HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-21; City Council; Resolution 2023-088RESOLUTION NO. 2023-088
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MONITORING REPORT AND FINDING THAT IT
SATISFIES THE CITY'S MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, in 1986, the Carlsbad City Council adopted the Growth Management Program to
ensure that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with growth; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Program is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.130(d) requires the City Planner to provide
to the City Council an annual Growth Management Program monitoring report that includes
information on development activity, public facilities and improvements, and public facility financing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report satisfies
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.130(d) by providing information to the City
Council regarding the status of the Carlsbad Growth Management Program for the fiscal
year covering July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
3.That the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report
(Attachment A) is accepted, and the City Planner shall file the report and post it to the
city website.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 21st day of March, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Burkholder, Luna.
None.
None.
None.
iv
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Attachment A
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Fiscal Year 2021-22
Growth Management Program Monitoring Report
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
Carlsbad City Council
Keith Blackburn, Mayor
Melanie Burkholder, District 1
Vacant, District 2
Priya Bhat-Patel, District 3
Teresa Acosta, District 4
March 2023
Report prepared in cooperation with the following City of Carlsbad district and departments:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Community Development
Community Services
Fire
Library & Cultural Arts
Parks & Recreation
Public Works
Introduction
This Growth Management Program Monitoring report for fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 (July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022),
is provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.130(d), which requires the preparation of
an annual monitoring report on the Growth Management Program.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The principle behind the Growth Management Program is to ensure that new development and growth does not
outpace the performance standards established for public facilities such as circulation facilities, libraries, parks,
open space, and facilities to provide water and sewer services. The City of Carlsbad's Growth Management
Program was created in 1986 and is comprised of:
•The Growth Management Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.90);
•The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
•Proposition E, passed by voters in November 1986 and established a cap on the number of residential
dwelling units in the city.
•Local Facility Management Plans for 25 local facility management plans
The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan specifies the performance standards for 11 public facilities, as listed
in Table 1. To ensure that the public facility performance standards could be achieved, the Growth Management
Program directed the development of financing and management plans describing how/when the public facilities
would be developed. The subsections below provide additional information.
Table 1: Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan Public Facility Performance Standards
Public
Facility
Performance
Standard
Status
See Page
City
Administrative
Facilities1
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.
11
Library1
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.
13
Wastewater
Treatment Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five-year period. 14
Parks1
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the
Park District must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period
beginning at the time the need is first identified. The five-year period shall not
commence prior to August 22, 2017.
15
Drainage Drainage facilities must be provided as required by the city concurrent with
development.
17
1 The performance standards for city administrative facilities, library facilities, and parks are stated in terms of population, which is
discussed in the subsection below entitled “Population.”
3
Public
Facility
Performance
Standard
Status
See Page
Circulation
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the
system – vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or
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.
18
Fire No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five-minute response time. 27
Open Space2
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.
28
Schools2
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.
33
Sewer
Collection
System
Trunk-line capacity to meet demand, as determined by the appropriate sewer
districts, must be provided concurrent with development.
34
Water
Distribution
System
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.
36
Figure 1
LOCAL FACILITY AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS
To develop a road map for how the above standards could be met, a Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan was created in 1986 that detailed how
compliance with the performance standards will be achieved, how the
necessary public facilities will be provided, and what financing mechanisms
will be used for the facilities. Because planned development and growth varies
throughout the city and at different levels, Carlsbad is divided into twenty-five
local facilities management zones (Figure 1). Each Local Facility Management
Zone has an adopted Local Facilities Management Plan. Consistent with the
Growth Management Program and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan, each Local Facility Management Plan must describe how the Local
Facility Management Zone will be developed, how the required public
facilities will be provided, and how those facilities will be funded.
2 The performance standards for city administrative facilities, library facilities, and parks are stated in terms of population, which is
discussed in the subsection below entitled “Population.”
4
FAILURE TO MEET A PERFORMANCE STANDARD
The Growth Management Ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.080, states:
“If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the performance standards established by
a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits shall be issued within the [affected] local
zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the
facilities and improvements have been made.”
As described in the following subsection, the city’s ability to stop development due to lack of compliance with a
growth management performance standard has been largely preempted by recent state law.
IMPACTS OF STATE LAW
According to the Growth Management Program, development activity cannot proceed if either the residential
growth caps or public facility performance standards are not met. However, updates to state law and the city’s
Housing Element have modified these components of the Growth Management Program.
In 2017 the California Legislature passed SB 166, known as the No Net Loss Law, which requires local jurisdictions
to ensure that their housing element inventories can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period,
their remaining unmet share of the regional housing need. The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has taken the following positions with respect to Carlsbad: that failure to meet the GMP
performance standards cannot be used as a basis for implementing a moratorium that precludes meeting
Carlsbad’s share of the regional housing need, and that the GMP residential unit caps could not prevent the city
from achieving consistency with the Housing Element inventory and SB 166. In 2019, the legislature passed SB
330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing moratoriums on housing
development and using residential housing caps or other limits to regulate the number of housing units built
within a jurisdiction.
As noted in the City’s May 5, 2020, staff report, Item 12,3 Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that “Each city, county, or
city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory… can accommodate, at all times throughout the
planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584.”
Furthermore, where housing is an allowable use, Senate Bill 330 (2019)] prohibits a city from enacting a
“development policy, standard or condition” that would have the effect of “imposing a moratorium or similar
restriction or limitation on housing development ... other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat
to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the
moratorium...”
The following state laws limit the city’s ability to stop development:
•Senate Bill 166 (2017) states that “Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element
inventory… can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the
regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584.” The California Department of Housing and
Community Development has taken the position that exceedances of the city’s growth management
standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a moratorium that precludes attainment of the city’s
regional housing need allocation.
•Senate Bill 330 (2019) prohibits a city from enacting a “development policy, standard or condition” that
would have the effect of “imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development
... other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing
in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium...” On April 17, 2020, the city
3 City Council May 5, 2020 Staff Report, Item 12 available at: https://carlsbadca.swagit.com/play/05052020-1021#full-agenda
5
received an opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which states
in part that a "housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's [Growth Management Program] would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300 [Senate Bill 330].”
On April 17, 2020, the city received an opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development regarding the city’s ability to implement a moratorium under the City's Growth Management Plan
where vehicular deficiencies exist (CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130) in light of SB 330. The department’s opinion
concludes that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the city’s GMP would be impermissible under
Government Code section 66300.” “HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the health
and welfare of the citizenry-including traffic conditions that cause minor delays-present an imminent threat to
health and safety.” In City Council Resolutions No. 2020-104, No 2020-105, No 2020-106, No 2020-208, the City
Council similarly concluded that “The City finds that Gov. Code § 65863(a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code, §
66300(b)(1)(B)(i) (SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and [Growth Management Program] regulations.”
The city also reached similar conclusions with the adoption of its Housing Element in April 2021 (Resolution No.
2021-074.). That resolution states “Consistent with Updated Housing Element Program 2.2, the City Council finds
that Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65863(a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Government Code Section
66300(b)(1)(D) (SB 330 [2019]) preempt the city from implementing residential growth management plan caps,
residential quadrant limits, and residential control points. Consequently, the City finds that it cannot and will not
enforce these residential caps, quadrant limits, and control points, including but not limited to those contained in
the General Plan (including, but not limited to the Land Use and Community Design Element Table 2-3, Section
2.6, Policy 2-P.8(a) and (b), Policy 2- P.16(d), and Policy 2-P.57), Growth Management Plan (Proposition E); City
Council Policy Statement No. 43, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.90 including but not limited to CMC §§
21.90.030 (b), 21.90.045 and 21.90.185.”
6
SUMMARY STATUS OF PUBLIC FACILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DWELLING CAPS
As further detailed in this report and summarized in Tables 2 and 3, during FY 2021-22 the city met the Growth
Management Program performance standards for the 11 public facilities and the residential dwelling caps.
Table 2: Public Facility Adequacy Status
Public Facility FY 2021-22 Adequacy Status
(Meets performance standard?)
Buildout Adequacy Status
(Meets performance standard?)
City Administrative Facilities Yes Yes
Library Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Wastewater Treatment Capacity Yes Yes
Parks Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Drainage Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Circulation Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Fire Yes Yes
Open Space Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Schools Yes Yes
Sewer Collection System Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Water Distribution System Yes Additional facilities to be provided
Growth Management Program (Proposition E) Dwelling Unit Cap Analysis
As described in the “Impacts of State Law” section above, state housing laws preempt the city’s ability to require
compliance with the Proposition E dwelling unit caps. However, the number of dwelling units is reported here for
reference. Proposition E states “the maximum number of residential dwelling units to be constructed or approved
in the city after November 4, 1986, is as follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant 6,166;
Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801.” When added to the existing dwelling units in
November 1986, this resulted in dwelling unit caps as shown in Table 3. All quadrants comply with the dwelling
unit caps established by Proposition E.
Table 3 represents the number of dwelling units that could be built (based on the applicable growth management
control point density) on all parcels that have a residential land use designation according to the 2015 General
Plan Land Use Map and subsequent approved amendments. The “total existing and unbuilt planned dwellings”,
as shown in Table 3, 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., churches and professional
care facilities).
7
Table 3: FY 2021-22 Residential Dwelling Status Per Quadrant
As of June 30, 2022
NORTHWEST QUADRANT NORTHEAST
QUADRANT
SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT
SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT
CITYWIDE
TOTAL Outside
Village Village Total
NW
Proposition E Dwelling Cap 15,370 9,042 12,859 17,328 54,599
Existing Dwellings4 11,894 799 12,693 7,460 10,272 16,487 46,912
Unbuilt Planned Dwellings5 2,094 190 2,284 1,480 1,652 535 5,951
Total Existing and Unbuilt
Planned Dwellings 13,988 989 14,977 8,940 11,924 17,022 52,863
Potential Additional
Dwellings6 393 102 935 306 1,736
Amendments to the General Plan residential land use designations (to increase allowed densities to allow for
approximately 2,600 units) will be necessary to implement the adopted 2021 Housing Element; those
amendments are anticipated to result in a total number of existing and planned dwellings that exceeds the
Proposition E dwelling caps. As discussed in City Council Resolution No. 2021-074, to comply with the city’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the city is required by state law to plan for residential units in excess of the
Proposition E residential dwelling limits. The dwelling unit potential for these parcels will continue to be tracked
to monitor status of the Proposition E dwelling unit limits.
POPULATION
Existing Population
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 2020 Federal Census (total population divided by total number of dwelling units), the
average for Carlsbad is 2.404 persons per dwelling unit.
As of June 30, 2022, the city’s population is estimated to be 117,800, which is calculated by multiplying 2.404
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 2020 Federal Census); in total there are 48,687 dwellings and
commercial living units, as shown in Table 4 below. The population estimates are for growth management facility
planning purposes only and may vary from population estimates for Carlsbad from other agencies, which may use
a different method to estimate population.
4 Existing dwellings represent dwelling units that are counted for purposes of the city’s growth management dwelling unit limits per
Proposition E and exclude accessory dwelling units and commercial living units.
5 All quadrants except the Village - includes unbuilt approved projects, as well as vacant and underdeveloped property designated for
residential use by the General Plan.
6 Dwelling unit capacity in addition to what is currently planned by the General Plan or approved as part of an unbuilt project.
8
Table 4: FY 2021-22 Population
Quadrant Dwelling
units7
Accessory
dwelling units8
Commercial living
units9
Total units Population
NW 12,715 278 226 13,219 31,778
NE 7,460 51 270 7,781 19,355
SW 10,272 49 685 11,006 26,483
SE 16,487 194 - 16,681 40,183
Total 46,934 572 1,181 48,687 117,800
Buildout Population
Table 5 estimates the number of dwellings that will exist at buildout based on current General Plan residential
land use designations; 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.
Table 5: Estimated Dwelling Units And Population At Buildout
Quadrant Dwelling Units Population
NW 15,209 39,126
NE 8,940 22,741
SW 11,215 29,098
SE 16,899 42,551
Total 52,263 133,515
The buildout population information here and in the following sections does not reflect future residential density
increases that result from development projects and Housing Element programs. As required by the city’s 2021-
2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligations, the city must identify sites that can accommodate 3,873
new housing units by 2029. The city’s current inventory of residential sites can meet part, but not all of the housing
sites required by the state. Housing Element Program 1.1 requires rezoning land to make up the shortfall, which
will result in approximately 2,600 additional housing units and an additional 6,200 population. The rezoning effort
will include an analysis of potential impacts on public facilities.
7 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, 2022.
8 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.
9 Commercial living units, as shown in this table, are professional care facility living units that were counted as dwelling units in the 2020 Federal Census.
Pursuant to city ordinance (CMC Section 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.
9
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Residential Development Activity
During FY 2021-22, building permits were issued for 113 new dwelling units (42 primary dwellings and 71 accessory
dwellings). Table 6 provides a breakdown by quadrant and Local Facility Management Zone, excluding the zones
that had no development activity.
Table 6: FY 2021-22 Building Permits Issued – Dwelling Units
Quadrant
Local Facility
Management Zone Primary Dwellings Accessory
Dwellings
NW 1 29 35
3 3 3
4 1 1
8 0 1
Total NW 33 40
NE 2 0 5
Total NE 0 5
SW
4 0 1
6 0 1
19 0 3
20 0 1
21 8 1
22 1 0
Total SW 9 7
SE
6 0 14
11 0 3
12 0 2
Total SE 0 19
Total Citywide 42 71
Figure 2 shows the recent five-year trend of building permits issued for dwelling units and shows that the number
of permits issued in FY 2021-22 were 52 to 70 percent less than the permits issued in the previous five years.
Figure 2 –Building Permits Issued for Dwelling Units
341 375
242 251
113
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
#
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
I
s
s
u
e
d
Fiscal Year
10
Non-Residential Development Activity
Building permits for 107,935 square feet of new commercial construction were issued during FY 2021-22; no
permits were issued for new industrial development. Table 7 provides a breakdown by quadrant and Local Facility
Management Zone, excluding the zones that had no development activity. Figure 3 shows the recent five-year
trend of building permits issued for the square footage of non-residential construction. The amount of non-
residential square feet permitted in FY 2021-22 was 93.5% less than FY 2017-18 and 50 to 71% less than FY 2018-
19 to FY 2020-21.
Table 7 – FY 2021-22 Non-Residential Development
Quadrant Local Facility
Management
Zone
Commercial
(SF)
Industrial
(SF)
Combined (SF)
NW 3 97,842 - 97,842
Total NW 97,842 - 97,842
SE 6 10,093 10,093
Total SE 10,093 - 10,093
Total Citywide 107,935 107,935
FIGURE 3 – NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET PERMITTED
1,643,467
315,194 372,455
216,834 107,935
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Fiscal Year
-
11
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES
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.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the estimated June 30, 2022, population estimate of 117,800, the current demand for
administrative facilities is 176,700 square feet. To date, city administrative facilities exceed the
performance standard. The existing inventory of City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water District
buildings (leased and owned) occupied for administrative services are included in Table 8:
Table 8: Existing Administrative Facilities
Facility Address Square Feet
City Hall Complex 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 16,000
Faraday Administration Building 1635 Faraday Ave. 68,000
Fleet Service Center 2480 Impala Drive 10,540
Water District (Maintenance & Operations) 5950 El Camino Real 18,212
Parks Yard (Maintenance & Operations) 1166 Carlsbad Village Drive 4,012
Public Works Operations 405 Oak Ave. 9,950
Safety Center (Police and Fire administration) 2560 Orion Way 55,027
First Responder Safety Training Center 5750 Orion Way 15,090
Senior Center (Parks & Recreation
administration) 799 Pine Ave. 5,770
Harding Community Center (Parks &
Recreation administration) 3096 Harding St. 1,335
Total Existing Square Feet of Administrative Facilities 203,936
Square Feet Required by Performance Standard 176,700
Square Feet that Exceeds Standard 27,236
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the current General Plan residential land use designations, the projected buildout population is
133,515, the demand for city administrative facilities will be 200,273 square feet. The existing 203,936
square feet of administrative facilities exceeds the growth management performance standard at
buildout.
New Orion Center Project
A development proposal is underway for the Orion Center project, which will centralize the city’s
maintenance and operations functions into a single location on Orion Way. The goal for the facility is to
accommodate the existing and future needs for Public Works (Utilities/Carlsbad Municipal Water District,
General Services and Construction Management & Inspection) and Parks & Recreation (Parks
12
Maintenance). The proposed project will make three existing city facilities available for redevelopment:
5950 El Camino Real, 405 Oak Street, and 1166 Carlsbad Village Drive. The Orion Center project will
provide 85,320 square feet of administrative space (among other uses), which will be a net increase of
53,146 square feet over the three existing sites. The environmental document for the Orion Center has
completed public review and the decision for the Conditional Use Permit is scheduled for the Planning
Commission in Spring 2023.
New City Hall Project
On Aug. 16, 2022, the City Council received an update on a new City Hall and directed staff to pursue a
new approximately 40,000 square foot City Hall to be built on the site of the current City Hall Complex
(16,500 square feet), which is an increase of approximately 23,500 square feet. The new 40,000 square
foot facility will include administrative facilities for existing City Hall Complex staff, as well as potentially
house Library & Cultural Arts staff and Parks & Recreation staff. The Faraday Administration Building will
continue to house Community Development, Finance, Human Resources and other departments
occupying the facility at this time. Additionally, the New City Hall Project may include the planning efforts
for a new Cole Library facility, see “Library Facilities” in the next section.
13
LIBRARY FACILITIES
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.
Note: 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 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.
FY 2021-22 Inventory and Adequacy of Facilities
The current inventory of library facilities (city-owned) is shown in Table 9:
Table 9: Existing Library Facilities
Facility Square Feet
Dove Library 64,000
Cole Library 24,600
Learning Center 11,393
Total Existing Library Square Feet 99,993
Square Feet Required by Performance Standard 94,240
Square Feet that Exceed Standard 7,753
Based on the June 30, 2022, population estimate of 117,800, the growth management standard requires
94,240 square feet of public library space. The city’s current 99,993 square feet of library facilities
adequately meets the growth management standard.
Facility Adequacy at Buildout
Based on the current General Plan residential land use designations, the projected buildout population is
133,515, the demand for library facilities will be 106,812 square feet. The existing 99,993 square feet of
library facilities is expected to fall 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 Americans with Disabilities Act 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 evolved. 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 2023 and buildout, as part of the new City Hall project (see “Administrative Facilities”
in the preceding section). The City Hall project will most likely inform the timing, impact and opportunities
for a new Cole library facility.
14
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY
Performance Standard
Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five-year period.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility currently provides adequate capacity in excess of the
performance standard. Carlsbad’s FY 2021-22 annual daily average dry weather sewer flow was 5.72
million gallons per day (MGD) representing 56% of the city’s 10.26 MGD capacity rights. The city’s annual
daily average sewage flow to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility for the previous five years is
shown in Table 10:
Table 10: Five-Year Annual Daily Average Sewage Flow
Fiscal Year Annual daily average flow
FY 2017-18 6.18 MGD
FY 2018-19 6.03 MGD
FY 2019-20 6.31 MGD
FY 2020-21 6.31 MGD
FY 2021-22 5.72 MGD
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 City of Carlsbad 2019 Sewer Master Plan Update contains an analysis of annual daily average sewer
flow through buildout (2040) 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 8.31 MGD. The city has
purchased capacity rights to 10.26 MGD in the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, which ensures
adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to accommodate an unanticipated increase in future
sewer flows.
15
PARKS
Performance Standard
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District1 must be
scheduled for construction2 within a five-year period beginning at the time the need is first identified3.
The five-year period shall not commence prior to August 22, 2017.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
As shown in Table 11, all quadrants were in compliance with the park standard during FY 2021-22.
Table 11: Existing Park Inventory and Required Park Acreage
Quadrant Park acreage inventory existing Park acreage required by Performance
Standard
NW 108.3 95.3
NE 45.3 58.0
SW 70.2 79.4
SE 114.9 120.5
Total 338.7 353.2
The performance standard requirement for park acreage exceeds the inventory of existing and scheduled
park acreage for the NE, SW and SE quadrants. Although short of the acreage required, these quadrants
were not out of compliance with the performance standard because the five-year period had not been
reached. For the SW and SE quadrants, the five-year period began on August 22, 2017, as required by City
Council Resolution No. 2017-170. For the NE quadrant, the FY 2017-18 Growth Management Monitoring
Report identified the park acreage deficit due to increases in population, so the five-year period began on
June 30, 2018.
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program list of projects, Veterans Memorial Park is
proposed to be constructed prior to buildout. The scheduling of construction of this community park
results in the projected park inventory for all city quadrants exceeding the projected required acreage at
buildout, as shown in Table 12:
1 "Park District" = "quadrant". There are four park districts within the city, corresponding to the four quadrants.
2 “Scheduled for construction” means that the improvements have been designed, a site has been selected, and a financing
plan for construction of the facility has been approved (See Resolution 2017-170.) An identical definition was adopted in the
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan in September 1986 (pages 14 and 32).
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.
16
Table 12: Projected Park Inventory at Buildout
Quadrant Buildout
Population1
Buildout
Required Acreage
Current
Inventory
Projected
Inventory
NW 39,126 117.4 108.3 131.7
NE 22,741 68.2 45.3 68.7
SW 29,098 87.3 70.2 93.6
SE 42,551 127.6 114.9 138.3
Total 133,515 400.5 338.7 432.4
Veterans Memorial Park
On July 26, 2022 (outside the reporting period of this report), the City Council approved the Veterans
Memorial Park Master Plan, and the park is funded2; therefore, the park is “scheduled for construction.”
Veterans Memorial Park addresses the referenced deficits in the NE, SW and SE quadrants (Table 11).
Veterans Memorial Park is a 93.7-acre park located approximately 350 feet east of Cannon Road and
Faraday Avenue. Because of its size, centralized location, and citywide significance, the park will help
fulfill citywide park facility needs. The city’s intention for the park to be a citywide park facility, and for
the total park acreage to be applied equally to all city quadrants dates to the the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan (CFIP) approved in 1986 (See Resolution 8797, adopted September 23, 1986, Exhibit
A at pp. 33–35 [allocating 25 acres from the Macario Canyon park to each quadrant].). The “projected
inventory” in Table 12 includes 23.425 acres in each quadrant for Veterans Memorial Park. Additionally,
the following documents reaffirmed the distribution of Veterans Memorial Park for citywide benefit:
•Community Facilities District No. 1 (CFD), established in 1991, finances public facilities of citywide
benefit, including Veterans Memorial Park.
•2015 General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element credits equal acreage from
Veterans Memorial Park to each quadrants future park inventory.
Additional Parks Acreage
The proposed park acreage numbers in Table 12 do not include park projects listed in the CIP as “partially
funded” or “unfunded”. 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.
•Partially funded – In the FY 2021-22 CIP, $12,592,000 has been transferred to the Robertson Ranch
Park project (NE – 11.2 acres), which changes its status to “partially funded”. An additional
$85,000 was appropriated in FY 2021-22 as an inflationary measure. The master planning process
for this park is scheduled to begin in FY 2022-23.
•Unfunded – Zone 5 Business Park Recreational Facility (NW – 9.3 acres) and Cannon Lake Park
(NW – 6.8 acres).
1 Reflects the General Plan
2 The City Council has appropriated $1,837,200 for the Veterans Memorial Park Project, in Capital Improvement Program
Project No. 4609. That funding is sufficient to cover the three phases of the project after master planning, which includes
design development, construction documents and public bidding. Additionally, $22,085,000 is budgeted for the project in
fiscal year 2025-26.
17
DRAINAGE
Performance Standard
Drainage facilities must be provided as required by the city concurrent with development.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
All areas of the city currently meet the growth management drainage performance standard – required
drainage facilities have been provided concurrent with development.
Drainage facility needs are best 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 construction of drainage facilities related development projects is addressed during the review of
individual project proposals. Maintenance, repair, and replacement drainage projects are identified on an
ongoing basis and are incorporated in the Capital Improvement Program as a part of the Storm Drain
Condition Assessment Program, the Citywide Storm Drain Rehabilitation and Replacement Program, or as
individual/stand-alone projects.
Master planned drainage facilities are identified in the city’s 2008 Drainage Master Plan. The associated
Planned Local Drainage Area fee program finances the construction of these facilities. The goal of the
Drainage Master Plan is to assess the performance of existing drainage infrastructure, identify anticipated
improvements and identify a funding mechanism to ensure construction of the planned facilities. The
Drainage Master Plan is updated periodically to reflect changes in the general plan, city growth,
construction costs, drainage standards and environmental regulations. At the present, the Public Works
Department is updating the 2008 Drainage Master Plan to ensure these larger/master planned facilities
will be adequately funded.
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The 2008 Drainage Master Plan proposes the construction of new facilities to reduce the flooding risk
from potential storm events. Construction of the proposed drainage facilities will provide the backbone
system to maintain the drainage performance standard through buildout of the city. The current update
to the Drainage Master Plan will address funding availability for the construction of needed flood control
facilities. The estimated costs for these facilities and the programming of Planned Local Drainage Area
funds are included in the annual Capital Improvement Program.
18
CIRCULATION
The information on the status of the Circulation performance standard is provided in part by this report
(status of the vehicle travel mode). The status of the pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel modes will be
reported separately after review by the Traffic & Mobility Commission.
Performance Standard
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system – vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain level of service (LOS) D or 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.
Note: The service levels for each travel mode are represented as a letter “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 or inadequate facilities for bicycle, pedestrian or transit
users).
The performance standard for the circulation system is guided by the General Plan Mobility Element
as follows:
Implementing Policy 3-P.3: Apply and update the city’s multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)
methodology and guidelines that reflect the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision
related to transportation and connectivity. Utilize the MMLOS methodology to evaluate impacts
of individual development projects and amendments to the General Plan on the city’s
transportation system.
Implementing Policy 3-P.4: Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology and maintain LOS D or
better for each mode of travel for which the MMLOS standard is applicable, as identified in Table
3-1 and Figure 3-11.
Livable Streets
The monitoring program for the circulation system is guided by General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-
G.1:
Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-effective,
multi-modal transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit),
accommodating the mobility needs of all community members, including children, the
elderly and the disabled.
1 Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 are found in the General Plan Mobility Element and are summarized in Table 13 of this
report.
19
The California Complete Streets Act 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 that serves all users of the system (elderly, children, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) within
the urban context of that system (e.g., account for the adjacent land uses).
•Prior to adoption of the General Plan Mobility Element on Sept. 22, 2015, the growth
management circulation performance standard was based on the circulation needs of a single
mode of travel – the automobile.
•The General Plan Mobility Element identifies a new livable streets strategy for mobility within
the city.
•The livable streets strategy focuses on creating a ‘multi-modal’ street network that supports 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.
Street Typology
The city’s approach to provide livable streets recognizes that improving the LOS for one mode of
transportation can sometimes degrade the LOS for another mode. For example, pedestrian-friendly
streets are designed to encourage pedestrian uses and typically have amenities that slow vehicle travel
speeds (e.g., short-distance pedestrian crossings that restrict vehicle mobility). The “street typology” is
defined in the General Plan Mobility Element and determines which travel modes are subject to the
MMLOS D standard, as summarized in Table 13. For example, the vehicular mode of travel is subject to
the MMLOS D standard on the following street typologies: freeways, arterial streets, arterial connector
streets and Industrial streets.
Table 13: Street Typology and MMLOS Standard
STREET TYPOLOLOGY Modes subject to the MMLOS D Standard
Vehicular Transit Pedestrian Bicycle
Freeways Yes Yes No No
Arterial Streets Yes Yes No No
Identity Streets No No Yes Yes
Village Streets No No Yes Yes
Arterial Connector Streets Yes No Yes Yes
Neighborhood Connector Streets No No Yes Yes
Coastal Streets No No Yes Yes
School Streets No No Yes Yes
Employment/Transit Connector Streets No Yes Yes Yes
Industrial Streets Yes Yes No No
Local/Neighborhood Streets No No Yes Yes
All Streets Located Within Half-Mile of a Transit Center No Yes Yes Yes
Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathways No No Yes Yes
20
Methods to Measure Service to Different Transportation Modes
How vehicular LOS is measured
The city monitors facilities that are subject to the vehicular LOS standard according to that street’s
typology as defined in Table 13. This section of the report summarizes the vehicular LOS methodology
used for monitoring purposes. For the fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 monitoring report all the street facilities
required to meet the vehicular LOS standard were monitored including the arterial, arterial connector,
and industrial street typologies.
The city evaluates the roadway network at the “facility” level according to Chapter 16 of the Highway
Capacity Manual. A facility is defined as one direction of travel along a length of road that has similar
travel and geometric characteristics, and it typically extends between multiple signalized intersections.
Each facility has an associated capacity that is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual as “the ability of
a transportation facility or service to meet the quantity of travel demanded of it.” For Growth
Management Plan monitoring purposes, travel demand on a roadway is measured by the volume of
vehicles using the facility during the peak hours of operation. A volume threshold is established for each
LOS grade according to the Highway Capacity Manual. The vehicular LOS is determined by comparing
the traffic volume against these thresholds. For example, a LOS D is recorded when a traffic volume
exceeds the LOS C threshold but is below the LOS D threshold.
A street “facility” is comprised of smaller and contiguous “segments” that typically extend between two
adjacent signalized intersections. Per the Highway Capacity Manual, an entire facility is reported as
failing if the volume along any one of its segments exceeds its capacity, which defines LOS F. When a
facility has been monitored and found to operate at LOS D, each segment of that facility will be
evaluated the following monitoring cycle and the LOS will be reported as follows:
a.If the volume of any one segment of the facility exceeds the reported capacity for that segment,
the facility will be reported as LOS F; or
b.If none of the segment volumes exceeds its reported capacity for that segment, the facility will
be reported as LOS D (or the new level if it has changed).
As noted above, travel demand is assumed to equal the traffic volume measured during the peak hour
of operation. Vehicular LOS is determined based on one mid-block traffic count collected for each facility
(or segment) being evaluated. The data is collected while school is in session in either the spring or fall.
The morning and afternoon (a.m./p.m.) peak hours’ LOS is reported for each facility or segment. Each
street evaluated will have separate LOS results reported for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions with
independent grades reported for each direction of travel. This approach to data collection is consistent
with industry standards.
How Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Service MMLOS is measured
The General Plan Mobility Element calls for the use of a MMLOS methodology to provide a metric for
evaluating bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel. In 2015, a method for evaluating bicycle and
pedestrian LOS was first developed as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR); this
EIR method was applied on a broad, program level to evaluate service to pedestrian, bicycle and transit
users. When consultants applied the original method during the preparation of impact studies of
proposed development projects, limitations were discovered in terms of the study area, directional
travel and potential inconsistent interpretations of how the method should be applied.
21
Accordingly, a more robust method was developed in 2018 to calculate MMLOS for each mode and to
identify a broader range of improvements that could be implemented to ensure the minimum operating
standard would be met. As noted in General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.3, the purpose of the
MMLOS methodology is to provide a means for evaluating impacts of individual development projects,
as well as monitoring the LOS for individual streets to ensure that they are meeting the specified
standard by street type. Ultimately the MMLOS methodology was revised to accomplish these goals and
a spreadsheet-based MMLOS Tool was developed to calculate points for a specified location.
The MMLOS Tool generates a letter grade (A through F) to reflect the quality of service provided to a
user of that mode of travel. This grade is based on the applicable attributes of the associated pedestrian,
bicycle or transit mode. Examples of the attributes used to develop the MMLOS grade for bicycle travel
include pavement condition, posted speed limit, on-street parking and buffered bike lanes. Each
attribute contributes to a point system that corresponds to a MMLOS letter grade, when the total points
for all attributes are added together. A LOS D score indicates that the existing attributes provide the
minimum acceptable service for that mode. The MMLOS grades are determined using field data related
to each attribute used in the scoring criteria.
In FY 2021-22, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel modes were evaluated as part of this year’s
monitoring report but will be presented separately to allow the Traffic & Mobility Commission to review
the proposed update to the MMLOS methodology and the MMLOS results based on the update.
Exemptions to the LOS D Standard
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 requires the city to develop and maintain a list of street
facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from the LOS standard (LOS-exempt street
facilities), as approved by the City Council.
Regarding vehicular LOS standards, the City Council has the authority to exempt a street facility from the
vehicular LOS standard if the street facility meets one or more of the following criteria from General
Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
a)Acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b)The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an unacceptable
way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of the Carlsbad Community
Vision; or
c)The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values
or General Plan policies; or
d)The proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each
direction.
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11 requires new development that adds vehicular traffic to
street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS D standard to implement:
•Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that reduce the reliance on single-
occupant automobiles and assist in achieving the city’s livable streets vision; and
•Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies that improve traffic signal coordination
and improve transit service.
22
Each of the previously exempt street facilities were monitored this cycle and evaluated against the
vehicular LOS standard. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table 14 below. No changes
have occurred since the adoption of these resolutions that would warrant lifting exemptions for these
street facilities.
Table 14: Vehicle LOS Exempt Street Facilities
Street Facility From To LOS
(AM/PM)
Meets LOS
Standard?
Date of
Exemption
1. La Costa Avenue Interstate-5 El Camino Real B/C Yes
Exempted
with
Adoption of
the General
Plan Mobility
Element on
Sept. 22,
2015
2. La Costa Avenue El Camino Real Interstate-5 F/B No
3. El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road Camino Vida Roble C/C Yes
4. El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble Poinsettia Lane B/C Yes
5. El Camino Real Poinsettia Lane Aviara Parkway/Alga
Road
C/C Yes
6. El Camino Real Aviara Parkway/Alga
Road
La Costa Avenue F/C No
7. El Camino Real La Costa Avenue Aviara Parkway/Alga
Road
C/C Yes
8. El Camino Real Aviara Parkway/Alga
Road
Poinsettia Lane C/C Yes
9. El Camino Real Poinsettia Lane Camino Vida Roble C/C Yes
10. El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble Palomar Airport Road C/D Yes
11. Palomar Airport Road Avenida Encinas Paseo del Norte F/F No
12. Palomar Airport Road Paseo del Norte Armada Drive D/C Yes
13. Palomar Airport Road Armada Drive College
Boulevard/Aviara
Parkway
C/C Yes
14. Palomar Airport Road College
Boulevard/Aviara
Parkway
Armada Drive C/C Yes
15. Palomar Airport Road Armada Drive Paseo del Norte C/C Yes
16. Palomar Airport Road Paseo del Norte Avenida Encinas F/F No
17. Palomar Airport Road El Camino Real El Fuerte Street B/C Yes
18. Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street Melrose Drive B/F No
19. Palomar Airport Road Melrose Drive El Fuerte Street C/C Yes
20. Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street El Camino Real C/C Yes
21. El Camino Real Oceanside city limits Marron Road F/F No
Dec. 17, 2019 22. El Camino Real Marron Road Oceanside city limits E/F No
23. Melrose Drive Vista city limits Palomar Airport Road E/E No
24. El Camino Real Cannon Road College Boulevard B/B Yes
Jun. 9, 2020 25. El Camino Real College Boulevard Cannon Road B/F No
26. Cannon Road El Camino Real College Boulevard D/E No
27. Cannon Road College Boulevard El Camino Real E/D No
28. El Camino Real Tamarack Avenue Cannon Road C/C Yes Nov. 3, 2020
29. College Boulevard Carlsbad Village Drive Oceanside City Limits C/D Yes Jan. 12,
2021* 30. Cannon Road Avenida Encinas Paseo del Norte E/E No
31. Cannon Road Paseo del Norte Avenida Encinas E/F No
32. Aviara Parkway/Alga Road Manzanita Street El Camino Real F/F No July 12, 2022
33. Aviara Parkway/Alga Road El Camino Real Manzanita Street F/F No
*On January 12, 2021, City Council also exempted the remaining facility of Palomar Airport Road between Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte.
23
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
The following vehicular LOS and MMLOS results are based on the data reported in the City of Carlsbad
Roadway Level of Service Analysis Report (January 2023).
1.Vehicular LOS
The vehicular LOS grades reflect traffic data gathered in September, October, and November of
2022. The traffic data represents typical weekday traffic conditions. Counts were collected at
each midblock location for three consecutive weekdays. For each roadway segment, the highest
one-hour AM and one-hour PM volume of the three days were determined for each direction of
travel.
Overall, it is noted that 2022 traffic volumes appear to be normalizing to pre COVID-19
pandemic conditions.
The LOS results for the vehicular mode are illustrated in Figure 4. All the deficient roadway
facilities identified above were previously determined by City Council to be deficient and
exempt per General Plan Mobility Policy 3-P.10.
Table 15 lists the street facilities which were previously reported as LOS D in the FY 2020-21
monitoring report. The facilities were further studied at the segment level as part of the FY
2021-22 report to determine the operating LOS of the facility at the segment level. The results
of this analysis show that all of these facilities will still meet the LOS D standard.
24
Figure 4: Vehicular Level of Service (LOS) Results
Mission
Mountain
Level of Service Legend
--A
--a
C
--o
E
--F
.----, Exempt ROadway , _____ ,
r -' Carlsbad Boundary L -a
...... 0 NORTH ___ L..-__ 0.5
Leucadia
2
Miles
Encinitas
Vista
Ohvenha,n
25
Table 15: Roadway Facilities that were LOS D in the Previous Reporting Year
2021 2022
Facil1t1es studied at the segment level that were LOS Din previous reporting year. AM PM AM PM
NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB
Palomar Airport Road Camino Vida Roble D D D D C C D C
El Camino Real
La Costa Avenue Leucadia Boulevard D D D D C C C C
City Limits Carlsbad Village Drive C D D D C D D C
College Boulevard Carlsbad Village Drive Cannon Road/Bobcat Boulevard D D D D C D D C
El Camino Real Aston Avenue D D D D C D D C
Aviara Parkway Palomar Airport Road Poinsettia Lane D D D D D D D D
Rancho Santa Fe Olivenhain Road CalleAcervo D D D D D D D D
Whiptail Loop W Faraday Avenue Whiptail Loop E D C C D D C C D
Whiptail Loop E Whiptail Loop W Faraday Avenue D D D D D C C D
Cannon Road Lego land Drive Grand Pacific Drive C D C C C C C C
Palomar Airport Road Paseo del Norte Armada D C C D D C C C
Carlsbad Village Drive 1-5 Valley Street C D D C C D C D
Poinsettia Lane Kestrel Drive D D D D D D D D
Black Rail Road Aviara Resort Drive D D D D D D D D
Aviara Parkway/Alga Road Kingfisher Lane Batiquitos Drive/Baccharis Avenue D D D D D D D D
Batiquitos Drive/Baccharis Ambrosia Lane D D D D D D D D Avenue
Mimosa Drive Manzanita Street D D D D D D D D
Priestly Drive Faraday Avenue La Place Court D D D D D C D D
Lionshead Avenue Melrose Drive City Limits D D D D D D D D
Palomar Oaks Way Palomar Airport Road D D D D D C D D
Camino Vida Roble
Palomar Airport Road El Camino Real D D D D D C D D
Corte De La Pina Yarrow Drive Cosmos Court C C C D D C D D
Note: NB = Northbound I SB = Southbound I EB = Eastbound I WB = Westbound
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The 2015 General Plan EIR evaluated how buildout of the land uses planned by the General Plan will impact
the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit levels of service, and identified that additional circulation
facilities may need to be constructed to meet the Growth Management Program performance standard at
buildout. The following summary provides the results of that evaluation:
Vehicular Level of Service at Buildout
•Additional future road segments (extensions of College Boulevard 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 these needed future road segments as “Planned City of
Carlsbad Street Capacity Improvements.”
•The General Plan also called out the need to implement the scheduled Interstate-5 North Coast
Project and Interstate-5/Interstate-78 Interchange Improvement Project that are needed to
accommodate future growth.
•The CIP funds projects that will upgrade the LOS including several roadway widenings along El
Camino Real near College Boulevard (northbound), La Costa Avenue (southbound) and Cassia Road
(northbound).
•The General Plan EIR identifies TDM and TSM as mitigation measures for roadway sections that have
been determined to be LOS-exempt.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to work with the Traffic & Mobility Commission to finalize the update and revise the
pedestrian, bicycle and transit MMLOS methodologies and report the MMLOS results.
27
FIRE
Performance Standard
No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five-minute response time.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
The city’s fire facilities comply with the 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 performance standard, as applied to fire facilities, is to establish the distribution of station
locations, based upon response distances. At the time the performance standard 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. The performance standard provides no other
mechanism for the installation of additional fire stations. It states 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 standard. The five-minute response distance measure was selected exclusively as a means of
geographically positioning fire stations throughout the city. Therefore, the standard is applied as a means of
measuring compliance with locating fire facilities, not the performance of the Fire Department in meeting
service responsibilities.
To determine if the standard is met for FY 2021-22, the city refers to the response time analysis conducted
for buildout of the number and location of dwellings planned by the General Plan, which is more dwellings
than currently exist. See “buildout” section below, which concludes that the existing fire stations are
adequate to meet the standard at buildout (i.e., adequate to serve more dwellings than currently exist).
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
At buildout, the established threshold of more than 1,500 units that exist outside of a five-minute response
distance will not be exceeded for any of the fire stations.
To determine if fire facilities comply with the Fire performance standard at buildout, the city’s Geographic
Information System Department created a map based upon the following information and the results are
shown in Table 16:
•Existing fire station locations
•Anticipated future development
•2.5-mile road distance from each of the six fire stations (five-minute response time equates to road
driving distance of 2.5 miles);
•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.
Table 16: Number of Dwellings Outside Five Minute Response Time
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
28
OPEN SPACE
Performance Standard
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone [Local Facility Management Zone] exclusive of
environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and must
be available concurrent with development.
Note: Pursuant to the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP), the Open Space standard is
applicable in Local Facilities Management Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25. The standard does not apply in
Zones 1 – 10 and 16 16 because these zones were either fully built out or had previously approved
master plans which would provide sufficient open space at full build out. For more information, see the
“Background Summary” below.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
To date, adequate open space has been provided concurrent with new development to comply with the
performance standard. Local Facility Management Plans have been adopted for all Local Facility Management
Zones where the standard applies (Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25). Each Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP)
identifies how the open space standard will be met within the zone. Within the applicable zones, approved
development projects have been, and future development projects will be required to be, consistent with the
open space required for the applicable Local Facility Management Zone.
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
All Local Facilities Management Zones, except for Zone 22, have provided the required growth management
open space as identified in the applicable Local Facility Management Plans, which address required open
space through buildout of the zones. Future projects in Zone 22 must provide their proportionate share of
required open space in compliance with the standard.
Background Summary
The history of the open space standard helps to clarify its applicability today. It should be noted that the
open space provided to meet the open space standard does not represent all the open space in Carlsbad.
Open space to the meet standard is provided within the applicable Local Facility Management Zones and is
in addition to constrained open space, such as protected habitat and slopes greater than 40 percent. The
city utilizes other methods to protect all the open space resources and amenities throughout the city,
including the Habitat Management Plan (protects the city’s natural open space preserve system), Growth
Management Parks standard (parks are a source of recreational open space in the city), and the Trails
Master Plan (trails are another source of recreational open space).
Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element (1985)
In 1985, a citizen’s committee made recommendations to the City Council regarding changes to the city’s
General Plan Land Use Element. The committee’s recommendations were used as the basis for developing
the growth management facility standards. A standard for open space was not recommended, but the
committee did identify that future open space would be provided by future master planned areas (15
percent of the master plan area), as required by the Zoning Ordinance at that time (and today).
29
Public Facility Standards (July 1986) and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (Sept. 1986)
In 1986, the City Council adopted the Growth Management Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
21.90) and the public facility standards for the Growth Management Program. The Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan specified that the open space standard applies in some Local Facility Management Zones
(Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25), but not others (Zones 1 – 10 and 16) because those zones were determined to
have already been developed or to have already met the standard. (i.e., subject to previously adopted
master and/or specific plans). Some previously adopted master and/or specific plans found that full build-
out under the plans would provide sufficient open space required at the time these plans were approved,
specifically, 15% of all areas (regardless of any constraints such as slope). Accordingly, the CFIP found these
zones did not need to meet the later-adopted open space performance standard of 15% of non-constrained
land. The CFIP exemption for these zones was recognized in the individual Local Facility Management Plans
decades ago. This methodology is consistent with traditional land use methodology which applies new
standards prospectively. (See 2020/2021 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report p. 27; Friends of
H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 169 [California’s planning statutes “address future
growth, and do not require local governments to bring existing neighborhoods and streets into compliance
with the general plan.”].)
The following are some key facts during the development of the open space standard:
•As part of the development of the Growth Management Program, the city identified areas that
were, at the time, “urbanized” (developed areas) “urbanizing” (some development or some level of
planning completed, such as an existing master plan) and “future urbanizing” (very little to no
development and no existing master plan).
•A comparison of the Local Facilities Management Zones map and the 1986 Development Status Map
shows that the zones where the open space standard is applicable (Zones 11 – 15 and 17 – 25) align,
for the most part, with the areas identified in 1986 as “future urbanizing,” which is where future
master plans would be required (e.g., Aviara, Bressi Ranch and Quarry Creek master plans) and is
consistent with the 1985 committee recommendation for master plans to provide additional future
open space.
o The “urbanized” areas were already developed, and the “urbanizing” areas had previously
approved development or master plans. Although the open space standard was not applied to
the “urbanizing” areas, the existing approved master plans within these areas provided open
space as required by city regulations in place at the time. Prior to the Growth Management
Program and the open space standard, the city’s zoning ordinance required 15 percent of the
total area of any master plan to be designated as open space. This 15 percent standard differs
from the Growth Management open space standard because it applies to the total land area of
a master plan and does not exclude environmentally constrained non-developable land.
30
Note: OS standard applies to gray areas
Figure 5
Local Facility Management Zones
(adopted 1986) 1986 Development Status Map Where Open Space Standard Applies
(adopted 1986)
Common Questions About The Open Space Standard
Is there a 40 percent open space requirement?
It is a misconception that there is a standard that requires the city to provide 40 percent open space. There
is no requirement or standard that requires 40 percent open space per individual projects or on a citywide
basis.
Neither Proposition E nor the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) performance standards
required 40 percent open space. Proposition E states “emphasis shall be given to ensuring good traffic
circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space, and recreational amenities.” The CFIP open space standard
states “Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone, exclusive of environmentally constrained non-
developable land…concurrent with development.” The CFIP also states that Local Facilities Management
Zones 1-10 and 16 “are already developed or meet or exceed the requirement” and are not subject to the
CFIP open space standard. This methodology predates Proposition E, and was included in the CFIP, adopted
by the City Council on September 23, 1986, by Resolution 8797.
A July 8, 1986, City Council staff report on the facility standards states: “compliance with this [open space]
standard should result in approximately 35 to 40% of the total land area in the city being open space when
the city is fully built out.” A couple years later, a June 27, 1988, staff report to an open space committee,
stated that “staff has estimated that approximately 10,000 acres or 38.5% of the total land area in the city is
projected to be set aside for open space uses.”
The shorthand estimate of 40% was simply derived by adding the 25 percent estimated constrained lands to
the 15 percent GMP open space set-aside. However, this shorthand calculation did not take into account
that the standard only applied to 14 of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones (CFIP, p. 46), rather than the
entire city. The reference to 40 percent open space was an estimate, not a standard or goal. Today, 38
percent of Carlsbad is dedicated as open space.
Why doesn’t the open space standard apply to Local Facilities Management Zone 9?
Local Facilities Management Zone 9 (Zone 9) is a good example of one of the “urbanizing” areas in 1986 where
the open space standard was not applied. Zone 9 includes part of the Ponto area and the majority of the
Developmental Status Map
■cATEOOAY I: UABAMIZEO
§cATEOOAY 11: UABAMIZIMO
flACATEOOAY Ill: ,uTUAE UABAMIZIMO
liiJ---,.•-m---•"' ............... _,.. . .,..,...., .. .., __ ...,_y __ _
UOTI oPENS.PACE
31
zone is subject to the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This is an area where the city has received community
comments stating that the zone does not meet the open space standard and more open space is needed. In
1986 the City Council determined that the open space needs for Zone 9 had been met and therefore the open
space standard does not apply to Zone 9.
Zone 9 was an “urbanizing” area when the Growth Management Program was being developed. A master plan
was approved for the area (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan). The master plan met the open
space standard required at the time (Zoning Ordinance), which is 15 percent of the total area of the master
plan.
The following is a summary of actions related to Zone 9 that relate to the open space planned in that area:
•Oct. 1, 1985 – Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan approved by City Council and, as
required by the zoning ordinance at the time, was required to provide a minimum 15 percent of the
total master plan area as open space.
•May 6, 1986 – City Council staff report on development of the Growth Management Program:
o City council directed staff, working in conjunction with the developer of Zone 9, to finalize a pilot
local facility management program to serve as a format model for programs for the other zones.
The Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan for Zone 9 had been approved the year
before and it was a recent development plan to use as a model.
•June 24, 1986 – Growth Management Ordinance approved (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.90):
o Section 21.90.030(g) allowed development of phase I of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park
Master Plan to proceed prior to approval of a Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 9, subject
to certain conditions including that the developer agree to participate in the restoration of a
significant lagoon and wetland resource area and make any open space dedications of property
necessary to accomplish the restoration. The master plan developer did make the open space
land dedications that were needed for the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon.
•Sept. 16, 1986 – City Council approves the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, including the
open space standard with the clarification that the standard is not applicable in Zones 1-10 and 16.
•July 11, 1989 – City Council approves the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 9. Other than
noting the existing open space within the zone, open space was not further analyzed in the plan, as
the open space standard does not apply to Zone 9.
•Jan. 18, 1994 – City Council adopts an ordinance approving Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, which
replaced the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan. The related Planning Commission staff
report (Oct. 20, 1993) evaluates open space in the master plan as follows:
“The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan will not adjust or modify any existing General Plan designated
open space areas or boundaries. Of the project's 162.8 total acres, approximately 34.8 acres are
natural lagoon/wetland habitat which have Open Space General Plan designations (planning areas "I",
"K", and "L") and have already been dedicated in fee title to the State of California, State Lands
Commissions in accordance with previous BLEP [Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park] approvals. The
master plan has additional open space totaling approximately 11 acres comprised of a community
recreation center (planning area "M") and open space areas consisting of blufftop and roadway
setbacks. The total master plan open space (approximately 46 acres) represents 28% of the entire
master plan area. This exceeds the [Zoning Ordinance] requirement of at least 15% of the master plan
32
area (24.4 acres) to be set aside as open space. As outlined in the Citywide Facilities Improvement
Plan and the Zone 9 Local Facility Management Plan, this master plan has complied with all open space
requirements. The project is also consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management Plan and incorporates master plan trails and links with the Citywide Trails System as
required. The master plan's frontage on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard (planning areas "G" and
"H") is the location for linkage with the Citywide Trails System. These planning areas will be required
to provide for the trail link within the required 40-foot structural setback from Carlsbad Boulevard. …
On August 26, 1993, the master plan's open space program was reviewed by the City's Open Space
Advisory Committee and unanimously supported…”
While the open space standard is not applicable to Zone 9, open space has been provided for the area,
including private recreation areas, trails and a significant natural open space dedication for Batiquitos
Lagoon1.
1 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Staff Report dated Oct. 20, 199,3 for MP 175(D)/GPA 91-05/LCPA 91-02/LFMP 87-09(A) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
33
SCHOOLS
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.
Note: public school facilities are not planned, funded, or constructed by the city.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
All new residential development is required to verify that school capacity can meet the projected enrollment
from the school district serving the development. To date, all school districts serving Carlsbad have verified
they have capacity to serve development in the city.
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
Based on Chapter 3.11 of the 2015 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 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.
34
SEWER COLLECTION SERVICES
Performance Standard
Trunk-line capacity to meet demand, as determined by the appropriate sewer districts, must be provided
concurrent with development.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Sewer collection system improvements are provided on a project-by-project basis concurrent with
development. Currently, the City of Carlsbad’s sewer service area pipelines comply with the performance
standard. 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 six major sewer interceptor systems In four of these interceptor
systems, wastewater flow capacity is shared with other agencies as listed in Table 17. For both the
Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor and the Buena Interceptor, Carlsbad’s capacity rights increase in the downstream
direction as they flow to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Capacity rights increase from 3.3% to 50%
for the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor and from 18% to 35% in the Buena Interceptor. This system of interceptors
provides adequate capacity to transport wastewater to EWPCF.
Table 17: Carlsbad Sewer Interceptors
1 Million gallons per day (MGD)
2 Buena Sanitation District and the City of Carlsbad are negotiating the transfer of this facility to the City of Carlsbad upon City
of Vista’s commissioning of their Buena Outfall Force Main, Phase III project.
3 The downstream sections (NB8 and NB9) of the North Batiquitos Sewer, often referred to as Ponto Sewer and originally
termed the Occidental Sewer
4Flows conveyed via Vista Carlsbad Interceptor to EWPCF
Interceptor System Sewer Districts Served Carlsbad Capacity Rights1
2021-22
Average Daily
Flows
Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor
City of Carlsbad
City of Vista
Ranges from
1.0 MGD up to 41.8 MGD (3.3% - 50%) 3.39 MGD*
Buena Interceptor2 City of Carlsbad
Buena Sanitation Dist.
Ranges from
1.2 MGD up to 3.6 MGD (18% - 35%) 0.49 MGD
Vallecitos Interceptor
City of Carlsbad
Buena Sanitation Dist.
Vallecitos Water Dist.
5 MGD (24%) 1.61 MGD
Occidental Sewer3
City of Carlsbad
City of Encinitas
Leucadia Wastewater Dist.
8.5 MGD (40%) 0.24 MGD
North Agua Hedionda
Interceptor City of Carlsbad 6 MGD (100%) 1.27 MGD4
South Agua Hedionda
Interceptor City of Carlsbad 4.7 MGD (100%) 0.91 MGD4
35
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The City of Carlsbad 2019 Sewer Master Plan Update evaluated the sewer infrastructure needs of the Carlsbad
sewer service area and identified facilities required to accommodate future sewer flows 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 adequacy is estimated by comparing
wastewater flow projections to the capacity of the sewer system using a computer model. Annual sewer flow
measurements are used to assess actual flows and to evaluate capacity in the sewers.
Collection system improvements to meet buildout conditions are identified at three locations: Faraday
Avenue, Poinsettia Avenue and Kelly Drive. These projects are programmed in the Capital Improvement
Program.
The adequacy of major sewer facilities for buildout conditions is summarized as follows:
Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor: The City’s 2019 Sewer Master Plan Update indicates that portions of the
Vista/Carlsbad (VC) Interceptor do not satisfy buildout system flows. Hydraulic model results indicate that
the 36-inch diameter gravity mains of Reach VC-3 are insufficient to convey buildout flows. Most of reach
VC-3 consists of 36-inch diameter gravity main and is scheduled for upsizing to 42 inches as a future Capital
Improvement Program project to meet buildout flows.
Buena Interceptor: The Buena Interceptor is currently shared by Vista and Carlsbad and, although the
city’s wastewater flows are not projected to exceed its capacity rights, the combined flows of Buena
Sanitation District and City of Carlsbad during peak wet weather periods exceed the design capacity
criterion. As a result, Buena Sanitation District has constructed a parallel trunk sewer which will allow
Buena Sanitation District flow to be diverted to the parallel trunk sewer. Construction was completed in
2021, however Buena Sanitation District has not yet regularly diverted flow to this sewer. When they do,
the City of Carlsbad will be the only agency with flows remaining in the existing Buena Interceptor and
peak wet weather flow at buildout conditions would reach 7.3 MGD or approximately 69 percent of pipe
capacity.
36
WATER DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
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.
FY 2021-22 Facility Adequacy Analysis
Carlsbad’s water distribution is provided by three agencies including the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
(CMWD), which is a subsidiary district of the City of Carlsbad, 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 pipeline and storage capacity to meet the water distribution 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 (2014 baseline year) and buildout (2040) daily demand as calculated in the CMWD 2019 Potable Water
Master Plan are 24.1 MGD and 29.6 MGD, respectively. These were based on average daily demands of 15.1
MGD and 18.5 MGD and a peaking factor of 1.6. Within the CMWD service area, the actual existing average
daily potable water demand has been much less than this for the previous five years as shown in Table 18:
Table 18: Water Distribution Average Daily Demand
Fiscal Year MGD
2017-18 13.4
2018-19 12.41
2019-20 11.9
2020-21 12.8
2021-22 12.5
Water conservation by CMWD customers has resulted in an overall reduction in per capita consumption.
Factors leading to this reduction include (1) an expansion of CMWD’s recycled water system beginning in
2008, (2) in 2009, a campaign was initiated to reduce customer consumption by the wholesale water agencies,
(3) implementation of a new tiered water rate structure to encourage water conservation, and (4) voluntary
and mandatory conservation measures in 2015 in response to drought conditions.
Based on the water model analysis prepared for the CMWD 2019 Potable Water Master Plan, future pipelines
and water system facilities were identified to ensure water system improvements are constructed to
accommodate future customers. In addition, funds for the construction of future facilities are included in the
Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, the future water infrastructure is programmed to be in place at
the time of need to ensure compliance with the performance standard.
1 Corrected demand for 2018-19 based on potable water sales data.
37
The 10-day storage requirement is part of the water distribution performance standard and a planning
criterion to accommodate pipeline maintenance recommended by the San Diego County Water Authority. To
meet the requirement, CMWD needs approximately 130 MG of storage capacity based on the average water
demand and 185 MG for buildout conditions. CMWD has a total storage capacity of 242.5 MG which consists
of 195 MG of storage capacity at Maerkle Dam and 47.5 MG of storage capacity in various storage tanks
throughout the distribution system as shown in Table 19.
Table 19: Storage Tanks and Capacity
Facility Name Year Built Capacity (MG)
Santa Fe II Tank 1986 9
La Costa Tank 1985 6
Maerkle Tank 1991 10
TAP Tank 1985 6
D-3 Tank 1995 8.5
Ellery Tank 1972 5
Elm Tank 1972 1.5
Skyline Tank 1972 1.5
Maerkle Reservoir 1962 195
CMWD also has interagency agreements with OMWD, VWD and Oceanside to provide additional supply if
needed. 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 criterion for OMWD. VWD’s average day demand is 13.3 MGD with an existing storage capacity of
120.5 MG. Through interagency sharing arrangements, VWD can obtain additional water supplies to meet a
10-day restriction on imported water supply.
Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
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 construct a master plan water project concurrent with construction of the
development project.
The CMWD 2019 Potable Water Master Plan identifies facilities necessary to meet water demands for buildout
within its service area. These consist of new pipelines and pipeline rehabilitation projects that are
programmed into the Capital Improvement Program, some of which may be constructed concurrently with
new development projects in the northeastern portion of the city.
The 2019 Potable Water Master Plan identified that no additional storage is required to meet the future
storage requirements, due in part to conservation measures and expansion of CMWD’s recycled water system.