HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-16; City Council; 8738-1; Growth Management ProgramCIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND 3ILL 1/
picfl
03cO
0)
60S•H
13S-j
O
15
Oa
Q)
0)
0)ao
cto O
<U iH
4J CO
J-J CO
2 36 ow
0) -H
•O iH0) O3 aa a•H O•U OcO iHO tfla
rH O•H -HO 4JC -H3 13O T3U cfl
00I
OUJ
Oct:a.a.
g
o
o
oo
/H
AR* X73F-I
OEPT PLN
TITLE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -
CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
DEPT. HD.MMrL
niTY ATTYVfe^
CITY MGR^^L=
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
6 , establishing the clarified1) Adopt Resolution No.
Performance Standards for the Growth Management Program.
2) Adopt Resolution No. &7 J 7 i approving the Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan.
, establishing the guidelines3) Adopt Resolution No.
for the Preparation of the Local Facility Management Plans.
4} Adopt Resolution No. P7<?c? • establishing a Local
Facility Management Plan Processing Fee.
5) Adopt Resolution No. ffP'QO , directing staff to prepare
the Local Facility Management Plans for Zones 1 through 6
and appropriating $25,000 to hire the necessary consultants.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is requesting that the City Council take several
actions relative to the City's Growth Management Program.
Item 1 clarifies the Performance Standards which were previously
adopted by the Council on July 8, 1986. This item also modifies
the sewer standard and creates two separate standards for sewer:
Sewer Treatment Capacity and Sewer Collection System.
Item 2 is the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan which
staff was directed to prepare and present by September 20, 1986.
It is also required in Section 21.90.090 of Ordinance No. 9810
which established the City's Growth Management Program. Staff
will be making a presentation on the plan prior to the public
hearing.
Item 3 establishes the guidelines for the preparation of the
Local Facility Management Plans. The Guidelines are contained in
Section VI of the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. The
guidelines will assure consistent plans from zone to zone and
will assist staff in reviewing the plan for compliance with the
Growth Management Ordinance.
Item 4 establishes a processing fee to be collected to pay for
the review of each Local Facility Management Plan. This is
similar to the fee collected when Master Plans are submitted.
Item 5 is a request to direct staff to begin preparing the Local
Facility Management Plans for Zones 1 through 6 and to
appropriate the funds needed to accomplish this assignment.
PAGE TWO OF AGENDA BILL NO. O~73fi> ~~ (
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the
adoption of those items specified in Items 1 through 4. Item 5
requires an appropriate of $25,000 from the General Fund
Contingency Account No. 001-840-1990-2999.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration for the Growth Management Program was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 1986. A Notice of
Prior Environmental Compliance was filed for all the
implementing items being considered at this time.
EXHIBITS
1 ) Resolution No. ft**? ^(e t establishing the clarified
Performance Standards for the Growth Management Program
2) Resolution No. (f"7? /* , approving the Citywide Facilities
and Improvements Plan
3) Resolution No. <£"* "7^<P , establishing the guidelines for the
Preparation of the Local Facility Management Plans
4) Resolution No. $*77 J i establishing a Local Facility
Managment Plan Processing Fee
5) Resolution No. f^fOQ , directing staff to prepare the
Local Facility Management Plans for Zones 1 through 6 and
appropriates $25,000 from the General Fund Contingency
account
6) Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (Previously distributed
to Council.)
7) Memorandum from the Planning Director dated September 18, 1986 with 5 pages
of revised text to the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.8796
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PUBLIC
FACILITY AND SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE USED IN
IMPLEMENTING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 9808 (GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE).
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Ordinance
for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of Ordinance No.
9808 was to prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and
services to serve the growth is provided when they are needed in a
phased and logical way; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 1986, the City Council adopted the
Public Facility and Service Performance Standards to be used in
preparing the Citywide Facilities and improvements Plan as part of
the Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, these standards are being redefined or rephased
to clarify the specific meaning and purpose of each; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the original standards will remain
(intact and that the clarified standards are needed to be able toi
adequately determine the timing for public facilities and services
and to assess whether they are being provided in a phased and
logical way; and
WHEREAS, standards are needed to provide a mechanism to
continually monitor the adequacy of public facilities and services
as growth occurs; and
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.080 of Ordinance No. 9808 requires
the adoption by City Council Resolution of Performance Standards;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, that the Public Facility and Service
Performance Standards as contained on attached Exhibit "A" are
hereby adopted and shall be used in the implementation of
Ordinance No. 9808 - The Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of September ,
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MARY H./CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clferk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO.8796
PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Facility/Service
City Administrative Facilities
Library
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
Standard
1500 square feet per 1,000 population must be
scheduled for construction within a five year
period.
800 square feet per 1,000 population must be
scheduled for construction within a five year
period.
Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a
five year period.
Three acres of community park or special use park
per 1,000 population within the Park District, must
be scheduled for construction within a five year
period.
Drainage facilities must be provided as required by
the City concurrent with development.
No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any
road segment or intersection out of the zone which
is impacted by development in the zone shall be
projected to exceed a service level.C during off-
peak hours, nor service level D during peak hours.
Impacted means where 20% or more of the traffic
generated by the local facility management zone
will use the road segment or intersection.
No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a
five minute response time.
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-
developable land must be set aside for permanent
open space and must be available concurrent with
development.
School capacity to meet projected enrollment within
the zone as determined by the appropriate school
district must be provided prior to projected
occupancy.
Trunk line capacity to meet demand as determined
by the appropriate sewer district must be provided
concurrent with development.
Line capacity to meet demand as determined by the
appropriate water district must be provided con-
current with development.
A minimum 10 average day storage capacity must be
provided concurrent with development.
.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 8797
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN TO BE USED WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 9808 (GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE) .
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Program
for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of Ordinance No.
9808 was to prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and
services to serve the growth is provided when they are needed in a
phased and logical way; and
^
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan is
the first phase in the implementation of the Growth Management
Program and is needed to set the framework to allow Local Facility
Management Plans to be submitted; and
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.090 of Ordinance No. 9808 requires
the adoption by City Council Resolution of a Citywide Facilities
and Improvements Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Zity of Carlsbad, California, that the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan as contained on attached Exhibit "A" is hereby
adopted and shall be used in the implementation of Ordinance No.
9808 - The Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of September y
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MARY H CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City CPerk
(SEAL)
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 8798
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF
THE LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLANS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE
NO. 9808 (GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE).
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Program
for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
has been completed as the first phase in the implementation of the
Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the second phase of the Growth Management ^
Program will be the preparation and submittal of the Local
Facility Management Plans for each of the 25 zones; and
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.150 of Ordinance No. 9808 allows
for the adoption of certain guidelines to assist in the
implementation of the Growth Management Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, that the Guidelines for the
Preparation of the Local Facility Management Plans which are
incorporated in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan are
hereby adopted and shall be used in the implementation of
Ordinance No. 9808 - The Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of September ,
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Z/ fi^IL^, ^^ *>* - C^t
MARY H/ CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C^.erk
(SEAL)
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 87991
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PEE AS
3 AUTHORIZED IN ORDINANCE NO. 9808 (GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE).
4
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted
5
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Program
6
for the City of Carlsbad; and
7
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
8
has been completed as the first phase in the implementation
9
process of the Growth Management Program; and
10
WHEREAS, the second phase of the Growth Management
11
Program will be the review and evaluation of Local Facility
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Management Plans as they are submitted for each of the 25 zones;
and
WHEREAS, the review of the Local Facility Management
Plans will ensure adequate public facilities to serve the growth
when they are needed in a phased and logical way to comply with
the adopted performance standards; and
WHEREAS, the funds required from this fee will be used in
relation to the cost of staff time, materials and supplies used,
and specific consultants costs necessary to review the Local
Facility'Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the fee is established as a standard estimate of
the anticipated costs of reviewing a Local Facility Management
Plan, although, additional funds may be required or those funds
remaining following the review and approval of the plan will be
refunded to the plan preparers;
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.070 of Ordinance No. 9808 allows
for the adoption of certain fees necessary for the implementation
of the Growth Management Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, that Local Facility Management Plan
[Processing Fee is hereby established in the amount of $10,000 to
be used in relationship to the amount of staff time necessary to
review the specific plan.
| PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd <Jay of November ,
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MARY H.,yCASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
IALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, city
( SEAL)
21
22!
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.8800
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE LOCAL FACILITY
MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR ZONES 1 THROUGH 6 AND APPROPRIATING
$25,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCIES ACCOUNT IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS REQUIRED
BY ORDINANCE NO. 9808 (GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE).
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Program
for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
has been completed as the first phase in the implementation of the
Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the second phase of the Growth Management * .
Program will be the preparation and submittal of the Local
Facility Management Plans for each of the 25 zones; and
WHEREAS, Local Facility Management Zones 1 through 6 are
developed to such an extent that there is a need for the City to
prepare the Local Facility Management Plan for these zones;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, that the City will be preparing the
ocal Facility Management Plans for Zones 1 through 6 and
authorizing the appropriation of $25,000 from the General Fund
Contingencies Account.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clferk
(SEAL)
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 23rd day of September ,
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MARY H.yCASLER, Mayor
-2-
SEPTEMBER 18, 1986
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
At the City Council meeting on September 16, staff was directed
to make a few minor clarifications to the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan. The following is an explanation of the
clarifications which are being made:
1 ) Page 5 - Constrained areas have been clarified to
indicate environmentally constrained non-developable
areas and those areas which are constrained but may be
developable.
2) Page 58 - Clarifies constrained lands.
3) Page 61 - These items are being added at the request of
the Engineering Department to provide a higher level of
detail needed when evaluating circulation plans.
4) Page 63 - Clarifying that major power line easements may
be used to provide open space.
5) Page 67 - Paragraph (i) was reworded to clarify when the
Facility Management Fee would be collected.
Attached are the individual pages showing the clarifications
which are underlined and the items to be removed which are lined
out.
The last concern raised at the Council meeting was that the
Growth Management Program does not consider Special Resource
Areas in the Parks standard. The reason for this decision is the
City currently has enough acreage of Special Resource Areas to
meet the buildout demand of the City. Staff does not believe any
changes or additions are needed in the Parks section of the
Citywide Plan.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
In order to adequately assess and plan for Citywide public
facilities and services, it was necessary to project the level of
development that can be anticipated to the ultimate buildout of
the City. These projections take into consideration recent
ordinances adopted by the City which reduce residential density
and restrict the overall future intensity of development
throughout the City.
The process used to estimate the total number of dwelling units
in the City at ultimate buildout is relatively straightforward.
Using the City's General Plan map as a basis, all of the land
uses shown were entered into a computer by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) using a process known as
"digitizing." The computer converted this digitized information
into gross acres for each land use designation. Environmentally
constrained areas, beaches, wetlands, floodways, other water
bodies, riparian and woodland habitats, were also digitized and
converted into acreage figures in the same way. Other
constrained areas included slopes greater than 25 percent,
beaohes, wetlando, floodwaya, other—water—bodies, major roadways,
railroad tracks, and major power line easements, and—riparian—an*
woodland habitats. The primary sources used in identifying these
areas included previous environmental impact reports prepared for
projects throughout the City and a Citywide slope analysis map.
To obtain net developable acres, all of the 100 percent
constrained acres and one-half of the areas shown as 25-40
percent slopes were subtracted from the gross acreage figure for
each land use category. In this way, a net developable acreage
figure could be established for the overall City, for each
quadrant of the City, and for each of the 25 Local Facility
Management Zones.
The net developable acreage figure was then multiplied by the
number of dwelling units allowed per acre using the City's
"Control Yield" density ranges, which are listed below:
Residential Land Use Control Yield
RL 1.0
RLM 3.2
RM 6.0
RMH 11.5
RH 19.0
The Control Yield densities represent either the midpoint of the
City's adopted density ranges or actual experience using existing
developments within each land use category.
By applying the Control Yield densities to the net developable
acreage figures, an estimate of the total number of dwelling
units at full buildout can be derived. To carry the process one
step further, the per capita household size data provided by the
— 5 —
1. Title Page
Include zone number, name, address, and telephone
number of sponsor of zone plan, all consultants, and
date of preparation.
2. Table of Contents
The table of contents should be comprehensive and
include a list of exhibits, figures, tables and
appendices.
3. Introduction
Include, here, a brief description of the zone and
background maps. Maps should include the following:
A. Citywide Local Facility Management Zones Map;
please highlight the specific zone under
consideration with a graphic pattern.
B. Latest•General Plan map of the zone.
C. Latest City zoning map of the zone.
D. Map and table indicating the major (25 acres or
larger) property owners in the zone and acres
of property owned by each. For smaller
holdings, list the number of owners and acres
in aggregate. Also list popularly known names
of development projects included in the zone.
Where a specific project has been filed with or
approved by the City include City1s official
reference number.
4. Buildout Assumptions
A projection of the buildout for the zone shall be
provided including residential and non-residential
land use acreage and constrained land. A map and
tables showing how dwelling units and acreage
projections were determined shall be provided. The
map shall show the location of all environmental and
other constrained lands including beaches, permanent
bodies of water, floodways, wetlands, riparian or
woodland habitats, major power transmissions lines,
major roadways, railroad tracks, slopes with an
inclination of 25 percent to 40 percent and those
greater than 40 percent, open space areas previously
designated on the City's Land Use Map and other land
upon which significant environmental features are
-58-
ii. A map and list of all existing and
proposed community or special use parks
within the related Park District (City
Quadrant).
2. CIRCULATION
The plan shall include:
i. A map of the existing and proposed street
system, categorizing streets by the City
Circulation Element criteria. All
existing prime arterials, major arterials,
secondary arterials and collector streets
shall be shown. For the proposed street
system, new collector streets that are
internal to the subdivisions and that will
be built and entirely funded by the
developer as part of an individual
development need not be shown. For any
circulation element road, an alignment
plan with a scale no greater than 200 feet
per inch shall be prepared showing the
vertical and horizontal alignment of the
road. The limits of the alignment should
be extended beyond the zone boundary to a
logical terminus as necessary subject to
the approval of the City Engineer.
For ease of analysis it is suggested that
existing streets be shown with a solid
line and proposed streets with a dotted
line. Use a wider line width for the
prime arterial scaling down to a narrow
line for collector streets.
The map should normally include land
outside of the zone which is necessary to
analyze how the circulation system works
for the entire zone. The map must
indicate "impacted" road segments or
intersections outside the zone.
ii. A table and/or map indicating existing
street capacities, traffic volumes and
service levels during off-peak and peak
hours for all road segments and
intersections.
-61-
ii. A table and/or map indicating the number
of existing and proposed dwelling units
outside the five minute response time of
existing station.
5. OPEN SPACE
The plan should include:
i. A map and table (acres) showing all
existing land to be considered as open
space. Such areas might include pocket
parks, homeowners ball fields, planned
residential development (PRO) common
areas, golf courses, tot lots, swimming
pools, tennis courts or other areas
containing passive or active recreational
facilities, such as major powerline
easements. Where any portion of the zone
is to be developed with large lot,
standard single family development
(minimum 7,500 square foot lots), the
amount of open space may be
proportionately modified.
ii. When known, a map and table indicating all
proposed future open spaces. If possible
relate these spaces to specific property
ownerships or developments. Where
feasible, the plan should inventory any
sites within the zone that are
particularly suited to open space use and
that will enhance the overall livability
within the zone.
6. SCHOOLS
List the name of the service agency(s) for the
zone. If more than one agency serves the zone,
list each agency, and include a map showing each
agency's service area. Service agencies include
San Dieguito Union High School District,
Encinitas Union Elementary School District, San
Marcos Unified School District, and Carlsbad
Unified School District.
The plan should include a map of existing and
proposed elementary, junior high and high
schools serving the zone. For each school show
current and projected enrollment and rated
capacity. Indicate assumptions used such as
students per household.
-63-
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Any temporary pump station required, due to
phasing of facilities shall be clearly
identified.
Future development proposals requiring pump
stations that are not identified in the zone
plan will not be approved without amendments to
the zone plan.
DRAINAGE
It should be shown that the proposed phasing
schedules will not create any onsite or
downstream problems in relation to erosion,
flooding or siltation.
IV. Financing Plan
A financing plan estabishing proposed methods to
fund all needed facilities shall be included: The
plan shall specifically indicate:
i. Which facilities are proposed to be funded and
built as an integral requirement of the
development projects located within the zone.
Where facilities are proposed to be
constructed in the future and the costs are to
be allocated to various properties or
developments within the zone, the plan shall
so indicate and a Facilities Management Fee
shall be proposed. The amount of the fee
shall be determined based upon the estimated
cost of the facilities spread to a specific
increment or level of development. The fee
shall be collected unit by unit in
relationship to the specific demand beginning
with the first unit of development. These
fees shall be held in deposit with the City in
order to assure funds will be available when
the facility is needed. Facility—Management
Fooo ohall bo dopooitod with the City
beginning—with—the—initial—unit—&€—development
in an amount stiff ioiont to fund tho facility
when—i%—ts—needed.
ii. Which facilities are proposed to be built by
the City, special District or State as part
of its normal capital improvement program.
The facilities should be shown on an approved
capital facilities program.
-67-
SEPTEMBER 23, 1986
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Finance Director
DEBT FINANCING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
During the last few weeks there has been a lot of interest in how the City
could use debt to finance capital improvements. Although the issue of bond
financing is relatively broad and would require considerable time to cover
in depth, these are a few key concepts which will be helpful in understanding
the use of bond financing. The following section outlines some of these
concepts and may help clarify what makes debt issues work and how they could
be used by the City.
THE INCOME STREAM
Every bond issue, no matter how it is structured, depends on the issuer's ability
to repay the debt at some specific time in the future. In order to repay bond
holders the issuer must collect money (revenue) from some source over the life
of the bonds and pledge this revenue to the bondholder. If the bondholder feels
that the income stream pledged by the issuer is relatively secure overtime, that
the issuer is in sound financial condition and is well managed the interest rate
on the bonds will be the best the market can offer. If, however, the -income
stream is uncertain or the issuer is in unstable financial condition the market
will demand a higher interest rate or will refuse to accept the bonds at all.
The higher the interest rate the more money the issuer must pay to the bondholder
for the privilege of borrowing money.
COMMON TYPES OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS
There are four types of bonds or debt which should be of interest to the City.
Although there are many other ways to structure debt, if these basic types are
understood most of the other financing techniques which borrow from one or more
of these concepts will be easier to understand.
1) Special Benefit Districts: A special benefit district can be
formed by the residents (property owners) of any area to provide
funding for the construction of a wide number of improvements.
These may include streets, stormdrains, or parks to name a few.
The residents of the district agree to pay an assessment over a
15 or 20 year period to repay all debt. The obligation or debt
becomes a lien on the property within the district. This type of
debt includes the 1911 and 1915 Act bonds as well as Mello-Roos
bonds.
2) General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds: A G.O. bond may be issued by the
City of Carlsbad to build almost any type of capital improvement.
The bonds may only be issued after a 2/3 majority of the voters
casting ballots in an election have approved the issue. The voters
give the City the right to assess a tax on their property for the
life of the bonds to guarantee repayment to the bondholders.
3) Revenue Bonds: The City may pledge revenue from a specific source
to repay debt. This practice is commonly used to finance water
system or sewer system expansions or improvements. The City guaran-
tees repayment of the debt by agreeing to increase utility rates or
other fees to a level necessary to pay all debt service costs over
the life of the bonds.
4) Certificates of Participation (COP): A COP is a form of long term
obligation very similar to a lease. The certificate holder is the
same as a bondholder in the above examples. In a COP issue the City
enters into a long term lease agreement with the certificate holders.
The City pledges to pay the annual lease costs from a specific source
of revenue. If the City does not pay the lease, the COP holders take
ownership of the underlying property and are allowed to sell it to
recover their investment. This is often used to finance building
construction.
THE CITY'S ABILITY-TO ISSUE DEBT
The above sections show that if the City can guarantee an income stream of
sufficient size, the use of debt financing for capital improvements is possible.
The income streams available' to the City fall into three catagories: Special
Assessment, Developer Fees, and General City Revenues. Special Assessments are
used to support 1911 and 1915 Act districts or other special benefit districts.
These revenues flow from the property owner through the City to the bondholder.
Developer Fees are presently not used to repay debt, but could be available if
sufficient revenues exist. These fees include the Public Facilities Fee, Bridge
& Thoroughfare District Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Park-In-Lieu Fee, Drainage Fee
and Sewer Connection Fee.
General City revenues are used to pay City operating costs. Any use of these
revenues to pay debt would depend on the City allocating resources between services
and debt repayment.
Under current interest rates the annual debt service costs for any issue will be
approximately 10% of the total issue value repaid over a 20 year period. For
example, to fund a $10 million debt issue the City will have to pay $1 million
per year for 20 years. An assessment district of this size would have to divide
this $1 million per year debt service across the number of units available to
repay the debt. The table below shows the effect of this on various sizes of
assessment districts.
Page 2
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUNDIN"~
.RAGE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE PER R^. .EHOLD
SIZE OF ISSUE
Number of Households $1 Million $5 Million $10 Million
In Assessment Annual Debt Ser. Annual Debt Ser. Annual Debt Ser.
District $ 100.000 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000
50
100
500
1000
2000
$ 2,000
1,000
200
100
50
$ 10,000
5,000
1,000
500
250
$ 20,000
10,000
2,000
1,000
500
(1) This assumes that ALL of the household units shown are within the benefit
area. This table shows that assessment district financing is dependent upon
including as many properties within a district as possible to keep the annual
debt service payment within reason. Other factors such as property value can
be effected by the formation of an Assessment District. If assessments are too
high the ratio of the lien created by the debt issue to the value of the underlying
property is too low and the assessment bonds cannot be sold, or at least require
a much higher interest rate to attract buyers. An important point to remember
is that assessments can only be collected from properties that benefit from the
improvement and are included in the district boundaries.
The City's Capital Revenues are also a possible source of debt service funding.
This concept should be considered carefully before funds are allocated to debt
repayment. The City must be sure that a 20 year commitment of funds to the
exclusion of other projects is an acceptable alternative. The table below shows
the total amount of bonds which could be issued if all revenue received from each
capital source were pledged to support debt service payments. This table is based
on residential development only.
MAXIMUM BOND ISSUE
BASED ON REVENUE GENERATED BY DEVELOPER FEES
BY TYPE AND PURPOSE OF BONDS
(1) (2) (2) (2) (2)
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD
PER YEAR FOR 20 YRS
50
100
500
1000
2000
PFF
$1.2 Mil
2.5 Mil
12.5 Mil
25.0 Mil
50.0 Mil
PARK-IN-LIEU
FEES
$0.3 Mil
0.6 Mil
3.2 Mil
6.5 Mil
13.0 Mil
BRIDGE &
THOROUGH
$0.3 Mil
0.5 Mil
2.7 Mil
5.3 Mil
10.6 Mil
TRAFFIC IM-
PACT FEES
$0.3 Mil
0.6 Mil
3.0 Mil
6.0 Mil
12.0 Mil
SEWER
CONNECTION
$0.5 Mil
1.0 -Mil
5.0 'Mil
10.0 Mil
20.0 Mil
FI
(1) The Public Facilities Fee calculation is based on 2.5% of building permit
valuation. For this calculation we have assumed the average house is valued at
$100,000. This is higher than the actual average which must take into consideration
both single family and multi-family units.
(2) These sources require that ALL units shown be built within the boundaries of the
special district or benefit area. Park-in-lieu is split into four districts -
Traffic Impact is split into two districts. From this and the previous table it is
evident that the Irger the number of households paying fees or assessments, the larger
the possible band issue. Where there are few properties available to share in the
repayment of debt, bond issues become very difficult if not impossible to create.
Page 3
The possibility of using general fund operating revenue to pay for debt service
costs depends upon the City operating at less than full capacity each year. When
this occurs there is an excess of revenues over expenditures which could be allocated
to debt service payments. If the City were to issue debt on the basis of excess
funds being made available from the general fund, the annual budget would have to
be structured to require departments to plan operations at something less than
maximum service levels. The present City budget is based on the highest service
levels possible with available funds. Should the residents desire certain capical
facilities rather than specific services, the Council could choose to shift funding
to debt repayment. This alternative is not typically used by cities as a means
for repayment of bonds. The toal amount of bonds which could be supported by this
concept would depend on the service levels set by the City Council.
SUMMARY
There are several types of debt instruments available to the City, all of which
depend on a guaranteed income stream for repayment. This income stream depends
upon revenue from assessments, fees, taxes and/or general income.
If no income stream exists there can be no bond issue. Where the revenue exists
a bond issue of approximately 10 times the size of the annual income stream can
be supported. Bond payments will generally be spread over a 15 to 20 year period.
The use of debt financing for public facilities is a common practice and should be
viewed as a viable alternative to pay-as-you-go financing. The keys to making a
debt issue work are 1) clear definition of the project to be constructed, 2) a
source of income that can be reasonably guaranteed for a 20 year period, 3) and a
bond structure that is understood by the marketplace.
JIM ELLIOTT
JE:eas
Page 4
San Diego Gas & Electric
August 29, 1986
FILE NO
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Los Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4859
Dear Mike:
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide
comments on the Guideline for Preparation of Local Facility
Management Plans. In general, the guidelines appear to be
fairly straight forward and easy to follow for preparing the
local zone plans. In our review we have noted a few areas
which appear to need some clarification or additional consi-
deration. The following comments are offered for your review:
Page 6, Phasing Assumptions; The guidelines indicate
that "useage should be projected on a year-by-year basis over a
twenty-year time line." This requirement appears unrealistic
since development cannot always be projected on a precise year-
by-year basis. It is more realistic to forecast development
within a five-year time frame, i.e., between 1986 and 1990 or
from 1996 to 2000.
Page 8, Park and Recreation Phasing; This section
discusses the phasing schedule for an entire park district
which would include several zones. It also indicates that
development is to be suspended if there is a shortfall of park
facilities. The guidelines should make it clear whether this
relates to a shortfall within the entire park district or within
a given zone. If it is the intent of the guidelines to curtail
development in an entire district for a shortfall within any zone,
this places an unrealistic burden upon developing lands outside
the zone having the shortfall. A developer may not be able to
provide additional facilities in other zones. Therefore, all
zones within entire districts could be put on hold until the
city is able to remedy the shortfall of parks.
Page 17^ Open Space Standard; The proposed standard
establishes that 15% of land in each zone exclusive of environ-
mentally constrained lands is to be set aside for open space.
In some areas, the amount of land which is considered "environ-
mentally constrained" encompasses a large portion of a project
site. First, all lands that are not truly environmentally constrain-
ed (proven significant ecological value) should not be consid-
ered as environmentally constrained. Secondly, the guidelines
should allow at least a portion of the environmentally constrained
lands to court toward satisfying the City's 15% open space
requirement. We suggest that these environmentally constrained
lands be allowed to satisfy at least 50% of the above open space
requirement.
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 619*96-2000
Mr. Mike Holzmiller -2- August 29, 1986
Exhibit - Methodology for Buildout Projections; Major
power line easements are included in your definition of "environ-
mentally constrained" areas. Under the guidelines, the environmen-
tally constrained areas may not be used either in density calculations
or to satisfy open space requirements. With these restrictions,
the properties falling into this category will essentially have no
economic value. SDG&E does not prohibit development that is
compatible with its power lines within these rights of way. In
order to encourage secondary uses of rights of ways for areas such
as parks, recreation, general open space and parking, we strongly
believe that major power line easements should be removed from your
definition of environmentally constrained areas. Additionally,
placing power lines in this category will make it very difficult for
SDG&E to obtain transmission line easements in the future if owners
are unable to use the easement area for density calculations and to
satisfy open space requirements.
On Page 2 the methodology for calculating the amount of
commercial and industrial buildout is mentioned, however, the assump-
tions and methodology are not included. This criteria should be
included in this exhibit as it is for residential.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed guidelines. If you would like clarification or additional
information on any of the above, please call either Patricia Stanfield
or myself. Pat can be reached at 696-2391 and I am at 696-2480.
)
Sincerely,
M. Dudley
Land Management & Redevelopment
Supervisor
FMD/jem
cc: PMStanfield
CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
September 16, 1986
Typographical and layout corrections:
1 ) Page 7 In the first paragraph, first word in the
fourth line should be "total" instead of
"remaining".
2) Page 21 - Table 3 under the heading "Square Feet
Available or Planned" the words "Facility
Needed" should be moved up to the year 2006.
3) Page 35 - Under C. ADEQUACY EVALUATION, the Citywide
Totals for acres required should be 155.83.
4) Page 76 - The dollar figures in the table are in millions
(OOO's) .
5) Page 90 - Section IX should read, "APPLICABILITY TO
GROWTH ORDINANCE (SECTION 21.90 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE)".
SEPTEMBER 16; 1986
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - OVERVIEW AND UPDATE
The City's Growth Management Program started to take shape over
a year ago when the report from the Citizens Committee reviewing
the Land Use Element of the General Plan was accepted by the
City Council. Although a whole series of recommendations were
made by the Citizens Committee, many of the major ones addressed
two general areas of concern which have since become the focal
elements or cornerstone of the City's overall Growth Management
Program:
1) Density
2) Adequate Public Facilities
Density
A number of new ordinances have been adopted by the City Council
which affect density including:
1) The reduction of the City's density ranges
2) Not allowing certain types of open space to be used
in density calculations
3) The Beach Overlay Zone
4) Rezoning of a number of parcels in the City where
the existing zoning was felt to be incompatible
with the surrounding area
The overall effect of these ordinances has been to substantially
reduce the ultimate number of dwelling units and intensity of
development in the City and to increase the amount of open
space.
Adequate Public Facilities
In order to ensure that an adequate level of public facilities
and services is maintained at all times as growth occurs in the
City, the Growth Management Ordinance was adopted in July, 1986.
The ordinance creates a 3 step process for analyzing the
adequacy of public facilities:
1) Adoption of a Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan
2) Requirement for Local Facility Management Plans for
each of the 25 local zones into which the City has
been divided.
3) individual development project review
(OVER)
Citywide Plan
Since the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance in July,
staff has been working on the preparation of the Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan. The key elements of the
Citywide Plan include:
1) Performance Standards which set the service level
for each public facility which must be maintained at
all times as growth occurs.
2) Citywide buildout projections based on a methodology
that incorporates all recently-approved land use
controls.
3) Compilation of all available information regarding
public facility needs.
4) Data base and informational system which will allow
the City to review Local Facility Management Plans.
5) Guidelines for preparing a Local Facility Management
Plan.
What's Next
After the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan is adopted by
the City Council (September, 1986), Local Facility Management
Plans can be submitted. After a Local Plan is approved, then
individual development projects located within that particular
portion of the City can be submitted. At that time, the
individual project would be analyzed for compliance with both the
Citywide Plan and the Local Plan.
STONE & YOUNGBERG
i, PACIFIC STOCK EXC.HANGL
September 26, 1986
Mrs. Ann 0. Kulchin
Council member
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mrs. Kulchin:
As a follow up to my letter of September 15, 1986, I would like to outline
how the public facilities (roads, bridges, interchanges, parks, libraries,
etc.), which I am told is presently deficient in the City of Carlsbad, can be
financed and brought up to meet proper City standards. This assumes that the
500-home limitation will not be successful at the November election. With the
City's control!ed-growth plan in place, sufficient funds can then be projected
to correct these deficiencies.
The most equitable and efficient way to pay for infrastructure improvements
is through the creation of assessment districts. Existing property throughout
the City not receiving direct benefit will not be assessed. The improvements
are financed at an attractive rate because the bonds are tax free and are paid
back over a 15-20 year period of time. Security for repayment is the property
itself and is not a debt of the City. The needed improvements are built
before the development occurs thus solving upfront traffic flow and congestion
problems.
Since 1915, the benefit assessment district procedure has been reviewed
and analyzed over and over, again and again. To date, there has been no
procedure, concept, or set of circumstances instituted that improves on this
fair and logical method of providing needed improvements in a growing commu-
nity. Those who would suggest that the City has extreme liability or who
would predict other dire consequences by using this type financing are simply
misinformed. The history of successful benefit assessment financing in the
State of California over the past 50 years certainly confirms this position.
Stone & Youngberg has been the leader in this financing since 1931 and to date
has found no other means as successful or as equitable in providing needed
public facilities as the procedure described herein.
Sincerely yours,
STONE & YOUNGBERG
Robert L. Anderson
RLA:nr
cc: Frank Aleshire
STONE & YOUNGBERG
MEMBERS: PACIFIC STOCK EXCHANGE
September 15, 1986
Mrs. Ann J. Kulchin
Councilmember
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mrs. Kulchin:
It is my understanding of the City's Controlled Growth Ordinance that the
City has been divided into 25 development zones and that each of these zones
must make financial provisions to provide for all the public facilities before
development may occur within the zone. It would therefore appear that each
zone would need a separate assessment district bond issue to satisfy the
City's requirement. Naturally, some of the benefits would overlap zones, but
this could be worked out.
A matter that appears to have no solution, however, is the proposed
500-home per year limitation on building. Should this limitation be imposed,
it would be difficult to determine who gets those building permits. If the
City decides to divide the 500 permits equally, no project would get
sufficient permits to service any sizeable infrastructure debt. Also, land
values would be reduced to reflect the 500-unit limitation. This combination
would, in our opinion, make assessment debt financing virtually impossible.
We are very interested in the City of Carlsbad and the potential for it
continuing to be a model city. We would be available to work with you or the
City in any way to assist on developing a controlled-growth plan. However, I
must restate that the proposed 500-unit moratorium would, in our opinion, make
it impossible to market any quantity of bonds that rely on development revenue
as a source for their repayment.
Sincerely,
STONE & YOUNGBERG
Robert L. Anderson
RLA:nr
cc: Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager
1127 WALL STREET • P.O. BOX 1024 • LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92038 • (714) 454-9081 L/(/r.,,J/-