HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-23; City Council; ; Growth Management Plan Update Scoping Session~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
October 23, 2018
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
David.decordova@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4604
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
Scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-4618
Growth Management Plan Update Scoping Session
Recommended Action
CA Review f2-t,{.._.
That the City Council receive a staff presentation and direct staff on the scope (update tier) and
timing of potential Growth Management Plan revisions.
Executive Summary
At their March 20, 2018 goal-setting session, the City Council expressed a desire to begin a
process to review and update the city's Growth Management Plan {GMP). Adopted in 1986, the
GMP responded to a time of rapid development, large population increases, and concerns over
future growth potential, adequate infrastructure, and the quality of life. It has been a
cornerstone for proactively managing growth over the past 30 years by guiding development
and ensuring that adequate facilities are properly financed and provided concurrent with all
new development.
In 2018, most of Carlsbad has now developed, infrastructure is largely in place, and the rate of
growth has slowed. Residentially speaking, the city is at approximately 87 percent of potential
buildout as planned for in the 2015 General Plan update. At the same time, Carlsbad and other
California jurisdictions face a renewed state effort to address a housing shortage. Further, the
way in which infrastructure is completed or improved may change as development becomes
more incremental, smaller in scale, and infill in nature. For these and other reasons, while the
City Council recognizes the unique value of the GMP, it also agrees that it is time for its review
and update to meet the challenges of the next 30 years.
As such, the City Council directed staff to draft a work plan and resourcing strategy to conduct
the update and submit it for City Council's consideration. Staff began preparation of a work
plan and resourcing strategy but needed more direction from City Council. To facilitate that
discussion, this staff report provides helpful GMP information, including background, update
options, and schedule and timing considerations. The report also provides a high-level overview
of potential resource needs, whether financial, city department participation and staffing, or
engagement of outside agencies, community members and boards and commissions. Upon
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 1 of 57
gaining a better understanding of City Council's GMP update goals and objectives, staff will
prepare the necessary work plan and resourcing strategy for additional consideration by the
City Council at a later date.
Discussion
The following topics are presented to assist the City Council's deliberations and staff direction:
1. GMP background
2. GMP compliance measures and status
3. GMP and housing
4. Facility standards
5. Financing
6. Potential GMP update tiers
7. Update approach
8. Work program timing
9. Next steps
1. GMP Background
History. In the mid-1980s, the city was experiencing an era of rapid growth, which raised
community concerns about how growth would affect quality of life-the community's "small
town" identity, open space, natural habitat, and the adequacy of public facilities to serve new
growth. Evidence for these concerns was found in realized and potential growth: in 1985,
developers completed more than 2,000 homes and the General Plan allowed 87,000 more. In
1986, over 2,500 homes were built. These numbers sharply contrast with the 1,335 homes
completed in 2016 and 2017 and a remaining 6,850 unbuilt and planned dwellings as of July
2018.
In response, a 25-member citizen's committee was appointed to review the city's General Plan
Land Use Element. From January to June 1985, the committee held 13 meetings, two Saturday
workshops, and four additional public workshops, one in each quadrant. In July 1985, the City
Council adopted the committee's recommendations. One month later the City Council passed
the first of a series of interim ordinances to restrict development while the formal Growth
Management Plan was finalized. The following year, in July 1986, the city passed Ordinance No.
9808, adopting the GMP and adding Chapter 21.90 to the Municipal Code.
Following plan passage, Proposition E was placed on the ballot and ratified by Carlsbad voters in
November 1986. This proposition, in addition to requiring adequate facilities, "locked in" the
residential density controls which were already a part of the GMP and established ultimate
dwelling unit caps for each of the city's four quadrants.
Public Facilities. The GMP requires adequate public facilities be provided concurrent with new
growth. To ensure this, the plan identifies performance standards for eleven public facilities -
city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open
space, schools, sewer collection, and water distribution. The facility performance standards
were based on the city's residential dwelling unit capacity (existing and future units), which in
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 2 of 57
1986 was estimated to be 54,599 dwelling units, or the total of the dwelling unit capacities
determined for each quadrant.1 Calculations were also performed to estimate the total square
feet of industrial and commercial land uses at buildout. Projections for both residential and
non-residential construction provided a basis for determining the level of development at
buildout and the amount and types of public facilities necessary to adequately serve a future,
fully developed city.
Through Proposition E, voters limited the number of dwelling units in the city to the 54,599-
dwelling unit estimate. As shown in Table 1, Proposition E established a maximum number of
dwelling units that could be built after November 4, 1986, in each of the city's four quadrants,
which are located along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Table 1 also shows the
estimated number of existing dwelling units in November 1986 and the estimated total units
allowed in each quadrant and citywide if unbuilt, approved projects were completed, vacant
residential land was developed, and underdeveloped residential land was redeveloped to its
General Plan potential.
Table 1: Proposition E -Growth Management
QUADRANT . ESTIMATED PROP. E. MAX I GMP DWELLING ESTIMATED
EXISTING UNITS UNITS ALLOWED UNIT CAP DWELLING
IN NOV. 1986 AFTER NOV. 4, ESTIMATE* UNITS AT
1986 ----+--------BUILDOUT** ------+---------·--·---
Northwest i 9,526 5,844 15,370 14,669
Northeast . 2,876 6,166 9,042 ' 8,940 ~-------
Southwest ' 2,192 10,677 12,859 ____ , 1_1~,6_4_6 __
Southeast · 6,527 10,801 1 17,328 ____ ;_17,0_0_1 ___ _
CITYWIDE ; 21,121 I 33,478 I 54,599 i 52,256
'Excludes second dwelling units and commercial living units, which are not counted for purposes of the city's
Growth Management dwelling unit limitations, as noted.
**Includes unbuilt approved projects, as well as vacant and, except in the Village, underdeveloped property
designated for residential use by the General Plan. Fii:t~res in this column are as of July 31, 2018.
Application. Pursuant to Proposition E, the city cannot approve any General Plan amendment,
zone change, subdivision map or other discretionary permit that could result in residential
development that exceeds the dwelling unit limit in each quadrant without voter approval.
Preparation of the 2015 General Plan, for example, included careful analysis of residential land
uses to ensure that the resulting residential dwelling units would not exceed the number of
units allowed by the GMP (citywide and in each quadrant) as established by Proposition E.
1 Pursuant to state law and city regulations, second dwelling units and commercial living units are not counted as
dwellings for the purposes of Growth Management. California Government Code Section 65852.2 states that
second dwelling units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy or program that
limits residential growth. In regard to commercial living units (e.g., professional care facilities, hotels and time-
shares), Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.093 states that such units are not considered dwelling units due to
the assistance/services provided in conjunction with the living unit and/or the use of the living unit for temporary
lodging. In addition, pursuant to the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, hotels, time-shares and units
that are not defined as a dwelling unit in the building code are not counted as dwelling units for purposes of
Growth Management.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 3 of 57
Compliance with the dwelling unit limits is ensured by "growth management control points"
that are at or near the midpoint of residential density ranges permitted by the General Plan. For
example, the R-8 residential land use designation has a density range of 4-8 units per acre and a
growth management control point of 6 units per acre.
As General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Policy 2-P.8. specifies, a project may
exceed a control point only if:
• The project qualifies for and receives an allocation of "excess" dwelling units
• Other developments have been built at densities below the control point so that the
project would not exceed quadrant and citywide limits
• The project would construct or guarantee construction of all necessary public facilities
required by the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan concurrent with the need
created by the project and in compliance with city standards
The City Council has established an Excess Dwelling Unit Bank to account for excess units and a
policy (City Council Policy No. 43) to govern their deposit and allocation. More information on
excess units and the bank is provided in the next section.
The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP), adopted in 1986, was the first phase in
the implementation process of the GM P adopted earlier that year. The CFIP identifies the
performance standards for each of the eleven public facilities, divides the city into 25 local
facility management zones (LFMZ) and identifies the city's ultimate public facility needs. In turn,
a local facilities management plan identifies the public facility needs for each of the 25 LFMZs.
Individual development projects, whether residential, commercial, office, or industrial, must
comply with the CFIP and the applicable local facilities management plan, which ensures that
adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with development. Adopted local facilities
management plans are in place for each of the 25 zones. A map of the quadrants and the zones
is provided as Exhibit 1.
The performance standards specified by the CFIP are not goals or policies but requirements that
must be met before development can occur. Failure of any one of the facilities to meet the
standard would halt development on either a city-wide, quadrant or zone basis.
For example, non-compliance with performance standards for city administrative facilities,
libraries, and wastewater treatment capacity would affect the whole city and would halt all
development in Carlsbad until the deficiency was corrected. Conversely, non-compliance with
the parks performance standard, since it is analyzed on a quadrant basis, would mean
development only in the quadrant would be halted. The other performance standards,
including circulation and open space, are decentralized and have less widespread effects; a lack
of compliance with them would only impact development within a given zone.
A complete description of each performance standard and an "adequacy analysis" to determine
compliance status with each standard are provided in the annual Growth Management Plan
Monitoring Report The latest report, prepared for FY 2016-17, is attached as Exhibit 2 and
discussed below.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 4 of 57
2. GMP Compliance Measures and Status
Compliance with GMP housing caps and performance standards requires the city to
comprehensively monitor development in each LFMZ. To do so, the Planning Division, in
coordination with city departments and outside agencies, prepares a monthly Development
Monitoring Report and an annual Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report. Both reports
are available on the city's website, www.carlsbadca.gov; the latest reports are also attached.
Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report and facility status. For each fiscal year, the
Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report includes an analysis of development activity,
public facilities and improvements, public facility financing, and Proposition E dwelling unit cap
compliance. This adequacy analysis is meant to help answer the question, "does this facility
meet the performance standard?"
The city administrative facilities performance standard can help illustrate how this question can
be answered. The standard requires that "1,500 sq . ft. per 1,000 population must be
scheduled for construction within a five-year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling
units, beginning at the time the need is first identified." By monitoring development activity,
the city can track dwelling units. Based on that data, a population estimate can be produced.
This estimate enables the demand for administrative facilities to be determined. In comparison
with an existing inventory of city and Carlsbad Municipal Water District buildings occupied for
administrative services, an adequacy analysis can occur.
Staff released the most recent FY 2016-17 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report in
March 2018. The major report findings are as follows:
• Building permits for 952 dwellings and 1,210,993 square feet of non-residential space
were issued during the fiscal year. Much of the residential development occurred in the
Quarry Creek Master Plan and Robertson Ranch West Village Master Plan.
• The total number of dwelling units in each quadrant continues to comply with the GMP
limitations.
• The current adequacy status for the circulation performance standard is not available
because its revised facility performance evaluation criteria is under development. Staff
expects the criteria to be completed by the end of 2018.
• All other public facilities are currently meeting their adopted growth management
performance standards for FY 2016-17.
• As the report identifies, some public facilities will need to provide additional
improvements to meet their performance standards at buildout.
In summary, as of the last fiscal year, the GMP continued to meet its objective of assuring
adequate public facilities concurrent with the need created by new development.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 5 of 57
Table 2: Residential Dwelling Unit Status per Quadrant (July 31, 2018) --._ ...
NORTHWEST QUADRANT NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST
PROPOSITION E Outside Village Total
~ __ -·-·--·. _ -----......, QUADRANT QUADRANT
SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT
CITYWIDE
TOTAL
QUADRANT I -Village ______ N_W __ +---·-···-·--+-------+----<--·--··----
DWELLIN6.~! .. ~I! _ .................... _ ... ~---+-l_Sc,_3_7_0 --j--9C..,0_4_2 __ +--12_c,_85_9 __ -!i 17,328_ .. i 54,599
Existing Dwellings 11,775 627 12,402 6,488 10,149 I 16,365 1 45,404
-~-:b-e u-lii~l~-:s-l;_n_n_e~d~-+--2-,0-4-2 ---2-2-5--+-2-,-2-67-+--2-,4-5_2 __ _,/_1_,-49_7 ___ r ... 3 .. 6-.. ·-.-.. -.... --+!-6-,-85_2 __
-T-u 0-n ~-a u-\E-l;=~-~-i~-~-=-~-d--+--1-3 ,-8-1-7--il, ·is2---·+--14-,-6-69-+-8-,9-4_0 __ _,__11_,6_4_6_--;I i 7,ooi ·······1· 52,256
Dwellings .
Potential Additional I 130 l s1i--·10_1_·--+-1-0-2----1-1-,-21-3 --T 327 I 2,343
Dwellings** I ' J l --------~---·-t···-·······-··~~----------···-·--·-·····--··~----~----
*All quadrants except the Village-includes unbuilt approved projects, as well as vacant and underdeveloped
property designated for residential use by the General Plan.
**Dwelling unit capacity in addition to what is currently planned by the General Plan or approved as part of an
unbuilt project. "Potential additional dwellings" must be allocated from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
As Table 2 shows, unit accounting in the Northwest Quadrant is more complex than the other
quadrants. This is because the Village portion of the quadrant, an approximately 215-acre area,
has no residential units assigned to it by right as do all residential areas designated by the
General Plan. Instead, Village developers proposing residences must receive a unit allocation
from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, described below. The city has set aside a specific number
of units (571, as of July 31, 2018) from which projects in the Village can draw.
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Dwelling units that become "excess" shall be added to the Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank. The bank provides another means of ensuring GMP consistency by tracking
the number and use of these surplus units as they are deposited by and allocated to approved
projects. Excess dwelling units may be allocated in any quadrant if consistency is maintained
with each quadrant's dwelling unit limitation established by Proposition E. City Council Policy
43, first approved in 1990, establishes the guidelines for the allocation of excess units. The most
recent version of the policy, revised in 2013, is provided as Exhibit 4. Regardless of location, all
projects seeking an allocation of units from the bank are subject to City Council Policy 43.
Table 3 provides the status of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Besides noting the available units
set aside for the Village, the table clarifies that only 413 total excess dwelling units are available
for projects outside the Village. As noted, use of these excess units is subject to compliance
with quadrant caps. In the Northeast Quadrant, for example, as shown in the above Table 2, no
more than 102 excess units could be allocated in that quadrant under the cap. The number of
excess units can fluctuate as units are withdrawn and deposited, which can result from
development being built below or above its growth management control point, approvals
converting non-residential land to residential use, and from projects which expire and are
therefore no longer considered as unbuilt approved projects.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 7 of 57
adopting housing plans as part of their general plan. The state law mandating that housing be
included as an element of each jurisdiction's general plan is known as "housing-element law."
California's housing-element law acknowledges that, for the private market to adequately
address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans
and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing
development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective
implementation of local general plans and local housing elements.
State law describes detailed requirements for a housing element's preparation, content and
implementation timelines. Key among these requirements are determining the local share of a
region's projected housing needs for a given period, and demonstrating that there is enough
suitable land planned at the right densities to accommodate the need. Carlsbad's current
Housing Element, which was adopted with the General Plan update in 2015, confirmed (and
subsequently re-confirmed in 2017) that Carlsbad has sufficient planning capacity to meet the
community's housing needs through 2021.
Housing needs are re-examined every eight years through a process known as the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which marks the beginning of a new housing element
update cycle. This assessment process begins with a statewide projection of population and
corresponding housing needs, which are allocated by the state government to the regions
throughout the state. It is up to the regions, following parameters laid out in housing element
law, to develop a RHNA Plan for distributing the region's share to each jurisdiction. The San
Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) performs the housing needs allocation function
for the San Diego region.
On July 5, 2018, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
issued its final housing needs determination for the San Diego region. HCD determined that the
region's cities and County must plan for 171,685 new housing units to accommodate the
projected increase in population between June 2020 and April 2029. More than half (57.5%) of
these new units must be planned to accommodate lower and moderate-income households.
Over the next six months SAN DAG, in consultation with its member jurisdictions and regional
stakeholders, will develop the methodology and RHNA Plan proposing how to allocate the
regional housing needs to each jurisdiction. After a public comment period, the RHNA allocation
will be finalized with concurrent adoption of the 2019 Regional Plan. The general timeline for
the RHNA process is:
• July 5, 2018
• Sep 2018 -Jul 2019
• Jul -Aug 2019
• Oct 2019
HCD issues final Regional Housing Need Determination
SANDAG drafts methodology and RHNA Plan
Draft RHNA Plan released for 60-day review and comment period
Final RHNA Plan and allocation adopted by SANDAG
Following adoption of the RHNA Plan, the region's cities and the County will have 18 months
(April 2021) to update their housing elements to ensure their land use plans have sufficient
available capacity to meet their share of housing needs. If a jurisdiction determines that their
planned densities will not cover their share, then a rezoning program may be required as part
of the housing element update.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 9 of 57
While it is too early to know what the implications are for Carlsbad's Housing Element, current
land use plan and the GMP dwelling unit caps, consider the following:
• The region's 171,685 housing units needed for the coming cycle is higher than it is for
the current cycle (161,980 units) and covers a shorter projection period (8.8 years vs.
11.0 years).
• Carlsbad's current share of 4,999 new units required the city to increase densities on
certain sites as part of the 2015 General Plan update.
• Changes in housing element law in 2017 require more rigor from an agency in
adequately analyzing sites, such as providing more justification for including in a housing
element certain nonvacant sites, small (less than ½-acre) and large (greater than 10
acres) sites, and vacant and nonvacant sites that have been listed in previous
inventories but not developed during the housing element period (see AB 879 and AB
1397).
• Recently-approved legislation (AB 1771) modifies RHNA allocation objectives by
promoting improved jobs/housing balance between the number of low-wage jobs and
the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in a jurisdiction. (Note that
Carlsbad has a high jobs-to-housing ratio relative to the region, 1.6 vs. 1.3.)
Looking to the next housing element cycle, key questions will be: to what extent new and
pending legislation will alter the distribution of housing needs among jurisdictions, particularly
for lower income households (and hence need for higher density land); to what degree can
Carlsbad continue to rely on infill and redevelopment sites in its housing strategy; will
additional sites need to be identified for increased densities, even though the city may have
sufficient overall housing capacity under current land use plans and GMP housing caps; and if
Carlsbad's share of housing units for the upcoming cycle exceeds GMP housing caps, how will
the city reconcile state-mandated housing goals to Carlsbad voter-approved housing limits?
If either GMP housing caps or overall housing capacity are inadequate to accommodate
Carlsbad's share of housing units for the coming cycle, they would be identified as constraints in
the upcoming housing element. The element would also need to identify programs that detail
the city actions and timeframes necessary to address those constraints. An example of a
potential program could be one that re-designates one or more properties for residential uses
at a required density and made available for development within the housing element planning
period. Furthermore, if a housing element program were necessary to show how the city would
accommodate any residential units that exceed GMP housing caps, the program would need to
factor in sufficient time to develop and schedule a ballot measure as necessary for voter
ratification of changes to the cap. These and other housing element programs and their
timelines would be subject to approval and annual monitoring by the state.
4. Public Facilities and Performance Standards
Along with the housing caps, the eleven public facilities and their performance standards are
the yardsticks to measure GMP compliance. Adopted as part of the CFIP in 1986, they have
played a critical role in ensuring Carlsbad's high quality of life. They were also established when
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 10 of 57
much of the city's land and infrastructure, including roads, sewer systems, and fire stations, had
yet to be completed.
For much of the three decades since CFIP adoption, Carlsbad has been developing and changing
based on the premise of available land to accommodate a growing population. Carlsbad's basic
guiding documents, such as its 1994 General Plan, were created on that premise. Today,
however, with the city approaching buildout, development will mostly occur through infill and
redevelopment.
Besides a change in how Carlsbad develops, the community is now guided and influenced by a
vision, rules and regulations, and principles not in play 30 years ago. The Carlsbad Community
Vision, the 2015 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Habitat Management Plan, inclusionary
housing, smart growth and sustainability principles are examples. Revisions are now underway
to implement the circulation performance standard as expressed in the General Plan Mobility
Element. Additionally, the city's utility needs are addressed through ongoing implementation
and periodic updates to water, sewer, drainage, and recycled water master plans.
Based on changing standards and preferences and the passage of time, reconsideration of the
eleven public facilities and their performance standards has merit as to how well they will serve
the community into the future and maintain the quality of life for all who live in Carlsbad.
5. Financing
The Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code) requires a financing
plan for each of the 25 LFMZs. This plan, contained in each zone's local facilities management
plan, addresses the financing necessary for the construction of facilities and improvements
required to serve the new development in the zone, including the:
• Source of funds for construction of the facility
• Method of guaranteeing the availability of funds
• Source of public funds from which reimbursement is made to the developer of the facility,
if applicable
Often, developers would dedicate land and construct facilities needed to serve proposed new
development. Additionally, facilities were ensured through participation in various impact and
facilities fee payments. In 1991, the city established Community Facilities District No. 1 (CFD) to
provide financing for specific public facilities of citywide importance that are needed to meet
the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, including various road and intersection
improvements, City Hall, Veterans Memorial Park and the Dove Library. As LFMZ plans were
adopted, the properties in the facilities zone were conditioned to annex into the CFD at the
time the first discretionary permit granted an entitlement to develop in the LFMZ. This ensured
financing for public facilities that could accommodate future growth consistent with the criteria
of the Growth Management Plan.
As the pace and amount of growth decreases, it may be necessary to reassess how facilities are
funded and the adequacy of funding mechanisms. It may be prudent as well to consider how
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 11 of 57
infrastructure is financed in light of any changes made to the GM P's public facilities and
performance standards.
6. Potential GMP Update Tiers
Updates to the GMP could range from limited, technical revisions to a complete overhaul.
Along these lines, the following tiers frame the potential contents of three different levels of
review.
Tier 1-Do Nothing. This option calls for maintaining the status quo with respect to ongoing
implementatio,n of the GMP. Housing caps, facilities standards and the CFIP remain in place.
Individual LFMPs would also remain except to the extent they would need to be amended from
time-to-time to respond to substantive changes to land use and/or facility needs in a given
zone. Compliance with the GMP would continue to be monitored and reported on through
monthly and annual monitoring reports. This "wait-and-see" approach could put the city in a
reactive posture with respect to the upcoming Housing Element update cycle. This option
would require no work program or additional resources.
Tier 2 -Technical Update. Tier 2 provides a "refreshing" of GMP components and a focused
effort to confirm development and facility compliance with the GMP. This tier would make
housekeeping changes to the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) but would not
revise any of the 25 LFMPs. A Tier 2 update would also not address GMP implications
potentially resulting from the 2020-2029 RHNA. Tier 2 likely would have the shortest
processing time.
• Perform limited review and update to GMP
• Confirm status of existing and projected housing relative to growth caps
• Confirm status of existing facilities and planned improvements relative to facilities
standards
• Refresh CFIP with current data, remove obsolete info, update text, tables and figures to
reflect current state. Improve look and format.
• Update LFMP preparation/amendment guidelines to reflect changes in needs analysis,
best practices and integration with other laws, requirements.
• Review City Council Policy 43 regarding management of Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
• Review CMC 21.90 Growth Management for "clean-up" of obsolete terms, conditions and
requirements
Tier 3 -Housing and Facilities. Tier 3 adds to Tier 2 in terms of time, resources, and complexity
through its consideration of the GMP in relation to RHNA and other factors that might
necessitate voter approval. Tier 3 would be processed along with the city's next housing
element, due to the state in April 2021.
• Review housing caps in relation to RHNA, smart growth planning principles, and
jobs/housing balance; consider limited flexibility on caps, such as removing quadrant
caps, exceptions to cap (e.g. to meet RHNA)
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 12 of 57
• Confirm facilities adequacy for projected population, jobs; select existing performance
standards for review and adjustment
• Include Tier 2 scope of review, update
• Develop ballot measure as necessary for voter ratification of changes to cap
Tier 4 -Comprehensive Review and Update. This tier incorporates the components of Tier 2
and Tier 3 from the standpoint of examining the GMP from the "ground-up," potentially
enabling a complete overhaul of the entire plan. Facility standards, for example, could be
rewritten to respond to current trends and anticipated future needs.
• Include Tier 2 and Tier 3
• Consider broader changes to housing caps, such as increasing individual quadrants,
citywide limits, or eliminating caps altogether
• Examine GMP approach from capping amount of growth to controlling pace and quality
of growth
• Evaluate whether facilities standards are still relevant and meaningful; add, remove or
modify facilities standards2
• If facility standards are revised, also consider modifying the financing strategies for
public improvements
• Consider updating any LFMPs proposed to receive additional housing development
identified in the next Housing Element, particularly if quadrant housing caps may be
exceeded
7. Update Approach
A key scoping consideration for the GMP update work program relates to how the work would
be carried out. The process can vary significantly depending on the depth of GMP review and
revision desired, and has implications for the level of public participation that will be supported.
For example, if the Council desires to limit the GMP review to technical considerations (such as
Tier 2 review as described above}, then a public participation program could be designed to
inform the public as work progresses, provide periodic status reports, and then invite public
comment during review of draft work product and at a final hearing to adopt and update the
plan. On the other hand, if the direction is for a comprehensive review of the fundamental
components of the GMP, including potential revisions to housing caps and/or facilities
standards (Tier 3 or Tier 4), then a more inclusive community engagement program is
warranted. While there are a wide range of public participation options and techniques
available, we outline three potential options below for Council discussion purposes and
preliminary direction for work plan preparation.
Option 1-Staff-led technical approach. Under this approach, a team of city staff from various
departments would conduct the GMP review and prepare the update. Consultants from various
disciplines would support staff's work in performing the review and developing
2 Note however, that per the Municipal Code, the City Council "shall not materially reduce or delete any public
facilities or improvements without making a corresponding reduction in residential density unless such a reduction
or deletion of public facilities is ratified by a vote of the citizens of Carlsbad {C.M.C. 21.90.180}."
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 13 of 57
recommendations for City Council consideration. As work progresses, the public and Council
would be kept informed through periodic status reports. Staff would draft recommended
changes to the GMP and release them for public review and comment. If desired, presentations
could be made to various city boards and commissions, the City Council, and to community
groups as part of the public review process. Staff would receive comments on the draft update
and consider them in preparing a final document for a City Council adoption hearing.
This approach would likely require the least amount of time and resources, provided that the
scope of review is limited to technical considerations versus policy evaluation and choice.
Community engagement activities would focus on awareness, soliciting comment on draft work
product, and informing of decisions made. If the scope of GMP review is more comprehensive
in nature and leads to potentially significant changes to the GMP, this may not be the most
appropriate model. With a more wide-ranging GMP review scope, community acceptance
becomes essential, requiring a more robust level of engagement.
Option 2 -Citizens Advisory Committee approach. Under this approach, the City Council would
determine the composition, purview, and term of the advisory body, and would agree on
committee appointments. The committee would oversee and guide review of the GMP,
consider advice of staff and solicit input of the public in formulating its recommendations to the
City Council. The committee would hold a series of public business meetings and/or workshops
in carrying out its charge. City staff would provide logistical support and professional guidance
to the committee, supplemented by subject matter experts and consultants. City staff would
also likely be responsible for creating all agenda reports and supporting materials for
committee meetings, and producing draft and final work product on behalf of the committee
for the public and decision-maker consideration. The advisory committee could report its
findings and recommendations directly to the City Council, or through other standing boards
and commissions, if desired. Alternatively, the advisory committee could include
representatives from other city boards and commissions. Outside public agencies or other
external interests could also be represented on the committee.
The city has a well-established history of utilizing ad hoc committees to support major policy
initiatives of communitywide interest. The most recent example of this is Envision Carlsbad and
the 2015 General Plan update. Another example is one described earlier, where the City Council
appointed a citizen's committee in 1985 to study the General Plan Land Use Element, and
whose recommendations laid much of the foundation for the Growth Management Plan that
followed a year later. In between, various other citizens committees have been formed to
advise the City Council on a range of issues, such as open space, trails, agriculture protection,
residential traffic management, sidewalks, street improvements, and public trees.
Common among these examples is that they all dealt with community planning or quality of life
issues of significant public interest, sometimes leading to, or resulting from, voter-approved
measures. Supporting the efforts of an advisory committee process will require more time and
resources than Option 1; however, such an approach may be warranted if the GMP review is
comprehensive or could lead to substantive changes.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 14 of 57
Option 3 -City Council-led approach. In lieu of convening an advisory committee, the City
Council, or a designated subcommittee thereof, could assume an active role in the GM review
and update process. Under this scenario, the Council (or subcommittee) would exercise direct
control over the review and update process, conduct all public meetings and workshops,
consider directly staff advice and community input, and review all draft documents. If desired,
the Council could refer draft GMP elements to standing boards and commissions (e.g., Library
Board of Trustees, Parks & Recreation, Planning, Traffic Safety, etc.) for recommendation prior
to considering final adoption of changes. Staff would perform the same role as in the advisory
committee structure.
While this approach shares some of the elements with Option 2, it has little precedent in
Carlsbad. Staff resourcing and the public's role would be similar to that described in Option 2.
The City Council's direct and ongoing involvement in the update program would signal the
community-wide importance of the effort, and provide the benefit of more timely direction and
decision-making regarding policy and technical matters. At first glance it may seem such an
approach could reduce overall time and effort; however, this is unlikely to be the case given
that such work would need to be accommodated on top of other City Council responsibilities. It
is more likely that a series of special City Council meetings would need to be scheduled to
conduct the update program in this manner.
8. Work Program Timing
Review and update of the GMP will be a time and resource-intensive effort across the
organization. The City Council acknowledged this during their goal-setting workshop in March
by declining to add it to their FY 2018-19 Goals Work Plan. Rather, the decision was to remain
focused on existing high priority goals3 while directing staff to initiate preliminary scoping and
planning for a future GMP update. Significant staff resources are already committed to
achieving the Council Goals work plan objectives, while continuing to advance other high
priority and funded initiatives such as: parks planning and programming; trails master planning;
General Plan and Climate Action Plan implementation; Local Coastal Program and Zoning
Ordinance updates; improving mobility plans and installing active transportation projects;
updating and revising utility master plans; and deploying advanced technologies in municipal
operations, to name a few. Therefore, while undertaking a review of the GMP is timely and
desirable, the challenge will be how to carry it out without unduly constraining progress on the
other high priority work currently underway.
Another important consideration regarding timing of the GMP review and update relates to the
upcoming Housing Element cycle, as described earlier. At minimum, the existing GMP housing
caps will need to be evaluated against the city's allocation of regional housing needs. The draft
RHNA allocation is due in Summer 2019, so analysis of GMP housing limits can begin shortly
thereafter. Although unknown at this time, if analysis reveals that housing caps would constrain
3 The FY 2018-19 City Council Goals are to: 1) partner with State Parks on a long-term coastline management
agreement; 2) re-purpose the Traffic Safety Commission to advise on mobility initiatives; 3) complete the Village
and Barrio Master Plan; 4) site and break ground on a new civic center; and 5) pursue and break ground on railroad
grade separation through the Village.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 15 of 57
the city from meeting its state-mandated housing needs, then the city would need to
determine how to respond. One potential response could be to seek voter authority to modify
GMP housing caps, in which case timing relative to local election and Housing Element adoption
deadlines becomes critical. For example, the next general election would occur in November of
2020 and Carlsbad's Housing Element update would be due in April 2021.
9. Next Steps
Given the above considerations, staff recommends that GMP review occur in tandem with the
Housing Element update process, at least as it relates to housing growth caps, which is
expected to occur between October 2019 through April 2021. Review of facilities standards and
financing could overlap this initial housing evaluation phase. After receiving direction from
Council regarding the desired scope and approach to the GMP review, staff will develop a more
detailed work plan for Council consideration in early 2019. The work plan can be used for
departmental planning and budgeting purposes for the FY 2019-2020 budget year. Staff
anticipates the need for subject matter consulting services at a minimum, and possibly
temporary part-time staff to support the work of core staff. Initial work plan activities would
include assembling an interdepartmental project team, establishing communication protocols,
developing a project team "charter", drafting consultant requests for qualifications/proposals,
and so forth.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Based on City Council direction to prepare a
work plan and resource strategy, staff will include a high-level overview of fiscal impacts related
to possible Growth Management Plan changes, such as costs for communications, staffing,
consultant services, and community participation.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project"
within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change
in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,
and therefore does not require environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Quadrants and local facility management zones
2. Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report, fiscal year 2016-17
3. / Development Monitoring Report, July 2018
4. City Council Policy 43
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 16 of 57
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Fiscal Year 2016-17
Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report
July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017
Carlsbad City Council
Matt Hall, Mayor
Mark Packard
Keith Blackburn
Michael Schumacher
Cori Schumacher
Report prepared in cooperation with the following departments:
Community and Economic Development
Fire
Parks & Recreation
Library and Cultural Arts
Transportation
Utilities
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Exhibit 2
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 18 of 57
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide information regarding the status of the Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan for the fiscal year covering July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017, and to verify that the plan
is continuing to accomplish its stated objectives. The primary objectives of the Growth Management
Plan are to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with growth, and to assure
compliance with the ultimate dwelling unit limitations that were established by Proposition E, which
was passed by voters in 1986.
Performance Standards
Proposition E established broad guidelines for determining adequacy of public facilities. These
guidelines are further defined in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan by means of specific
performance standards for each of the eleven public facilities. These public facilities, their
performance standards, current status, and anticipated adequacy at buildout are outlined in Table 1
and Table 2, as follows:
TABLE 1-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Public Facility Performance Standard More Information
on Page
1,500 sq. ft. per 1,000 population must be
City Administrative scheduled for construction within a five-year
period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling 12 Facilities units, beginning at the time the need is first
identified.
800 sq. ft. (of library space) per 1,000 population
must be scheduled for construction within a five-
Library year period or prior to construction of 6,250 13
dwelling units, beginning at the time the need is
first identified.
Wastewater Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a 14 Treatment Capacity five-year period.
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area
per 1,000 population within the Park District must
Parks1 be scheduled for construction within a five year 15 period, or prior to construction of 1,562 dwelling
units within the Park District beginning at the time
the need is first identified.
Drainage Drainage facilities must be provided as required 17 by the city concurrent with development.
Circulation Implement a comprehensive livable streets 18 network that serves all users of the system -
1The performance standard was amended by City Council Resolution No. 2017-170 on August 22, 2017, and will
be reflected in the upcoming report for FY 2017-18.
2
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 19 of 57
Public Facility Performance Standard More Information
.. on Page
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit.
Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that are
subject to this multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of
the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS
exempt intersections and streets approved by the
City Council.
The number of dwelling units outside a five-
Fire minute "travel time" from the nearest fire station 22
shall not exceed 1,500 units.
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local
Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive of
Open Space environmentally constrained non-developable 24 land must be set aside for permanent open space
and must be available concurrent with
development.
School capacity to meet projected enrollment
within the Local Facility Management Zone
Schools (LFMZ) as determined by the appropriate school 25
district must be provided prior to projected
occupancy.
Sewer Collection Trunk-line capacity to meet demand, as
System determined by the appropriate sewer districts, 26
must be provided concurrent with development.
Line capacity to meet demand as determined by
Water Distribution the appropriate water district must be provided
System concurrent with development. A minimum of 10-28
day average storage capacity must be provided
prior to any development.
TABLE 2-FACILITY ADEQUACY STATUS
Public Facility FY 2016-17 Adequacy Status BuildoutAdequacy Status
(Meets performance standard?J (Meets performance standard?)
City Administrative Yes Yes
Facilities
Library Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
Wastewater Yes Yes
Treatment Capacity
Parks Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
Drainage Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
3
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 20 of 57
Public Facility FY 2016-17 Adequacy Status Buildout Adequacy Status
(Meets performance standard?) (Meets performance standard?)
Circulation Revised facility performance Additional facilities to be provided*
criteria under development
Fire Yes Yes
Open Space Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
Schools Yes Yes
Sewer Collection Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
System
Water Distribution Yes Additional facilities to be provided*
System
*For additional information, please see the expanded discussion and an analysis on the adequacy of each public facility
beginning on page 12.
What Happens if Facilities Do Not Meet the Performance Standard?
The Growth Management Plan requires development activity to stop if a performance standard is
not being met. Some performance standards apply to the city as a whole, and others apply to more
specific areas, as described below:
• Administrative facilities, library, and wastewater treatment capacity are facilities that serve the
entire city. Their adequacy in meeting the performance standard is analyzed by considering the
cumulative impact of citywide development. The failure of any one of these facilities to meet
the adopted performance standard would affect the city as a whole. In that event, all
development in the city would be halted until the deficiency is corrected.
• Parks are analyzed on a quadrant basis. This means that if the standard is not being met in the
quadrant, development is halted for all Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZs, see
description below) in the quadrant.
• Fire facilities are analyzed on the basis of fire station districts which can comprise multiple
LFMZs, and if the standard is not met for a district, then development would be halted in that
district.
• The remaining facilities (drainage, circulation, open space, schools, sewer collection system, and
water distribution system) are analyzed on an LFMZ basis. If one of these facilities falls below
the performance standard in a given LFMZ, development in that LFMZ would stop and other
zones would not be affected if they are continuing to meet all performance standards.
Local Facility Management Zone Plans
The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan divided the city into twenty-five Local Facilities
Management Zones (LFMZ). Each LFMZ is required to have an adopted Local Facilities Management
Plan (LFMP) prior to any development in the LFMZ. Consistent with the Growth Management Plan,
the LFMP must do the following: describe how the LFMZ will be developed, how compliance with the
Growth Management Plan standards will be achieved, how the necessary public facilities will be
provided, and what financing mechanisms will be used for the facilities. All twenty-five LFMZs have
an adopted LFMP.
Please see Figure 1 for the general boundaries and locations ?f the LFMZs.
4
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 21 of 57
Population as a Measurement for Facility Performance Standards
As indicated in Table 1, above, the performance standards for city administrative facilities, library
facilities, and parks are stated in terms of population. The demand for these facilities is based on
each new dwelling unit built and the estimated number of new residents it adds to the city, which is
determined using the average number of persons per dwelling unit. Utilizing data from the 2010
Federal Census (total population divided by total number of dwelling units), the average for Carlsbad
is 2.358 persons per dwelling unit.
As of June 30, 2017, the city's population is estimated to be 109,601, which is calculated by
multiplying 2.358 persons per dwelling unit by the number of dwelling units, accessory dwelling units,
and commercial living units (which were counted as dwelling units in the 2010 Federal Census); in
total there are 46,435 dwellings and commercial living units, as shown in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3-FY 2016-2017 POPULATION CALCULATION
Quadrant Qwelling Acc:ess<>ry Commercial living Total units Population
units cJwelling units units
..
NW 12,382 173 226 12,781 30,138
NE 6,242 42 -6,284 14,818
SW 10,142 26 685 10,853 25,616
SE 16,354 163 -16,517 39,029
Total 45,120 404 911 46,435 109,601
1. Dwelling units represent the dwellings that are counted for purposes of the city's growth management dwelling unit limits per
Proposition E (excludes accessory dwelling units and commercial living units); the number of dwelling units shown in this table
are updated to June 30, 2017.
2· Accessory dwelling units are accessory to single family dwellings and are separate dwelling units with living space, kitchen and
bathroom facilities. Pursuant to state law, accessory dwelling units cannot be counted as dwellings for purposes of the city's
growth management dwelling limits. However, the units are counted here to ensure all city population is considered in regard
to the performance standards for administrative facilities, libraries and parks.
3· Commercial living units, as shown in this table, are professional care facility living units that were counted as dwelling units in the
2010 Federal Census. Pursuant to city ordinance (CMC 21.04.093), commercial living units are not counted as dwellings for
purposes of the city's growth management dwelling limits. However, the units are counted here to ensure all city population is
considered in regard to the performance standards for administrative facilities, libraries and parks.
As part of the Growth Management Plan monitoring process, the persons per dwelling unit number
can be adjusted in the future when updated Federal Census data is available. It should be noted that
the above population estimates are for growth management facility planning purposes only, and may
vary from other official population estimates for Carlsbad.
6
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 23 of 57
Table 6 represents the number of dwelling units that could be built (based on the applicable growth
management density) on all parcels that have a residential land use designation. The "total existing
and unbuilt planned dwellings", as shown in Table 6, assumes all parcels with a residential land use
designation will be developed with residential dwellings, including land that is currently developed
with non-residential uses (e.g., some existing churches and professional care facilities are on land
designated for residential use). Although it is not anticipated that these parcels will convert to
residential uses, the dwelling unit potential for these parcels is tracked to ensure compliance with
the Proposition E dwelling unit limits.
Table 6 represents the total number of dwellings planned by the General Plan, rather than the
number of dwellings estimated to exist in the future. Table 7 estimates the number of dwellings that
will exist at buildout; this estimate assumes that the residentially designated land currently
developed with non-residential uses will not all be developed with residential uses in the future. The
data in Table 6 and Table 7 show that the Proposition E dwelling unit limits will not be exceeded.
TABLE 7 -ESTIMATED DWELLING UNITS AND POPULATION AT BUILDOUT
Quadrant Dwelling Units Population
NW 15,076 38,606
NE 8,940 22,488
SW 10,937 28,113
SE 16,820 42,315
Total 51,773 .. 131,522
Density Control Points and Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
To manage compliance with the Proposition E dwelling unit limitations, the City Council established
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) densities for all residential land use designations in the
city (for example, for the R-4 land use designation, the GMCP density is 3.2 dwelling units per acre).
All residential development must, on average, not exceed the GMCP densities. To ensure this,
I
Council Policy Statement 43 (Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank) established a dwelling unit
bank concept. When development occurs below the GMCP, the "excess" number of units (difference
between the potential number of units at the GMCP density and the number of units built) are
available for other residential developments that provide affordable housing, to allow them to be
constructed at a density that exceeds the GMCP density.
On December 17, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-350, which amended Council
Policy Statement 43 by reducing the accumulated number of excess units to 2,800. Excess units may
be allocated to any quadrant based on the criteria in Council Policy Statement 43, so long as the
citywide or individual quadrant dwelling unit limits are not exceeded. Please see Table 8 for the
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank status at the end of the FY 2016-17. "Pending" excess units are associated
with projects that have been approved below the GMCP density but are not yet constructed, or an
approved land use change is not yet effective. "Pending" excess units are not available to allocate
to other sites; the units will be made available for allocation at the time the associated projects are
constructed or the land use change becomes effective.
10
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 27 of 57
TABLE 8 -EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK
Balance.as of June 30, 2017
Inside the Village 600
Outside the Village 406
Pending deposits 454
Public Facility Financing
In 1991, the City of Carlsbad established Community Facilities District No. 1 (CFD) to provide financing
for a number of public facilities of citywide importance that are needed to meet the requirements of
the Growth Management Plan, including various road and intersection improvements, and the Dove
Library. As LFMZ plans are adopted, they are conditioned to annex into the CFD at the time the first
discretionary permit grants an entitlement to develop in the LFMZ. This ensures financing for public
facilities that can accommodate future growth consistent with the criteria of the Growth
Management Plan.
Status of the Facilities
Beginning on page 12 is a discussion of the adequacy of each of the eleven public facilities addressed
in Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan.
11
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 28 of 57
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES
A. Performance Standard
1,500 sq. ft. per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within a five-year
period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units, beginning at the time the need is first
identified.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the estimated June 30, 2017 population estimate of 109,601, the current demand
for administrative facilities is 164,402 square feet. To date, city administrative facilities
exceed the performance standard. The existing inventory of city and Carlsbad Municipal
Water District buildings (leased and owned) occupied for administrative services includes the
following:
Facility Address Square Feet
City Administration 1635 Faraday Avenue 68,000
City Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 2,500
City Hall Complex 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 13,500
City Yard 405 Oak Avenue 8,249
City Yard Modular Building 405 Oak Avenue 1,800
Senior Center 799 Pine Street 6,750
Parks Administration 1166 Carlsbad Village Drive 504
Parks Modular/Break Room 1166 Carlsbad Village Drive 2,000
Safety Center 2560 Orion Way 64,000
FR Training Facility 2560 Orion Way 18,112
Fleet Yard 2480 Impala Drive 10,358
Water District 5950 El Camino Real 18,000
Water District Modular 5950 El Camino Real 696
Total 214,469
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the 2035 projected buildout population of 131,523, the demand for city
administrative facilities will be 197,285 square feet. The existing 214,469 square feet of
administrative facilities exceeds the growth management performance standard at buildout.
12
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 29 of 57
LIBRARY FACILITIES
A. Performance Standard
800 sq. ft. (of library space) per 1,000 population must be scheduled for construction within
a five-year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units, beginning at the time the
need is first identified.
Library space (leased/owned, public/non-public) is used as a standard library measurement
of customer use and satisfaction and includes collection space, seating, meeting rooms, staff
areas, technology, and other public facility needs. The performance standard, stated above,
was originally developed based on surveys of other libraries of comparable size and based on
related standards (such as volumes per capita) set by the American Library Association.
B. FY 2016-17 Inventory and Adequacy of Facilities
The current inventory of library facilities (city-owned) is as follows:
Facility Square Feet
Dove Library 64,000
Cole Library 24,600
Learning Center 11,393
Total 99,993
Based on the June 30, 2017 population estimate of 109,601, the growth management
standard requires 87,681 sq. ft. of public library space. The city's current 99,993 sq. ft. of
library facilities adequately meets the growth management standard.
C. Facility Adequacy at Buildout
Based on the General Plan projected buildout population of 131,523, the demand for library
facilities will be 105,218 sq. ft. The existing 99,993 square feet of library facilities is expected
to f911 short of the growth management standard at buildout.
In 2015-16, the city completed major maintenance and renovation for both the Cole and Dove
facilities that addresses current ADA requirements and allows delivery of modern library
services and technology, while extending the life of the Cole Library by 10 to 15 years.
Built in 1967, the design of the Cole Library could not have contemplated modern library
services including the extensive delivery of electronic resources, automated materials
handling, and the variety of new media formats. Additionally, the library's role as a
community gathering space has increased. With an already maximized building footprint and
infrastructure constraints, the Cole Library will not expand further to meet these changing
needs. Additional meeting spaces, technology learning labs and maker spaces are examples
of elements desired by the community.
Complete replacement of the Cole facility is included in the Capital Improvement Program
budget between the years 2020 and buildout. Additionally, civic center and city hall site
studies, which are currently underway, could provide new information to inform the timing
and opportunities for a new Cole facility.
13
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 30 of 57
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
A. Performance Standard
Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five-year period.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF} Phase V expansion, which was completed
in 2009, accommodates the ultimate buildout demand for the Carlsbad Sewer Service Area
based on projections made in the 2012 City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan; and therefore,
currently provides adequate capacity in excess of the performance standard.
Carlsbad's FY 2016-17 annual daily average dry weather sewer flow was 6.32 million gallons
per day (MGD} representing 62% of the city's 10.26 MGD capacity rights. The city's annual
daily average sewage flow to the EWPCF for the previous five years is measured as follows:
Fiscal Year Annual daily average flow
FY 2012-13 6.53 MGD
FY 2013-14 5.90 MGD
FY 2014-15 6.17 MGD
FY 2015-16 5.82 MGD
FY 2016-17 6.32 MGD
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility Phase V expansion provides adequate sewer
treatment capacity to ensure compliance with the growth management wastewater
performance standard through buildout of the Carlsbad sewer service area.
The 2012 City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan contains an analysis of annual daily average
future sewer flow through buildout of the city based on the Carlsbad General Plan land use
projections. The analysis indicates that the city's projected ultimate buildout flow is
approximately 10.00 MGD. The city has purchased capacity rights to 10.26 MGD in the
EWPCF, which ensures adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to accommodate
any unanticipated increase in future sewer flows.
14
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 31 of 57
PARKS
A. Performance Standard1
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District2
must be scheduled for construction within a five year period, or prior to construction of 1,562
dwelling units within the Park District beginning at the time the need is first identified.3
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
To date, all quadrants are in compliance with the performance standard.
Quadrant Park acreage inventory existing Park acreage required by
Performance· Standards
NW 105.2 90.4
NE 45.3 44.5
SW 70.2 76.8
SE 114.9 117.1
Total 335.6 328.8
Currently, the performance standard requirement for park acreage exceeds the inventory of
existing and scheduled park acreage except for the following two quadrants: SW and SE.
However, although short of the acreage required, these quadrants are not out of compliance
with the performance standard because neither the time frame nor dwelling unit thresholds
have been reached.2 The deficits in the SW and SE quadrants were identified in the FY 2012-
13 GMP report, and units are tracked from this point on by adding building permits for
dwelling units finaled since that time frame.
Quadrant
SW
SE
Year deficit identified
FY 2012-13
FY 2012-13
Units constructed since deficit identified
134
371
1 The performance standard was amended by City Council Resolution No. 2017-170 on August 22, 2017, and will be reflected in
the upcoming report for FY 2017-18.
2 "Park District"= "quadrant". There are four park districts within the city, corresponding to the four quadrants.
3 The threshold for triggering the construction of a new park is as follows: Once a deficit of park acreage in a quadrant is identified, a
new park must be scheduled for construction within the time frame of five years, or before the cumulative construction of 1,562
dwelling units, whichever occurs later. According to City Council Resolution No. 97-435, "scheduled for construction" means that the
improvements have been designed, a park site has been selected, and a financing plan for construction of the facility has been
approved.
15
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 32 of 57
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the current FY 2016-17 CIP list of projects, Veteran's Memorial Park (91.5 acres,
with 22.9 acres applied to each quadrant) is proposed to be constructed prior to buildout.
Construction of this community park would result in the projected park inventory for all city
quadrants exceeding the projected required acreage at buildout, as shown below:
Buildout Buildout Current Proposed park Projected Quadrant required population4
acreage4 inventory acreage inventory
NW 38,606 115.8 105.2 22.9 128.1
NE 22,488 67.5 45.3 22.9 68.2
SW 28,113 84.3 70.2 22.9 93.1
SE 42,315 126.9 114.9 22.9 137.8
Total 131,523 394.6 335.6 91.5 427.2
Additional Parks Acreage
The figures above for proposed park acreage do not include park projects listed in the CIP as
"unfunded" or "partially unfunded": Zone 5 Business Park Recreational Facility (NW -9.3
acres); Cannon Lake Park (NW-6.8 acres); or Robertson Ranch Park (NE-11.2 acres). Should
alternative funding mechanisms be found, and these parks are built, the additional parks
acreage would further aid in meeting/exceeding the growth management parks performance
standard.
4 Reflects the General Plan
16
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 33 of 57
DRAINAGE
A. Performance Standard
Drainage facilities must be provided as required by the city concurrent with development.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
All areas of the city currently meet the growth management drainage performance standard.
The standard for drainage distinguishes it from the other public facility standards because, by
its very nature, drainage facility needs are more accurately assessed as specific development
plans for individual projects are finalized. Therefore, the drainage performance standard was
written to allow the city to require appropriate drainage facilities as development plans are
finalized and approved.
The larger/master plan facilities have been identified in the city's 2008 Drainage Master Plan
and the associated Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA} fee program was established to
finance their construction. The construction of smaller development/project related
drainage facilities are addressed during the review of individual project proposals.
Maintenance, repair and replacement projects are identified on an ongoing basis and are
incorporated in the Capital Improvement Program as a part of the Corrugated Metal Pipe
Replacement program, the Northwest Quadrant Storm Drain Program or as individual/stand~
alone projects.
The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek channels located east of El Camino Real within the
residential community of Rancho Carlsbad were found to be of inadequate size to fully
contain and convey the 100-year flood event. As a result, some of the runoff is conveyed
through the community and therefore projects located within LFMP Zones 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18
and 24 that drain to the Agua Hedionda or Calavera Creek must comply with the following
conditions to maintain compliance with the drainage performance standard:
1. Payment of the PLDA fee.
2. Install onsite drainage improvements to ensure that direct drainage impacts resulting
from the proposed development do not exacerbate the potential for downstream
flooding of existing development.
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan proposes the construction of new facilities to
accommodate potential storm events. Construction of the proposed Master Drainage
Facilities will ensure the drainage performance standard is maintained through buildout of
the city. The 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan also updated the PLDA program to ensure
adequate funds are available to fund construction of needed flood control facilities. The
estimated costs for these facilities and the programming of PLDA funds are included in the
annual Capital Improvement Program.
17
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 34 of 57
CIRCULATION
A. Performance Standard
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system -
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that
are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1
of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets
approved by the City Council.
B. Livable Streets
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) requires cities in California to plan for a balanced,
multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes. Accomplishing
this state mandate requires a fundamental shift in how the city plans and designs the street
system -recognizing the street as a public space and ensuring that the public space serves all
users of the system (elderly, children, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) within the urban context
of that system (e.g. accounting for the adjacent land uses).
The previous circulation performance standard, which was utilized prior to adoption of the
2015 General Plan Mobility Element, was established based on the circulation needs of a
single mode of travel -the automobile. The General Plan Mobility Element, adopted on
September 22, 2015, identifies a new livable streets strategy for mobility within the city; the
livable streets strategy focuses on creating a 'multi-modal' street network that provides for
the mobility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles. Providing travel
mode options that reduce dependence on the vehicle also supports the city's Climate Action
Plan in achieving its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the city.
C. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MM LOS)
The objective of the city's livable streets strategy is to balance the mobility needs of
pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and vehicles. For each street in the city, the General Plan
Mobility Element identifies the travel modes for which service levels should be maintained
per the multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard.
The service levels for each travel mode are represented as a "grade" ranging from LOS A to
LOS F: LOS A reflects a high level of service for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding characteristics
and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect an inadequate level of service for a
travel mode (e.g. excessive congestion for vehicles, inadequate facilities for bicycle,
pedestrian, or transit users). The levels of service for the various travel modes are evaluated
according to the following factors.
• Vehicular Level of Service: Level of service is evaluated using the most recent version of
the Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology evaluates the capacity of a roadway
system based on a driver's freedom to maneuver and may include an evaluation of overall
delay experienced at intersections.
18
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 35 of 57
• Pedestrian Level of Service: Level of service will be evaluated using the MM LOS method.
This method will evaluate the quality of the pedestrian system (e.g. number of vehicle
lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic} and the friendliness of the
infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated pedestrian
facilities (e.g. a scramble phase, curb extensions, refuge median}.
• Bicycle Levels of Service: Level of service will be evaluated using the MMLOS method.
This method will evaluate the quality of the bicycle system (e.g. bicycle route, bicycle
lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel way}, the
amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking}, and the friendliness of the infra-
structure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, bicycle lanes}.
• Transit Levels of Service: Level of service will be evaluated using the MMLOS method.
This method will evaluate the transit vehicle right-of-way (e.g. dedicated or shared, signal
priority}, hours and frequency of service (e.g. weekday/weekend hours, peak period
headway}; performance (e.g. on-time or late}; amenities and safety (e.g. lighting, covered
stop, bench, on-board bike/surfboard storage}; and connectivity (e.g. to other transit
routes, employment areas, schools, visitor attractions and other major destinations}.
D. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
This report does not include circulation facility adequacy analysis for FY 2016-17. City staff is
currently in the process of developing and refining the criteria to evaluate the performance
of a multi-modal circulation system.
Measuring the performance of non-vehicle modes of travel is a new requirement for the city
as a result of adoption of the 2015 General Plan Mobility Element. For the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, a method was used to evaluate the MMLOS standard for
pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Following the adoption of the General Plan and the
new MMLOS standard, city staff began the process of revising the MMLOS and vehicle
method used for the General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the purpose of the revisions
is to refine the criteria used to evaluate level of service for all modes of travel.
New traffic and mobility monitoring methodologies are being defined in the Evaluation and
Monitoring (E&M} Manual that was under development at the time this report was being
prepared. The E&M Manual is expected to be completed in the Summer of 2018 and will
finalize the new evaluation methodologies required to be consistent with the current General
Plan Mobility Element. The MMLOS tool that will be used to evaluate non-auto modes of
travel has been developed and is being calibrated using case studies. Staff has started
collecting the auto data expected to be used with the new methodologies. Therefore, this
report does not include current level of service information, and FY 2017-18 monitoring
results are expected to be available shortly after the E&M Manual is finalized.
19
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 36 of 57
The following summarizes the progress made during FY 2016-17 to improve the levels of
service for pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel:
FY 2016-17 IMPROVEMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
·. Improvement Where
Added buffered bike lanes El Camino Real
College Boulevard
Added new bike lanes Park Drive
Added bikeway striping Avenida Encinas
Revised crosswalk striping standard to specify High-
Visibility Crosswalk Standard on all restriping
projects at all locations.
Revised bike lane striping standard to specify
narrower vehicular lanes and bike lane buffers on all
new striping projects.
Installed ADA ramps at dozens of locations in Barrio.
Various pedestrian improvements
Installed RRFB flashing beacons with High-Visibility
Crosswalks at 2 locations in Barrio.
Installed Advanced Pedestrian Walk Indicators at
various locations in city.
Won $1.7 million award for bike and pedestrian
improvements to 4+ miles of Coastal Rail Trail along
Avenida Encinas.
E. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 General Plan evaluated how buildout of the
land uses planned by the General Plan will impact the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit
levels of service. The following summarizes the results of that evaluation:
Vehicle Level of Service at Buildout
• Additional future road segments (portions of College Boulevard, Poinsettia Lane and
Camino Junipero) needed to accommodate the city's future growth were identified as
part of the General Plan update. The General Plan Mobility Element identifies the needed
future road segments as "planned ... streets."
20
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 37 of 57
• The following street facilities were identified in the General Plan and are expected to
provide a vehicle level of service below LOS D. Per General Plan Mobility Element Policy
3-P.10, the following street facilities, including the intersections along these segments,
are exempt from the vehicle level of service standard:
o La Costa Avenue between lnterstate-5 and El Camino Real
o El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue
o Palomar Airport Road between lnterstate-5 and College Boulevard
o Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive
At buildout, the improvements to these street facilities needed to meet the LOS D standard
would significantly impact the environment in an unacceptable way and/or would conflict
with the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision. For example, creating streets wider
than six lanes conflicts with other city goals, such as protecting open space and habitat,
reducing greenhouse gases and ensuring public safety. Widening streets beyond six lanes
also creates new challenges for intersection operations, maintenance, and storm water
management. Therefore, rather than widening these arterial streets, General Plan Mobility
Element policies promote implementation of other measures, such as transportation demand
and system management, to better manage the transportation system as a whole.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Level of Service at Buildout
Improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities may be needed to ensure
compliance with the MM LOS standard. Needed improvements will be identified after the city
has completed revisions to the MM LOS methodology.
21
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 38 of 57
FIRE
A. Performance Standard
The number of dwelling units outside a five-minute response from the nearest fire station
shall not exceed 1,500 units.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
The city's fire facilities are in compliance with the growth Management performance
standard. There are no more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five-minute response
distance from any of the city's six fire stations.
The intent of the growth management standard, as applied to fire facilities, is to establish the
number of stations and their locations, based upon response distances. At the time the
Growth Management Plan was developed, scientific fire behavior information and recognized
best practices supported the position that a response time of five minutes would result in
effective fire incident intervention. To determine the most desirable geographic sites for
future fire stations, it was necessary to convert the five-minute response time to a
measurable distance that could be applied to a future road network scheme. Because the
Growth Management Plan provides no other trigger mechanism for the installation of
additional fire stations, it follows that up to 1,500 dwelling units could exist outside the five-
minute reach of the closest fire station for an indeterminate length of time without violating
the growth management standard. The five-minute response time measure was selected
exclusively as a means of logically positioning emergency response resources throughout the
city. Therefore, the standard is applied as a means of measuring compliance with locating
fire facilities in accordance with the Growth Management Plan, not the performance of the
Fire Department in meeting service responsibilities. The growth management fire
performance standard is utilized to determine the number of fire stations and their locations,
not Fire Department response times.
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
At buildout, no single fire station district will exceed the established threshold of more than
1,500 units that exist outside of a five minute response time.
To determine if fire facilities will be adequate at buildout, the city's Geographic Information
System Department {GIS) created a map based upon the following information:
• Existing fire station locations
• Anticipated future development
• 2.5 mile road distance from each of the six fire stations (five minute response
equates to road driving distance of 2.5 miles);
22
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 39 of 57
• All planned, major roadway arterials; and
• The number of dwelling units projected at buildout that will be located outside of
the 2.5 mile road (5 minute) distance from each fire station.
The GIS map, based upon the above-noted assumptions, revealed the following findings:
Fire Station Number Total number of dwelling units outside of five minutes
1,3 & 4 (aggregated) 1,227
2 902
5 392
6 1,185
As noted above, the GIS map analysis revealed that at build out, the city's existing and planned fire
facilities will meet the growth management performance standard (i.e. the total number of dwelling
units that will exist outside of a five-minute response from the nearest fire station will not exceed
the threshold of 1,500 units).
23
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 40 of 57
OPEN SPACE
A. Performance Standard
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive
of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open
space and must be available concurrent with development.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
To date, adequate open space has been provided to meet the performance standard.
Open space to meet the performance standard is provided concurrent with approval of
development projects. The location of performance standard open space must be indicated
during project-specific analysis. It must be in addition to any constrained areas, such as
protected wildlife habitat or slopes greater than 40%. At the time the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan was adopted (1986), the LFMZ's were divided into: a) those that were
already developed and considered in compliance with the growth management open space
performance standard, and b) those that still needed to comply with the standard.
In 1986, LFMZs 1 through 10, and 16 were already developed and considered to be in
compliance with the open space performance standard. Subsequent to the adoption of the
CFIP, LFMZs 11-15, 17-21, and 23-25 have provided adequate open space to meet the
performance standard concurrent with development.
LFMZ 22 is still developing and, as future development occurs, open space will be required to
meet the performance standard.
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
As discussed above, all LFMZs, except for Zone 22, have met the growth management open
space performance standard. Future projects in LFMZ 22 must provide open space in
compliance with the performance standard.
24
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 41 of 57
SCHOOLS
A. Performance Standard
School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the Local Facility Management Zone
(LFMZ) as determined by the appropriate school district must be provided prior to projected
occupancy.
B. FY 2015-16 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Currently, school capacity is in compliance with the growth management school performance
standard (see below). The city is served by four school districts as listed below:
1. Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD)
According to both the district's Long Range Facility Master Plan (approved Jan. 17, 2018)
and CUSD staff, the district can accommodate both the current enrollment levels and
expected future growth. The master plan indicates that the district has plans for
accommodating projected student enrollment levels through the next 15-20 years, which
includes proposals for renovating and replacing a variety of school facilities.
2. San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD)
SMUSD staff indicated that the schools serving Carlsbad are currently at maximum
capacity but that will-serve letters are still being issued by SMUSD for proposed
developments in the part of Carlsbad th,at is served by SMUSD schools, and that the
schools serving C,arlsbad could accommodate the expected future growth within this area.
SMUSD is in the construction stage for the La Costa Meadows Elementary School
Reconstruction Project. In addition to reconstructing and modernizing La Costa Meadows
Elementary School, the proposed improvements would increase student capacity by 80
seats. Construction began in May 2017 and completion is anticipated in August 2019.
3. Encinitas Union Elementary School District
According to a site capacity report provided by the school district, sufficient student
capacity exists through 2018.
4. San Dieguito Union High School District
Based on demographic projections provided by San Dieguito Union High School District,
it is estimated that schools serving Carlsbad will have sufficient student capacity through
2018.
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on Chapter 3.11 of the 2015 General Plan EIR, for all school districts at all grade levels,
capacity is expected to be sufficient for the buildout student population with no need for
additional schools.
25
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 42 of 57
SEWER COLLECTION SERVICES
A. Performance Standard
Trunk-line capacity to meet demand, as determined by the appropriate sewer districts, must
be provided concurrent with development.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Sewer improvements are provided on a project by project basis concurrent with
development. Currently, the City of Carlsbad's sewer service area pipelines are in compliance
with the growth management performance standard. Representatives from the sewer
agencies that provide sewer collection systems within the city include: Carlsbad, Leucadia
Wastewater District and Vallecitos Water District. Each agency indicates that they currently
have adequate conveyance capacity in place to meet Carlsbad's sewer collection demands.
The City of Carlsbad is served by the following four major interceptor systems:
Interceptor System Sewer Districts Served Carlsbad Capacity Rights
Ranges from
Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor City of Carlsbad & City of Vista 3.4%/0.93 MGD up to 50%/33.6
MGD
City of Carlsbad & Buena Ranges from
Buena Interceptor 18%/1.2 MGD up to 35%/3.0 Sanitation District MGD
City of Carlsbad, Buena
Val/ecitos Interceptor Sanitation District & Vallecitos 5 MGD
Water District
Occidental Sewer
City of Carlsbad, City of Encinitas
& Leucadia Waste Water District 8.5 MGD
Note: MGD = million gallons per day
For both the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor and the Buena Interceptor, the percentage of
Carlsbad capacity rights increases in the downstream reaches of each interceptor system
(3.4% in the upstream reaches as they enter the Carlsbad service area and up to 35% or 50%
in the downstream reaches for Buena Interceptor and Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor,
respectively as they enter the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility).
26
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 43 of 57
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The 2012 City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan evaluated the sewer infrastructure needs of the
Carlsbad sewer service area and identified those facilities required to accommodate future
customers at buildout. The master plan identified the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor, and Buena
Interceptor as requiring improvements to accommodate build-out demand (see below).
Sewer trunk main capacities are estimated by comparing wastewater flow projections to the
capacity of the sewer system. Using a computer sewer model, the existing and future sewer
demands are estimated and compared to the capacity of each trunk sewer pipeline. In
addition, annual flow measurement information is also used to determine actual flows in the
sewer trunk pipelines.
Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor: A capacity analysis included in the 2012 City of Carlsbad Sewer
Master Plan indicates three relatively flat pipeline portions of Reaches VC13, VC14 & VC15.
As a result, during peak period flows, the pipeline is flowing full. This is an active construction
project, expected to be completed in FY 2018-19. The replacement pipelines are sized based
on ultimate flows from both the City of Carlsbad and City of Vista sewer collection systems.
Buena Interceptor: A capacity analysis conducted in 2010 indicates that although the city's
wastewater flows are not projected to exceed the capacity rights in the Buena Interceptor,
the combined flows of Buena Sanitation District and City of Carlsbad during peak wet weather
periods result in capacity restrictions. As a result, Carlsbad is coordinating with Buena
Sanitation District to construct a parallel trunk sewer which will allow all flows from Buena
Sanitation District to be diverted to the parallel trunk sewer. Once constructed, the City of
Carlsbad will be the only agency with flows remaining in the existing Buena Interceptor, and
this will provide sufficient capacity for Carlsbad during wet weather conditions. Funding for
the design and construction of the parallel trunk sewer was appropriated for FY 2013-14 by
the City of Vista which operates the Buena Sanitation District, and is now in the design stage.
Construction is expected to begin in early 2018.
An update to the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan has been initiated and is in the data
collection phase, and the sewer model is currently being updated. The project will provide
an updated evaluation of sewer infrastructure needs at buildout.
27
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 44 of 57
WATER DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
A. Performance Standard
Line capacity to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district must be
provided concurrent with development. A minimum of 10-day average storage capacity must
be provided prior to any development.
B. FY 2016-17 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Carlsbad1s water distribution is provided by three agencies including the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (CMWD) serving 32.32 square miles (82. 7 percent of the city), Olivenhain
Municipal Water District (OMWD) serving 5.28 square miles (13.5 percent of the city), and
Vallecitos Water District (VWD) serving 1.48 square miles (3.8 percent of the city). These
districts indicate that they have adequate capacity to meet the growth management
performance standard.
Water service demand requirements are estimated using a computer model to simulate two
water distribution scenarios: 1) maximum day demand plus a fire event; 2) peak hour
demand. This computer model was calibrated using actual flow measurements collected in
the field to verify it sufficiently represents the actual water system.
Existing and future daily demand and storage requirements for CMWD, which is a subsidiary
district of the City of Carlsbad, from the 2012 CMWD Water Master Plan are shown below:
Water demand Volume
Existing Maximum Daily Demand 26.7 MGD5
Future Maximum Daily Demand 39.4 MGD
Water storage Volume
Existing Storage Requirement 39.5 MG 6
Existing Storage Capacity 50.5 MG excluding Maerkle Dam storage
Based on the water model analysis prepared for the 2012 CMWD Water Master Plan, future
pipelines and water system facilities were identified to ensure a complete water system is
constructed to accommodate future customers. In addition, funds for the construction of
future facilities were included in the FY 2016-17 Capital Improvement Program. Therefore,
the future water infrastructure is programmed to be in place at the time of need in order to
ensure compliance with the performance standard.
5 MGD -Million gallons per day
6 MG -Million gallons
28
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 45 of 57
Within the CMWD service area the existing average daily potable water demand is shown
below:
Fiscal Year MGD
2007-08 18.2
2008-09 16.5
2009-10 14.2
2010-11 13.2
2011-12 13.7
2012-13 14.4
2013-14 14.9
2014-15 13.6
2015-16 11.4
2016-17 10.4
The lower water demand, compared to the peak in FY 2007-08, is a result of (1) implementing
a new tiered water rate structure to encourage water conservation, (2) in 2009, a campaign
was initiated to reduce customer consumption by the wholesale water agencies, (3) the
persisting drought has forced voluntary and mandatory conservation measures in 2015, and
(4) beginning in 2008 an expansion of CMWD's recycled water system lowered potable water
consumption. Water conservation by CMWD customers has resulted in an overall reduction
in per capita consumption.
To meet the 10 day storage requirement, CMWD needs 182 MG of storage capacity based on
the historic peak demand. CMWD has a storage capacity of 244 MG which consists of 195
MG of storage capacity at Maerkle Dam and an additional 49 MG of storage capacity in
various storage tanks throughout the distribution system. In 2004, the OMWD completed
construction of a water treatment facility at the San Diego County Water Authority
Emergency Storage Reservoir, which provides the storage necessary to meet the 10 day
storage requirement for OMWD. VWD's average day demand was 14.6 MGD with an existing
storage capacity of 121.6 MG. Through interagency sharing arrangements VWD can obtain
additional water supplies to meet a 10 day restriction on the imported water supply.
C. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The 2012 CMWD Water Master Plan identifies facilities necessary for build-out conditions
within its service area. The 2012 update identified that no additional storage tanks are
required to meet the future 10 average-day storage requirements because of a reduction in
demand from expansion of CMWD's recycled water system.
As proposed land development projects are reviewed by the city, the Water Master Plans
from CMWD, OMWD, and VWD are consulted to check pipeline sizes and facility capacities
to verify adequacy to support the water needs of the project and city. To comply with water
master plan requirements, land development projects may be required to install a master
plan water project concurrent with construction of that specific project.
An update to the CMWD Water Master Plan has been initiated and is in the data collection
phase, and the water model is currently being updated. The project will provide an updated
evaluation of water infrastructure needs at buildout.
29
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 46 of 57
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Development
Monitoring Report
Exhibit 3
C cityof
Carlsbad
July 2018
The Development Monitoring Report (DMR) is a monthly summary of building permits issued for all residential
and non-residential activity in Carlsbad. This report is required by the Growth Management Ordinance. The
purpose of the DMR is to track new and significant growth that adds to the City's housing stock and
commercial/industrial square footage, or space.
Residential Activity
In July, Carlsbad issued building permits for 7 residential dwelling units, a decrease from seventeen residential
dwelling units permitted in June. In the northwest quadrant, two building permits were issued for second-
dwelling units at 3766 Highland Drive and 1289 Buena Vista Way. 4 permits were issued for single family
detached homes as part of Highland View Homes and one permit was issued for a single family detached
home at 1610 Buena Vista Way, also within the northwest quadrant. For the calendar year, building permits
for 111 residential dwelling units have been issued as compared to 457 permits issued at this time in calendar
year 2017.
Non-residential Activity
During the month of July, no permits were issued for commercial and industrial space. Calendar year-to-date,
674,542 square feet of commercial and industrial space has been permitted as compared to 988,416 square
feet at this time in calendar year 2017.
For residential and non-residential activity, the attached charts and tables provide additional information for
calendar year-to-date and fiscal year-to-date comparison.
For information on a free subscription to this report, click the Email Notifications button on the City's
homepage and scroll to Planning & Development; visit the City's home page at www.carlsbadca.gov.
!.aaf<'e,e,lf Rj,alf
Laureen Ryan
Management Analyst
Telephone: 760-602-4615 Fax: 760-602-8560 E-Mail: Laureen.Rvan@carlsbadca.gov
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 47 of 57
Development Activity Summary By Zone
Fiscal Year (FY)
As of July 31, 2018 (1 month)
Residential Non-residential
Zone Dwelling Units Zone Square Feet Permitted
Commercial Industrial
1 7 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5(NE) 5(NE)
5(NW) 5(NW)
6 5(SW)
7 6
8 7
9 8
10 9
11 10
12 11
12
13 13
14 14
16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 25
25 Subtotal 0 0
Total 7 Total 0
Calendar Year (CY)
As of July 31, 2018 (7 months)
Residential Non-residential
Zone Dwelling Units Zone Square Feet Permitted
Commercial Industrial
1 49 1 10,097
2 2 2
3(NW) 2 3
4 4
6(SE) 1 5(NW) 86,940
7 1 5(NE)
8 5(SW)
6
9 7
10 8
11 9
10
12 11
14 30 12
15 13
16 14
16 75,191 335,809
17 17 166,505
18 18
19 19
20
20 5 21
21 22
22 23
23 25
24 Subtotal 338,733 335,809
25 21
Total 111 Total 674,542
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 48 of 57
Aug-17
Sep-17
Oct-17
Nov-17
Dec-17
Mar-18
Apr-18
Ma -18
LMFZ
25
14
14
14
25
25
25
25
25
14
14
14
20
25
25
14
·14
25
14
14
14
14
3
14
25
25
20
25
Summary of Residential Building Permit Activity
As of July 31, 2018
Dwelling Units
10
9
7
1
32
1
4 9
12
10
12
6
61
Project
Condominiums al Agave at the Preserve
Single Famlly Detached al The Ridge at Robertson Ranch
Single FamITy Detached at The Vistas
3981 James Drive, Single Family Detached
Second dwelling units, at 3449 & 3445 Madison St. and 3329 Adams St.
Single Family Detached at 3443 & 3447 Madison st.
SingleFamilyhomesalSeascape
Second dwelling units at 6684 Peregrim, Place. 2640 Sutler Street and 6658 Surf
Crest Street
Second dwelling unit at 7205 Obelisco Circle
Single Family Homes at The Bluffs at Robertson Ranch
Single Family Homes at the Terraces at Robertson Ranch
Condominiums at Acacia at the Preserve
Condominiums at Agave at the Preserve
Condominiums at Blue Sage
Slngle Family Homes at Cypress al the Preserve
Single Family home at 3657 Monroe Street
SingleFamilyhomeat5070CarlsbadBlvd
Single Family home at 3979 James Drive
Single Family home al 7307 Bolero street
Second-dwelling Unit at 2279 Cameo Road
Second-dwelling Unit at 4037 Royal Drive
Second-dwelling Unit at 1097 Oak Avenue
12 Blue Sage Condomlnums
Single famlly homes at the Ridge, Toll Brothers
Cherryfield Townhome Condominums
Single family homes on Cherry Avenue
Dwellingunit,271 Juniper Avenue
Singlefamilyresidence,4090Garf1eldStreet
Single family residence and ~nd dwelling unit, 2605 & 2607 Crest Drive
Slngle family homes at the Terraces, Robertson Ranch
Slngle family homes at the Vistas. Robertsori Ranch
Single family homes at Golden Surf. New Point Communities
14 Condominiums at Agave at the Preserve. Cornerstone Communities
13 Single family homes at Cypress, Cornerstone Communities
SinglefamilyattachedatTrailsEnd
16 Residential Condominiums at MagnoTia Walk
SinglefamilydetachedatMagnoHaWalk
SinglefamilydelachedatlhePresidlo
Second dwelling unit at 3548 Vally Street
Second dwelling unit at 3110 Afton Way
1
12
67
4
11
41
17
2
Singlefamilydelachedat2139AlgaRoad
Single family detached as part of Phases 9 & 10 of the Vistas, Toll Brothers
Single family detached as part of Phases 9 at the Terraces, Toll Brothers
Residential Condominiums, Phase 3 al Acacia, Cornerstone Communities
Single family detached as part of Phase7ofthe Bluffs
Single family detached as part of Phase 10 of the Vistas, Toll Brothers
Second dwelling unit al: 1882 & 1874 McCauley Lene and 3933 Syrne Drive
SinglefamilyattachedatPacific\/iew\/illas
Single family detached at 3935 Syme Drive
Singlefamilydetachedaspartof Phase1 at Lanai
Second dwelling unit et 3524 Knollwood Drive
Single family detached as part of Phases 10 & 11 at The Terraces, Toll Brothers
Single family detached as part of Phase 10 of The Vistas, Toll Brothers
Condominiums at Acacia Estates
Condominiums al Grand Madison
Single family detached homes at 152 Sequoia Avenue
Second-dwelling unit at 2712 Madison st. and 2627 Davis Ave.
Singlefamilydelachedhomesa1Lanalll,Phese1
Second-dwelling unit at 5241 El Arbo\ Dr. and 5266 Los Robles Dr.
Single family detached homes al The Terraces. Phase 12 & 13
Condominit.1rns as part of Acacia at the Preserves, Phase 4
Condominiums as part of Agave at the Preserve, Phase 8
Condominiums al Garfield
Single family homes; 252 Normandy Lane and 3687 Valley Street
Apartments al 906 Pine Avenue
Second-dwelling units; 3689 Valley Street, 250 Normandy, 832 Citrus Place
Second-dwelling unit, 7722 Farol Place
Second Dwelling Unit at 157 Chestnut Avenue
Second Dwelling Unit al 2726 Naples ct.102 & 4376Shasta Pl 2
Single family detached homes at Seascape at Avena Court
Condominiums at Blue Sage as part of Phase 3
Second Dwelling Unitat3766 Highland Dr. and 1289 Buena Vista Way
Singk:! family detached home at 1510 Buena Vista Way
Sing!e family detached homes at Highland View Homes, Lots 1-4
Total forFiscalYear2018-19todate(1 month)
111 TotalforCalendarYear2018todate(7months)
Notes These figures are based upon ISSuanc;e of bu,ldlng permits. They do not include add1t1ons, remodels, or replacements of e1thar demolished un1ts or units lost to fire When a '"second dwelling unit'' is built as an rntegral part of a new main dwellrng uni~ two units are counted. "Custom home" indicates a
unit for which no discret1onarv ,...rm1t other than a coastal clevelo ment =rmit in the coastal zone\ was re uired
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 52 of 57
Summary of Non-Residential Permit Activity
As of July 31, 2018
Month Commercial Industrial Project (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Jul-17 0 0
Aug-17 172,360 3266 Lionshead Avenue, shell building
209,524 ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus
28,210 Bressi Ranch Lot 23
29,756 2505 Gateway Road
99,720 3261 Lionshead Avenue, shell building
267,490 272,080
Sep-17 635 La Costa Grees
144,742 Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 24
393 Grand Pacific
16,000 Bressi Ranch Lot 23
17,028 144,742
Oct-17 667 Leo Carrillo Ranch chicken coop and restrooms
13,200 Lego!and, ride building, bridges and shade structure
98,345 ViaSat 2-story cold shell tilt-up
71,614 Hoehn Porsche 3-story dealership
85,481 98,345
Nov-17 864 Commercial building at La Costa Glen
82,895 Industrial shell at Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 7
864 82,895
Dec-17 0 0
0 0
Jan-18 640 2 cargo containers for a restaurant at 430 Carlsbad Village Drive
640
16,451 CVS: Uptown Bressi building B
Feb-18 28,052 Sprouts, new building
214,716 Pacific Vista: cold shell
121,093 Pacific Vista: cold shell building B
75,292 ViaSat building 15
11,650 Uptown Bressi: Building C
131,445 335,809
Mar-18 75,191 Pacific Vista Commerce Center Building 'A'
9,457 Grand Madison: 4-story
84,648
Apr-18 27,760 Uptown Bressi, 4 retail shell buildings
27,760
May-18 0 0
Jun-18 86,940 Hilton Home Hotel
7,300 Uptown Bressi Ranch retail shell
94,240
Jul-18 0 0
0 0
709,596 933,871 Total for Fiscal Year 2018-19 to date (1 month)
1,643,467 Total Commercial and Industrial
338,733 335,809 Total for Calendar Year 2018 to dale (7 months)
674,542 Total Commercial and Industrial
Note: These figures are based upon issuance of building permits. They do not include remodels, minor additions, tenant improvements, or
replacement of demolished buildings.
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 53 of 57
~,~~ CITY OF
~"CARLSBAD
Council Policy Statement
Category: "EXCESS DWELLING UNIT BANK"
Policy No.
Date Issued:
Effective Date:
Resolution No.
Cancellation Date:
Supersedes No.
Exhibit 4
43
July 9, 2013
July 9, 2013
2013-177
N/A
43, issued 4/26/05
Specific Subject: Policy for number and allocation of Proposition E "excess" dwelling units
PURPOSE:
To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess"
Dwelling Units (as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.120). Excess Dwelling Units
become available as a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with fewer Dwelling
Units than would have been allowed by the growth management control points of the Growth
Management Plan approved by voters on November 4, 1986, as Proposition E and as set forth in
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.90.045.
BACKGROUND:
Dwelling Units that become "excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance contained in
the "Excess Dwelling Unit Bank." Excess Dwelling Units may be allocated to projects located in any
quadrant so long as the number of Dwelling Units built in each quadrant is consistent with the Dwelling
Unit limitations for each quadrant established by Proposition E.
A project does not need an allocation of excess Dwelling Units if its proposed density does not exceed
the growth management control point as set forth in CMC 21.90.045.
An allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a project is an "incentive," as defined in CMC Section 21.86.020
A.12 and Government Code Section 65915(k), in that it is a regulatory concession that modifies the
requirements of CMC Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by permitting developments with
more Dwelling Units than otherwise permitted by the growth management control point established in
CMC Section 21.90.045. The allocation of excess Dwelling Units to a project will result in identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the project by permitting more Dwelling Units on a
site than would otherwise be allowed by the underlying General Plan land use designation and so
reducing land cost per Dwelling Unit.
POLICY:
Provision Of lnclusionary Units
An applicant for excess Dwelling Units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary housing units
required by CMC Section 21.85.050 and to execute an affordable housing agreement according to CMC
Section 21.85.140. The calculation of the required number of inclusionary units shall be based on all the
Dwelling Units in the project and not just those for which the excess Dwelling Unit allocation is sought.
The applicant shall otherwise agree to comply with the requirements of CMC Chapter 21.85 applicable
to the inclusionary units.
Page 1 of 3
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 55 of 57
Policy No. 43
If the applicant desires to rent any Dwelling Units in the project, the application for excess Dwelling
Units shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that any rental inclusionary units proposed by the
applicant to comply with CMC Chapter 21.85 will not be subject to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) nor any
other provision of the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.51 et seq.)
inconsistent with controls on rents, because, pursuant to Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and
1954.53(a)(2), prior to approval of the project, the developer will enter into a contract (affordable
housing agreement) with the city agreeing to the limitations on rents required by CMC Chapter 21.85 in
consideration for the allocation of excess Dwelling Units, which is a form of assistance specified in
Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 ofTitle 7 ofthe Government Code.
These requirements shall be considered minimum requirements for the allocation of excess Dwelling
Units. As determined by the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code, these
minimum requirements may be increased depending on various factors, such as project scope and size
and the amount of the allocation request.
Exceptions
The City Council also authorizes the decision-maker designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to
allocate excess Dwelling Units to projects that do not meet the minimum requirements specified above
under the limited circumstances identified below.
1. Any residential project with a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or
Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and a base zoning that permits a slightly higher yield of units
than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed density does
not exceed the maximum density of the RL or RLM density range by more than an additional 25 percent,
the project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs expressed in the
General Plan, and all of the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the project.
2. Any residential project with a General Plan designation of Residential Medium-High Density
(RMH) or Residential High Density (RH) which requires an allocation of excess Dwelling Units to meet the
minimum density used to determine compliance with housing element law as identified in the latest
adopted Housing Element since this minimum density exceeds the growth management control point.
This exception does not apply to projects on RH-designated properties in the Beach Area Overlay Zone.
3. Any residential project in which the density used for calculation results in a Dwelling Unit yield
that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater and is the minimum density, growth management control
point density, or the density used to determine compliance with housing element law (as identified in
the latest adopted Housing Element). In this circumstance, a fraction of a unit may be granted in order
to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum density of the applicable
General Plan land use designation or applicable Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design Manual land
use district is not exceeded. The procedure for determining Dwelling Unit yield and allocating fractional
units is contained in CMC 21.53.230(e).
Allocating Excess Dwelling Units
The number of excess Dwelling Units allocated shall be at the sole discretion of the decision-maker
designated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The City Council, Planning Commission or the City Planner
retains the discretion to deny approval of the project or approve the proposed project without any
Page 2 of3
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 56 of 57
Policy No. 43
excess Dwelling Units. In approving a request for an allocation of excess Dwelling Units, the City Council,
Planning Commission, or City Planner shall make the following findings:
1. That the project location· and density are compatible with existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses.
2. That the project location and density are in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
General Plan and any other applicable planning document.
3. That the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for
projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. (This
finding applies only to properties outside the Village Review Zone.)
4. That the project complies with the findings stated in the Carlsbad Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, Chapter 3, Development Standards, for projects that exceed the maximum densities set forth
therein. (This finding applies only to properties inside the Village Review Zone.)
Page 3-of3
October 23, 2018 Item #2 Page 57 of 57
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Council Internet Email
Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:35 AM
City Clerk
Jason Goff; Don Neu; David de Cordova
FW: "Ponto Beachfront"
This email came in this morning and mentioned Growth Management. This may be related to
the agenda item today on Growth Management Program, although the topic says Ponto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jodi Good
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:14 AM
To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: "Ponto Beachfront"
Mayor and City Council,
This is a fervent request to maintain the current Growth Management Open Space Standard
until "Ponto Beachfront", the controversial major development planned for southwest
Carlsbad, is resolved.
With the current plan there is a 30 acre open space deficit in Zone 9.
The city is supposedly reviewing plans to build a high density, residential community in
Planning Area F. Doesn't the current plan allow (or should) for a development with
commercial and less than 25 residential units in this area?
There is clearly a deficit of open space in Carlsbad's southwest quadrant and it will not be
remedied by using Poinsettia and Veterans Parks as alternatives. Ponto is the last vacant
coastal area for a regional park. There is currently over a 6 acre lack of beachfront parks in the
area south of Palomar Airport Road west of ECR as per the Growth Management Plan of 3
acres per 1,000 residents.
I've learned that Ponto residents concerned about overdevelopment were able to request and
get public records. They found that the City, in the past, has given exemptions to developers
from the requirement of providing open space and will continue this practice in the future.
Please, do not change The Growth Management Open Space Standard to accommodate the
corporation planning "Ponto Beachfront" that will allow this huge resort without giving to the
community the open space and parkland they deserve, all of Carlsbad deserves.
Thank you,
1
Jodi Pendry Good
Carlsbad, 92008
Sent from my iPhone
2
Talk to Council on 10/23/18
Good morning Mr Mayor and Council Members. My name is Jean Camp and I am a resident of Carlsbad.
As discussed at the Council meeting last week, we are missing 30 acres of unconstrained open space in
Zone 9 (Zone 9 is approximately bordered by Poinsettia south, east to 1-5 and west to the ocean) AND
we are missing approximately 6.5 acres of park in the SW quadrant.
The update of the Growth Management Plan gives us residents the opportunity to have you, the City,
correct these past oversights and mistakes. While the current Growth Management Plan states that
Zone 9 is fully built out and exempted from meeting any more open space standards -from documents
that you have provided to me and other residents, it is clear that these statements are incorrect. (We
are not built out in Zone 9 as the so-called approved development plans were never built but zoning was
changed-nor do we now or did we ever meet the required open space standards.)
I respectfully request that the City makes the following changes with this Growth Management Plan
update:
1) Put ALL development in Zone 9 on hold for now, until Zone 9 is in compliance with the intended
Open Space standards.
2) Un-exempt Zone 9, meaning all developers have to analyze and provide the missing
unconstrained open space (currently estimated at 30 acres of unconstrained open space deficit).
3) Re-evaluate all currently exempted Zones to ensure that no other mistakes were made in
exempting them from providing open space.
4) Have the current developer(s) do the open space analysis and provide solutions for meeting the
open space and park deficits.
5) Have a neighborhood park or other park of at least 6.5 acres planned for and provided for at
Ponto.
6) Look for visitor serving commercial uses in the coastal Ponto area.
To date, the current Mayor and Administration have chosen not to enforce the Growth Management
Plan which would put development on hold and force Shopoff, the current developer, to do the Open
Space analysis and to provide solutions to meet the 30 acres of unconstrained open space and 6.5 acre
park deficits.
In my opinion, this is just not right. You have the chance today to correct that situation. First put a hold
on any more development, then proceed with the rest of my recommendations. Let's hope that all of
you do the right thing and put residents' needs above development greed. Thank you.
August 17, 2015
TO: The Honorable Matt Hall, Mayor, City of Carlsbad
The Honorable Keith Blackburn, Mayor Pro Tern, City of Carlsbad
The Honorable Mark Packard, Council Member, City of Carlsbad
The Honorable Lorraine Wood, Council Member, City of Carlsbad
The Honorable Michael Schumacher, Council Member, City of Carlsbad
Planning Commissioner Neil Black
Planning Commissioner Jeff Segal
Planning Commissioner Velyn Anderson
Planning Commissioner Kerry Siekmann
Planning Commissioner Victoria Scully
Planning Commissioner Marty Montgomery
Planning Commissioner Hap L'Heureux
FROM: Jim Nardi, San Pacifico HOA President, on behalf of the Ponto Beachfront
Development Review Committee
Re: City of Carlsbad City Council Proposed Amendments to General Plan
"The issues facing the future of Carlsbad are ... related more to protecting and enhancing the
quality of life that the community has worked hard to create."
This first statement on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan website, Carlsbad's master plan for
addressing the continuously changing needs of our growing populace, is a reflection of the
core values that have driven city planning since the 195o's. Bordered by the coast and on our
northern and southern ends by expansive, beautiful lagoons that are home to a large variety
of flora and fauna, Carlsbad has uniquely created managed growth that preserves and
protects valuable open spaces and sensitive ecological environments that make our
community so attractive to citizens and businesses. The Carlsbad City Council, Planning
Commission in consultation and concert with Carlsbad citizens, set out to reaffirm and
enhance these values that are the heart and soul of the General Plan. It is with that long
history of civic pride, collaboration and love for Carlsbad that the Citizens of San Pacifico, a
community of about 500 homes and approximately 1,000 plus citizens ask for your support in
our concerns for the planning and development of Ponto -the southern Coastal Gateway to
Carlsbad.
With respect to "Ponto East and Ponto West", the Heart of Ponto, a careful review of the City
shows that these parcels comprise the last few undeveloped parcels of land in all of Coastal
San Diego County and they are uniquely situated with pristine coastal beach and lagoon
access. Even in the parcels minimally managed state, they provide daily, open access to the
entire community of Carlsbad for trails and enjoyment of undisturbed coastal views. We
support your efforts to, with careful thought, plan and develop this treasured land and wish
to be constructive and collaborative partners in this process so that the end product is a
Page 1 of s
lasting joy to our citizens and visitors and an exemplary legacy to present to future
generations.
Coming together to express our consensus concerns, we as a community have identified the
following key issues we would like to see addressed in the Carlsbad General Plan and Local
Coastal Program, and as outlined in the City adopted Ponto Village Vision Plan created just
less than a decade ago.
1. We generally support the rezoning of Ponto East, the Town home Residential to R-23,
however would prefer a R-15 designation given the developers intent to apply for
planning changes and density bonuses to increase density. We do not support their
proposed massive apartment block in the Ponto Vision Plan "Townhome"
community .. High density housing seems less appropriate for limited coastal and
beach access land.
2. Neighborhood preservation and enhancement goals are of great importance to our
San Pacifico citizens. We support the zoning of Ponto West ("Heart of Ponto" in the
Ponto Vision Plan) to General Commercial that limits the residential uses to 12
dwellings, and feel the primary orientation for this site is toward Visitor Commercial
as there is very limited commercial opportunities for both Carlsbad Citizens and
visitors in South Carlsbad -and Ponto represents the last opportunity to provide
those services. Citizens and visitors are forced to drive to Encinitas or Downtown
Carlsbad for coastal commercial services which increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and congestion. We are aware of the developer's development proposal and
proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment applications to the
city that seeks to change the Heart of Ponto's commercial and visitor servicing
orientation to dense housing (estimated at 85%) with minimal and unsustainably
designed residual amount of commercial establishments. We feel this is inadequate,
will not generate enough commercial presence and momentum to allow these
establishments to thrive, creates land use incompatibility for the commercial uses,
will not create desirable commercial Village synergies with the adjacent hotels and
planned for high-quality resorts and beach visitors, and not serve the long term needs
of Carlsbad citizens and visitors for coastal commercial access in South Carlsbad.
3. Open space, coastal access, and natural environment goals are of great importance to
our Ponto citizens and we do not support relaxation of the minimum setback and
easement rules. The developer's proposal to not meet minimum setbacks and
recreational open space standards would greatly limit all Carlsbad citizens and visitors
the ability to enjoy the natural beauty of prime beachfront spaces that have
previously been available to our citizens. The proposed large building masses run
counter to a pedestrian scale and open environment of the Ponto Village vision. In
certain public view and access corridors, such as along Avenida Encinas and other
coastal access pathways perhaps expanded increased minimum building setbacks
Page 2 of s
should be considered to retain some portions of ocean views from public right-of-way
and public spaces.
4. Below are proposed General Plan Policy updates for the Ponto area that we would like
the City Council and Planning Commission to please consider adding to the General
Plan. We believe these updates would help better serve to Develop Ponto Right and
be more consistent with the adopted Ponto Vision.
a. 2-P.86 Promote development of the Ponto area with high-quality and coastal
priority land uses that are consistent with those envisioned in the Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
b. 2-P.87 Promote development of high-quality activity centers with restaurants,
cafes and shopping in the Mixed-Use Heart of Ponto and Visitor Serving
Commercial areas of Ponto.
c. 2-P.88 At the center of the Heart of Ponto advance the planned use of excess
road right-of-way as a central public open space and connection to the beach
as envisioned in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
5. Access to recreation (beach, walking trails) and potential of inadequate number of
parking spaces are of great concern to our San Pacifico citizens. High density housing
and the presence of commercial property will only increase the need for parking,
which is already in very short supply along the stretch of Carlsbad Blvd from
Poinsettia Lane to La Costa Avenue. Critical will be expanded parking requirements
for mid to large residential units that correspond the unit's occupancy load for visitor
serving rental (VRBO, etc.) that are allowed in the Coastal Zone. San Pacifico has
experienced the increased demand for parking, and we have significant on-street
parking which is critically missing in the proposed development.
6. Sustainability cannot be achieved without proving a more balanced land use as
suggested above, and without addressing mobility and traffic concerns. Avenida
Encinas is the only access way for a significant area of land use to/from the coast. It
will, unless the planned second intersection north along Carlsbad Boulevard is
developed soon, become the main artery for traffic for both East and West Ponto.
There is no direct access from Poinsettia Lane, nor currently from Carlsbad Boulevard.
Avenida Encinas is not in any way configured to handle this increased vehicle volume
at just 2 lanes and with a railroad overpass bridge at 2 lanes, particularly given the
funneling of significant pedestrian and bike coastal access travel along this corridor.
Avenida Encinas at Ponto Road is currently used as a roundabout for regional coastal
access to the beach. A comprehensive traffic plan for coastal circulation is needed as
the development fronts on this intersection. A stop sign on Avenida Encinas was
needed to try to address vehicle speeding and impacts to pedestrian and bike safety,
however research into other traffic calming improvements should be explored. The
eventual build out of a high-quality boutique hotel (per current Ponto Vision Plan) at
Page 3 of s
the southern Ponto parcel opposite the East and West Ponto properties will further
complicate traffic and safety issues.
7. The nearest elementary school, Pacific Rim Elementary, is highly impacted and
regularly turns away children to other district schools since it cannot accommodate
any more. The introduction of high density housing into this exact area further
compounds the problem, which is a severe disadvantage to the current citizens of
Carlsbad and their children. This needs to be taken into consideration.
We as citizens are meeting with the proposed developer to try to work with them to rethink
their proposal to address these issues. We are hopeful. However we and all Carlsbad Citizens
and Visitors, need to have the General Plan and Local Coastal Program policy and plans that
as suggested help Develop Ponto Right. City Staff and the City Planning Commission have
provided their recommendations which we support, and ask you to please consider adopting
all the General Plan items mentioned in this letter.
This patch of pristine coastal land at the southern end of Carlsbad deserves to represent the
City of Carlsbad as well as the northern entrance to the city does, with an open, vibrant,
walkable, enticing and community-focused village development...something that all of our
citizens can continue to enjoy.
We respectfully request that all of the above considerations be taken into account when
assessing the possible General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and zoning standard revisions for
Ponto and these Ponto East and West properties in particular. The City of Carlsbad has an
incredible last opportunity to create a wonderful legacy for the community with thoughtful
and appropriate development, and environmental stewardship that will last for generations
to come. We sincerely hope that we can all reflect back on the values that have brought our
beautiful city to this point, and continue to let those values govern our growth into the future.
Sincerely,
Jim Nardi, San Pacifico HOA President on behalf of The Ponto Beachfront Development
Review Committee
Cc:
Kathy Dodson, Interim City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Don Neu, City Planner, City of Carlsbad, Community and Economic Development
Department
Dave de Cordova, Principle Planner, City of Carlsbad, Community and Economic
Development Department
Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner, City of Carlsbad, Community and Economic Development
Department
Page 4 of s
Jason Goff, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad, Community and Economic Development
Department
Gabriel Buhr, California Coastal Commission
Pages of s
Growth Management Plan –
Update Scoping Session
Debbie Fountain, Community and Economic Development Director
Don Neu, City Planner
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
October 23, 2018
Background
•1986 Growth Management Plan (GMP)
•City Council direction
•Scoping session
•Staff report and attachments
•Council discussion and direction
Growth Management –in a nutshell
•Setting
•A facilities plan based on build-out
•Quadrants, zones and dwelling unit caps
•Regular monitoring
•Voter approval
c:J LnlP Zont Oourdilry
-NOftt'!•att OuadrMt , ' D NOttnw .. t OU.14<,ni D SOULnO;M:I OUJ\k'Jtll
-soutnwost o...a,;v,t
.J
Update Considerations
•Status of the GMP and development
•GMP age and relevancy
–New policies, standards, and principles
•Proposition E dwelling unit caps
•State housing mandates
–RHNA/Housing Element update
Dwelling Unit Cap Status
Total
Proposition E Quadrant
Dwelling Unit Caps
54,599
Existing and Unbuilt
Planned Dwellings
52,256
Potential Additional
Dwellings
2,343
Quadrant Potential
Additional
Dwellings
NW 701*
NE 102
SW 1,213
SE 327
*571 units reserved for Village
Scoping Considerations
•Update extent
•Update approach
•Update timing
–Housing Element update
•Potential for voter approval of changes
Next Steps
•Develop more detailed work plan
–Identify resource strategy and fiscal impact
•Present work plan to City Council early 2019
•Update GMP in tandem with the Housing Element
–Oct 2019: Final RHNA numbers
–April 2021: Housing Element due to state
Recommendation
Direct staff on the scope and timing of potential GMP
revisions
Scope/Approach
•Scope
–Tier 1: Do nothing
–Tier 2: Technical update
–Tier 3: Housing and
facilities
–Tier 4: Comprehensive
review and update
•Approach
–Option 1: Staff-led
technical approach
–Option 2: Citizens
Advisory Committee
approach
–Option 3: City Council-
led approach
Timing
•Housing Element
•Other important workload
•City Council goal
•Phased approach
GMP Public Facilities
•City administration
•Library
•Wastewater treatment
•Parks
•Drainage
•Circulation
•Fire
•Open space
•Schools
•Sewer collection
•Water distribution
People for Ponto
Ask you to
Be Honest & fix errors
Follow Growth Management Ordinance
Enforce Growth Management Standards
Provide Missing Open Space at Ponto
Care about Carlsbad-Citizens-Ponto
www.peopleforponto.com
Be Honest & fix errors
•Fix errors in Staff Report
–“All other [Open Space in LFMP-9] public facilities are currently
meeting their adopted growth management performance standards
for FY 2016-17”, p. 5
•LFMP Zone 9 is missing a minimum of 30-acres of ‘developer required’ GMP Open
Space per the 15% unconstrained Performance Standard.
•Clearly documented in 3 Official Carlsbad Public Records Request 2017-164, 2017-
289, and 2018-289; City’s Open Space data, and City documents
–“In 1986, LFMZs 1 through 10, and 16 were already developed and
considered to be in compliance with the open space performance
standard.”, p. 41, p. 24 of monitoring report
•LFMP-9 says in 1989 only already developed land use was Lake Shore Garden
Mobile Home Park that is only 13% or 55 of the total 417 acers in LFMP-9. p. 26
•How can LFMP-9 be already developed in 1986 if in 1989 only 13% was
developed?
Be Honest & fix errors
•Fix errors in Staff Report
–City’s FY16/17 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report [p. 4,
p. 21 in Staff Report] that says: “What Happens if Facilities Do Not
Meet the Performance Standard? The Growth Management Plan
requires development activity to stop if a performance standard is
not being met. … facilities (… open space … ) are analyzed on an Local
Facility Management Plan Zone (LFMZ) basis. If one of these facilities
falls below the performance standard in a given LFMZ, development
in that LFMZ would stop“
u
•5/7/18 met City Manager on LFMP-9’s missing 30-acres of
developer required Open Space. 6/12/18 Debbie Fountain
email with staff’s final position:
–Debbie said: “… questioning the reasons [for the missing 30-
acres of Open Space] is not productive…”
–Debbie said developers can rely on inaccurate exemption
from Growth Management Open Space Standard.
–Debbie didn’t justify statements with City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code -Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.130
Implementation Requirements
–Debbie didn’t say if her [Staff’s] position was the City
Council’s position, or if/how City Council made this decision
Be Honest & fix errors
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.130(b) states:
•“Adoption of a facilities management plan does not establish any
entitlement or right to any particular general plan or zoning designation
or any particular development proposal. …
•no development occurs unless adequate facilities or improvements will
be available …
•The city council may initiate an amendment to any of the plans at any
time if in its discretion it determines that an amendment is necessary to
ensure adequate facilities and improvements”.
Follow Growth Management Ordinance
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.130(c) states:
•“If … city manager … [thinks] … the performance standards … are not being
met he or she shall immediately report the deficiency to the council.
•If the council determines that a deficiency exists then no further building
or development permits shall be issued within the affected zone … and …
•an amendment to the city-wide facilities and improvements plan or
applicable local facilities management plan which addresses the
deficiency is approved by the city council and the performance standard is
met”
Follow Growth Management Ordinance
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.130(d) states:
•“The city planner shall … prepare an annual report to the city council …
which includes … a facilities and improvements adequacy analysis, … and
recommendation for any amendments to the facilities management plan.”
Follow Growth Management Ordinance
In summary City’s Growth Management Ordinance:
•Requires City Staff to report facility inadequacies – report
missing 30-aces of Open Space
•Allows City Staff to recommend LFMP-9 Amendments to
correct facility inadequacies -Why hasn’t Staff recommended
addressing the missing 30-acres of Open Space?
•GMP Ordinance conflicts with 6/12/18City Staff email saying
developers can rely on LFMP-9 that violates Open Space
Facility Standard – LFMP-9 not a developer entitlement
•Allows City Council to amendment at any time the city-wide
GMP & LFMP-9 to fix Facility Standard deficiency -missing 30-
acres of Open Space in LFMP-9
•Says a LFMP-9 does not establish any entitlement or right to
any particular general plan or zoning designation or any
particular development proposal
Follow Growth Management Ordinance
•“Open Space Standard: Fifteen percent [15%] of the total land
area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive
of environmentally constrained non-developable land must
be set aside for permanent open space and must be available
concurrent with development”
See page 20 of your staff report [p. 4 City’s FY16/17 Growth Management Program
Monitoring Report
Growth Management Open Space Standard
City data & documents show developers falsely exempted from
providing Growth Management Program required open-space:
City’s data calculations of open-space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] per City of Carlsbad GIS data
(197 Acres)Constrained and Excluded from GMP Open Space Calculations
275 Acres Area unconstrained in LFMP Zone 9
X 15%GMP Minimum unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum unconstrained Open Space required in LFMP
Zone 9
(11 Acres)GMP Open Space provided & mapped in LFMP Zone 9
30 Acres Missing unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 to
meet the minimum GMP Open Space Standard [73% missing]
Ponto’s Missing 30 acres of developer
required Open-Space
Care about Carlsbad-Citizens-Ponto
We ask you to care about Carlsbad, Citizens, & Ponto; and put
those interests above a developer's:
•Recognize & fix the flawed prior Ponto planning processes
–twice City/developers failed to comply with Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program [p. 101] requirements to first ‘consider/document Ponto as a
Public Park and/or Low-cost visitor accommodations’
–LFMP-9 missing 30-acres of developer required Open Space
–Failure to disclose LCP and Open Space issues & directly involve
community about Ponto planning –a ‘planning area’ of our planned
community. Developer led process was fundamentally flawed
–Failure to provide any meaningful South Carlsbad Coastal Park for
residents/visitors
Care about Carlsbad-Citizens-Ponto
We ask you to care about Carlsbad, Citizens, & Ponto. Put those
interests above a developer's:
•Follow Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.130 and require
LFMP-9 to provide missing 30-acres of Open Space
•Require in all Update Tiers: that developers provide Open
Space in LFMP-9 per the GMP Open Space Standard
•Comprehensively re-plan Ponto with a Community-based [not
developer based] planning process that considers our long-
term Coastal needs
Care about Carlsbad-Citizens-Ponto
•Consider how sea leave rise and erosion will remove Coastal
areas and require Coastal Open Space buffers and upland
Coastal Parks
•Consider how much Coastal Open Space and Coastal Park
acres are needed for South Carlsbad’s 64,000 existing, and
more inland future, residents. Avoid overcrowding of North
Carlsbad Coastal Parks
•Consider over 4 presentations & over 300 letters/emails
already provided you from concerned Citizens
www.peopleforponto.com
Thank You
We hope you will
Be honest & fix errors
Follow the Growth Management Ordinance
Enforce Growth Management Standards
Provide LFMP-9’s missing 30-ac of Open Space
Care about Carlsbad-Citizens-Ponto
Together we can Develop Ponto Right!