HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-28; Growth Management Citizens Committee; ; Committee BusinessCA Review ______
Meeting Date: April 28, 2022
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, Principal Planner
Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Sarah Lemons, Communication & Engagement
Sarah.Lemons@carlsbadca.gov
Subject
Committee Business
Recommended Action
Receive presentations from city staff and consultants on the following topics:
• Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan Public Facilities Performance Standards.
Presentation will provide an overview of the public facilities standards that are required by
the current Growth Management Plan. (Exhibit 1, Attachment B)
• Growth Management in Other Cities. City consultants will provide examples of how
other cities address growth management. (Exhibit 1, Attachment C)
• Committee Role. Review of committee’s role and objective and the overall process to
update the Growth Management Plan. (Exhibit 2)
• Community Engagement. Receive a presentation from city staff on how the community
will be engaged through the citizens committee to create a new approach to manage
growth in a way that maintains an excellent quality of life.
• Committee Dialogue. Members will participate in a facilitated discussion centered
around the question - in terms of public facilities and services, what topics do you feel
are most important to address in the future, and what should change about the current
Growth Management Plan?
• Committee Name. Members will participate in a facilitated discussion about the
committee’s name and how it could be changed to better reflect the breadth of issues
the committee will be addressing. (Exhibit 3)
Fiscal Analysis
This action has no fiscal impact.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE @) Staff Report
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with California Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute
a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act 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. Therefore, it does not require
environmental review.
Public Notification and Outreach
This item was noticed in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Growth Management Overview
A. Chronology of Development of the Growth Management Plan
B. Summary of Public Facility Standards
C. Growth Management Case Studies
2. Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
3. Committee Name Suggestions
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 1 - Growth Management and Quality of Life
Overview of Growth Management in Carlsbad
Carefully managing growth and development has been critical to maintaining Carlsbad’s quality of life. In
1986, when the city was experiencing rapid growth, the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan was
established, which put conditions on how growth could occur, including the requirement that new
development must plan for, construct, and pay for the public infrastructure and facilities necessary to
serve new development. That November, city voters passed Proposition E, which affirmed the principles
of the Growth Management Plan and established caps on the number of housing units that could be
built in Carlsbad. Implementation of the plan is through multiple documents adopted by the city and
voters, a chronology of the program and when the associated documents were adopted is provided as
Attachment A.
The ideology behind the Growth Management Plan is to ensure that new development does not
outpace the performance standards established for public facilities such as roads, parks, and emergency
services. New development must be measured against the plan’s standards and show compliance with
the requirements before being approved. To ensure that established performance standards could be
achieved, the Growth Management Plan required development of facility financing and management
plans describing how/when the public facilities would be developed. A summary of the performance
standards and compliance status for the eleven types of public facilities addressed by the plan is
provided in Attachment B.
The Growth Management Plan has been successful in managing growth for over 25 years and has guided
the city from a population of approximately 52,000 in 1986 to over 112,000 today. The plan has been
effective in providing a high quality of life in Carlsbad by ensuring there are adequate public facilities as
new development occurred on vacant land. However, the city is now approaching build-out per the
adopted General Plan, is experiencing a slower growth rate than in previous years and will rely largely
on infill and redevelopment to meet future needs. In addition, new housing laws affect the city’s ability
to limit housing development and enforce the plan’s residential growth caps. As such, the city is entering
a new phase in its development and requires an updated approach to facilities planning and maintaining
quality of life.
Other city policies and regulations, which are not part of the Growth Management Plan, also help guide
development and maintain quality of life, such as the Carlsbad General Plan, updated in September
2015, and the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The General Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for guiding
growth and maintaining quality of life; its elements (or chapters) cover: the Community Vision; Land Use
and Community Design; Mobility; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation; Noise; Public Safety; Arts,
History, Culture, and Education; Economy, Business Diversity and Tourism, Sustainability, and Housing.
The Carlsbad Municipal Code provides the city’s development standards and regulations, including the
Zoning Ordinance (which includes a chapter for the Growth Management Ordinance), Grading and
Drainage Ordinance, and the Building Codes and Regulations. Future changes to the Growth
Management Plan may require amendments to the General Plan, Municipal Code and other documents
to ensure consistency with the new plan to manage growth and quality of life in Carlsbad.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1 - Growth Management and Quality of Life
2
Growth Management in General
The American Planning Association defines growth management as the “use by a community of a wide
range of techniques in combination to determine the amount, type, and rate of development desired by
the community and to channel that growth into designated areas,” and concurrency as the “installation
and operation of facilities and services needed to meet the demands of new development simultaneous
with the development.”1” John D. Landis (2021), author of a comprehensive review of growth
management in America, states that the main idea behind growth management is to control a
jurisdiction’s rate of growth and mitigate growth’s fiscal and environmental impacts.2
Critics of growth management raise concerns that growth management measures including concurrency
requirements, caps and standards may:
• Pass costs on to future residents in the form of higher home prices.
• Limit housing supply relative to market demand, which leads to higher home sale and rental prices.
• Result in a reduction of lower cost housing and overall community affordability.
Growth management programs are often a part of a broader vision and set of goals such as limiting
sprawl, focusing growth in transit served-areas and reducing vehicle miles traveled, providing affordable
housing, addressing equity and environmental justice, preserving open space and agricultural lands, and
fostering economic development and sustainable regional development patterns. Many jurisdictions do
not use the term “growth management,” but all California cities and counties plan for growth through
their general plans. Common general plan implementation measures include zoning and subdivision
regulations, and capital improvement plans. Carlsbad’s growth management plan focuses on public
facilities financing and includes concurrency requirements. Other issues related to growth, including
protection of open space, economic development, sustainability, and neighborhood revitalization are
addressed in the General Plan. Planning for growth at a regional level occurs in coordination with the
San Diego Association of Governments.
Attachment C provides a summary of growth management case studies from California as well as well-
known examples from throughout the United States. Some growth management plans are focused on
preserving open space and seek to direct growth to transit-served areas. These types of plans may make
use of tools such as urban growth boundaries, development incentives, and transfer of development
rights. Other jurisdictions emphasize the importance of adequate public facilities and may institute
requirements to help ensure the timely provision of facilities and services. Because Carlsbad’s Growth
Management Plan focuses on facilities planning, the case studies summarized in Attachment C largely
focus on approaches to public facilities concurrency.
Public Facilities Financing Methods
The information below provides examples of how a city funds construction of public facilities. More
information on public facility financing will be discussed during the committee’s May 26, 2022 meeting.
1 Davidson, Michael and Fay Dolnick. A Planners Dictionary, PAS Report 521-522, American Planning Association.
2 Landis, John D. 2021. “Fifty Years of Local Growth Management in America.” Progress in Planning. Accessed at:
www.elsevier.com/locate/progress.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1 - Growth Management and Quality of Life
3
Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees are an important funding source for Carlsbad and other California
jurisdictions, as cities and counties have relatively few revenue sources largely due to: state limits on the
use of taxes; Proposition 13 (1978) limits on property taxes and special taxes; and Proposition 218
(1996) requirements that a majority or supermajority voter approval is needed to impose, extend, or
increase any state or local taxes.3 In addition, federal support to local communities has decreased for
decades, and the dissolution of California’s redevelopment agencies in 2012 removed another source of
revenue for urban infrastructure4.
Development impact fees are imposed on new development projects as a one-time fee, typically at
building permit issuance, to mitigate the impact of the development on public facilities. Impact fees are
enabled through the Mitigation Fee Act (1987). This act (codified in California Government Code §66000
– 66025) established requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of
development impact fees including conducting a nexus study to quantify the impact of new
development on infrastructure and determine a fee to cover its costs. Jurisdiction’s must: identify the
fee’s purpose and use, determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of the
project required to pay the fee, determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of project required to pay the
fee, and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the costs of the
facilities needed to cover developmental impacts (per Gov. Code §66001(a) and (b)). New development
cannot be required to pay for existing deficiencies. A new state law (AB 602, 2021) requires agencies to
follow specific standards and practices for the preparation of the impact fee nexus studies that are used
to establish or update fees and addresses the calculation of residential project fees.
Guthrie and Bise (2015) in a Planners Advisory Service (PAS) Memo5 describe development impact fees
as a point “along a growth-management continuum” with concurrency evaluations based on specific
development proposals at one end, and “impact-fee studies that focus on growth-related system
improvements needed to accommodate multiple development proposals within an entire service area”
at the other end. The authors describe “old-school” vs “next-generation” transportation impact fees:
• Traditional, or "old-school," transportation impact fees were designed with a suburban worldview
and focused on increasing capacity for vehicle travel. These fees tended to be uniform across the
entire jurisdiction, driven by generic formulas, and related to 20-year master plans or build-out
estimates.
• "Next-generation" transportation impact fees can function like a land-use regulation to help shape
development patterns. Planning and policy objectives drive next-generation transportation impact
fees, which vary geographically to reflect cost differences, and support multimodal systems.
Carlsbad is currently considering development of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) transportation impact
fee. This would be considered a “next-generation” fee and will be discussed with the circulation facility
performance standard on the committee’s July 28, 2022, agenda.
3 Raetz, Hayley, David Garcia, and Nathaniel Decker et. al., “Residential Impact Fees in California” The Terner
Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, August 5, 2019.
4 Raetz, et.al.
5 Guthrie, Dwayne Pierce and Bise, L. Carson. Planners Advisory Service (PAS) Memo (ISSN 2169-1908), American
Planning Association, January/February 2015.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1 - Growth Management and Quality of Life
4
Project and Broad-Based Financing Tools
In addition to impact fees, jurisdictions may seek infrastructure improvements and fees from developers
through measures including development agreements, facilities benefit assessments, subdivision
improvements and in-lieu fees, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in-lieu mitigation fees,
utility connection fees, and school district fees.
The cost of facilities can be spread to a broader area or passed on to individual property owners through
special districts (such as Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts), user fees, or tax measures. Funding
for infrastructure can also be supported through the issuance of bonds, and the formation of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), which use tax increment financing (to capture the growth in
tax increment from new development) to raise funds. However, implementing new taxes and broad-
based financing sources is difficult to form with multiple residents/property owners and under strict
California laws specific to each type of program. A more comprehensive review of public facilities
financing mechanisms will be topics discussed at committee’s meeting on May 26, 2022.
Key Takeaways
• The city’s Growth Management Plan focuses on facilities financing and ensuring adequate facilities
are provided concurrent with development. Other city policies and regulations, which are not part
of the Growth Management Plan, like the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, address other aspects
of development and growth, such as the number of allowed residential units (density), and where
they are allowed.
• Development impact fees are an important funding source for California jurisdictions but may add to
the price of housing. Additionally, impact fees cannot make up deficits in program funding from
existing residents. Broad based financing sources, such as taxes and bonds, can help reduce reliance
on impact fees and avoid creating constraints to housing development, but are challenging to put in
place.
• Regular monitoring of growth and public facilities, with associated plan amendments, fee updates,
and capital improvement plan investments, can contribute to achieving concurrency goals.
• A toolbox approach to growth management could provide flexibility through a menu of
implementation measures tailored to specific needs or general plan goals.
Research conducted did not reveal explicit alternatives to a housing growth cap and strict concurrency
requirements to control the timing of growth. However, the underlying goal behind growth caps, which
is to preserve quality of life and provide adequate public facilities, can be achieved in part through a
combination of measures focused on implementing the city’s General Plan. These measures could
include a continuation or refinement of actions Carlsbad already uses such as: zoning, development
regulations and incentives, capital improvement programs, public facilities plans, and impact fees.
Continued regional coordination and strategic investments in infrastructure can also influence the
timing of development and incentivize where it is located. These topics will continue to be explored in
future meetings.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment A
Chronology of Development of the Growth Management Plan
Growth Management History
The origins of growth management in Carlsbad go back to the mid-1970s. At that time the city’s General Plan
contained a Public Facilities Element that generally called for maintaining adequate public facilities as the city
grew. However, it contained no standards or implementing mechanisms.
In 1979, the City Council adopted Policy Statement No. 17 regarding requirements necessary to satisfy the
Public Facilities Element of the General Plan. The policy stated that public facilities were adequate to serve
existing development but not any new development unless new revenue could be generated to finance the
needed facilities. This finding served in part as the basis for adopting the public facilities fee.
In 1982, the concept took a step forward with the adoption of City Council Policy Statement No. 32, which
established a Public Facilities Management System (PFMS). The purpose of the PFMS was to monitor the
adequacy of public facilities and provide informational reports to the City Council. This information was
useful to the city in making decisions on development, but it stopped short of making adequate facilities a
precondition to development.
In April 1984, as concern regarding growth intensified, the City Council amended Policy Statement No. 17 to
strengthen its requirements. That action was followed by City Council appointment of a Citizens Committee
for the Review of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The citizens committee delivered its
report in July 1985. The report contained numerous recommendations relating to density, open space, park
facilities, the beach area, and other issues. Among its recommendations were two that called for “managing
growth to ensure timely provision of adequate public services” and expansion of the PFMS “to ensure that all
public improvements, facilities and services are in place in all portions of the city when they are needed.”
These recommendations from the citizens committee struck a responsive chord with the City Council, and
rapid changes ensued. Within a month following the citizens committee’s report, the City Council adopted
Emergency Ordinance No. 9766, which required all new projects to comply with the recommendations of the
citizens committee. In December 1985, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment that reduced
all residential density ranges as recommended by the citizens committee. In January 1986, the City Council
approved staff’s work program for preparing the new Growth Management Plan. Also, in January 1986, the
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9791, which placed a 6-month moratorium on the acceptance of new
development applications and placed a hold on those previously approved.
For the next 6 months, staff worked on drafting the Growth Management Ordinance. In June 1986,
Ordinance No. 9810 was approved as an emergency measure. In July 1986, Ordinance No. 9808 was
approved to permanently enact the Growth Management Plan. In September 1986, the City Council
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment A – Chronology of Development of the Growth Management Plan
2
approved the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, which established the facility performance
standards and provided other details regarding implementation of the ordinance.
On Nov. 4, 1986, the voters of Carlsbad approved Proposition E, thus locking in the key provisions of Growth
Management. Ordinance No. 9829 was subsequently adopted in April 1987 to specifically add the provisions
of Proposition E to the Growth Management Ordinance.
Summary of Growth Management Milestones
Date Document Description
June 1986 Ordinance No.
9810 Urgency ordinance to establish growth management controls
July 1986 Ordinance No.
9808
Added Chapter 21.90 to the Zoning Ordinance, establishing the growth
management ordinance
July 1986 Resolution No.
8657 Established the boundaries for 25 local facilities management zones
September
1986
Citywide Facilities
and Improvements
Plan
City Council approved the CFIP to establish facility performance
standards
November
1986 Proposition E Approved by voters; established residential dwelling caps and growth
management control point densities
1987 – 2013 Local Facilities
Management Plans LFMPs prepared and approved for the 25 LFMP zones
February
1990
Council Policy
Statement No. 43
Established the “excess dwelling unit bank” policy regarding the number
and criteria for allocation of Proposition E “excess” dwelling units.
August/
September
1994
General Plan
Update staff report
and resolution
1994 comprehensive update to the General Plan, ensuring consistency
with the growth management plan (note: the 2015 General Plan update
also ensures consistency with the Growth Management Plan).
September
2017 Senate Bill (SB) 166
Requires the city to ensure that its Housing Element is capable of
accommodating the remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) "at all times"
October
2019
Housing Crisis Act
of 2019 (SB 330)
Senate Bill 330 declares a statewide housing emergency until 2025 and,
among other things, suspends the cities ability to limit number of
housing units that can be approved or constructed.
- April 17, 2020 – Letter from HCD to the city stating that certain
provisions under the GMP are impermissible under SB 330
- Feb. 22, 2022 – Letter from HCD to the city on Draft HE stating that,
“Based on communications, HCD understands the City continues to
require an allocation under the Growth Management Program. Any
limits on the number of land use approvals or permits involving
housing development projects, including housing caps, moratorium
and requiring unit allocations, must be void pursuant to
Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D), As a result,
this activity must immediately be suspended”
April 6, 2021 Resolution No.
2021-074
City Council found 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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment B
Summary of Public Facility Standards
Growth Management Plan Overview
The City’s Growth Management Plan established conditions on how growth could occur, including the
requirement that new development must plan for, construct and pay for the public infrastructure and
facilities necessary to serve the new development. The plan was designed to ensure that new
development and growth does not outpace the performance standards established for public facilities.
New development must be measured against the Growth Management Plan’s public facility standards
and show that they comply with the requirements before being approved.
There are 11 public facilities performance standards identified in the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan (a component of the Growth Management Plan), which cover the following city
public facilities: city administration facilities, libraries, wastewater treatment facilities, parks, drainage,
circulation, fire, open space, sewer collection and water distribution systems. To ensure that established
performance standards could be achieved, the Growth Management Plan required the development of
financing and management plans describing how/when the public facilities will be developed.
Performance Standards
The Growth Management Plan includes 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 11 public facilities summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1 - Public Facility Performance Standards
Public Facility Performance Standard
City Administrative
Facilities
1,500 sq. ft. per 1,000 population1 must be scheduled for construction
within a five-year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units
(homes), beginning at the time the need is first identified.
Library
800 sq. ft. (of library space) per 1,000 population1 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.
Wastewater Treatment Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five-year period.
Parks
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population1
within the Park District [city quadrant] 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.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment B – Summary of Public Facilities Standards
2
Public Facility Performance Standard
Drainage Drainage facilities must be provided as required by the city concurrent
with development.
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.
Fire No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five-minute response time.
Open Space
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management
Zone (LFMZ)2 exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable
land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available
concurrent with development.
Schools
School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the Local Facility
Management Zone (LFMZ)2 as determined by the appropriate school
district must be provided prior to projected occupancy.
Sewer Collection System Trunk-line capacity to meet demand, as determined by the appropriate
sewer districts, must be provided concurrent with development.
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.
1 See “Population” section below.
2 See “Facility and Improvement Plans” section below.
Population
The performance standards for city administrative facilities, library facilities, and parks are based on
population. The demand for these facilities is based on each new dwelling unit (home) 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, 2020, the city’s population was estimated to be 112,683, which is calculated by
multiplying 2.358 persons per dwelling unit by the number of dwelling units, accessory dwelling units,
and commercial living units (e.g., professional care facilities); in total there are 47,742 dwellings and
commercial living units, as shown in Table 2 below. The population estimates in Table 2 are for Growth
Management Plan facility planning purposes only and may vary from population estimates for Carlsbad
conducted by other agencies, which may utilize a different method to estimate population.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment B – Summary of Public Facilities Standards
3
Table 2 – FY 2020-2021 Population Estimate
Quadrant Dwelling
units1
Accessory
dwelling units2
Commercial
living units3
Total units
Population
NW 12,488 226 226 12,940 30,513
NE 7,264 46 - 7,310 17,237
SW 10,179 29 685 10,893 25,711
SE 16,426 173 - 16,599 39,222
Total 46,357 474 911 47,742 112,683
Facility and Improvement Plans
To develop a road map for how the public facility
standards could be met, a Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan was created that detailed
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. Because planned development and
growth varied throughout the city and at
different levels, Carlsbad was divided into
twenty-five local facilities management zones,
which is reflected in the figure on the right. Each
zone was required to have an adopted local
facilities management plan (LFMP) prior to any
development in the zone. Each local facilities
management plan must describe how the zone
will be developed, how the required public
facilities will be provided, and how those
facilities will be paid for.
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, 2020.
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 for 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 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 for the performance
standards for administrative facilities, libraries, and parks.
.... ,,
City of Carlsbad
Quadrants & LFMP Zones
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment B – Summary of Public Facilities Standards
4
Failure To Meet a 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, 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 in the quadrant.
• Fire facilities are analyzed based on fire station districts which can comprise multiple local facilities
management zones, 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 a local facilities management zone basis. If one of these
facilities falls below the performance standard in a zone, development in that zone would stop and
other zones would not be affected if they are continuing to meet all performance standards.
Impacts of State Law
According to the Growth Management Plan, development activity cannot proceed if the public facility
performance standards are not met, or the residential growth caps are exceeded. However, updates to
state law and the city’s Housing Element have modified these components of the Growth Management
Plan.
In 2017 the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (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 has taken the following positions with
respect to Carlsbad:
• That failure to meet the Growth Management Plan’s public facility performance standards cannot
be used as a basis for implementing a development moratorium that precludes meeting Carlsbad’s
share of the regional housing need, and
• That the Growth Management Plan’s residential growth caps cannot 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. In regard to how this law applies to
Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan, the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development
has taken the following position with respect to Carlsbad:
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment B – Summary of Public Facilities Standards
5
• That a housing moratorium adopted due to non-compliance with a Growth Management Plan public
facility performance standard would not be allowed under SB 330, and
• That the city cannot use the residential growth cap limits specified in the Growth Management Plan
to limit or prohibit residential development.
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-208 on October 20, 2020, finding that the Growth
Management Plan’s moratorium requirements are unenforceable due to state law. On April 6, 2021, the
City adopted Resolution No. 2021-074 finding the city’s residential housing caps contained in the
General Plan, Growth Management Plan, Council Policy Statement 43, and the city’s municipal zoning
code are preempted by state law and unenforceable. While the city can no longer stop development, it
can still implement the public facility performance standards by requiring development to provide public
facilities consistent with the standards.
Growth Management Plan Compliance Status
The city met the Growth Management Plan’s public facility performance standards for the 11 public
facilities and city residential growth caps for the FY2019-2020 reporting period, as summarized in Table
3 below.
Table 3 – Public Facility Standards Compliance Status
Public Facility FY 2019-20 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 CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment C
Growth Management Case Studies
Jurisdiction Growth Management Case Studies
California Examples
Marin
County
The Marin Countywide Plan has a goal for Adequate Public Facilities and Services to
“provide basic public facilities to accommodate the level of development planned by
cities and towns and the County.” It includes policies and implementing programs
that require new development to pay for the infrastructure it requires and the public
services it receives; and to plan public facilities in cooperation with service providers.
The measures are to be implemented in a manner that considers the environment,
economy, and equity.
City of
Novato
The City of Novato, within Marin County, has a 20-year urban growth boundary that
was reauthorized for 25 years in 2017, with the provision that the City can expand the
boundary to provide housing for low-income households. An objective of the city’s
general plan is to maintain the city’s high level of services and infrastructure. This is
to be accomplished in part through periodic review and amendments to the General
Plan’s growth assumptions; analysis of project impacts on infrastructure capacity as a
part of the environmental review process; and requirements that new development
to pay its fair share. For more information see:
https://www.novato.org/government/community-development/general-plan-
update?locale=en
City of San
Diego
The City of San Diego’s 1990 Guidelines for Future Development (incorporated into
the 1979 General Plan) focused on planning for and paying for facilities to serve the
rapid growth of new communities on vacant land. Facilities Benefit Assessments
were established for new growth communities. The 2008 City of Villages General
Plan shifted the focus to planning for infill and redevelopment, and investments in
the built environment. Development impact fees are charged to support infill
development, with the fee determined by the type, size and location of the
development. Development Impact Fee Plans (DIF Plans) are documents which
identify a program of public facilities consistent with the General Plan and respective
community plans. DIF Plans contain descriptions of planned facilities and serve as a
vehicle to assess fees that provide funding for the City Capital Improvement Program.
In association with adoption of a new Parks Master Plan in August 2021, San Diego
replaced existing community-focused park development impact fees with a Citywide
Park Development Fee to support a more equitable park system. For more
information see: https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/facilities-planning.
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment C - Growth Management Case Studies
2
Jurisdiction Growth Management Case Studies
City of San
Luis Obispo
The city’s Residential Growth Management Regulations state that “the City’s housing
supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year.” These regulations require
each specific plan area to adopt a phasing schedule for residential growth that meet
specified thresholds. Deed-restricted affordable units are exempt from the Growth
Management Ordinance along with residential units built in Downtown and
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Because San Luis Obispo is within a predominantly
agricultural county, its housing unit cap was adopted prior to 2005, and affordable
units are not restricted by its growth management program, it was able to maintain
the program and receive certification of its Housing Element in 2021.
Out of State Examples
Metro-
Portland,
Oregon
Under Oregon law, each of the state’s cities and metropolitan areas has created an
urban growth boundary around its perimeter – a land use planning line to control
urban expansion onto farm and forest lands. Metro is the transportation agency for a
three-county area including Portland, and responsible for managing the Portland
metropolitan area’s urban growth boundary. Land inside the urban growth boundary
supports urban services such as roads, water and sewer systems, parks, schools and
fire and police protection. The boundary is one of the tools to protect farms and
forests from urban sprawl and promote the efficient use of land, public facilities and
services inside the boundary. Every six years, the Metro Council must review and
report on the land supply in the Urban Growth Report. Metro prepares a forecast of
population and employment growth for the region for the next 20 years and, if
necessary, adjusts the boundary to meet the needs of growth forecast for that 20-
year period. For more information see: https://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-
growth-boundary.
Boulder,
Colorado
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is used by the City of Boulder and Boulder
County to guide long-range planning, the review of development proposals and other
activities that shape the built and natural environments in the Boulder Valley. The
aim of the first plan approved in 1977 was to concentrate urban development in the
city and preserve the rural character of lands outside the city service area. The plan
also informs decisions about how services such as police, fire, water utilities and
others are provided. Lands are divided into Area I, II, III and the Planning Reserve.
Area I is the area within the City of Boulder. This land has adequate urban facilities
and services and is expected to continue to accommodate urban development.
Fort Collins,
Colorado
The Fort Collins City Plan utilizes a Growth Management Area to manage growth
outside of city limits and directs new growth to targeted infill and redevelopment
areas. The city’s growth management approach includes requiring the provision of
adequate public facilities before development occurs and continuing the policy of
new growth paying its fair share for new services and infrastructure. The City Plan
calls for development of and annual updates for a multiyear capital improvement
plan, use of a variety of different sources to fund capital projects with an emphasis on
Growth Management Citizens Committee Staff Report – April 28, 2022
Exhibit 1, Attachment C - Growth Management Case Studies
3
Jurisdiction Growth Management Case Studies
the “pay-as-you-go” philosophy, and identification of funding for operating and
maintenance costs for approved capital projects at the time projects are approved.
Affordable housing programs include maintaining and expanding dedicated sources
of funding and providing incentives such as assistance to offset the costs of the City’s
impact fees and development requirements.
State of
Washington/
King County
The State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) is a series of state statutes,
first adopted in 1990, that requires fast-growing cities and counties to develop a
comprehensive plan to manage their population growth. It is primarily codified
under Chapter 36.70A RCW. It set up requirements for: urban growth area
boundaries, regional planning, environmental planning, capital facilities planning,
performance indicators, support for infill, and other topics. Each Washington city and
county must periodically review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and
development regulations every eight years to ensure that they comply with the GMA.
King County has been successful in carrying out the GMA, reporting that since 1994,
an increasing share of new growth has been focused within the designated Urban
Growth Area. Currently, more than 97% of new residential construction is occurring
within Urban Growth Areas, and a large share of the most recent housing and job
growth is taking place in designated Urban Centers. King County is also known for its
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) agreement with the City of Seattle, which has
helped to preserve open space, increase urban development intensity, fund
infrastructure, and meet reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Montgomery
County,
Maryland
In 1973, Maryland’s Montgomery County became the nation’s first county to adopt
an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO), tying the granting of development
permits to available infrastructure capacity. In 1997, the state of Maryland enacted
the Smart Growth Areas Act, creating the Priority Funding Areas program which
provided growth-related infrastructure spending to designated infill areas (Landis,
2021). (Of note: SANDAG’s smart growth opportunity areas are considered a type of
Priority Funding Area program.1)
Florida
Growth
Management
Act
Landis (2021) reported that concurrency was the centerpiece of Florida’s 1985
Growth Management Act. Concurrency required that major state and local
infrastructure projects, primarily roads and storm water facilities, be provided
concurrently with the granting of local permit approvals. Funding to achieve
concurrency was to come from new or increased state tax programs but was not
adequately realized. In response, local governments raised impact fees which was
not well received by the development community. Florida’s Growth Management
Act was effectively repealed in 2011.
1 Reid Ewing, Torrey Lyons, Fariba Siddiq, Sadegh Sabouri, Fatemeh Kiani , Shima Hamidi, Dong-ah Choi, and
Hassan Ameli. Growth Management Effectiveness: A Literature Review. Journal of Planning Literature 1-19, 2022.
Exhibit 2
City of Carlsbad
Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
Mission Statement and Principles of Participation
September 28, 2021
Mission Statement
The mission of the Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee is to promote balanced
consideration of a range of perspectives on issues affecting the future growth and quality of life in
Carlsbad and to identify the key elements of a new plan to manage growth in Carlsbad in a way
that maintains an excellent quality of life while also complying with state law.
Principles of Participation
Role of Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Members
To achieve the mission of the Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee, the City Council is
asking members to:
• Become familiar with the issues that affect future growth and quality of life in Carlsbad
• Attend periodic meetings over a period of time (approximately 1 year)
• Listen to and respect diversity in perspectives, facts and opinions
• Provide constructive feedback to city staff and consultants on process and draft work
product s
• In decision-making, balance individual and group stakeholder goals with the larger
public interest and legal requirements
• Work collaboratively with other committee members in reaching decisions and making
recommendations to the City Council
• Encourage community participation at committee meetings
Representation
The committee will be comprised of a total of 19 primary members and 19 alternate members
as follows:
• Two members (one primary and one alternate) from each of the following city boards
and commissions:
Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
Mission Statement and Principles of Participation
Page 2
o Arts Commission
o Beach Preservation Commission
o Historic Preservation Commission
o Housing Commission
o Library Board
o Parks and Recreation Commission
o Planning Commission
o Senior Commission
o Traffic and Mobility Commission
• Four residents (two primary and two alternate) from each City Council district:
o District 1
o District 2
o District 3
o District 4
• Four at-large residents (two primary and two alternates)
Each respective commission/board will nominate two commissioners/members (one primary
and one alternate) to serve as members of the committee. Once each commission/board
nominates each member, staff will report to the City Council the nominations with a brief
biography. Then, over a period of 30 days; the Mayor will consider and confirm the
recommended nominations and will recommend four at-large residents (two primary and two
alternates), and each council member will recommend four residents (two primary and two
alternate) from the council member's district to serve on the committee. The full City Council
will make the final decision on all commission/board and district representative
recommendations. From the appointed primary committee members, the Mayor will designate
a Chair and Vice-chair.
Discussion Process
During committee meetings, committee members agree to abide by the following discussion
process:
• The committee will establish ground rules about how members should conduct
themselves during meetings
• The preferred decision-making process is collaborative problem-solving
• Consensus of the committee will take precedence over individual preferences
• In cases of non-consensus, the Chair may call for majority vote of the committee;
however, alternative perspectives will be documented
Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
Mission Statement and Principles of Participation
Page3
• City staff will be present at all meetings to assist the Chair and committee as-needed
Role of Chair and Vice-Chair
The Chair will ensure that committee meetings are conducted fairly and efficiently, that proper
order and mutual respect among all participants is maintained, that there is full participation
during meetings, that all relevant matters are discussed, that all committee members have an
opportunity to participate in committee discussions, and that necessary decisions are made. To
the extent reasonable, the Chair will seek consensus of the committee in decision-making. In
instances where consensus cannot be reached, the Chair may call for majority vote of the
committee following procedures set forth in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.20. However,
the Chair will ensure that minority viewpoints are heard and documented.
The Chair will ensure that these Principles of Participation and agreed-upon "ground rules" are
adhered to.
The Chair is responsible for ensuring that members of the public desiring to address
the committee have the opportunity to do so at the appropriate time. J
The Chair may speak to members of the media on behalf of the committee, and represent the
committee at public workshops, hearings and other public events as appropriate.
The role of the Vice-chair is to serve as the Chair in his or her absence.
Meeting Schedule
The com mitt e-e will meet approximately once a month (about 10-12 times).
Meeting Attendance
Full participation of committee members: is essential to the effectiveness of the committee,
and members are expected to attend all committee meetings. If a committee member is
unable to attend a meeting, he or she shall notify city staff as soon as possible, and the
designated alternate may attend in his or her place. The alternate is encouraged to actively
participate in the meeting provided that he or she is adequately briefed as to the status of prior
discussions and decisions.
If a committee member resigns his or her appointment before the committee's work has
concluded, he or she shall notify the Mayor and City Council in writing, with copies sent to
the City Clerk, City Manager and the Community Development Director. The resigning
committee members designated alternate shall automatically become a regular committee
member for the remaining duration of the committee. If the alternate member chooses not
Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
Mission Statement and Principles of Participation
Page4
to fill the vacancy, at their next scheduled meeting, the committee will consider whether to
recommend that the Mayor and City Council fill the vacated position.
Meeting Quorum
For meeting purposes, a quorum of the committee is met with eight members in attendance.
Open Meeting Requirements
All committee meetings and committee members are subject to the open meeting requirements of
the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act). The Brown Act imposes public notice and access
requirements on committee meetings, and places certain limitations on when and how committee
members may communicate with one another. New committee members will be given a briefing
by the City Attorney's office about the basic requirements of the Brown Act.
Meeting Agendas
Meeting agendas will be prepared by city staff in consult at ion with the Chairperson or a majority
of the committee, following the procedures of the Brown Act. At the conclusion of each
meeting, the Chair and city staff will summarize the results and identify items that may need
further research or be carried over to the next meeting, preview new business for the
upcoming meeting1 and invite committee members to suggest new items for future
meetings. Agendas for future meetings will be established by consensus of the committee with
concurrence of the Chair and city staff.
Members of the public have a right to attend committee meetings and will have an opportunity to
address the committee on any issue under its purview. Agendas will include time for public comment.
External Communications
The overriding consideration in all communications is to honor and sustain the constructive,
collaborative process of the committee. Committee members are encouraged to communicate
with their constituencies in order to keep them informed of the committee's mission and meeting
agendas, and to encourage direct participation. Should committee members speak to the media,
members are encouraged to provide accurate, factual information, but are asked to refrain fr.om
engaging in speculation, advocating a position 011 a specific issue, speaking on behalf of the
committee (except for the Chair or unless authorized by the committee to do so), or otherwise
making public statements that would tend to hamper constructive committee discussions.
Committee members are asked to notify city staff of any media contact related to the committee
and its work. City staff will be available to assist in any communications to the media, if desi red.
Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee Charter
Mission Statement and Principles of Participation
Page 5
Information Sharing
In order to ensure all committee members have the same info rm at ion available to them, all
documents will be distributed through city staff. If a member has information, he or she would
like to share with other committee members, the information should be given to staff for
distribution to the entire committee. Maintaining this flow of information will facilitate a
respectful, collaborative process, and help avoid unintended violations of open meeting laws
(e.g., serial meetings).
Work Products
The committee will be responsible for reviewing work product and providing feedback to staff and
consultants. The committee is expected to focus on input, review, and "buy-in'' to carry out
the committee's mission, rather than deliberating on precise details. The committee' s work will
conclude with a committee-supported report recommending to the City Council what should be
included (key elements) in a new plan to manage growth and achieve an excellent quality of life
while ensuring compliance with state law. The City Council will consider the committee's
recommendations and direct the next steps to create a new growth management
plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 3 – Committee Name Suggestions
The following suggestions were submitted via email by members of the city’s Growth Management
Citizens Committee for consideration during a facilitated discussion at the April 28 meeting about the
committee’s name and how it could be changed to better reflect the breadth of issues the committee
will be addressing.
As for a new name, I thought of one at the meeting and was talking to Tina Ray about it afterwards. I
came up with:
Our Carlsbad 2.0
Our to show that we want to be as inclusive as possible about ideas and solutions. The 2.0 refers to
version 2.0 and that the city has reached the 2xxx years growing pretty well with version 1.0. Look
backward as we go forward.
Since the City is now close to build out, I think that the name we select for the Committee should not
contain the word "Growth" as that may imply to some people that we are recommending more growth,
rather than effectively managing the growth that we have and that which will normally occur, or which
may be impose on the City by the State. Thus, I think our focus in this Committee is "how do we take our
recently updated General Plan and the Envision Carlsbad goals and implement them in the future, while
creating a mechanism to pay for them?" I therefore think that the name needs to be aspirational and
not be full of cutesy acronyms, and I would offer "Ensuring Carlsbad's Future," or "Creating Carlsbad's
Tomorrow."
I would like the following recommendation(s) to be considered for the committee name:
• Future Quality of Life Committee
• Long Term Quality of Life Committee
• 2050 Quality of Life Committee
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT - APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 3 – Committee Name Suggestions
2
Committee Name:
Committed to Carlsbad - our future is now
Our Future is Now
Growth Think Tank
Forward Growth Success
At our initial meeting of the Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee, we were presented
the concept of developing a committee name that is easier to say and remember, and that represents,
in a few words, what our charge is. Tina Ray, Carlsbad’s Communications and Engagement Director,
presented some concepts at the meeting and then asked committee members to explore these and
other ideas.
As a way of opening discussion on this, I put my thoughts to pen….or in this case computer. In
developing this proposal, I first listed the words and concepts that I believe represent the purposes of
the Committee and the plan we will recommend to the City Council. This ultimately leads to the
proposal I am putting on the table for discussion. These are some words and concepts, but I know there
are others as well.
Key Concepts/Words
• Carlsbad
• Vision
• Future
• 2050
• Plan
• Direction
• Roadmap
• Pathway
• Sustaining
• Preserving
• Quality of Life
Taking these words and concepts, I started putting them together as a title and tagline.
Possible Concepts
• Future Vision
• Visioning Carlsbad
• Visioning Carlsbad 2050
• Future Forward Carlsbad
• Forward Carlsbad
• Future Carlsbad
• Carlsbad 2050 – A Plan for the Future
• Carlsbad 2050 – Planning for the Future
• Carlsbad 2050 – Quality of Life Sustained or Carlsbad 2050: QLS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT - APRIL 28, 2022
Exhibit 3 – Committee Name Suggestions
3
• Road Map to the Future
• Pathway to the Future
• Sustaining Quality of Life
• Preserving Quality of Life
• Carlsbad 2050 – FuturePlan
After this, I arrived at a word and concept that is easy to say and remember, and one that
represents….in a few words….what the plan does.
Recommended Name
The Growth Management Plan Update Advisory Committee could be renamed Carlsbad FuturePlan
Citizens Committee. The Committee will recommend the Carlsbad FuturePlan to the community and the
City Council.
For marketing purposes, a tagline could be added: Preserving Our Quality of Life
The plan could be called: Carlsbad FuturePlan
Preserving Our Quality of Life
Rational for this proposal:
• Carlsbad needs to be included in title. It could also be Carlsbad’s
• A date, such as 2050, is not included so it’s always current. It is a living document.
• This is our plan for our future.
• The name does not use the word “growth”, a term which implies growth, and as such is
considered a negative to many.
• Full title of the committee could be Carlsbad FuturePlan Citizens Committee. The plan is called
Carlsbad FuturePlan. As a parallel, the Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee was a mouthful so
the name was shortened to EC3, which didn’t mean anything to anyone. The plan the
committee recommended became Envision Carlsbad.
• The word “Preserving” is intentional. Whatever is created, we all want it to preserve our quality
of life.
• The word “Our” represents the citizens of Carlsbad. Us. It is an organically created plan that
includes multiple ways of seeking and receiving community input.
• The tagline incorporates a term used by many to describe what Carlsbad provides us all: A
quality of life unsurpassed by many other communities.
• FuturePlan is one word. It’s Carlsbad’s word. It’s a stylized word. It’s italicized showing forward
movement. If approved, I recommend that Tina Ray’s Communications and Engagement
Department develop this into a wordmark or logo, fitting the City’s color and design elements.
• The City needs to check if it is copyrighted/trademarked. If it is, we could as an “ed” at the end
to create FuturePlanned.
A grammarian needs to advise on whether “citizens” should have an apostrophe at the end of “citizens”.
Citzens’. It can go either way….plural or plural and possessive.
1
Date: April 26, 2022
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee (and members of the public)
From: Steve Linke, Traffic & Mobility Commission Vice-Chair and Growth Management Citizens
Committee primary member
Subject: April 28, 2022 Growth Management Citizens Committee Meeting written comments
Given time limitations of large committee meetings like ours, this communication is intended to provide
some recommendations and questions/suggested future topics. Following those, I provide some
background, history, and concerns that put them into context. I will detail additional concerns and
consequences in communications for future meetings.
Recommendations and questions/suggested future topics
Recommendation: Our committee should ensure that validated measurement methods and Growth
Management Plan (GMP) performance standards that reflect reality are locked down for all public
facilities—not methods that can be continually tweaked to artificially achieve success.
Recommendation: Exemption of any public facilities from a GMP performance standard should require a
proportional alternative mitigation plan with identified funding and a timeline—not simple
abandonment.
Recommendation: If we move away from the “performance standard” system, any new system should
be overtly mandatory and not include soft language that implies voluntary compliance.
Recommendation: Impact fees/programs (e.g., traffic impact), housing fees, and other developer costs,
like review and permitting fees, have been allowed to sit without meaningful updates for extended
periods of time. These should be considered globally with the GMP and updated regularly to reflect
current needs and costs.
Question or suggested future topic: The new state laws that prevent residential development moratoria
have a sunset clause, and they do not seemingly prevent commercial development moratoria. They also
continue to allow various impact fees. How can these be used to maximize GMP requirements?
Question or suggested future topic: Please explain the protocol staff uses to determine a “nexus”
between a development project and its obligation to fund a public facility improvement, as well as the
method used to calculate its “proportional funding.”
Question or suggested future topic: Given the fact that the vast majority of remaining development in
Carlsbad will be “in-fill” (rather than “vacant land”), and the fact that in-fill projects are largely being
exempted from having to conduct GMP and CEQA studies—combined with the alleged difficulty in
making a funding “nexus”—what are the prospects of the funding of the various public facilities by
future development, and how can GMP requirements be maximized?
2
Background
One of the eleven public facilities included in the GMP is circulation (also known as traffic,
transportation, streets, or mobility), which currently includes vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
modes of travel. I have been studying this topic for over a decade, and I have spent the last three years
on the Traffic & Mobility Commission intent on reforming the transportation review process in Carlsbad.
I also have reviewed the GMP and CEQA transportation portions of all development applications and
City projects over the past three years. My comments here are focused on transportation, but the
concepts may apply more generally to other facilities, as well.
The performance measure for circulation is called level of service (LOS). Generally, LOS is reported for
each street segment (facility) on a scale of “A” through “F”—calculated from the volume of vehicles
relative to the capacity of the street, or the average length of time it takes vehicles to traverse an
intersection or street corridor—the worse the congestion, the lower the grade. An LOS grade of “D”
during peak hours is required to achieve the minimum GMP performance standard.
The way the GMP is supposed to work for circulation is that, when a development project is proposed, a
transportation impact study predicts the direct impacts the project will have on the LOS of nearby
street/mobility facilities. The approval of the project is then supposed to be conditioned upon funding
any improvements necessary to maintain the minimum LOS standard, such as street widening,
intersection improvements, etc.
In addition, the City is required by the GMP to conduct its own annual LOS assessments (the Traffic
Monitoring Program) to prospectively identify emerging problems that arise due to the cumulative,
indirect impacts of developments on the overall citywide mobility network. These results are supposed
to be used to add additional mobility projects and the associated costs to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) Program, which is intertwined with the GMP. A separate traffic impact fee is then charged to all
developers based on the type of development (residential vs. commercial) and the number of vehicle
trips they generate, in order to fund the TIF Program projects to help maintain the minimum GMP
standard citywide.
Further, if annual monitoring reveals a facility that is already deficient (fails to meet the minimum GMP
standard of LOS “D”), then there is supposed to be a moratorium on all development in the
corresponding zone until a mobility project that will address the deficiency is identified and has an
approved plan, funding, and timeline.
Troubled history of Carlsbad’s vehicle LOS performance standard
Back in 1988, when the GMP was first being implemented, a group of transportation experts developed
guidelines for Carlsbad to calculate vehicle LOS. The guidelines were derived from the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), the gold standard reference for transportation engineers based on decades of research
and validation, with additional tuning to Carlsbad’s suburban streets. In 1989, Carlsbad’s “Citizens
Committee to Study Growth,” an early predecessor to our committee, reviewed and recommended
those guidelines.
3
Unfortunately, staff ignored the recommendation of the citizens committee and never used the
validated vehicle LOS guidelines. Instead, they created their own custom methods that included
exaggerated capacities for all of Carlsbad’s streets and intersections, and which vastly under-estimated
congestion.1
Consultants included a disclaimer in their first several annual traffic monitoring reports from 1989 into
the early 1990s, pointing out the severe limitations of the methods. In 1993-94 and 2000, traffic
consultants suggested reducing the exaggerated capacities or using an HCM-based method to get more
accurate results. In 2011, I also presented extensive data at public meetings demonstrating the
inaccuracy of the methods. In spite of all of this, staff continued to use their inaccurate methods
through 2018 when presenting traffic data to the traffic commission and council.
The 2015 General Plan Update (GPU) required a switch to valid vehicle LOS methods based on the HCM,
and multiple traffic consultants have now re-confirmed that Carlsbad’s old vehicle LOS methods had not
reflected reality by under-estimating congestion. After avoiding required vehicle LOS monitoring for a
few years, a valid HCM-based method was finally established in 2018 and phased in slowly over the next
few years.
Not surprisingly, we went from all street facilities meeting the minimum GMP performance standard
(LOS “A” through “D”) with the old Carlsbad methods to having 30+ street facilities identified as GMP-
deficient (LOS “E” or “F”) with the valid method—a reality that drivers see every day during peak hours.
These deficiencies actually started accumulating back around 2008 and really started accelerating
around 2012.
Funding for street projects and/or alternative strategies to address these emerging deficiencies could
have been secured by adding them to the TIF Program. However, the inaccurate LOS methods masked
the deficiencies, and there was a failure to regularly update the TIF project list—despite a requirement
in the Municipal Code, and despite previous warnings by council that it would unduly burden future
taxpayers with the impacts of developments. I will address this topic more in the future.
The staff report for Thursday’s meeting claims that the circulation system is meeting the GMP
performance standard (page 5), but that is extremely misleading. The only way it is being met is because
the City Council has “exempted” those 30+ street facilities from having to meet the performance
standard as each deficiency is reported to them. The adoption of the exemption process effectively
means that there is no longer any GMP vehicle LOS performance standard.
Troubled history of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS standards
The 2015 GPU also introduced a new system to measure LOS for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel
on streets newly prioritized for those modes—called multimodal level of service (MMLOS). Vehicle LOS
tends to degrade over time as growth occurs and vehicle volumes increase, allowing anticipation of the
1 For those curious and adventurous enough to delve deep into the weeds on this topic, see my 7/9/2019 letter to
the City Council at tinyurl.com/yckpt9k9.
4
need for developers and/or the City to fund improvement projects to increase street/turn lane capacity
over time. In contrast, MMLOS is determined from a point system based on amenities or quality (e.g.,
sidewalk width, buffers for bike lanes, bus stop benches, safety lighting, etc.)—regardless of whether
there are any changes in the numbers of users.
The unintended consequence of this approach is that all pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facility GMP
deficiencies across the city will suddenly pop into existence immediately upon the first annual
monitoring. And, as the staff report states: “…development cannot be required to pay for existing
deficiencies.” Therefore, the city itself would be on the hook to fund all projects to achieve the
minimum GMP standards all at once.
I pointed out this fatal flaw in the approach in conversations and letters with staff during the public
review period leading up to the 2015 GPU, but I was assured it would work. It did not. It has been over
six years since adoption of the GPU that added a requirement for MMLOS monitoring, but no such
monitoring has been included in any GMP annual reports. The City even claimed recently that it was
never their intent to maintain LOS “D” as part of monitoring, even though that intent seems very clear in
the GPU and its public review.
Although there has been no annual city monitoring, preliminary MMLOS point systems have been
applied to development applications for the last few years. However, similar to the old vehicle LOS
methods, they are largely designed not to fail, and they have been modified multiple times without
public review. One example is that the transit LOS point system was modified to award the minimum 60
points necessary to achieve LOS “D” simply based on the City’s adoption of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) ordinance, even though that ordinance does little to nothing to improve transit
conditions. It is simply a workaround to get a passing grade to meet the minimum GMP performance
standard.
The outcome of all this is that few pedestrian and transit upgrades have been funded by developers,
except a few limited sidewalk gap closures and bus stop benches, and no bicycle upgrades have been
funded. Staff also has added that a “nexus” cannot be established for the developments to fund such
projects in most cases, but there has been no explanation on how staff makes their nexus
determinations or how “proportional funding” is determined.
The Traffic & Mobility Commission has been working with staff on the MMLOS system for the last couple
of years, and it might be addressed again at our commission meeting next week, but the outcome is
uncertain.
II n ,magine
mi1 carlsbad
CARLSBAD'S NEW CITY HALL / CIVIC CENTER
Geo-Centric or Historic Heart
Jan 1 2021
Ask pretty much anyone, they will say Carlsbad is a very nice place. People
from other areas usually say "you are fortunate if Carlsbad is where you call
home. To continue that status the City Council now has a major question
needing to be answered. That question is where to place our new and
final City Hall and how to also make it a Civic Center. Not an easy
decision so we ask that the following input be considered. We all know the
City has been defined on paper as having four different zip code quadrants
separated by our two largest roadways. It is now defined by four voting
districts mostly cutting east to west. We also know that the major
residential areas are positioned north and south generally separated by
the airport and its influence on adjacent land uses. We know that the vast
majority of Carlsbad was laid out and built under the land planning model of
"suburban-ization" This doctrine came about in the early 1950s. It's where
all different land uses are separated in their own areas. This separation was
meant to reduce the possible conflicts between different uses which had been
somewhat common up to that time. This separation requires one additional
element that would make it possible for this new form of town planning. It
requires a full network of roadways for the automobile to tie all areas together
into a workable land use fabric. However, one area of Carlsbad is different
as it was laid out and built under a different land planning program now
referred to as "Traditional Town Planning". That area was the city's
starting point, a start that took place much earlier. Its planning program built
a relatively small multi-use core area on a tight grid of Main Street type
thoroughfares. This gives that area, the Village-Barrio, a different and
unique character in all of Carlsbad.
Now the question of where to put our City Hall. An opportunity to create
a new Flagship facility with civic amenities that will be embraced as a proud
symbol representing our community. It should be a model of City government
efficiency and professionalism. A symbolic element that reinforces its
general location as a "point of focus" for the community, a Town Center.
CITY HALL -2 AREA LOCATIONS/ 4 CANDIDATE SITES Jan 1 2021
MID CITY -Two sites that are geo-centric to be more equal distant from both
south and north areas of town.
NORTH WEST CORNER-The two sites that will support of the City's Historic
Heart Neighborhood (the Village/ South Village -our Historic Barrio).
OUR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THESE POTENTIAL SITES * City Hall as a highly productive and stimulating work place environment * · Accessability for Employees, Business Guest & the Community * Presences/Imagery -A Flagship facility with high visibility that
represents our community Pride * Civic Amenities for the community * Its relationships with its surrounding area Synergy & Symbiotic
(2+2=5)
Back to Carlsbad being a great place to live. Taking this as a given can we
now pause and reflect on all that we have, all that we done but also do some
objective evaluation of what we may have missed, what we may be
lacking? This review should influence the evaluation of where our ultimate
City Hall should be placed. What ingredient might be needed to strengthen
our community, to its sense of place, its sense of identity and pride. The
element that should have come out of that objective evaluation as missing is
a Town Center. As far as we know a Town Center has never been put on
any map, never been part of any plan in all of our town planning. We submit
that a recognizable Town Center is very important to a city the size of
Carlsbad adding to our community's sense of place, identity and pride.
All along our town planning journey we have had the "Historic Heart",
the starting point of town but we really never saw the need to fully wrap
our arms around it. To elevate it as our point of focus for the full community
as a recognized Town Center. "It is up there in the far corner", "shouldn't a
town center be in the center of town?" It's our starting point and hence it was
logically located on the coast line, on the regional highway, on the rail line.
Yes today it is the NW corner of our town just one of the city's four corners.
The flip side of this can be expressed in one word, "Car-nitas". This term, we
have heard, is used by some who live in south Carlsbad but have a Encinitas
state of mind. Why do these people relate more to Encinitas, certainly it has
nothing to do with their City Hall.
Page 2
However, this should be seen as a tear in our community's fabric of
cohesiveness and belonging. Some believe the fix is to place our "seat of
power" the City Hall in the center of town so it is seen as equal in its reach and
representation. "That makes sense on paper", as they say, if centered it is
equal right?. However the next question is, does that get us where we should
want to be, is it really just that simple, we think not. Rarely is a City Hall on
its own a Town Center, an important part yes but as a stand alone facility it
is hard pressed to pull that kind of weight. Make it a Civic Center by adding
civic amenities, like a learning center/Library with auditorium or exhibit hall,
already done at "the Dove" along with another civic staple a Federal Post
Office, or may be give it a larger performing arts venue. An objective
evaluation will show that it will be very difficult if not impossible to create a true
Town Center at the mid City sites. As we know, we already own land in the
Center of town. Rather than place a stand alone City Hall at Farmers, as an
island in the employment center sea. May be we make that site a different
feature for the community, a larger performing arts venue, say an
amphitheater. May be not, as we did have one of these proposed in our town
some time back. But due to the cold shoulder reaction it received here that
proposal moved on to Poway. It then lost out in a head to head competition
with a proposal for a theater in Chula Vista. How many of us in Carlsbad want
to travel to Chula Vista or even S. D. State to go to a performance in an
amphitheater? But nice if we had that venue close in.
If we can agree that our community will benefit significantly by having a
strong Town Center, a point of focus for all of us. If we can agree to have
a Town Center as a new and major goal (a Council Goal) and also agree that
the City Hall should be placed at our Town Center. We should take into
consideration how the four candidate sites for City Hall measure up to a set of
criteria for this role as a flagship facility, as an important part of the
community's Town Center. As has been expressed, if a mid city locations
have little chance to become a strong and meaningful Town Center then
where? The Village also does not currently carry that weight. However, unlike
mid town it does have that potential, it's just not there yet. So the real question
here is what must we do to make it so. To make the Village a true Town
Center that has that weight, that gravity to draw all of us to it, even those
"Car-nitas". But that is a topic for another session, another paper. A
session to tackle that question, and to ask if we have that kind of vision,
that kind of resolve to strengthen Carlsbad as a community made whole
with a compelling Town Center?
Page 3
II 6':l lmagine
i&i carlsbad
WHAT MAKES FOR A SUCCESSFUL TOWN CENTER ,lao1 2D21
A Center with many activities and services creating a significant draw that
becomes a local attraction, a destination for the entire community.
A Center that provides a special setting assisted by its character and
ambiance enhancing the community's sense of place, identity and pride.
A Center that is easy to locate, offers easy access and has adequate
fundamentals for all its uses and planned events.
A Center that can host a full range of special events throughout the year.
A Center where there are strong public/private partnerships and many active
community groups.
A Center strengthened by the inclusion of the town's Seat of Power (City Hall)
placed at a location of prominence and status. A flagship facility that also
offers as many features for community use as its layout can accommodate.
A Center with a high level of authenticity and/or heritage, it is optimal if the
location has an innate quality to it. Something special took place there,
something special was built there, something was started at this location that
has meaning to the community. This should enhance its prominence and
status adding depth in the community's sense of time, sense of longevity.
A Center with ample public land, although the center can include a mix of both
public and private properties, it must be rich in our public domain. Allowing
easy public movement unencumbered by private rights. A location where
there are also ample areas for the public to gather. Where one gathering
location is widely held to be the venue for public expression. Where the
community comes together to hold a hand over heart, where they push both
hands high into the air with movement and rhythm, where, after sunset, they
hold lights tight in hand as an expression of a collective spirit.
Page 4