be reduced by building smaller branch facilities or adding additional bookmobiles. For branch libraries, Benchmark I is reached when population within a UI/2 mile radius, is expected to reach 25,000 persons within five years. *The upper range was calculated using 0.8 square feet per capita, recommended in the 1978 Holt Report, "Master Plan //I I for the Carlsbad City Library". The lower range was determined using an alternative library space standard of 0.6 square feet per capita for cities in the 35,000 to 100,000 population range. (Source: Wheeler and Goldhor, Practical Administration of Public Libraries, pp. 554, 1962). A-n Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of central library space (in square feet) to population is 0.6. For branch libraries, Benchmark II is reached when population within a 1-1/2 mile radius is 25,000. STREET CIRCULATION The local circulation system is for the most part centered in the area Encina North subarea. Within this area there are two major shopping districts, the central business district along the coast and a regional shopping center at the intersection of State Route 78 and El Camino Real. The central business district is served by a grid street system with its principal accesses being Elm Avenue in the east-west direction, State Street in .the north-south direction, and Jefferson Street from the regional shopping center. The regional shopping center which is somewhat to the east of the central area is served by State Route 78 in the east-west direction and El Camino Real in the north-south direction. Average daily traffic volumes for major roads are indicated. Two north-south major arterials, Carlsbad Boulevard and El Camino Real, and two east-west major arterials, La Costa Avenue and Palomar Airport Road, provide the principal means of movement within the City. No other major roads provide access to areas east of El Camino Real. Carlsbad Boulevard (Highway 101) actually performs a dual travel function by providing direct local and secondary regional coastal access. Access to and from the Carlsbad area is provided by two freeways, Interstate 5 in the north-south direction and Route 78 in the east-west direction. These two freeways provide the bulk of regional travel service to and from the City. Interstate 5, in particular, offers almost direct coastal access by means of five interchanges within the City limits. However,-there are specific problems with several of the interchanges: Tamarack Avenue west of the freeway needs to be widened but is hampered by existing development; Poinsettia Avenue does not yet connect the freeway; and the Palomar Airport Road bridge over 1-5 will eventually need to be widened. The present street circulation capacity has been described by representatives of the City Engineering Department as adequate; however, there are instances when congestion problems occur. Seasonal congestion along the -coast in the area bounded by Palomar Airport Road to the south, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad to the east, the Buena Vista Lagoon to the north and the beach areas to the west has occurred during summer months. Another issue within this area is the beach parking problem. The Coastal Commission report on Carlsbad's public works notes that: Approximately 50 percent of people frequenting the beach on the week- ends arrive between ll:00'a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The average vehicle occu- pancy for recreational trips to the coastal resource areas is consistently found to be over three persons per vehicle. Even with this level of ride- sharing, parking accessibility and traffic congestion are the principal factors influencing beach use. Safety problems involving pedestrian and bicyclist conflict with vehicular traffic are not uncommon. (California Coastal Commission, "Technical Support Paper, Public Works," April 23, 1980, p. 44) A-12 With future city and regional population growth, traffic volumes for streets in the coastal area may frequently peak at 85 to 95 percent of available street capacity. Drivers can expect to wait through more than one traffic signal cycle during short peaks, and there may be longstanding automobile queues on critical approaches to intersections. 'Members of of the City engineering staff noted that problems also occur during special sporting events such as major gatherings at the raceway and during the holiday season at the regional shopping center. These situations however are not problems which necessitate the construction of a costly' circulation systems. On the other hand, certain new developments, particularly industrial ones such as the proposed Anderson's Split Pea Restaurant near the El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road intersection could be a source of future congestion. Benchmarks Benchmark I is reached when the ratio of traffic volume to capacity during peak traffic hours is in the 70 to 80 percent range. At this volume, circulation can still be described as good; i.e., movement is relatively unhampered. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but on the whole, traffic conditions are tolerable. Benchmark II is reached when the ratio of traffic volume (peak hour) to capacity during peak times is above 80 percent. Service levels range from fair to poor to a "forced flow" of traffic depending on the percent of road capacity utilized. In the 80-90 percent range, cars are required to wait through more than one traffic signal cycle during short peaks. The 90-95 percent range produces some longstanding vehicular queues on critical approaches' to intersections and delays may be up to several signal cycles. A forced flow, over 100 percent, represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or in the cross street may restrict or prevent movements of vehicles'out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. DRAINAGE Natural drainage is affected by the topography of the area. Within the Carlsbad area, there are four natural drainages that follow an east-west pattern from the mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The principal streams draining the area include Buena Vista, Aguas Hedionda and San Marcos Creeks. Buena Vista originates in the San Marcos Mountains and empties into Buena Vista Lagoon at the north end of the City. The Agua Hedionda Creek terminates at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the central portion of Carlsbad, and the San Marcos Creek drains into Batiquitos Lagoon at the southern end of the City. To a large extent, urbanization can disrupt these natural flow patterns by reshaping the landform and altering the course of waterways. Consequently, it becomes necessary to provide storm drain systems to remove stormwaters from the land surfaces and to protect property from possible inundation. Flood plain management has relieved many of the more serious potential flooding and drainage problems. With the commencement of the Flood Insurance Program, A-13 the mapping of the flood plains, and the enactment of flood plain management ordinances by the City, potential hazards in the flood plains of Buena Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and San Marcos Creeks have been avoided. Nevertheless, localized drainage problems still exist, particularly in the older, developed portions of the City. An existing storm drain system collects and disposes of stormwaters from these areas which include the downtown business area. The spine of the system is a network of pipes running along State Street, Washington Street, Laguna Drive, and Grand Avenue. This system is inadequate, however, as complaints of localized flooding are common during major storms. The majority of the problems lies along the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks where the water draining from the mountains to the east tend to collect. The City is currently designing the State Street storm drain system to.intercept flows before they reach the tracks. The line will extend from Oak Street along the tracks to the Buena Vista Lagoon where it will discharge the stormwaters. The largest diameter pipe that can be installed in this part of the City is 72^', not large enough to handle the 100 year storm which requires an 88" pipe. The present pattern of development precludes the ability to put in a larger sized facility. This system will relieve the major flooding problems in the downtown business area, where the City has had to sandbag and pump stormwaters in the past. The need for such a facility has long been recognized, but the biggest obstacle has been funding. The portion of the State Steet system that is currently being designed is being financed with funds from the General Fund. There are several problem areas within the older portions of the City that need to be addressed before the drainage system can be considered adequate. However, the key obstacle to rectifying the situation lies in the cost of the projects. In the newer areas of development, developers can be assessed an acreage fee to cover the costs of installing the drainage system. In the older portions where development has already occurred, this financing mechanism is not available. Specific areas identified by Les Evans, the City Engineer, for drainage improvements include Laguna Drive and State Street. (For a full schedule of proposed improvements, the City's recently prepared Master Drainage Plan should be consulted. The Plan, when adopted by the City Council, will establish the list of projects required to upgrade the City's drainage system and indicate the priority of the various projects.) Currently, the City Engineering Department is proposing to install storm drains running south from Laguna along Madison and Roosevelt Streets. The City is also considering the feasibility of extending the State Street system south from Oak Street to Agua Hedionda. This storm drain would eventually provide a continuous drainage system along the railroad track that would intercept all flows and discharge them into the lagoons. The Coastal Commission and State Department of Fish and Games are concerned with potential siltation problems and other adverse impacts on the lagoon ecology caused by the inflow of stormwaters. Consequently, special attention will be required in designing these facilities and environmental impact reports will have to be prepared. Although this system will go a long way towards providing the City with a much more adequate system, it still leaves areas of localized flooding. Furthermore, because it does1 not provide capacity up to the County Flood Control District's standards, it will not provide an optimal desired level of protection. A-14 In the undeveloped portions of the City, the opportunity to design adequately sized facilities should prevent any significant drainage problems and afford the City an acceptable level of service. Benchmarks Design criteria for the construction and operation of storm drain systems are specified in the San Diego County Flood Control District Design and Procedure Manual. For drainage areas greater than one square mile, facilities should be designed to handle the 100 year frequency storm. (In any given year, a storm of this magnitude has a one percent chance of occurring.) For drainage areas less than one square mile in size, the system should be sized so that the 100-year flood can be contained within the street right-of-way; the 50-year flood can be contained within the paved street width up to the top of the curb; and where storm drains are required, a 10-year storm, at the minimum, can be accommodated. PHYSICAL ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES The City Hall is centrally located in the older part of the City, or Encina North. Surrounded by residentially and commercially zoned areas, it is near the City's central business district. It was constructed in 1968 and composed of two structures: the smaller structure (approximately 2,500 gross square feet) currently houses the Council Chambers and a small conference room and the main building (approximately 14,000 square feet) is divided into three sections that house the general government, community development and law enforcement operations. Seventy-five parking spaces occupy the west side of the complex with an additional twelve spaces in the rear. Although each of the three sections within the main structure is nearly 5,000.gross square feet, the net useable space amounts to only 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. This amount of space is difficult to work with because it is too large for a single organization unit but too small to accommodate two. The layout of the building with a single corridor running through the middle of the eastern portion of the building prevents anything except small offices that open onto the hallway. According to the SUA Inc. report, larger areas of space (between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet) are preferred for planning more efficient layout patterns. The City Hall complex currently houses general government offices which provide the core support services of the City governments; community development including those departments responsible for City development planning and project maintenance; and police operations. The space presently occupied and the space required for these operations are indicated in Table 10. The present space is clearly inadequate. A 1C TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF EXISTING WITH ESTIMATED SPACE REQUIREMENTS* Facility Present Amount of Space Occupied Amount of Space Required* City Hall General Government Community Development Law Enforcement Service Yard 6,037 4,548 3,356 20,038 33,979 10,862 10,489 10,122 33,067 64,540 *SUA, Inc., Facilities Requirements Plan, 1978, p. 1-8. Other physical administration facilities not included within the City Hall complex include: Facility Parks and recreation building and yard 1166 Elm Avenue Parks and recreation storage garage Knowles and Pio Pico Housing Authority 2777 Jefferson Avenue Utility Maintenance Yard 405 Oak Street Holiday Park House 3213 Eureka Place Buena Vista reservoir site Buena Vista Way Function/Size offices and yard .5 acres storage/work space housing authority program 700 net sq. ft. of useable space maintenance 1.33 acres offices/recreation center 650 net sq. ft of useable space storage/transfer station None of these other facilities except the Housing Authority and Buena Vista Reservoir have adequate space for their existing uses. The costs of general government, including the executive and legislative bodies, their staffs, city clerk and city attorney, are not sensitive to small additions in population. Per capita general government costs can decline slightly with small A-16 additions to population. General government operations are funded by the General Fund and will serve a 1980-81 population of approximately 35,500 at an estimated per capita figure of $31.23. Benchmarks Space requirements developed in the SUA Inc. report were based on assumptions on the number of personnel and the space requirements for each class of personnel. As population increases, so will the number of government employees and operations required to meet the needs of the growing community. The criteria to establish adequate levels of physical administration facilities are found in the SUA Inc. report which identifies space requirements at different target populations. (The exception described below is* the space requirement for law enforcement.) The City should embark upon a construction program for its physical administration facilities through the City's capital improvement program several years prior to reaching the target populations. Thus, Benchmark I will be reached when population projections indicate the City will reach 60,000 within five years (for Phase I) and 100,000 (for Phase II). The sequence of steps that have to be considered in order to ensure that sufficient lead time is available to provide adequate facilities when the target population is reached includes: establishing financial capability, selecting and acquiring sites, selecting specific alternatives, selecting planning/design team, developing plans, selecting construction team, constructing, selecting office equipment, and moving. The target space requirements are reported in Table I I below. TABLE 11 ESTIMATED SPACE REQUIREMENTS AT TARGET POPULATIONS Population • 60,000 100,000 General Government Community Development Service Yard Operation: Office Shops/Storage Law Enforcement 21,850 13,780 4,871 40,815 45,686 20,000 24,426 14,799 4,931 46,010 ' 50,941 25,000 The SUA, Inc. report projected 95 police department employees when the City reached 60,000 persons and 134 employees when the City reaches 100,000. Using the service standards contained in this report, the sworn officers alone would be A-17 greater than the SUA, Inc. figures. By buildout, the City should have about 160 sworn officers, and a total staff of about 175-180 persons. Nevertheless, changes in space requirements between 60,000 and 100,000 reflects a greater need for records and files rather than personnel. Much of the increase in personnel is likely to be in the number of patrol officers which according to the SUA, Inc. report do not have individual work stations, and therefore would not affect space requirements. It is assumed that the following personnel classes which would affect space requirements would exceed by 1-4 officers the number indicated in the SUA, Inc. report: detective, juvenile officer, special investigator, and sergeant officer in patrol operations. The increase in patrol officers would also presumably increase locker room, exercise room, training rooms, lounge space requirements. The net effect of these increases in space, requirements, without following the same methodology used by SUA, Inc., can only be estimated. Thus, until better information is available, it is assumed 20,000 square feet is more appropriate for a population of 60,000 and 25,000 square feet for a population of 100,000. A-18