The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-03-26; City Council; 11087; COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT MONITORING REPORTr u L4 0 FL a, L4 a, 5 a a, u u (d z 0 3 a, +.I a d -4 0 4 m \ \L) N 1 2 0 .a c? 6 s z 3 0 0 AB# //fly7 D MTG. MONITORING REPORT C COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT C -2z TITLE- 0EPT.A RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accept the Comprehensive Growth Management Mor Report. DISCUSSION Section 21.90.1 30(d) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires an Monitoring Report on the Growth Management Program. There haw previous monitoring reports, but the present report is the most thorou! comprehensive since the initiation of the Growth Management Program. The Executive Summary of the report is included as an attachment to this I Bill. The complete Report is on file in the City Clerk’s Office and in the Lil The full report consists of eight sections: I. Introduction II. Purpose 111. Background and Overview IV. Status of the Zones v, VI. Proposition E Compliance VII. Status of the 11 Public Facilities VIII. Appendices Status of Development Under Growth Management To summarize the major conclusions of the Report, all development apprc constructed in Carlsbad since November 4, 1986, is fully in complian Proposition E and the Growth Management Ordinance. With one excep eleven facilities are in compliance with their adopted Performance Standz The exception is circulation. Recent traffic studies indicate that the 1-5 inter at Palomar Airport Road is operating at an unacceptable level of sen separate agenda bill has been prepared on this facility shortfall and presented as a companion item to the monitoring report. The information in the Report is current as of December 31, 1990. The I Committee to Study Growth reviewed the Report and approved it on July 4 1 Following this, the report was circulated to the City Department Heads i Special Districts for review. Thus, the report incorporates the most compl up-to-date information available at this time. Staff intends to follow up wit1 year update in July 1991. 0 0 c CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING REPORT EXECUTIW SUMMARY A REPORT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GRO! DATE: JANUARY, 1991 @ 0 CITY COUNCIL CLAUDE A. LEWIS, MAYOR ANN J. KULCHIN, MAYOR PRO TEM ERIC IARSON JULIE NYGAARD MARGARET STANTON Citizens Committee to Studv Growth Bud Schlehuber, Chairman Tom Erwin, Vice Chairman Matt Hall Dan Hammer Homer Hupf James McCormick Darryl Tell STAFF Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Brian Hunter, Senior Planner Steven C. Jantz, Associate Engineer Don Rideout, Senior Management Analyst Peter Wessel, Intern 0 0 1. INTRODUCTION The initiation of Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program was the result of a s( actions and events in 1985 and 1986. The program has been in operation for over foul and a great deal has happened in this time. This Comprehensive Monitoring Report will summarize the impact of Growth Mana! on the City of Carlsbad from its inception to the present. In doing so, this report wi complex technical issues. To assist citizens in understanding these issues, every effort h: made to reduce jargon, to define terminology, and to present the information as clc possible. A glossary has been included as Appendix A to define the technical terms use report. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an overview of the major issu conclusions of the full report. For further detail on any topic, please refer to the full rc contact the Growth Management Division. 1 e * II. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of monitoring in general, and this report in particular, is to verify requirements of the Growth Management Program are being met. This report will also I the citizens of Carlsbad with a status report on development activities and public 6 improvements. Monitoring occurs with every application for development that is submitted and rei Each application is reviewed for conformance with the Growth Management Program i Buildout projections for the zone. The projected phasing of development in the zone is re Public facility demands are calculated and compared with the thresholds indicated in tt plan. Development conditions are placed on the project to implement the conditions si the zone plan. This level of analysis is referred to as project-specific. Periodic monitoring reports are valuable to show that the project-specific analyr accomplishing their purpose. In addition, Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code r that an annual monitoring report be produced. Because of the importance of monitorin! long-term success of the Growth Management Program, it is recommended that a comprel monitoring report be produced twice each year. In addition, the monthly status repork are already being distributed will be continued and refined to meet the information nee( users. Before any development project can be built, it must go through the following pi 2 0 e 1. A Local Facilities Management Plan must be approved for the zone in wt project is located. The development project must comply with all of the conditions stated in th Facilities Management Plan. A complete project application must be submitted to the Community Devel1 Department. The project must be reviewed by the appropriate departments which t include Planning, Engineering, Building, Fire, Growth Managemer Redevelopment (for Redevelopment Area Projects only). The project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and in many the City Council. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Following approval, the necessary building permits can be issuc construction can begin. Monitoring occurs during steps 3 through 6. Detailed records are kept for each The impact of this project on each of the 11 public facilities is analyzed. Conditions placed on the project to implement conditions stated in the zone plan. The praiect is through the review and approval process. At the time of building permit issuance, the is considered complete for Growth Management purposes. 3 - e 0 111. POPULATION PROJECTIONS The performance standards for City Administrative facilities, Library, and Parks are in terms of population. In order to determine population for these purposes, an e of the average household size is used. This number is 2.471 persons per dwellii which was the average household size in 1986 according to the State of Ci Department of Finance. Since that time, average household size has declined expected to continue to decline; however, the Growth Management Program co to use 2.471 for the following reasons: 1. All population projections in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plar and in each of the adopted Local Facilities Management Plans are based o persons per household. Continued use of this number ensures that al projections of growth and impacts can be compared with the projection! CFlP and the Local Facilities Management Plans. If the Growth Mana Program were to adjust household size each year, using figures supplied a by the State, there would be no comparability in our projections from one the next. 2. This method is a conservative approach which provides an added margin c in our facility planning process. By using the higher average household ensures that an adequate level of facilities is being planned for rather than underestimating the demand. 4 0 0 It should be noted that the population figures derived from this method are intenc facility planning purposes only and are not intended to be used in place of actual ( figures. As long as the actual household size continues to decline, Growth Manal population estimates will be higher than census figures reported by Federal o government. Exhibit 1 illustrates this point by showing the actual population in from 1986 to 1990 according to the State, compared with the Growth Manas estimate based on 2.471 persons per dwelling unit. Exhibit 2 shows the 1990 to buildout population growth projections from thc compared with the Growth Management Program’s current projections. The 1 Management projection falls below the projection from the CFIP at buildout bl several Zones do not have adopted Local Facility Management Plans, and their k population is not yet known. When all 25 Local Facilities Management Plans ha\ adopted, the buildout population projection will be confirmed at 134,914 or I( projected in the CFIP. 5 0 0 Comprehensive Monitoring Report January 1991 1 t v) a I cd I& a3 la T- I \ i I I 7 I m Oi m' e, b- m 0 cu I I a+ - +fa % i i 0: \m I n a ma i" a2 Ja KG a- a= (>c IF I , l i 10 I ~ ai ' 0- t " a- - 'cn Aa a, 7 \ I 1 n I I 7 a2 W (3 cn w I 17 J i \a '\ a \\ co' %n I co In a -a 0 .- In- Lo' -i, '\ I ai\N -03 -t i *\$ cn :z +a a\ 85 \ I \ n N 'a I I.- I t '\ I >z 0 In \ \ co' 7 I- \ a \ I ,o (0 -a L la m F co I * ,? $ I c 0) cu 0 m m w 0 L' kt u' a :' CI 7 c m 0 0 0 0 0 7 a b (0 0 * u- 0 Q) 4 6 P ok& F -G (D \' (u s- \ \ - '\ I \\ - m +i oer '5 4; 0, 7 W T 7 \ " \, v== 4 1 @ % nI +o J - IN - 0: w 0 a - q a a - rk F In &: -0) d rn a 0 IV. BUILDOUT The dwelling unit caps established in Proposition E are stated in terms of Futurc which means dwelling units approved or constructed after November 4, 1986. By contri term Buildout refers to the total of Future Units plus those units already existing or construction as of November 4, 1986. The buildout estimate for each zone is projected of the Local Facilities Management Plans. These estimates are primarily intended for prc public facility impacts. However, it can also be useful to compare these with the qr buildout projections in the CFIP. Of the 25 zones in the City, 21 have had their residential buildout projected, as st Exhibits 3 and 4. Zones 5, 13, 16, and 25 will be entirely nonresidential, so their buil shown as 0. The buildout for zone 10 was estimated as part of the Local Facilities Mana Plans for Zones 11 and 12. As indicated in Exhibit 3, the total residential Buildout for the Northwest Quadr been projected at 14,139 dwelling units. This compares with the projection of 15,370 in th Buildout for the Northeast Quadrant has been projected at 9,041 units, compared with tt projection of 9,042. In the other two quadrants, the buildout picture is not yet complete k one or more Local Facilities Management Plans have not been adopted. When all 25 zon adopted Local Facilities Management Plans, the projected buildout totals for each quad be consistent with the CFIP. a NW QUADRANT Dwelling Units Zone at Buildout - 1 12,220 3 252 5 -0-1 8 1,225 13 -0-1 24 442 Total 14,139 SW QUADRANT Dwelling Units Zone at Buildout 4 3,065 6 (SW) 5992 9 91 0 19 3,272 20 2,491 21 Not Known 22 866 23 Not Known NEQUADRANT Dwelling Units at Buildout - Zone - 2 2,578 7 2,333 14 1,122 15 3,008 16 -0-’ 25 -0-1 Total 9,041 SEQUADRANT Dwelling Units - Zone at Buildout 6 (SE) 8,61g2 10 6333 11 3,595 12 1,888 17 Not Known 18 2,091 a e E PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT m NO CURRENT PROJECTION !9 2 Comprehensive Monitoring Report January 1991 10 e 0 v. PHASING Phasing refers to an estimate or projection of the amount of development expe a given year. The purpose of phasing is to project improvement thresholds for each eleven public facilities, When the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan was written, it was assum 1,250 dwelling units would be constructed each year. This assumption was used tc preliminary estimates of when various facilities would need to be provided or expanded. that time, the 18 adopted zone plans have provided more accurate estimates of the nur new dwelling units to be constructed each year. During the preparation of a zone plan, tl owners indicate the number of units they intend to construct each year until buildout of th This phasing is used, instead of the CFlP assumption, to determine approximate threst the plan. The phasing shown in each zone plan is still not entirely accurate, for several rz Each zone plan’s phasing is done independently, as though the zone will develop in is Actually, each zone’s development will be influenced by market forces, which include the development occurring in other zones. For these reasons, staff has constructed a F schedule which takes into account the projections for each zone to arrive at a realistic s( The following table (Exhibit 5) shows the phasing of residential units for all zone have adopted zone plans, as projected by staff. Even these figures, though more accuri the original CFlP assumption and the phasing shown in individual zone plans, require review and adjustment. The exhibit shows the projected phasing for each zone on a year- basis, but the Citywide totals are given in 5 year increments. This is done to emphas year-to-year fluctuations are of less importance than the total over a number of years. 11 2 z- E N 0 0 0 lo N uo rn 3m z N >z $* bE 22 b m m ic N. 4 m a 9 r $g!33> k z 2 b oz+-M b- 7 N +p8$ m ozq 2 i3 "2 bb hb 00 m m a? m *. - <;?Zs N m M f e +-=I$-- 9 6 PEOLb 0 2 E'e".? m : * ". m m m t ON 8 m m m ,- t lo- * lo? t. m r m m % -100m-t m '9 awwjm a- lo bo1 00 N a lo- N x z ""$~k% mo 7 ma N N m oommmmmmmmmh~t cuw lomlololololomloaJ3 N mo so o m 0~~"~~~~~~~~"~~~~~"~~~ a a ,,,,,,,,,,,r,,,,r-,r--o m cz 8 zggkssa2ggE8%%%:sagg R 7 oooooooooooooooooooooont s? w sSz="~~""z"""z~"~~""d~ mo mo rNNNNNNNNNrr-r-7"- CI z b Q z .- P z CI 5 5 II e t!ngc %E$ d 2 59 N 0088888888888888888888g~ P .- s 5 9 s z k 3 $ O eo rz dlo 0 oOftttbftfft9b~~~~~~~~~~ NNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNJ~ Y- i= 0-c: ,,,,r,r----rr"""'mO mo :!E mo r a e a, c -Q 2 3 lo O%~~MMMMMM~MMMM8~8MM~~~ mo z $ O~~BBBBBs~BB~s~BBBBBB~~ ,r,r,,~,,--r-r-""'rnO m Ll E F zo m m oo~ooooooooOm~t lomlo-?***U**-d3 mo awwwwwawwawwwaa~a~w~N~ 0 lo U c m r ooooooooooooooooo00000~+ 2 2- 5 s~~s~~~~s~~sss~sss~ss~~ mo 5: m 2* 8 5% $0 m - mmmmmgt 5" 6 s zssg5 mo 5-- 5- s ~g~f""""""""~"~"""Q~~~ 0 9 $m 0 z E % mo urn di3 J 9- - o 2 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm~mN+ ammmmmamamammammmmammm~~ Q r aoo6~~~8~~68~8~8~8~~~~~Oz~ss ~~~~znz~z~s~~aaaaaaaa~a~~a~a 0: U,K 19 o? * ". lolo .- 3 C U a C - 9c $ ; r c ; 1 0 m s e e VI. STATUS OF ZONES The Growth Management Program requires that a Local Facilities Manageme (LFMP) be prepared in each of the City’s 25 facility zones before further development allowed to occur within the zone. The following tables indicate the status of each zone. 6 also provides this information on map form. ZONE NAME ADOPTION DATE CITY COUNCIL WESO Zone 3 May 19,1987 CC Reso. No. 9084 Zone 2 June 16,1987 CC Reso. No. 9123 Zone 4 June 16, 1987 CC Reso. No. 9122 Zone 5 August 4, 1987 CC Reso. No. 9188 Zone 1 September 1, 1987 CC Reso. No. 9221 Zone 6 November IO, 1987 CC Reso. No. 9291 Zone 19 Hillman December 22,1987 CC Reso. No. 9322 Zone 11 La Costa Southeast February 23,1988 CC Reso. No. 88-46 Zone 12 La Costa Southwest February 23,1988 CC Reso. No. 88-47 CC Reso. No. 90-264 Zone 20 So. College Residential September 6, 1988 CC Reso. No. 88-322 Zone22 Lusk December Q3, 1988 CC Reso. No. 88-428 Zone 24 Evans Point December 20, 1988 CC Reso. No. 88-437 Zone 8 Kelly Ranch February 7,1989 CC Reso. No. 89-33 Zone9 Sammis July 11, 1989 CC Reso. No. 89-232 Zone 7 Calavera Hills December 5, 1989 CC Reso. No. 89-424 Zone 14 Robertson Ranch February 6,1990 CC Reso. No. 90-24 Zone 15 Sunny Creek April 10, 1990 CC Reso. No. 90-101 Zone 18 Carrillo Ranch Approved by Planning PC Reso. No. 3176 The City prepared the plans for zones 1 through 6 because of their infill and developed In the other zones, property owners are required to prepare the zone plan. The prepar their plans is overseen and reviewed by City staff. Amended 8/21 /90 Commission 12/19/90 13 I S R TUS OFZONE PL a NS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF V BEING REVISED ENClNlTAS 0 ADOPTED PLANS UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW B INITIAL PLANNING Comprehensive Monitoring Report January 1991 14 0 0 PLANS ACCEPTED FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW (As of 12/31/90) The following zone plans are considered to have a complete submittal and are being rev by City staff. Date 6 Month 90 Day New Zone Submitted/AcceDted Deadline * Extension Deadline 13 Ecke Ranch 1-4-91 - Resubmitted 7-4-9 1 16 Carlsbad Oaks 5-22-90 1 1-22-90 Yes 2-22-9 1 21 East Poinsettia 12-5-90 6-5-9 1 Residential *Refer to Glossary for explanation of deadlines. Other Zones Status (As of 12/31 190) The following plans do not have a complete submittal at this time and are in the i stages: Zone 10 - La Costa Northwest Zone 17 - Bressi Ranch Zone 23 - Green Valley Zone 25 - South Coast Asphalt 15 ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRO @ AM STATUS OF ZONE PLANS As of 12/31 190 ZONE COMMON NAME STATUS 1' 2' 3' 4' 5' 6' 7' Calavera Hills Adopted on 12/05/89 CC Reso. No. 89-424 8' Kelly Ranch Adopted on 2/7/89 CC Reso. No. 89-33 Adopted on 9/01/87 CC Reso. No. 9221 Adopted on 6/16/87 CC Reso. No. 921 3 Adopted on 5/19/87 CC Reso. No. 9084 Adopted on 6/16/87 CC Reso. No. 91 22 Adopted on 8/04/87 CC Reso. No. 9188 Adopted on 1 1 /10/87 CC Reso. No. 9291 (Kaufman & Broad) 9' Sammis Adopted on 7/11/89 CC Reso. No. 89-232 10 La Costa (Northwest) Buildout confirmed - Initial Planning 11' La Costa Southeast Adopted on 2/23/88 CC Reso. 88-46. 12' La Costa Southwest Adopted on 2/23/88 CC Reso. 88-47. 13 Ecke Technical Review (1 -4-9 1 ) 14' Robertson Ranch Adopted on 2/6/90 CC Reso. No. 90-24 15' Sunny Creek Adopted on 4/10/90 CC Reso. No. 90-101 16 Carlsbad Oaks Industrial Technican review (5/22/90) 17 Bressi Ranch Initial Planning 18' Carrillo Ranch Approved by Planning Commission on 12/19/! 19' Hillman Adopted on 12/22/87 CC Reso. No. 9322 20' South College Adopted on 9/6/88 CC Reso. No. 88-322 Amended on 8/21/90 CC Reso, 90-264 PC Reso. No. 90-3176 Residential Currently being revised. 21 East Poinsettia Technical Review (1 2/5/90) Residential 22' Lusk Adopted on 12/13/88 CC Reso. No. 88-428 23 Green Valley Initial Planning 24' Evans Point Adopted on 12/20/88 CC Reso. No. 88-437 25 So. Coast Asphalt Initial Planning *Adopted zone plans 16 e 0 The preceding tables and map show the status of each zone as of the date For those zones that do not yet have an adopted LFMP, there is typically a high level of plc The status of these zones can change from month to month. For this reason, a monthl! is prepared by the Growth Management Division. Please contact the Growth Managemc the latest zone status report. 17 0 0 VII. STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNDER GROWTH MANAGE The Growth Management Program specified several prerequisites to develop1 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code specified that a Citywide Facilities and lmprovemen must be prepared and adopted by the City Council. This was completed on Septembe addition, each zone is required to have a Zone Plan adopted by the City Council before or processing of applications is allowed. The plans for Zones 1 through 6 were writtei because these zones comprise the already developed or infill portions of Carlsbad. De\ resumed in these zones subject to the new requirements imposed by Growth Managc requirements ensure that adequate public facilities will be provided to meet the adoptec standards. In the remaining zones, that is Zones 7 through 25, the property owners are r preparing the plans for their zones under the supervision of City staff. Following adoptic Plan for a zone, development can resume in the zone if; (1) All 11 of the facility performance standards are being met. (2) All of the conditions stated in the zone plan are being met. The following Chart (Exhibit 7) shows the number of dwelling units issued e; 1986. How Dwellinq units are counted Under Growth Management, new dwelling units are counted when the bui issued. Exhibit 7 shows the number of units issued each year from January 1, 1986, throi 31 , 1990. Prior to the establishment of the Growth Management Program, units were “finaled”’ that is, when the building inspector makes the final inspection and certifies that tl for occupancy. For this reason, Exhibit 7 is not a complete account of the entire dwellin from 1986 to 1991. 18 0 * 0 a Q) I- 7 Z W 2 a a3 a 7J Q) (I) # F 8s J, CI] 3 W[n - >s w mi 5 n -In 0 ap jx I-= 2: W n (f> W K + .- 00 E 00 b n" a 7 Y- - .I b 00 a 7 - co 00 b) 7 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00 00 Lo 0 Lo 0 Lo Lo 0 c7 c7 N N 7 7 19 a * I The dwelling unit increase for 1986 should be counted based on finaled unit! Exhibit 8. As of January 1, 1987, the change was made to counting at permit issuance; for 1987 reflects all units issued in that year plus all units which were issued in prior yes in 1987. Exhibit 8 is, therefore, an accurate and complete representation of the dwellin! from 1986 to the present. For 1988 and all subsequent years, new units are counted permit issuance. Exhibit 9 provides the total picture of residential development under Growtt by starting with the number of dwelling units already completed and occupied as of Ja As indicated in the CFIP, this number was 21,121 dwelling units. The current total as of 1990, is 27,784 dwelling units. 20 0 0 0 (3 Q) I- r z, wa> zz Lii Om 3 A= wn >x wz nA! r 12 6 -L, 'E LL b 1 l-m Za wF oz gj; a, 00 a, D a, 09 co v 00 00 6, -c;J a, cd c - .- 00 a, v co 00 cr, r w K 00000000 0000000 W OWOLO 0 0 mmcu N l- r 21 L 2; rnh corn a= OF .I og A2 K .E LLZ >.z + -= 0 ?! W VI 7Y c a VI 3 0 c I- I I 7 d- b b 7 N co -m I 0 0 -m m 7 b N cr, -00 m ID a co N 7 a- 00 -00 Y- m m LC) N 7 ID- b -00 a, T- co -00 a, 7 T- N 7 7 .. \ 7 r 0 03 (\I .c I I I I I I I I 1 4 OCn00~coLo~c9cv-0 c9t\lcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcv NW QUADRANT ZONE EXISTING DWELLING UNITS As of 12/31 /90 1 10,180 3 235 8 1 24 115 TOTAL 10,531 CFIP QUADRANT LIMIT = 15,370 PERCENT OF BUILDOUT = 69% SW QUADRANT ZONE EXISTING DWELLING UNITS As of 1 2/31 /90 4 3,065 9 459 19 44 20 28 22 268 66W) 41 0 TOTAL 4,274 CFlP QUADRANT LIMIT = 12,859 PERCENT OF BUILDOUT = 33% NE QUADRANT ZONE EXISTING DWELLING UNITS As of 1 2/31 /90 2 2,487 7 1,101 14 2 25 2 TOTAL 4,111 CFlP QUADRANT LIMIT = 9,04: PERCENT OF BUILDOUT = 45% SE QUADRANT ZONE EXISTING DWELLING UNITS As of 1 2/31 /90 6GE) 7,324 11 954 12 589 18 1 TOTAL 8,868 CFlP QUADRANT LIMIT = 17,3: PERCENT OF BUILDOUT = 51 % e e EXHIBIT 10 CIWIDE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF BUILDOUT (As of 1/1/91) CFlP Dwelling Unit Limit 54,599 Total Existing Dwelling Units 27,784 (As of 1/1/91} Percent of Buildout 50.0% 24. 0 a NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT This category refers to all types of development other than housing. It in commercial, industrial, office, government, church, recreational, agricultural, and similai of projects. The majority of the City's industrial development is located in Zone 5. Comr development is found in Zone 1 (the Village area and Plaza Camino Real), Zone 6 (La Hotel and Spa), along 1-5, and in neighborhood commercial areas within each zone. Z( 13, 16 and 25 will be entirely non-residential. Non-residential development is measured by square footage rather than by units. 11 shows the amount of nonresidential development constructed in the City annuall 1986 to the present. The total amount of existing nonresidential development in the of December 31, 1990 is 13,849,348 sq. ft. 25 0 0 e a 0 a a $ m- ulk rg 7 a5 05 >s k .G % 7 a 0) a JE 00 00 a, 13 &g S 7 b 00 cr, cn 7 c’ C 0: a! 7: c I- C .- 4- L cr co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d- cu 0 00 co w tu .. I 7 7 7 26 NW QUAD Future units = 5,844 SW QUAD Future units = 10,667 NE QUAD Future units = 6,166 SE QUAD Future units = 10,801 NW QUADRANT Constructed = 1,250 units Approved' = 319 units Total = 1,569 units Prop. E Limit = 5,844 units SW QUADRANT Constructed = 737 units Approved* = 1,159 units Total = 1,896 units Prop. E Limit = 10,667 units NEQUADRANT Constructed = 494 units Approved' = 1,323 units Total = 1,817 units Prop. E Limit = 6,166 units SE QUADRANT Constructed = 1,797 units Approved* = 2,464 units Total = 4,261 units Prop. E Limit = 10,801 units @ 9 When the Con rot Point is applied to a specific parcel of vacant, developablc the number of dwelling units which can be built on that parcel is determined. For exam one-acre parcel designated RL can be approved for one dwelling unit. Other examples fo category are shown below: General Plan GMCP Net AC. Per AC. Allowec RLM 3.2 D.U./Ac. 1.5 4.80 4 RM 6.0 D.U./Ac. 20.1 64.32 64 RMH 11.5 D.U./Ac. 3.3 37.95 37 RH 19.0 D.U./Ac. 4.0 91.20 91 Net D.U. D.U. Proposition E stated that no residential project could be approved in excess Control Point unless it could be demonstrated that other projects in the quadrant havc approved below the Control Point, so the net result is equal to the Control Point. examples given above, the RLM parcel could be approved for 6 units (1.2 over the Control if other projects in the same quadrant had been approved at 1.2 units under the G.MA number of projects in the Northwest Quadrant have been approved in this way. The fo table (Exhibit 12) provides an accounting of all approved residential projects in the Noi Quadrant since November 4, 1986 to show the balance of units over and under the ( Management Control Point. As indicated in the exhibit, the northwest quadrant is 208.6 below the Control Point overall, as of December 31 , 1990. For each of the City’s 25 zones, the maximum allowable number of future determined as part of the LFMP for the zone. This number is computed by applying the 1 Point to all of the vacant, developable land in the zone. The result is called the Future L the zone. At this time, not all zones have projected their Future Units. All six of the zones that make up the Northwest Quadrant have projected their Units. Although Zone 13 is not yet adopted, it will be a totally nonresidential zone. Thc its residential buildout is zero, This makes it possible to verify that the Proposition E caF Northwest Quadrant will be complied with through buildout of the City, as shown on the fc pages. 29 z a ( 0 ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTABOVE & BELOW THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINTS IN ZONE 1 As of NET UNITS UI PROJECT NO. NAME ACRES APPROVED GEN.PLN. GMCP ALLC SDP 86- 12 RISING GLEN 41.2 73 RLM 3.2 CUP 298 HINKLEY 0.24 1 RLM 3.2 CT80-14lPUD 16 FREYNINEDALE 4.85 19 RLM 3.2 SDP 87-5 GALLUCCI 0.14 2 RH 19 3.2 V 87-llHDP 87-1 VON PACKARD 2.02 CT 88-1 L8R PARTNERSHIP 6.3 26 RMH 11.5 CT 88-2lPUD 88-2 VISTA DE LA VALLE 7.15 32 RM 6 PCD 88-1 RlCO 0.16 1 RMH 11.5 SDP 88-7 ACACIA TOWNHOMES 0.28 3 RH 19 CT 88-51HDP 89-1 HILLSIDE PARTNERS 4.28 12 RLM 3.2 CT 88-8iPUD 88-9 KLW 0.49 4 RMH 11.5 CT 88-6lPUD 88-7 LEWlSlELSBREE 1.57 7 RMH 11.5 CT89-14 MALDONADO GARDENS 1.46 6 RLM 3.2 SOP 89-5KP 89-7 HEMLOCK I 0.31 4 RH 19 SDP 89-4/CP 89-6 HEMLOCK II 0.26 3 RH 19 RP 87-13 VALDU 0.24 1 RMH 11.5 3.2 CT 85-36 OCEANVIEW ESTATES 6.7 CT85-18 PANNONIA 59 141 RLM 3.2 CT 84-28 MARCH GROUP 1.83 5 RLM 3.2 CT85-13 RUDEN NILLESCAZ 1.9 8 RLM 3.2 CT89-13 THE HAMPTONS 4.35 42 RMH 11.5 CT 89-22 BAYWALK 2.5 28 RMH 11.5 CT 89-32 WEST PALM 1.51 5 RLM 3.2 CT 89-36 PARADISE COURT 5.34 17 RLM 3.2 CT 90-01 YAZDl CONDOS 0.51 6 RH 19 CT 90-7/PUD 90-1 1 ST. TROPE WEST 0.35 6 RH 19 MS 745 ELlAS 0.11 2 RH 19 MS 750 BENACKA 0.54 2 RLM 3.2 MS 751 MUSSER 0.53 2 RLM 3.2 MS 752/CP 87-2 HARRINGTON 1 4 RM 6 MS 756 SPRINKLE 0.5 2 RLM 3.2 MS 757 BUENA PROP. 0.725 3 RLM 3.2 MS 760 HOLMES 0.71 2 RLM 3.2 MS 762 GASTELUM 0.8 3 RLM 3.2 MS 763 WHITE 0.909 3 RLM 3.2 MS 765 SMITH 0.529 1 RM 6 MS 766 MEDINA 0.92 3 FILM 3.2 MS 768 OATHOUT 0.93 2 RLM 3.2 MS 773 MUNOZ 1.06 2 RM 6 MS 776 LARSON 0.5 2 RLM 3.2 MS 784lCP 88-5 DURANT 0.1 1 2 RH 19 MS 786 STADNYK 1.02 2 RLM 3.2 MS 790 LIN, WICKHAM, MENNON 0.62 3 RLM 3.2 1 RLM 24 FILM MS 792 FALCON HILLS, INC. 2.08 4 RLM 3.2 MS 794 SCHMIT 0.5 2 RLM 3.2 MS 801 ROSS 0.54 2 RLM 3.2 MS 802 SANDY 1.78 4 RLM 3.2 MS 806lSDP 89-13 DURANT 0.27 4 RH 19 MS8ll ROYCUHICKS 0.57 2 RLM 3.2 MS 812 MARTINET 0.63 2 RLM 3.2 MS 814 BRANDOW 0.5 2 RLM 3.2 MS 815 LECLAIR 0.6 2 RLM 3.2 MS816 SULLIVAN 0.94 2 RLM 3.2 MS 817 INGOLD 0.79 2 RLM 3.2 3.2 MS G19 LADWlG OS7 MS 823 ROCHESTER 0.4 2 RLM 3.2 MS 826 OGARA 0.66 3 RLM 3.2 MS 828 REED 0.51 2 RLM 3.2 MS 833 PACKARD 0.44 2 RLM 3.2 TOTAL 2 RLM Comprehensive Monitoring Report Proposition E Cap Constructed Zone After 11/5/86 Future Units 1 1,216 2,040 3 3 17 8 0 1,224 24 31 327 1,250 3,608 Difference 5,844 4,858 986 NW QUADRANT (Shown on previous page) SW QUADRANT Proposition E Cap 10,667 Future Units = 7,677 5 of 7 Zones Projected NE QUADRANT Proposition E Cap = 6,166 Future Units = 4,931 5 of 6 Zones Projected SE QUADRANT Proposition E Cap 7,171 Future Units = 7,547 4 of 6 Zones Projected L e (I) 1 * Parks Quadrant Park Dist. 1 (NW) - Existing fa 4 meet the adopted gerforr standard through 1992. Park Dist. 2 (NE) -Existing and p facilities meet the ad performance standard through ' Park Dist. 3 (SW) - Existin planned facilities meet the ac performance standard through Park Dist. 4 (SEI - Existing and p facilities meet the ad performance standard th buildout. Fire is analyzed on the basis of service areas which include several zones. The ren seven facilities, drainage, circulation, open space, schools, sewer collection system, an( distribution and storage system, are analyzed on a zone by zone basis. Needed improvements are identified as part of the zone plan process. The Local F: Management Plans contain specific conditions of approval to assure that adequate fc will be available at all times as development occurs. Therefore, it is projected that all o facilities, with one exception, will meet the adopted performance standards as a re implementation of the Local Facilities Management Plans. The exception is the fi interchange at 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road. Recent traffic studies have indicated tt facility is not operating within the adopted performance standard. This issue is descr greater detail in the full Monitoring Report. The full report recommends not issuing any building permits in Zones 3 and 5 until the improvements to the interchange are fin: guaranteed. 33 1 b @APPENDIX A* 1 GLOSSARY Buildout The maximum number of dwelling units that can exi: given Quadrant of the City, as specified below: Northwest Quadrant 15,370 Northeast Quadrant 9,042 Southwest Quadrant 12,859 Southeast Quadrant 17,328 CFlP Ciide Facilities and Improvements Plan See Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan A planning document adopted by the City Council ii which specifies many of the important features of the ( Management Program, including the performance stai for the 11 facilities, the boundaries of the 25 zones, a projected buildout of the City. Dens-w The number of dwelling units that are constructed on a of land of specified size, expressed as dwelling units pr Dwellinq Unit A house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, o structure containing sleeping and cooking facilities, - EIR Environmental Impact Report GMCP See Growth Management Control Point Growth Management Control Point The allowable density for a given parcel according Growth Management Program. LFMP See Local Facilities Management Plan 34 r; b * e Local Facilities Manauernent Plan A planning document which describes how a zo develop, what facilities will be needed to accomn that development, and how those facilities \i have an adopted Local Facilities Management Pla to development. Also known as LFMP or Zone In reference to development, means the ama development occurring or projected to occur in i year. In reference to public facilities, means the 1 in which improvements are funded or constructt provided. Each of the City's 25 zones is requ Phasinq Proposition E A ballot initiative in the City of Carlsbad in 1986 affirmed many important aspects of the ( Management Program by a vote of the people. State law says that an application for a develc permit must be processed and either appro' denied within six months of the date the applic: considered complete. If an EIR is required, the dc is one year. After the expiration of the deadline day extension may be granted for one time onlj Six-month Deadline Technical Review Analysis of a Local Facilities Management Plan ' staff to determine whether it is ready for approv See Local Facilities Management Plan Zone Plan 35