The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLFMP 11; LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 11; LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 11; 1988-01-20C C C CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 11 Prepared For: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 .. P~epaifi~:LB¥.f. : "" ' : .. -'~~·" • .,..,..A,,4,,_·.··:.,, ,. - t(.<i' ; ~-.~ :r • The Will:;i.ain. N •.. ~o~an C.oJnp~ny Rick ~ngJn~~~~~'i. <;o~~:~ny ~-. ,., . ...,. ~·---'·>''~··. .. ,_ .. , -'-: C INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN CONSULTANTS: THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY 6994 El Camino Real Suite 208 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1465 Bill Hofman Sheila Donovan Lisa Thomas RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 3088 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-4987 Robert Ladwig Barry Bender Cheryl Cunningham Robert Wilkinson Joanne Lighten WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 2651 E. Chapman Avenue Suite 110 Fullerton, CA 92631 Weston Pringle Paul Miller CITY OF CARLSBAD: Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director Phil carter, Senior Management Analyst Michael Howes, Senior Planner Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineering David Hauser, Assistant city Engineer Steve Jantz, Associate Civil Erlgineer Jim Elliot, Finance Director LAND OWNERS: LA COSTA RANCH COMPANY Ross McDonald P.O. Box 9000-266 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 931-8747 C C C PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN (CONTINUED) LANDOWNERS: HOMES BY POLYGON 3152 Redhill Avenue, suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CHRISTOPHER HOMES 17 Corporate Plaza Dr., Suite 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 R.E.C., INC. 2103 El Camino Real, Suite 102 Oceanside, CA 92054 DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3252 Holiday Court Suite 202 La Jolla, CA 92037 DANIEL T. SHELLEY 169 North Rancho Santa Fe Road Encinitas, CA 92024 RANCHO VERDE C/O Rich Jamison Coldwell Banker P. o. Box 919 Carlsbad, CA 92008 DANIEL WIEGAND 3024 Via de Caballo Olivenhain, CA 92024 M.A.G. PROPERTIES 5075 Federal Blvd. San Diego, CA 92102 Consul.tant: Fred Morey 7682 El Camino Real, Suite 206 Carlsbad, CA 92009 MISSION ESTANCIA PARTNERSHIP 6994 El Camino Real Suite 208-J Carlsbad, CA 92009 RICH LIPPUCCI Sun Harbor Realty 5375 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 C C C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS. PHASING PROJECTIONS. ZONE 11 REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD .....•.•... FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS .•. MITIGATION • • . . • . FINANCING • • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . LIBRARY FACILITIES ....... . .PERFORMANCE STANDARD .. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS MITIGATION .••.•..•.. FINANCING • • • • • . • . . • . WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY ............ . PERFORMANCE STANDARD. • . . • . . .• FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS ... MITIGATION • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . FINANCING • • . . • . . • . . . . PARK FACILITIES ..... PERFORMANCE STANDARD ............ . FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS MITIGATION •.•.•.... FINANCING • . . . • . . . • . • . . • . DRAINAGE FACILITIES ............ . PERFORMANCE STANDARD. . ..... . FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS MITIGATION. • • • . . ••..•. CIRCULATION ........... . PERFORMANCE STANDARD. • . • . . . ..... . FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS .... . MITIGATION • . • . . • • • • . . . . . . . . . FINANCING • • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 1 25 32 46 59 61 61 61 66 66 68 68 68 72 72 76 76 76 83 83 86 86 86 93 95 97 97 97 104 109 109 109 120 128 FIRE FACILITIES. . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . 130 PERFORMANCE STANDARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS ..... 130 MITIGATION • • • • • • . • • . • . . . . . . . . . 13 4 FINANCING • . . • . • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . 13 5 C C C OPEN SPACE FACILITIES •........•....... 137 PERFORMANCE STANDARD. . . • • • . • • . • 137 FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS . . . 137 MITIGATION • . • . . . . • • . . • . . . . 141 FINANCING • . • • • . • • . • . . • . 142 SCHOOL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 PERFORMANCE STANDARD . . . . •.•.. 143 FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS ... 143 ENCINITAS UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT .... 151 SAN DIEGUITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ...... 156 SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. . . . 162 SEWER FACILITIES . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 PERFORMANCE STANDARD. . . • . • . . . 166 FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS . . . 166 MITIGATION • • • . • . . • . . • . . . . . . . 180 WATER FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 PERFORMANCE STANDARD. • . . •..•...•. 186 FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS • . . 186 MITIGATION . • • • . . • . • . • . • . . . . . . . 2 0 0 FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACILITY FINANCING MATRIX REFERENCES APPENDICES 1. ZONE 11 LAND OWNERSHIP 2. CONSTRAINTS MAP 3. LIBRARY -AGENDA BILL 8867 4 • WASTEWATER -LCWD LETTER 5. PARKS -PARKS INVENTORY JOINT USE AGREEMENTS WITH SMUSD AND EUESD 205 205 212 213 C C C 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED DRAINAGE -LETTER FROM CITY OF CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN DRAINAGE COST ESTIMATES CIRCULATION -TRAFFIC REPORT FIRE -STATION No. 6 COST ESTIMATES DWELLING UNITS OUTSIDE FIRE RESPONSE TIME OPEN SPACE -AUTHORIZATION LETTER SCHOOLS -LETTERS FROM SMUSD, EUESD AND SAN DIEGUITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SEWER -DEMANDS FROM SEWER MASTER PLAN SEWER COST ESTIMATES WATER -DEMANDS FROM WATER DISTRICT MASTER PLAN WATER COSTS ESTIMATES C LIST OF EXHIBITS NO. TYPE TITLE PAGE 1 Map Zone 11 Location Map . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Table Public Facilities Summary Chart . . . 9 3 Table Public Facilities Summary Sheet . . . 11 4 Table General Conditions For Zone 11 . . . . 12 5 Table Special Conditions For Zone 11 . . . . 14 6 Table Summary of Major Landowners . . . 27 7 Map Major Land Owners . . . . . . . . 29 8 Map General Plan Designations . . . . . . 30 9 Map Land Use Zoning . . . 31 l0a Map Constraints Map -Area A . . . . . . . 33 10b Map Constraints Map -Area B . . . . . . . 34 l0c Map Constraints Map -Area C . . . . . . . 35 11 Table Build Out Projections . . . . . . 36 12 Table Existing Land Uses . . . . . . . 38 13 Table Developing Land Uses . . . . . . . 40 14 Table Residential Build Out Projections 42 15 Table Non-Residential Build Out Projections. 43 16 Table Build out Population Projections . . . 45 17 Table Citywide Residential Phasing . . . . . 48 18 Table Southeast Quadrant Residential Phasing 51 19 Table Zone 11 Residential Phasing. . . . . . 52 20 Table Citywide Non-Residential Phasing . . . 54 C 21 Table SE Quadrant Non-Residential Phasing. . 57 22 Table Zone 11 Non-Residential Phasing. . . . 58 23 Map City Administrative Facilities . . . 62 24 Table City Administrative Phasing Projections 65 25 Table City Administrative Financing Matrix . 67 26 Map Library Facilities . . . . . . . . . 69 27 Table Library Phasing Projections . . . . . 73 28 Table Library Financing Matrix . . . . . . . 75 29 Map Wastewater Facilities . . . . . . . . 77 30 Table Encina WPCF Capacity Analysis . . 76 31 Table LCWD Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 81 32 Table SMCWD Projections . . . . . . . . 82 33 Table Wastewater Financing Matrix . . . 85 34 Map Park Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 35 Map Park Locations . . . . . . . . . . 89 36 Table Park Phasing Projections . . . . . . . 92 37 Table Park Financing Matrix . . . . . . 96 38 Map Drainage Basins . . . . . . . 98 39 Map Existing and Proposed Drainage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 40 Map Drainage Phase Boundaries . . . . 101 41 Table Drainage Financing Matrix . . . . 108 42 Map Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . 110 43 Map Circulation Trip Distribution . . . . 111 44 Table Circulation Financing Matrix . . . . . 129 c••s 45 Map Existing Fire Response Time . . . . . 131 ,. ~"' 46 Map Proposed Fire Response Time . . . . . 133 47 Table Fire Financing Matrix . . . . . . . . 136 C C C NO. TYPE 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Map Table Map Map Table Table Table Table Table Table Map Map Table Table Table Table Map Table Table Map Table Table LIST OF EXHIBITS CONTINUED TITLE PAGE Open Space Locations •••.••... 138 Open Space Inventory. • . . • • . 139 School District Locations .•...• 144 School District Boundaries Within Zone 11 ••.••.•...• 145 Zone 11 -EUESD and San Dieguito High School District Projections .• 146 Zone 11 -SMUSD Projections •.... 147 Zone 12 -EUESD and San Dieguito High School District Projections ••. 148 Student Generation Rates •••...• 149 Existing and Future School Facilities. 150 School Financing Matrix .•.•... 165 Major Sewer Facilities Within Zone 11. 167 Major Sewer Facilities Outside Zone 11. . • . • • . • . 171 LCWD Projections • . . . • . . . • 174 SMCWD Projections ..•••... 176 Sewer Phasing Boundaries •.•.... 181 Sewer Financing Matrix. . .. 185 Water Distribution System . • . . 187 Olivenhain sewer District Projections. 193 SMCWD Projections • • • . • . 195 Water Phasing Boundaries. • . 198 Water Financing Matrix •.•..•.. 204 Facility Financing Summary •..••. 206 I. C C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 11 was prepared pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program, and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The plan incorporates and implements the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan.1 The plan begins with the assumptions used to generate the build out projections for residential and non-residential development within Zone 11. Build out is the type and amount of land use planned for by the City's General Plan. The plan then phases or estimates the zone's development on a yearly basis until build out is reached. Phasing is done to predict future facility demands. The adequacy of public facilities is analyzed according to this demand. The analysis includes an inventory of existing and proposed facilities, a phasing schedule that establishes the timing for the provision of facilities in relationship to demand, and a financing plan that establishes methods of funding needed facilities. Since the plan is a regulatory document, each facility section contains conditions to ensure that facilities will conform to the adopted performance standards. Mandatory compliance with the plan and conditions will assure the adequacy of facilities within zone 11. FINANCE OVERVIEW The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 identifies three facilities which currently do not conform with the adopted performance standards without special mitigation measures: Circulation- Parks- I-5 at La Costa Avenue ($3,300,000) A shortfall of 28.18 acres in the southeast quadrant or Park District 4. ($3,240,000) Fire Station No. 6-Is needed now. ($650,000) These three facility shortfalls were also identified during the preparation of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. As part of this Local Facilities Management Plan, an attempt has been made to bring these facilities into conformance with the adopted performance standards. During this process it has become clear that no one financing mechanism can satisfy the complex infrastructure requirements of this zone and of the southeast 1 The 1986 CFIP was adopted by City council on 9-23-86 (CC Resolution No. 8797). 1 C C C quadrant. However, a combination of financing techniques can address both the need for upgrading facilities enabling them to conform with the adopted performance standards and ensuring conformance of future facilities a development occurs. A common set of goals for the financing of the major facilities can be stated as follows: 1. Provide feasible financing techniques to ensure that all facilities are provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards. 2. Provide for the implementation of financing techniques which consider the financial limitations associated with the high costs of infrastructure construction. 3. Provide for financing options which consider both the needs of the city and the property owners. The adopted Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan identified the various ways that capital improvements could be financed. The capital facilities necessary to support the City of Carlsbad generally fall into two categories those provided by developers as a condition of development approvals, and those provided by the City through a system of fees, taxes, or other financing sources. It is the City's responsibility to plan for the construction and maintenance of city projects and to finance these projects in the best possible way. The following describes some of the financing options available. A. Cash/Pay..:as-you-go financing. The City has used this method of financing to pay for most capital improvements constructed to date. In concept, the City charges the development community a series of fees which provide the source of income to pay for capital projects. When enough cash has been assembled, the City constructs the next capital project in order of priority. This method forces the City to delay construction of various projects until funds have been collected. These fees include: 1. Public Facilities Fee 2. Park-In-Lieu Fees 3. Planned Local Drainage Fees 4. Traffic Impact Fees s. Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Fee 6. Sewer Fees 7. Water Fees Special Districts collect their own various fees. 2 C B. C. C Reimbursement Agreements. In certain instances, a developer may ask the City to move a project forward in time and to construct a facility before funds have been collected. When this occurs, the City could adopt the policy of having the interested developer construct the project based on a reimbursement agreement. The City would pay the developer back for the portion of the project that was to be funded by City resources over a period of time. Payments would commence at the time the City had originally scheduled the construction of the facility in the Capital Improvement Program. Moving the project forward in time is for the benefit of the developer. Therefore, the City's repayment would be limited to the cost of the public portion of the project and no interest would accrue to the developer. The use of this method of project financing does not eliminate the developer's obligation to pay City fees. The developer must still pay all City fees associated with a development. Credit for City Fees. When it is in the public interest to construct certain public facilities earlier than would be possible under a pay-as-you-go program, the City can consider giving a developer credit for fees that would otherwise be paid, up to the cost of the public improvement. These credits would reduce the amount of fees payable in future years from a certain development. Fee credits must be used carefully to avoid elimination of income from capital fees necessary to finance other projects. Two alternatives exist for fee credits: Full fee credit immediately: Under this option, the developer who builds a public improvement would be eligible to deduct 100% of the cost of the improvement from fees payable. Once the fee credit is exhausted, the developer begins paying fees as normally assessed by the City. Under this option the developer gets immediate credit for the total cost of a project. Partial Fee Credit -credit over time: In this option, the developer who builds a public improvement receives a credit for the cost of a public improvement. However, the use of that credit is spread over a series of years. This allows the City to continue to receive at least a portion of fees designated for other capital projects while giving the 3 D. C C developer credit for the construction of public improvements that would have otherwise been paid for by the City. No interest would accrue to the developer as a part of this arrangement. Debt Financing. A range of debt financing alternatives are available to the City. If it is in the public interest to push a project ahead and to construct an improvement before funds are on hand, debt financing may be the answer. If the project is being pushed forward for the convenience or benefit of a developer, that developer should bear the cost of issuance and interest over the life of the debt issue. The actual mechanics of a debt issue and how to determine the developer's responsibility to support these costs would be defined as the method of debt financing was chosen. Some of the debt financing vehicles available are shown below: Assessment Districts: Under Council Policy No. 33, the City may assist a developer in the construction of various public improvements that may be financed through the use of assessment districts if there is significant public benefit from the improvement. In cases where a City contribution may ask a developer to pay the city contribution. The developer could then be reimbursed at a later date (i.e. , in the year that the capital project has been originally scheduled for construction) or through a system of credits as described earlier. Special Benefit Districts: State law allows the formation of a variety of special benefit districts. These districts may be used to fund the construction of parks, libraries, police or fire facilities, and street lighting systems to name a few. These districts may be formed by a vote of the property owners who then assess themselves for the cost of improvements. The developer and/ or land owner bears the burden of debt service payments. City participation in a district of this type is possible to the extent of public improvements that would have otherwise been the responsibility of the City. However, the movement of capital improvements forward-in- time would require some concession from the developer in offsetting interest, debt issue, or other additional costs. 4 C C C Community Facility District: (Mello-Roos) Under Council Policy No. 38, the City may assist through Mello-Roos financing the construction of public facilities in conjunction with development. Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts (CFD's) operate similar to assessment districts, but provide a more flexible tool for governmental entities to finance a wider range of public infrastructure, again through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. Facilities which may be financed by a Mello-Roos District include parks, parkways, open space, schools, libraries, gas pipelines, telephone lines and can be used to eliminate special assessment liens. These districts may also pay operating costs to the extent the services are in addition to those already being provided prior to the formation of the district. Revenue Bonds: The City may elect to issue revenue bonds to finance improvements related to utility functions or other City services that generate a fee for service, al though other City functions could support the use of revenue bonds. If public improvements are being installed ahead of schedule to accommodate a developer, the City would expect the developer to offset many of the costs of such an issue as described above. Tax Increment Bonds: Public improvements in the City's redevelopment area can be financed through the use of tax increment bonds. The Redevelopment Agency has developed a plan for the construction of public improvements using this method of financing. A developer asking for public improvements to be constructed ahead of schedule must consider the agency's ability and willingness to defer other projects. Certificates of Participation: Certain public facilities such as buildings can be financed through Certificates of Participation. This is in effect a lease agreement between the City and another agency. A developer wishing to push projects forward might consider constructing facilities such as a library or fire station using this financing tool. The developer may be asked to bear certain costs or to accept credit in lieu of payment for certain improvements. 5 C C C General Obligation Bonds: The City has the ability to issue General Obligation Bonds to fund the construction of public improvements. This can only be done with the approval of 2/3 of the voters in an election. It is unlikely that the City will have the ability to use this method of funding public projects which benefit specific developments. The adopted Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan contains the following financing policies: 1. Recognize that those projects identified in the Public Facilities Fee Calculation are the ultimate responsibility of the City to fund, however, the priority for funding projects is at the discretion of the City Council. 2. Recognize that the Capital Improvements Program will play a significant role in helping to establish compliance with the adopted performance standards. Priority for the funding of projects should go to in fill areas or areas of the City where existing deficiencies exist. 3. Agree to consider assisting developers with credits against future fees, reimbursement agreements, forming assessment districts, etc. only when it is clearly in the public interest to do so or to rectify public facility deficiencies and not to induce growth by prematurely upgrading public facilities. 4. Recognize that all credit or reimbursement arrangements will be made based upon the City's plans for timing of certain public facilities. For example, if a developer wanted to put in an improvement that the City had not planned for 5 years and was not necessary to rectify an existing deficiency, the City would not consider beginning to provide credits or reimbursement until the 5th year, if at all. 5. Recognize that public facility improvements made up front or ahead of City plans by developers must provide the funds necessary to cover annual operating costs for the facility until the time the city had previously planned to provide the facility. 6. With the recent reduction in residential densities and overall restriction on residential development, recognize that it may be necessary to start charging fees to commercial and industrial land uses in cases where they are not presently assessed. For example, 6 C C commercial and industrial developments do not pay park fees although they will increasingly impact these facilities. With the reduction in residential land uses and density, it may be necessary to charge commercial and industrial to make up the deficit. Financing Summary This Local facilities standards: Facilities Management Plan to currently be below the has identified three adopted performance 1. 2. 3. Circulation Parks Fire I-5 at La Costa Avenue 28.18 Acres in District 4 More than 1500 units outside of a five minute response time. Of these three facility shortfalls, the developers in Zone 12 and Zone 11 are proposing to provide mitigation to bring Parks and Fire into conformance with the adopted performance standards. The specific mitigation for these two facilities is shown in the corresponding facility sections of this plan. This plan does not provide an immediate solution for the interchange of I-5 and La Costa Avenue. The developers of this plan will be proposing a Mello-Roos district to provide for the up front funding of the interchange improvements. The timing for the implementation of this type of mitigation is not known. This plan also identifies when future public facilities are needed as growth occurs to ensure compliance with the adopted performance standards. A complete financing section is provided at the end of this plan which provides a description of the facility improvements to be made, timing of improvements, cost estimates, and funding priorities. Exhibit 1 on page 8 indicates where Zone 11 is within the City. Exhibit 2 beginning on page 9 provides a brief synopsis of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11. Exhibit 3 on page 11 provides a one page highlight of the synopsis. 7 Local Faclty Management Zone 11 CITY OF ENCNTAS 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 CITY OF EJ'O.ITAS 0 72 Y Lt-,,. GROWTH EXHIBIT 1 I\. /Gr, "t MANAGEMENT • Location Map /Jfdl!l/J'-4-"Z........,Wg_----NO-sc_AL_E -----=-P---'-'R'-=-0 -=GRe..-=A---=.;M=-=----· -------=Z:c.=..on.c...c..::e=--1..:...__;,_1 8 SD co C C C EXHIBIT 2: ZONE 11 Public Facilities Summary Chart AS OF ____ 2 City Administrative Library Wastewater Treatment Facilities Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until 2005. Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until 2002. Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard. Park District 4 (southeast) does not meet the adopted performance standard without mitigation measures. Drainage facilities will meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures. Circulation facilities will meet the adopted performance standard with the proposed mitigation measures. Fire facilities do not meed the adopted performance standard without the proposed mitigation. Existing open space meets the adopted performance standard. An ongoing work program will assure the open space performance standard is maintained through build out. For areas of Zone 11 within Encinitas Union Elementary School District and San Dieguito High School District, the adopted performance standard is being met. The area of Zone 11 within the San Marcos Unified School District does not meet the adopted performance standard without proposed mitigation measures. 2 Adoption date to be added. 9 C sewer Collection Water Distribution C C Sewer facilities in Zone 11 meet the adopted performance standard until build out of the zone. Water service to Zone 11 meets the adopted performance standard until build out of the zone. 10 C C C EXHIBIT 3 ZONE 11 Public Facilities Summary Sheet LFMP 87-11 AS OF ___ J Facility Citywide: 1) City Administrative Facilities 2) Library 3) Wastewater Treatment Capacity Park District #4: 4) Parks Zone 11: 5) Drainage 6) Circulation 7) Fire 8) Open Space 9) Schools -Encinitas Union -San Dieguito Union -San Marcos Unified 10) Sewer Collection System 11) Water Distribution System Conformance with Adopted Performance Standard Yes, until 2005. Yes, until 2002. Yes, with Phase IV expansion. Not currently (see proposed mitigation on page 93). Yes, with confirmation. mitigation Not currently (see proposed mitigation on page 120). Not currently (see proposed mitigation on page 134). Yes, with ongoing work program. Yes Yes Not currently (see proposed mitigation on page 163.) Yes Yes 3 Adoption date to be inserted. 11 C C C 1. EXHIBIT 4 General Conditions for Zone 11 LFMP 87-11 All development within Zone provisions of Section 21.90 of and to the provisions and Facilities Management Plan. 11 shall conform to the the Carlsbad Municipal Code conditions of this Local 2. All development within Zone 11 shall be required to pay a public facilities fee pursuant to the standards adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987, and as amended from time to time and all other applicable fees. Development in Zone 11 shall also be responsible for any additional fees to be incorporated into this plan that are found to be necessary to enable facilities to meet the adopted performance standard. 3. The City of Carlsbad shall monitor all facilities in Zone 11 pursuant to Subsections 21.90.l30(c), (d) and (e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 4. 5. 6. 7. All development in Zone 11 shall be in conformance with the adopted Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan as adopted by City Council Resolution 8797 on September ~3, 1987. Periodic amendment to the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan is anticipated to incorporate newly acquired data, to amend conditions and upgrade standards as determined through the required monitoring program. Amendment to this Plan may be initiated by action of the Planning Commission, City Council or property owners at any time. If a public facility or service is found not to be in conformance with an adopted performance standard during the yearly monitoring, or at any other time, the matter will be immediately brought before the City Council. If the City Council determines that a non-conformance does exist then no future building or development permits shall be issued an amendment to the CFIP or the LFMP for this zone is approved by the City Council which addresses those facility shortfalls and brings those facilities into conformance with the adopted performance standards. After adoption of this Plan by the City Council, no building permits will be allowed unless the performance standards are complied with. This includes all projects which were exempt under Section 21.90.030(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 12 C C C 8. Approval of this LFMP does not constitute prior environmental review for projects within Zone 11. All future projects within Zone 11 shall undergo environmental review per Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Any mitigation measures determined during a project's environmental review shall be complied with in their entirety unless findings of overriding consideration are made by the City Council. 13 C C C EmIBIT 5 Special Conditions For Zone 11 LFMP 87-11 AS OF 4 ---- The following Special Conditions apply specifically to development in Zone 11 and must be complied with in addition to the General Conditions for Zone 11. These conditions are also listed separately under the analysis discussion of each facility. City Administrative Facilities No special conditions are necessary at this time. Library No special conditions are necessary at this time. Wastewater Treatment Capacity The following actions shall be pursued jointly by each sewer district to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity throughout a five year period: 4 1. Monitor Encina treatment plant flows on a monthly basis to determine actual flow rates and to have an early warning of capacity problems. 2. Actively p~rsue acceleration and treatment plant Phase IV expansion adequate capacity. phasing of to provide 3. Increase National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations Systems (NPDES) permit to 27.45 MGD to allow full utilization of reclamation plant and ocean outfall. 4. The six member agencies shall form an agreement to maximize the utilization of available treatment capacity at Encina WPCF. Adoption date to be inserted. 14 C Parks C C 1. Prior to the adoption of this Local Facilities Management Plan by the City Council, the existing parks agreement between the City of Carlsbad and La Costa Ranch shall be amended to include the following provisions. a. The secured dedication by the La Costa Ranch Company of 21.2 acres of Alga Norte Park with the execution of this agreement at a location to be determined acceptable by the City. b. The secured dedication of an additional 6.98 acres of park land by the La Costa Ranch Company with the execution of° this agreement at a location to be determined acceptable by the City. c. The secured dedication of an additional 4.12 acres of park land by the La Costa Ranch Company with the execution of this agreement at a location to d. e. f. g. be determined acceptable by the City. · Provide a plan which establishes acceptable access to these park sites subject to the approval of the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Provide a letter of credit or some other secured financing acceptable to the City in the amount of $2,241,265 guaranteeing the construction of 19.48 acres of park land, from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney, at the time this agreement is executed. Earmark the budgeted 1991-92, $1,000,000 from the '87-92 CIP, for park development purposes in Park District 4 to the development of 8.7 acres of Alga Norte Park. Provide for the operating expenses of the parks either though a letter of credit or some other secured financing from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney m;: the establishment of a Park District 4 Growth Management Fee that would cover operating costs for the park. The amount of the costs and the time for which the La Costa Ranch Company and/or developers in Park District 4 would be responsible 15 2. Drainage h. for these costs shall be provided for within the Parks Agreement. The Parks Agreement must be consistent with the requirements of the City's Growth Management Program. i. If any reimbursements and/or park-in-lieu fee credits are to be given, the Parks Agreement shall provide a mechanism to do so. At any time the parks performance standard complied with within Park District 4, no residential development will be allowed District 4 or in Zone 11. is not further in Park The phases for drainage are explained in the Drainage section of this report and are shown on Exhibit 40 on Page 101. PHASE A: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase A, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. PHASE B: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The 48-inch storm drain proposed along a tributary of Encinitas Creek shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase B, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be completed by the landowners of Zone 11 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to the Batiquitos Lagoon. If the study identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved 16 C C C 3. PHASE C: mitigating any deficient facilities. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zones 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase B, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time Of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase c, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to the Batiquitos Lagoon. If the study identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved mitigating any deficient facilities. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zones 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. 3. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase C, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. PHASED: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The desilt basin proposed in Encinitas Creek shall be provided as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first final map in Phase D. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase D, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be 17 C C 3. PHASE E: completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to the Batiquitos Lagoon. If the study identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved mitigating any deficient facilities. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zones 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase D, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Circulation Prior to approval of any final map within Phase E, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. 1. An on-going monitoring program shall be established to evaluate the aspects of improvements, development, and demand on circulation facilities. The required timing of improvements is based upon the projected demand of development in the zone and the surrounding region. This timing may be modified without amendment to this plan, however, any deletions or additions to the improvements will require amending this local plan. 2. Prior to final map approval of any development in Zone 11, a comprehensive financing plan guaranteeing construction of the following improvements shall be approved by the City: 18 C C C Improvements Needed Now A. A financing program guaranteeing the construction of the interchange of I-5 and La Costa Avenue shall be approved prior to the issuance of a development permit for any development within Zone 11. Improvements Needed by 1990 A. A financing program guaranteeing the construction of 4 lanes of Olivenhain Road between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real, including the improvement of the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. B. A financing program guaranteeing construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road to 4 lanes including adequate signalization shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. c. A financing program guaranteeing construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road to major arterial standard from Olivenhain Road to the southerly city limits shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. Improvements Needed by 1995 A. A financing program guaranteeing the additional improvements necessary for Rancho Santa Fe Road to comply with Prime Arterial Standards shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. B. A financing program guaranteeing the additional improvements Olivenhain Road to comply with standards shall be approved recordation of the first final map construction of necessary for prime arterial prior to the within Zone 11. c. A financing program guaranteeing the construction of La Costa Avenue from I-5 to El Camino Real to Major Arterial Standard shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. D. The necessary improvements for Mision Estancia as described herein shall be guaranteed prior to any development permits for any adjacent properties or by 1995, whichever occurs first. 19 Fire Improvements Needed by 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. A. Prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11, a financing program shall be approved guaranteeing the construction of a proportional share of El Camino Real from Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue. The proposed plan shall address the possibility of an ultimate right-of-way width to accommodate eight lanes if it is shown by more detailed analysis that eight lanes are necessary. Prior to the adoption of Management Plan by the City actions shall take place: this Local Facilities Council, the fallowing A. The La Costa Ranch Company shall provide a suitable fire station site at a location acceptable to the Fire Chief, Planning Director and City Engineer. This site shall be exchanged for the existing site located along the present alignment of Rancho' Santa Fe Road. B. A letter of credit or some other secured financing acceptable to the City in the amount of $1,118,000 guaranteeing the construction of Fire station No. 6 shall be provided from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney. c. Prior to the City accepting a location for Fire station No. 6, the preparers of this LFMP shall be required to prepare a modified five minute response time map for the southeast quadrant to ensure compliance with the performance standard. Prior to the approval of any final map within Zone 11, a schedule shall be approved by the City guaranteeing the construction of Fire station No. 6 by 1989. No residential building permits shall be issued until the Planning Director and City Engineer make the findings that sufficient progress has been made towards the completion of Fire Station No. 6 and the opening of this station is projected to occur prior to the completion of any residential units. No residential units will receive a utility inspection until Fire station No. 6 is operational. 20 C C 5. Prior to the occupancy of the Fire station No. 6, an access road shall be provided from the new Fire Station No. 6 location to the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road by the La Costa Ranch Company or other property owners within Zone 11 acceptable to the Fire Chief, Planning Director and the City Engineer. Open Space 1. All future development within this zone shall be required to show how it contributes to meeting the open space performance standard and that the development does not preclude the provision of performance standard open space at build out of Zone 11. 2. Open space compliance will be monitored annually and as individual projects are reviewed within this zone. 3. Prior to the approval of any development within this zone, the Planning Director shall be required to find that the development does not preclude the provision of performance standard open space at build out of Zone 11. Schools Encinitas Union Elementary School District: No special conditions are required. San Dieguito High School District: No special conditions are required. San Marcos Unified School District Prior to the approval of a final map for any projects within the San Marcos Unified School District, an agreement shall be entered into between the San Marcos Unified School District and the La Costa Ranch Company that shall provide for the following: 1. 2. The deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District. The guarantee for the financing and construction of a school for the District. This guarantee shall be in the form of bonding, cash deposit or some other form of security as specified in said agreement. 21 C 3. If any reimbursements and/or school fee credits are to be given, the school agreement shall provide a mechanism to do so. Sewer District The phases for sewer are explained in the Sewer section beginning on page 166 and are shown on Exhibit 62 on page 181. PHASE A 1. Phase A is located within the SMCWD. Since SMCWD will maintain conformance to the adopted performance standard until ultimate build out, there are no special conditions for Phase A. PHASE B: 1. Prior to any occupancy within Phase B, the proposed 12-inch sewer line east of La Costa Racquet Club, from the existing 12-inch stub in Calle Lomas Verde to the existing 12-inch terminus in Stagecoach Park must be installed. 2. PHASE C: Phase Bis located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning Study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. 1. Phase C is located within LCWD drainage basin 10. PHASED: 1. The LCWD Planning Study recommends improvements for the development of their drainage basin 10. These improvements will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within Phase C will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. Prior to occupancy in Phase D, the proposed 12- inch sewer line west of La Costa Racquet Club, from the existing 12-inch stub in La Costa Avenue to the existing 12-inch trunk sewer in Stagecoach Park, must be installed. 22 C C C 2. PHASE E: Phase Dis located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. 1. Phase Eis located within LCWD drainage basin 8. PHASE F: The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning Study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. 1. Prior to occupancy in Phase F, one of the following must occur: a. The pump station and force main must be installed, 21: an agreement must be reached with the Cardiff Sanitation District. b. A septic system must be approved by the County Sanitation Department and the city of Carlsbad for the lots that can't gravity flow toward the LCWD sewer system. 2. Phase Fis located within LCWD drainage basin 8. Water District The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. The phases are explained in the Water Section beginning on page 186 and are shown on Exhibit 67 on page 198. PHASE A: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of SMCWD. The 12- inch water line proposed from the existing 12-inch stub in Corintia Street to El Fuerte Street shall be installed as required by SMCWD. 2. All development within Phase A shall pay the appropriate water fees established by SMCWD. 23 PHASE B: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. 2. All development within Phase B shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. PHASE C: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The 12- inch water line proposed in the extension of Calle Barcelona and a portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase c shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. PHASED: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed, as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase D shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. PHASE E: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed, as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase E shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. PHASE F: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. 2. All development within Phase F shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. 24 II. C INTRODUCTION This Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP 87-11) completes the second phase of Carlsbad's overall Growth Management Program for Zone 11. Phase One of the Growth Management Program was completed with the adoption of the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP 86). For purposes of public facilities analysis the '86 CFIP separated the City into 25 Local Facilities Management Zones as shown on Exhibit 1 on page 8. A. PLAN OVERVIEW This LFMP provides a detailed description and analysis of how facilities will be provided in Zone 11 of the City from now to build out of the zone. The plan is divided into six parts as follows: I -Executive Summary: Summarizes the plan and II - III - IV - V - VI - VII - highlights all conditions proposed by the plan. Introduction: Provides an introduction to the format and content of the plan. Build out amount of itemizing uses. Projections: Projects the ultimate development in Zone 11, along with existing, developing, and future land Phasing: Attempts to project how and when development will be phased in Zone 11. Analysis of Public Facilities Requirements: Provides a complete description and analysis of when and how each facility will be provided and financed based on build out projections and phasing assumptions. Finance: Provides a summary of the financial alternatives available to fund each facility and a discussion of the LFMP's impact on City finances. Appendices: Provides the technical materials used in preparation of this plan. The most detailed part divided into eleven facility. Each section facility. of the plan is Part v. This part is separate sections; one for each provides a detailed analysis of the If a facility is not conforming with the adopted performance standard, there will be a discussion describing this 25 C C situation, a description of mitigation or alternatives, and a financing discussion. Each facility section will conclude with adequacy findings. Adequacy findings summarize whether or not the public facility conforms with the adopted performance standard. B. OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT ZONE 11 Management Zone 11 is located in the southeast quadrant of Carlsbad as shown on Exhibit 1 on page 8. Local Facility Management Zones 6 and 12 are on Zone ll's western boundaries. The City of Encinitas is to the south/southwest, the County of San Diego to the east and the City of San Marcos to the north/northeast. Zone 11 comprises approximately 2,117 acres. Exhibit 6 beginning on page 27 lists the major landowners within Zone 11. Exhibit 7 on page 29 shows the location of their holdings. Primarily a residential area, Carlsbad's General Plan calls for residential land uses ranging in density from Low (0-1.5 dwelling units/acre) to Medium-High (8-15 dwelling units/acre). Non-residential land uses within Zone 11 include Community Commercial, and Professional/Office. Two school sites are designated within the zone; an 88 acre high school site and a 10 acre elementary school site. The General Plan Designations within Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 8 on page 30. The General Plan Land Use designations for Zone 11 are broken down into sub-areas. These sub-areas allow easier identification of public facilities demand and supply. These sub-areas are used consistently throughout this plan. The land use zoning within Zone 11 is shown on Exhibit 9 on page 31. As shown on Exhibit 9, most of Zone 11 is within the adopted La Costa Master Plan (MP-149G). The entire La Costa Master Plan is undergoing a city initiated revision (MP-149(0)). 26 C Map Key # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. c~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 5 C EXHIBIT 6 Summary of Major Landowners AS OF 1/1/87 Ownership/APN.2 Acreage La Costa Ranch Co. 1060.8 223-021-08, _09, 11, 12, 15, 16 223-10-12, 18, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 223-011-02, 03, 04, 05, 06 La Costa Ranch Co. 88.1 223-322-02 La Costa Ranch Co. 66.5 223-220-71 255-031-17 Daniel Shelley 80.0 223-061-01 Daniel Shelley 114.6 264-010-11 Mission Estancia Partnership 6.8 223-060-49, 15 223-032-01 223-071-05, 07, 09 223-050-63, 64 Mag Properties 51.6 223-060-31, 32 Anden Co. 22.7 223-322-01 So-Cal 10.6 223-360-02, 04 So-Cal 21.1 223-360-01, 03 A detailed lot map and ownership list is provided in Appendix 1. 27 C Map Key # ownership/APN Acreage 11. Christopher Homes 26.7 223-060-40 12. Commonwealth 223-060-29 4.5 13. Meadowcenter II Partnership 7.6 255-031-20 14. Rancho VeJ;:de 147.8 264-010-21, 22, 23, 25 15. Rice 90.2 264-010-07, 09 16. Wiegand 41.9 255-040-17 17. Polygon 58.9 255-031-22, 23 18. Polygon 35.4 255-031-18 c~ 19. La ~osta Ranch Co. 12.2 255-031-26 20. Santa Fe Knolls/Anden 27.7 223-312-01 to 32 223-311-01 to 63 21. §anta Fe Knolls/Anden 13.5 223-321-01 to 43 22. Olivengain Municipal Water District 2.6 223-071-06 23. San Marcos County Water District 18.7 223-071-10 24. City ot c~rlsbad/Stagecoach Park 28.0 223-060-59 25. City of Carlsbad/Fire Station No. 6 0.5 223-050-66 26. San Marcos County Water District 4.8 223-021-17 C 28 0 300 600 1200 ce ~IC}( P/demli1g I 29 NOTES · ·1 d lot map and ownership ) A more deta1 e d" 1 1. · ct · Appen IX · d list is provide in ,~~h Santa Fe was approve 1 l"gnment of Rc::11 .. ..., .. o ) The new conceptua a I ber 20, 1987. , 2. by City Council on Octo c:···':' OF CARLSSAD GROvVTH _ MANAGEMENi PROGRAM EXHIBIT 7 e Major Land Owners Zone 11 SlTY :>F SAN MARCOS 'I RL-1 CIRCULATION Existing ••••••• 111111:1111111 Prime arterial Major arterial Secondary arterial Proposed 0 300 600 1200 e OS-1 I ? I I I ZONE 6 LEGEND LAND-USE RESIDENTIAL RL Low density (0-1.5 DU/ Ac.) RLM Low-Medium Density (0-4 DU/ Ac.) RM Medium density (4-8 DU/ Ac.) RMH Medium High Density (8-15 DU/Ac.) NON-RESIDENTIAL C Community Commercial 0 Professional & Related G/0 Governmental Offices E Elementary School H High School ____ __, ----------1 RL~~/'. V ,,; \~ •/<..: E /12 1/rz /{ Vista Sant~ r e ' Area B (e x,sting) ZOM: 12 G/0 RLM-5 CITY OF CARLSBAD RL-3 RLM-7 I I LM-J I I ...----' ' • i I I I __ J I U Public Utility OS Open Space NOTE: The new conceptual alignment of Rancho Santa Fe,Rd. was approved by the City Counci1 on October 20, 198 7. GROWTH PROGR ,A.M EXHIBIT -~- Gene(aj 1--'la 7 uc:.:3iyi"ia(iui1S Zi;. 8 1 i Cl7Y OF SAN MARCOS I I ! I ; i ~\ ,, ,1/ OS CITY OF CARLSBAD ~ ... P-C I I • I I I La Costa Master Plan -MP 149 (G) I ~ ~ ~ ""~~ ~ 0 300 600 1200 0 I I ,6 t I I I ZONE 6 LEGEND: R-1 One Family Residential -1 O: 10,000 s.f. lots -25: 25,000 s.f. lots -40: 40,000 s.f. lots P-C Planned .Community /La Costa Master Plan -MP 149(G) RD-M Residential Density-Multiple -Q: qualifying overlay u Public Utility OS Open Space GiTY or ENClNIT AS ---------7 ZONE 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEiViEi ·1 PROGRAM R-1-25 R-1-10 J I I FXHl81T 9 --_-L_a_n_d-;--:-L'i s-e=--Zol7i ng C C III. BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS To properly assess and plan for facilities to serve Zone 11 it is necessary to project the type and intensity of Land Use as the zone builds out. These build out projections define Land Use intensity and corresponding facilities demands. The basis for this build out projection is the Carlsbad General Plan as of 5/1/87. The methodology used in compiling this build out projection is consistent with that used in the 86' CFIP. The methodology is briefly described as follows: A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE B. General Plan Land Use Designations were plotted on a 1" = 200' base map. A reduction of this map is shown on Exhibits l0A, 10B and l0C on pages 33, 34 and 35. These designations were divided into sub-areas to ease in facility analysis. The gross acreage of these sub-areas was determined by planimeter measurement. Exhibit 11 on page 3 6 summarizes these acreage calculations. Appendix 2 provides a detailed itemization of the sub area calculations along with a map at 1'! = 200' scale. The easterly "canyon" alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road which was conceptually approved by the City Council is used for the preparation of build out assumptions and facility planning. It recognizes that a detailed study of the alignment and its environmental impact would need to be done in conjunction with any proposed amendment to the Circulation Element. This detailed study will be a part of the La Costa Master Plan Amendment (MP-149(O)). GENERALIZED CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Consistent with adopted City policies and ordinances, development constraints within each sub-area were identified. Constraints that may have existed on land that is developed or has land use approvals were not included in this analysis. Constraints fall into two basic categories: 1) full and 2) partial. Fully constrained areas can not be used to calculate residential density and are considered undevelopable. A portion of the area of partial developmental constraints can be used in residential density calculations. 32 NOTE: Full size constraints maps are found in the appendixes. * C C C ~/GI( pfdtfttll@ 1 SUMMARY: LEGEND: SIi SHUT 3 -----.:_ ----· . --..... ~ l]Lr (Im~~~~~~ ZOE 11 ! @IT'®&i £ ~[!JJO[L[Q)@lUJu [?)J~@JJ~©'ifO@~~ I ©@~~F~~O[N]u_~. ~Wl~lL w~a~ [Ml~[?) GROWTH EXHEIT 1 OA MANAGEMENT e Cons1rai11s Map -Area A PROGRAM Zone 11 33 C C NOTE: Full size constraints maps are found in the appendixes. * -· '· ' 1' ~ D ----,~.-~\· ::-.-..:: ·-~ : ....... '~--- zaa.11 C "' . -_--:-:, ---· ' - ~~~ ZOtl!11/~~ ~[!JJOIL@@lLlJ1r lP'.[ffi@JJ~~1r0@[N)$ I <c@[N) ~'Ii~ffi\a [NJ,r_~ . ffi\[N)ffi\ 11=. w~ a~ IMJffi\[p) Jlfdnniflg PROGRAM · Zone 11 34 @rni(g~JW ~~~ rPfIB©X@r~ ZO~E 11 1/1 @lr?@@ © ~(UJO[L[Q)@(U)lf. [p-[Ri@JJ~©UO@[r[J® / ~©[r[J®LJ[Ri~O [r[)lf® ffi\[r[)ffi\[L W®O® [M]~[p) ;r!' . . ½ I .... ;" ~ -< u---.;_--!_.7 ---r·· ..... ,· ---: /,~' ; ~· KeyM .. ,: ~ 'I rc,;n r.n .,,.ro;:::, : N C EN I TO S t ~ ~ . .,__,._. ..,_ . ,, ~--/· .,, .. ~1-•.· • ~ T ,: ,,/ ~-------~ )Df!r-Y.P'-~ \ \ __ ~ ~ ~ , -~ .r:. s:-·~; ~~:~·-·-_,--- -· l ( > r/ ~( / ,----~---:- -· ~ f>✓-~ .• ,. 2)~n .. ffrr ~ [j -~ Vista Santa Fe Area B wntt• 1-e C.T. 81-HI . -·,c·-·(• .• ~ ~u7/ ~ __....-,ec,.1 ,..__. ,M.7 - '· ...,,_~ -·, •' ' ' NOTE: Full size constraints maps are found in the appendixes. * < , .' / ~;.,,.~~~-~~=~~~ ·---■.-Z ___ .. -........, ..,.rO#ZOI!'-~~ EXHIBIT 1 OC C EXHIBIT 11 ZONE 11 -LFMP BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS -CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS (AS OF 12/1/87) ACRES OF DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRAINTS (1) GENERAL PLAN FULL I PARTIAL !SCHOOLS LAND USE GROSS DESIGNATION ACRES --------------------------------------------------------------------------1-------- A B C D E F G H I I TOTAL I J J/2 I K RL-1 RL-2 RL-3 RL TOTAL I 345.8 I 4.4 I 310.0 I 26.6 20.0 187.4 I 843.2 I 31.0 20.0 0.0 28.0 48.4 4.8 81.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 32.4 I 101.0 I 95.0 I 54.4 4.8 30.2 I 132.2 I 185.6 50.5 I 27.2 I 15.1 92.8 I 0.0 I NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES 262.9 187.8 167.5 618.2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RLM-1 157.7 16.1 7.5 0.6 0.2 24.4 12.1 6.1 127.3 RLM-2 134.1 11.8 6.6 6.1 24.5 14.2 7.1 102.5 RLM-3 (4) 51.3 0.0 0.0 51.3 RLM-4 (4) 159.5 0.2 0.8 1.0 18.5 9.3 10.0 139.3 RLM-5 7.5 o. 1 0.1 0.0 7.4 RLM-6 26.9 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.3 1.7 22.0 RLM-7 (4) 160.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 9.6 4.8 154.7 RLM TOTAL I 697.1 I 27.9 16.4 0.0 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 53.9 I 57.7 28.9 I 10.0 I 604.4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RM-1 I 12. 1 I O. 0 I O. 0 I I 12. 1 RM-2 (4) I 24.3 I 0.1 0.1 I 0.9 0.5 I I 23.8 RM-3 (4) 8.6 0.0 0.0 . 8.6 RM TOTAL I 45.o I o.o o.o o.o 0.1 o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o I 0.1 I o.9 RMH-1 (4) I 34.0 I RMH TOTAL I 34.0 I o.o I o.o I o.5 I o.o I o.o I o.o I 44.5 34.0 34.0 ======================================================================================================================= TOTAL RES 11619.3 I 58.9 36.4 0.0 90.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 186.2 I 244.2 122.1 I 10.0 I 1301.0 ======================================================================================================================= C-1 (4) I 5.3 I 0.0 I 2.5 5.3 C-2 I 36.7 I 1.2 1.0 2.2 I 0.0 34.5 c-3 6. 7 o.o o.o 6. 7 C TOTAL I 48.7 I o.o 1.2 o.o 1.0 o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o I 2.2 I o.o 46.5 0 11.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 11.2 G/0 (5) 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 3.8 H 88.0 2.7 0.7 3.4 21.0 10.5 84.6 ELEM (2) 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.0 u (5) 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.8 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OS-1 124.2 12.4 58.2 70.6 27.5 OS-2 19.7 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.3 OS-3 41. 7 2.0 4.7 2.9 9.6 1.9 OS-4 (5) 30.3 2.5 2.5 0.0 os-5 21.4 0.3 21.1 21.4 0.0 OS-6 24.0 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.0 OS-7 9.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 OS-8 38.3 0.8 0.8 6.5 OS TOTAL I 308.6 I 17.7 5.4 o.o 59.1 5.4 o.9 21.1 o.o o.o I 109.6 I 36.2 MAJOR I I ARTERIAL (3) 19.5 SECONDARY I I ARTERIAL (3)1 13.2 I 19.5 13.2 I 19.5 I I I I 13.2 I 53.6 16.3 32.1 27.8 0.0 22.9 8.8 37.5 o.o I o.o I 199.0 0.0 0.0 ===============================================================================================================-======= TOTAL ZONE 12117.7 I 76.6 76.2 0.0 153.6 5.6 1.6 21.1 0.0 0.0 I 334.7 I 303.7 133.8 I 10.0 I 1650.9 NOTES: C 1) CONSTRAINTS: A· MAJOR POI.IERLINE EASEMENT E -RIPARION B -CIRCULATION F -WETLANDS C • RAILROAD ROI.I G -FLOODPLAIN D -SLOPES> 40% H -PERMANENT BODY OF WATER I -OTHER ENVIR. FEATURE J -SLOPES 25% TO 40% K -SCHOOL SITE OVERLAY (2) FUTURE SCHOOL DEDICATION TO COME FROM UNCONSTRAINED LAND WITHIN UNDERLYING GP CATEGORY (SEE COLUMN K). (3) EXISTING DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY SOLELY WITHIN ZONE 11. (4) AREAS WITH APPROVED LAND USES (SEE EXHIBIT 13). (5) AREAS WITH EXISTING LAND USES (SEE EXHIBIT 12). 36 C C. C Since development constraints overlap each other, for accounting purposes, constraints are organized in a hierarchy beginning at 'A' -major powerline easement and ending in 'J' -slopes between 25% -40%. When this occurs, only the area of the highest level constraint is calculated for build out projection purposes. It is recognized that underlying constraints exist and that these constraints as well as others will be defined by specific environmental review for individual development projects. Full environmental constraints are as follows: A. Major(~ 69 kv) power-line easements B. Proposed circulation element roadways c. Railroad track beds or R-o-W D. Slopes of 40% or more in· grade E. Significant riparian, or woodland habitats F. Significant wetlands G. Floodways H. Permanent bodies of water I. Other significant environmental features as determined by the Environmental Review process. Partial Developmental Constraints include: J. Slopes between 25-40% in grade: only 1/2 of the area within slopes between 25-40% in grade can be used in residential density calculations. Also included in the constraint analysis is the programming of: K. Planned school facilities The approximate area and location of school facilities are indicated in the General Plan. The beneficial and efficient provision of these facilities require a minimum area of land free of development constraints. Consistent with City and school district policy, the minimum acreage identified by the General Plan for school facilities was not used in the applicable sub-area's residential density calculations. EXISTING LAND USE Existing land uses within each sub-area as of 1/1/87 were identified. Residential density as well as square footage and type of non-residential structures were itemized. Exhibit 12 on page 38 provides a detailed breakdown of existing land uses. 37 C EXHIBIT 12 Existing Land Use AS OF 1/1/87 A. Residential: General Plan Project Land Use Gross Phasing Sub-area Acres Project Name Project# DU's RLM -4 78.9 La Cresta CT 81-16 260 RMH -1 34 La Costa Racquet Club CT 84-7 320 TOTAL 580 B. Non-Residential: General Plan Project Land Use Gross Land Use Sub-area Acres Project Name Project # Type u 4.9 Meadowlands Public C Utility Treatment Plant OS-4 30.3 Stagecoach Park Park G/O OMWD SP 196 Public Utility C 38 ·c D. DEVELOPING LAND USE Developing land use is a category which defines the status or stage in the developing process a Land Use proposal or project is in. The development process begins when a development application is submitted to the City. Various procedures are followed depending on the type of application submitted. In all cases, applications are reviewed to ensure that all City standards are met and conform with all previous discretionary approvals prior to finalizing the projects and issuing building permits. Once the project has received final occupancy, the development process ends and the Land Use is identified as an existing land use. Land use in the developing process was identified by a review of the City of Carlsbad Planning Department Development records. A detailed itemization of developing land uses is provided in Exhibit 13 on page 40. After receiving tentative discretionary approval, a land use is considered approved. The approval is valid until the land use is developed and occupied or the tentative approval expires. 39 C C EXHIBIT 13 ZONE 11 -DEVELOPING LAND USES AS OF 1/1/87 I DEVELOPING STATUS I GEN PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION GROSS ACRES PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT ACRES --------------------------------------------------------, APPLICATION I TENTATIVE I FINAL I BUILDING I I TOTAL EXISTING SUBMITTAL I APPROVAL I MAP I PERMITS II I (1) :~:~ I ~~~:~ I II II RL-3 I 187.4 I II ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RL TOTAL I 843.2 I I 11 RLM-1 157.7 RLM-2 134.1 RLM-3 51.3 CT 75·9(8) 170 170 RLM-4 159.5 CT 75-9(8) 63.9 43 43 CT 81-16 78.8 260 CT 85-9, 11 94.3 256.0 256 RLM-5 7.5 RLM-6 26.9 RLM-7 160.1 CT 85-10 90.2 189 189 RLM TOTAL I 697.1 I 321.2 I 445 I 213 I 11 658 I 260 :::~ I ~t~ I CT 85-15 I 26.7 I 131 I I 11 131 I RM-3 I 8.6 I CT 85-21 I 6.8 I 35 I I 11 35 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RM TOTAL I 45.0 I 33.5 I I 166 I I II 166 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RMH-1 I 34.0 I CT 84-7 34.0 I I 176 I 11 176 I 320 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RMH TOTAL I 34.0 I 34.0 I 176 I 11 176 I 320 -===--=------=--==--==----•==•=-==-=••==-=-=------=--======--=-=--===•=-==-=--==--------==-=---=-----------------TOTAL RES 11619.3 I 394.7 I 611 I 389 I II 1,000 I 580 ==================••=========•========••======-=========•==================••==============•===================== C-1 I 5.3 I SOP 86-3 I 46,885 I C-2 36.7 C-3 I 6.7 I I I II ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------c TOTAL I 48. 7 I 46,885 I 11 0 11.5 G/0 4.0 SP 196 H 88.0 ELEM u 4.9 Meadowlark OS-1 124.2 OS-2 19.7 OS-3 41.7 OS-4 30.3 Stagecoach 28.0 28 ACRES os-s 21.4 OS-6 24.0 os-7 9.0 OS-8 38.3 ================================================================================================================ TOTAL NON-RES 465.7 I 28.0 I 46,885 I II -==---=------=--=--=---==-=---=-===-=------=--=--==•======--=---=-=----===------=--=--=====-==-------=----------NOTES: (1) See Exhibit 12. 40 C E. C C BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS CALCULATIONS Both residential as of 1/1/87 for pages 42 and 43. follows: and non-residential build out projections Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 14 and 15 on Build out projections are calculated as 1. Residential Build Out Projections 2. 6 The net developable acreage of each residential land use sub-area is multiplied by the adopted Growth Management control point as shown below: General Plan Land Use Designation RL RLM RM RMH RH Growth Management Control Point6 1.0 3.2 6.0 11.5 19.0 The result provides the base residential dwelling unit build out projections for each sub-area consistent with the passage of Proposition Eon November 4, 1986. Both existing and approved dwelling units are subtracted from this yield to indicate the amount of future residential development in the zone. Non-Residential Build Out Projections The net-developable acreage of each non-residential land use sub-area is multiplied by either .3 or .4 as described below_. The resultant figures provide an estimate of ultimate land use intensity as defined by building square footage for each sub-area. This estimate is used for facility planning purposes. The Growth Management Program uses the . 3 factor to estimate building square footage yields on either 1) unapproved and unimproved vacant unconstrained land or on 2) urbanized underdeveloped non-residential sites. These urbanized underdeveloped sites typically exhibit significant man-made constraints to development. Primary constraints are: a) compatibility with surrounding land uses and b) proper interfacing with existing infrastructure and public facilities. Dwelling unit per acre of non-constrained land pursuant to 21.53 and 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 41 C C EXHIBIT 14 ZONE 11 -LFMP RESIDENTIAL BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS (AS OF 1/1/87) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION RL-1 RL-2 RL-3 RL TOTAL RLM-1 RLM-2 RLM-3 RLM-4 RLM-5 RLM-6 RLM-7 BASE RESIDENTIAL NET GMCP BUILD OUT EXIST. APP. ACRES (1) PROJECTIONS DU'S DU'S 262.9 187.8 167.5 618.2 I 127.3 102 •. 5 51.3 139.3 7.4 22.0 154.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 263 188 168 618 I 407 328 164 446 24 70 495 260 170. 299 189 FUTURE DU'.S 263 188 168 618 407 328 (6) (113) 24 70 306 RLM TOTAL RM-1 604.4 I 12.1 23.8 8.6 1,934 I 73 143 52 260 I 658 I 1,016 RM-2 RM-3 6.0 6.0 6.0 131 35 73 12 17 RM TOTAL I 44.5 I 267 I 166 I 101 --------------------------------------------------------------------RMH-1 I 34.0 I 11.5 I 391 I 320 I 176 I (105) --------------------------------------------------------------------RMH TOTAL 3 4 • 0 I 3 91 I 3 2 0 I 176 I ( 10 5) ====================--========================================= TOTAL RES I 1301.0 I 3,210 I 580 I 1,000 I 1,630 --------------------------------------------------------------------DU'S FROM ZONES 10 AND 12(2) 385 385 --------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 3,595 580 1,000 2,015 ========--=============--======================================= NOTES: (1) GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROL POINT (2) SEE DISCUSSION OF UNIT TRANSFER ON PAGE 44. 42 ""' l,J n GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION C-1 C-2 C-3 n n EXHIBIT 15 ZONE 11 -LFMP NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS (AS OF 1/1/87) NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES 5.3 34.5 6.7 GMP NON- RESIDENTIAL LU INTENSITY ESTIMATE 30% 30% 30% BASE NON- RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT EXISTING PROJECTIONS SQ. FT. 67,623 440,186 85,485 APPROVED SQ. FT. 46,885 ESTIMATED FUTURE SQ. FT. 20,738 440,186 85,485 ~' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------C TOTAL 46.5 I 30%1 593,294 I 0 G/0 H ELEM u TOTAL 11.2 30% 142,901 3.8 30% 48,484 (1) 84.6 249,032 (2) 10.0 38,000 4.8 30% 61,243 ZONE 207.4 1,726,247 46,885 NOTES: (1) Projected High School square footage was provided by by Dr. Daly of the San Dieguito High School District. (2) Projected Elementary School square footage was provided by 593,294 142,901 48,484 249,032 38,000 61,243 1,679,362 Ms. Sandy Wilkinson of the Encinitas Union Elementary School District. C F. C G. C The • 4 factor is used to estimate building square footage yields on unconstrained lots which have approved land use projects and have all infrastructure in place. As of January, 1987, no non-residential areas of this type exist in the zone. The land use intensity of both existing and approved non-residential development is subtracted from this estimate to indicate the amount of future non-residential land use intensity. DWELLING UNIT TRANSFER The build out projections for Zone 11 include a dwelling unit transfer of 385 units from Zones 10 and 12. A dwelling unit transfer may be allowed within a quadrant pursuant to the Goals and Policies of the General Plan and Title 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. A dwelling unit transfer must assure 1) the overall unit count in the quadrant is not changed, 2) no other property owners are adversely affected, and 3) the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan land use designations must not be exceeded. The specific dwelling unit transfer is a transfer of 206 dwelling units from Zone 10 into Zone 11 and 179 units from Zone 12 into Zone 11. Units transferred from Zones 10 and 12 must be offset by additional permanent open space. Throughout this document, the dwelling unit transfer of 385 dwelling units is included in all public facility build out and phasing projections. BUILD OUT POPULATION PROJECTION The build out population projection for Management Zone 11 was determined by applying a population generation rate of 2.471 persons/dwelling unit. The build out population projections for Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 16 on page 45. These build out population projections are used consistently throughout this plan for the purpose of predicting demand for public facilities. 44 ""' u, n EXHIBIT 16 -ZONE 11 BUILD llJT POPULATION PROJECTIONS BASE I 11 11 I GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL I II POPULATION II I BUILD llJT f LAND USE DU BUILDIXJT f EXISTING I APPROVED f FUTURE ff INDEX f fEXISTING !APPROVED I FUTURE f POPULATION f DESIGNATION PROJECTIONS I DUS f DUS f DUS II (2.471/DU) II POP f POP f POP f PROJECTION I c1 > I <2> I I I 11 <3> 11 I I I 1--------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 RL-1 I 263 I I I 263 II 2.471 II I I 650 I 650 I RL-2 I 188 I I I 188 II 2.471 II I I 464 I 464 I RL-3 I 168 I I I 168 II 2.471 II I I 414 I 414 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I RL TOTAL I 618 I f f 618 II II I I 1,528 I 1,528 RLM-1 RLM-2 RLM-3 RLM-4 RLM-5 RLM-6 RLM-7 RLM TOTAL RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 407 I 328 I 164 I 446 I 24 I 10 I 495 I 1,934 I 73 I 143 I 52 I I I I 260 I I I I 260 I I 401 11 I 328 11 110 I <6> I I 299 I (113>11 I 24 II I 70 11 189 I 306 II 658 I 1,016 11 I 131 I 35 I 73 II 12 11 11 11 2.471 II 2.471 II .2.471 II 2.471 II 2.471 II 2.471 II 2.471 II II 2.471 11 2.411 11 2.411 11 I I I I I 420 I 642 I 739 I I I I I I 467 I 642 I 1,626 I I 324 I 86 I 1,006 I 810 I (14)1 (280)1 59 I 114 I 756 I 2,510 I 179 I 28 I 41 t 1,006 810 406 1,101 59 174 1,223 4,779 179 352 128 RM TOTAL I 267 I f 166 I 101 II II f 410 I 249 I 659 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I RMH-1 I 391 I 320 I 176 I (105>11 2.471 II 791 I 435 I (259>1 966 ,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 RMH TOTAL I 391 I 320 I 176 I (105) 11 11 791 f 435 f (259) I 966 !===============================================================================================================================! f TOT ZONE RES f 3,210 I 580 f 1,000 I 1,630 11 II 1,433 f 2,471 f 4,027 I 7,931 I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I UNIT TRANSFER f 385 I I I 385 11 2.471 11 f f 951 I 951 I 1===============================================================================================================================1 I TOTAL I 3,595 I 580 f 1,000 f 2,015 II II 1,433 I 2,471 I 4,979 I 8,883 I =============================================================================================================================== NOTES: (1) See Exhibits 10A, 108, 10C and 12. (2) See Exhibit 14. (3) Source: 1986 CFIP. n C c· IV. PHASING PROJECTIONS Phasing projections estimate when, where and how much development will occur in Zone 11 between now and build out. Although difficult to predict exactly, phasing projections begin to make possible advance planning and programming of public facilities to assure adopted performance standards are continually met. Specifically phasing projections: 1. Project estimated demands for public facilities on a yearly basis until build out. 2. Project and establish thresholds when and where public facilities improvements are needed. 3. By projecting facility thresholds allow sufficient lead time for facility programming to assure performance standards are continually met. 4. Through threshold identification allow the City to efficiently and effectively implement public facility improvements. The '86 CFIP projects residential phasing to be 1,250 dwelling units per year. This projection was based on a review of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projections along with those utilized in the City's Capital Improvement Program and the Public Facilities Management Systems, Monitoring Report of April, 1986. The 1986 CFIP's public facility programming was based in part on this projection. Zone ll's phasing projections consider the Citywide residential phasing projections used in the 1986 CFIP to identify public facility thresholds. B. ZONE 11 LAND USE PHASING 1. Residential The residential phasing projections for Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 17 on page 48. The projected residential phasing schedule is intended to be used for projecting future need and timing of public facilities. It is a tool to allow the city to anticipate future public facility needs and to budget monies for their improvement. The projected residential phasing schedule is not absolute. The actual number of dwelling units to be built each year will vary depending on economic conditions. 46 Exhibit 17 also shows the residential phasing schedules of the adopted LFMP's. The adopted LFMP's include LFMP Zones 1-6 and 19. For purposes of this analysis, Zone 12 is included in the phasing table. Exhibit 17 shows the adopted yearly phasing schedules for these zones and shows the adopted '86 CFIP Citywide projected phasing schedule. Exhibit 18 on page 51 shows a similar phasing schedule for the zones located within the southeast quadrant of the city. The southeast quadrant phasing proj actions are provided to make the review and future update and monitoring of quadrant specific facilities more manageable and easier to understand. Also, a Zone 11 residential phasing schedule is shown on Exhibit 19 on page 52 for use in the review and update of zone specific public facilities. 47 C C I I EXHIBIT 17 CITY WIDE RESIDENTIAL PHASING PROJECTIONS * * * FOR FACILITY PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY * * * 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I STATUS I I YEARS I LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES I I I I I I IAS OF 1/1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I I I I I NOTES I I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING I I 1987 I 9,012 1,993 231 2,448 0 6,426 I I I I I I I I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IPROJECTEDI I 1987 508 225 2 230 195 I 1988 305 226 3 115 130 I 1989 292 o 3 115 o I 1990 92 o 5 121 o I 1991 48 36 2 BLD OUT 235 I 1992 94 36 2 230 I 1993 98 36 2 246 I 1994 98 21 277 I 1995 98 5 131 I 1996 98 BLD OUT BLD OUT 120 I 1997 98 36 I 1998 98 85 I 1999 98 85 I ~oo ~ ~ I ~1 ~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I 2003 98 85 I 2004 98 85 I 2005 98 85 I 2006 98 85 I 2001 98 85 I 2008 98 85 I 2009 98 85 I 2010 98 85 I 2011 98 85 I 2012 BLD OUT BLD OUT !BUILD OUTI I 2013 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL 12,220 2,578 252 3,029 9,218 NOTES: (1) Zone 1 LFMP, adopted September 1, 1987, C.C. Reso. No. 9221. (2) Zone 2 LFMP, adopted JW'te 16, 1987, C.C. Reso. No. 9123. (3) Zone 3 LFMP, adopted May 19, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9084. (4) Zone 4 LFMP, adopted June 16, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9122. (5) Zone 5 LFMP, adopted August 4, 1987, C.C Reso. No. 9188. (6) Zone 6 LFMP, adopted November 10, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9291. 48 C EXHIBIT 17 (page 2 of 3) I I I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I YEARS I LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES I I I I AS OF 1111 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I I I I en I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1987 580 589 I -I I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1987 383 o I 1988 111 o I 1989 432 436 I 1990 510 382 I 1991 375 296 I 1992 275 185 I 1993 240 BLD OUT I 1994 240 I 1995 I 201 1996 I 164 1997 I n 1998 I BLD OUT 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL I 3,595 1,888 Notes: (7) The Zone 12 LFMP phasing nunbers are included because of the interrelated finance plan with Zone 11. 49 EXHIBIT 17 (page 3 of 3) C 11 11 I I II TOTALS OF ADOPTED LFMPs I I 1986 CFIP I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I YEARS I LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES II TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL I I PHASED PHASED I I I II ADOPTED CITYWIDE CITYWIDE I I DU'S POPULATION! AS OF 1/1 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II PHASED D.U.'S POPULATIONII I I 11 DU'S AS OF 1/1 11 I I <8> 11 11 I 1987 I 0 11 21,279 23,348 57,693 11 23,348 57,693 I I 11 11 I I 11 11 I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1987 I 0 1,543 23,348 57,693 1,250 57,693 I 1988 I 139 1,035 24,891 61,506 1,250 60,782 I 1989 I 251 1,529 25,926 64,063 1,250 63,871 I 1990 392 1,502 27,455 67,841 1,250 66,959 I 1991 426 1,418 28,957 71,553 1,250 10,048 I 1992 362 1,184 30,375 75,057 1,250 73, 137 I 1993 410 1,032 31,559 77,982 1,250 76,226 I 1994 332 969 32,591 80,533 1,250 79,314 I 1995 431 873 33,561 82,929 1,250 82,403 1996 301 683 34,434 85,087 1,250 85,492 C. 1997 226 432 35, 117 86,775 1,250 88,581 1998 BLD OUT 184 35,550 87,844 1,250 91,669 1999 184 35,733 88,297 1,250 94,758 2000 184 35,917 88,751 1,250 97,847 2001 184 36, 100 89,204 1,250 100,936 2002 184 36,284 89,657 1,250 104,024 2003 184 36,467 90,111 1,250 107,113 2004 184 36,651 90,564 I 1,250 110,202 2005 184 36,834 91,018 I 1,250 113,291 2006 184 37,018 91,471 I 1,250 116,379 2007 184 37,201 91,925 I 1,250 119,468 2008 184 37,385 92,378 I 1,250 122,557 2009 184 37,568 92,832 I 1,250 125,646 2010 184 37,752 93,285 I 1,250 128,734 2011 184 37,935 93,739 I 1,250 131,823 2012 38,119 94, 192 I 1,250 134,912 I 2013 I 38,119 94,192 I 1,250 134,914 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I TOTAL I 3,270 36,050 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: (8) Zone 19, adopted December 8, 1987, c.c. Resolution# 9322. C so (,. C EXHIBIT 18 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT RESIDENTIAL PHASING PROJECTIONS * * * FOR FACILITY PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY * * * II TOTALS OF I I I ADOPTED LFMP'S I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 STATUS I I YEARS I LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES II TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I I QUADRANT QUADRANT I I IAS OF 1/11 6-SE 10 11 12 17 18 II D.U.'S POPULATION! I I I I IAS OF 1/1 I I NOTES I I 11 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 EXISTING! I 19871 6,019 580 589 II 7,188 17,7621 I I I II I I I II PROJECTED 1987 195 383 0 7,188 17,762 1988 70 117 0 7,766 19, 190 1989 0 432 436 7,953 19,652 1990 0 510 382 8,821 21,797 1991 184 375 296 9,713 24,001 1992 180 275 185 10,568 26, 114 1993 246 240 BLD OUT 11,208 27,695 1994 246 240 11,694 28,896 1995 131 207 12, 180 30,097 1996 120 164 12,518 30,932 1997 36 72 12,802 31,634 1998 85 BLD OUT 12,910 31,901 1999 85 12,995 32,111 2000 85 13,080 32,321 2001 85 13, 165 32,531 2002 85 13,250 32,741 2003 85 13,335 32,951 2004 85 13,420 33, 161 2005 85 13,505 33,371 2006 85 13,590 33,581 2007 85 13,675 33,791 2008 85 13,760 34,001 2009 85 I 13,845 34,211 2010 85 I 13,930 34,421 2011 85 I 14,015 34,631 2012 I BLD OUT I 14, 100 34,841 I BUILD OUT I 2013 I I 14,100 34,841 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I TOTAL 8,617 3,595 1,888 !PROPOSITION E RESIDENTIAL QUADRANT CAP 17,328 42,817 I 51 EXHIBIT 19 ZONE 11 RESIDENTIAL PHASING PROJECTION ***FOR FACILITY PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY*** I II TOTALS OF I 11 ADOPTED LFMP'S I 1--------------------------------------------------------------1 I STATUS I I YEARS I II TOTAL TOTAL I I I I I 11 ZONE ZONE I I I IAS OF 1111 ZONE 11 II D.U.'S POPULATION! I I I I I IAS OF 1/1 I I I NOTES I I 11 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING I I 1987 I 580 11 580 1,433 I I I I 11 I I I I 11 1------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECTED 1987 I 383 I 580 5,481 1988 I 111 I 963 2,380 1989 I 432 I 1,080 2,669 1990 I 510 I 1,512 3,736 1991 I 375 I 2,022 4,996 1992 I 275 I 2,397 5,923 1993 I 240 I 2,672 6,603 1994 I 240 I 2,912 7,196 1995 I 201 I 3,152 7,789 1996 I 164 I 3,359 8,300 1991 I 12 I 3,523 8,105 1998 I BLD OUT I 3,595 8,883 1999 I I 3,595 8,883 2000 I I 3,595 8,883 2001 I I 3,595 8,883 2002 I I 3,595 8,883 2003 I I 3,595 8,883 2004 I I 3,595 8,883 2005 I I 3,595 8,883 2006 I I 3,595 8,883 2001 I I 3,595 8,883 2008 I I 3,595 8,883 2009 I I 3,595 8,883 2010 I I 3,595 8,883 I 2011 I I 3,595 8,883 I 2012 I I 3,595 8,883 I !BUILD OUTI I 2013 I I 3,595 8,883 I 1--------------------------------------------------------------1 I TOTAL 3,595 I C 52 C 2. 3. C C Non-Residential The citywide non-residential phasing projections, including Zone 11, are shown on Exhibit 20 on page 54. Similar to residential phasing, these projections are estimated for purposes of public facility planning. Exhibit 21 on page 57 indicates the southeast quadrant non-residential phasing projections and Exhibit 22 on page 58 shows the Zone 11 non-residential phasing projections. Comparable to residential phasing projections, these exhibits are provided to facilitate future monitoring of this Local Facility Management Plan. · Phasing Summary Both residential and non-residential phasing projections are provided in order to plan for public facilities. The plan provides these projections to establish thresholds which necessitate the need for additional facilities. The Growth Management Program and the Zone 11 LFMP anticipate that the actual phasing of development in this zone will vary from these projections. In no instance, however, will a change in phasing result in the failure of any performance standard to be met. The public facility thresholds established in this plan will ensure that compliance with the adopted performance standards is maintained or no development will be allowed until compliance is reached. 53 C C C EXHIBIT 20 ZONE 11 -CITY WIDE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS * * * FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY * * * STATUS YEARS LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES 2 3 4 5 6 I I 7 I I I I NOTES: I I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) I ,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, !EXISTING j I 1987 I 2,230,160 266,499 1,679,832 0 4,256,609 841,434 I ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, PROJECTED 1987 I 139,500 0 90,169 0 954,530 100,000 I I I I I I I I I I I I !BUILD CUTI 1988 I 85,060 o 141,134 o 954,530 o I 1989 I 113,750 40,249 9,148 o 954,530 o I 1990 I 5,ooo 116,566 78,408 o 954,530 34,875 I 1991 I 44,500 BLD OUT 37,897 89,211 954,530 34,875 I 1992 I 55,400 30,056 BLD OUT 954,530 34,875 I 1993 I 28,000 44,431 954,530 34,875 I 1994 I 67,500 13,068 954,530 34,875 I 1995 I 62,000 1,307 954,530 34,875 I 1996 I 65,ooo 99,317 954,530 34,875 I 1997 I 95,000 BLD OUT 493, 788 34,875 I 1998 I n,ooo 493,788 34,875 I 1999 I 62,000 493,788 34,875 I 2000 I 88, 560 493, 788 34, 875 I 2001 I 65,500 493,788 34,875 I 2002 I 38,ooo 493,788 34,875 2003 I 28,000 493,788 34,875 2004 I 75 , ooo 493, 788 34, 875 2005 I 121,550 493,788 34,875 2006 I 75, ooo 493, 788 34,875 2001 I 75, ooo 493, 788 34,875 2008 I 82,550 493,788 34,875 2009 I 94,o5o 493,788 34,875 2010 I 96,aoo 493,788 34,875 2011 I 192,100 493,788 34,875 2012 I 195,100 493,788 34,875 2013 I 214,100 493,782 34,875 TOTAL 4,578,980 423,314 2,224,767 89,211 22,196,299 1,778,434 ==========================•==========,:==================================================================== NOTES: (1) Zone 1 LFMP, adopted September 1, 1987, c_c. Reso. No. 9221. (2) Zone 2 LFMP, adopted Ju,e 16, 1987, C.C. Reso. No. 9123. (3) Zone 3 LFMP, adopted May 19, 1987, C.C. Reso. No. 9084. (4) Zone 4 LFMP, adopted Ju,e 16, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9122, indicates a 2.1 net acre site, however, no phasing is provided. (5) Zone 5 LFMP, adopted August 4, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9188. (6) Zone 6 LFMP, adopted November 10, 1987, c.c. Reso. No. 9291. 54 C C .. C YEARS 8 9 1987 I 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 EXHIBIT 20 (page 2 of 3) LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES 10 11 0 0 0 46,885 285,789 285,789 285,789 BLD OUT 12 (7) 0 0 0 0 0 60,984 BLD OUT 13 14 15 16 17 18 1----~===-=---=----=--==-==-==--==-===-===-=-===---=-------==-=----=--=--===-----=-----------==------ TOTAL 904,252 60,984 =================================================================================================== NOTES: C7) The Zone 12 LFMP phasing num>ers are included because of the interrelated finance plan with Zone 11. 55 EXHIBIT 20 (page 3 of 3) C YEARS LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES TOTAL I ADOPTED I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I NON-RESIDENTIAL I I SQUARE I I (8) I FOOTAGE I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 1987 I I 9,274,534 I 1987 I 1,284,199 1988 I 0 1,180,724 1989 I 0 1,164,562 1990 I 10,454 1,485,622 1991 I 325,829 1,833,615 1992 I BLD WT 1,360,650 1993 I 1,061,836 1994 1,069,973 1995 1,052,712 1996 1,153,722 1997 623,663 1998 605,663 1999 590,663 2000 617,223 c~ 2001 594, 163 2002 566,663 2003 556,663 2004 603,663 2005 656,213 2006 603,663 2007 603,663 2008 611,213 2009 622,713 2010 625,463 2011 721,363 2012 724,363 2013 743,357 1=========-================--=================================================================1 I TOTAL 336,283 32,592,524 I ==&==-========:i--==============•=========~================================================ NOTES: (8) Zone 19 LFMP, adopted December 22, 1987, C.C. Reso. No. 9322. C 56 EXHIBIT 21 ZONE 11 -SOUTHEAST QUADRANT NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS * * * FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY * * * STATUS I YEARS LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES TOTAL I ADOPTED I 6-SE 10 11 12 17 18 NON-RESIDENTIAL I SQUARE I I NOTES: I I (7) I FOOTAGE I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-----------------1 !EXISTING I I 1987 I 841,434 0 0 I 841,434 I 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IPROJECTEDI I 1987 0 0 0 0 I I I 1988 o o o o I I I 1989 o 46,885 o 46,885 I I I 1990 34,875 285,789 o 320,664 I I I 1991 34,875 285,789 60,984 381,648 I I I 1992 34,875 285,789 BLD OUT 320,664 I I I 1993 34,875 BLD OUT 34,875 I I I 1994 34,875 34,875 I I I 1995 34,875 34,875 I I I 1996 34,875 34,875 I I 1997 34,875 34,875 I I 1998 34,875 34,875 I I 1999 34,875 34,875 I I 2000 34,875 34,875 I I 2001 34,875 34,875 I I 2002 34,875 34,875 I I 2003 34,875 34,875 I I 2004 34,875 34,875 I I 2005 34,875 34,875 I I 2006 34,875 34,875 I I 2001 34,875 34,875 I I 2ooa 34,875 34,875 I I 2009 34,875 34,875 I I 2010 34,875 34,875 I I 2011 34,875 34,875 I I 2012 34,875 34,875 !BUILD OUT I 2013 34,875 34,875 TOTAL 1,678,434 904,252 60,984 2,643,670 I ==-------==--------=---=-.-----=-====-----====-=--===--=---------------=--=--------------------------------- NOTES: (7) The Zone 12 LFMP phasing nunbers are included because of the interrelated finance plan with Zone 11 57 EXHIBIT 22 ZONE 11 NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS C * * * FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY * * * STATUS I YEARS I ZONE 11 I I I I 1-----------------------------------------------------------------1 I EXISTING I 1987 I O I 1---------------------------------------------------------------- !PROJECTED 1987 I 0 I 1988 I o I 1989 I 46,885 I 1990 I 285, 789 I 1991 I 285, 789 I 1992 I 285,789 I 1993 I BLD OUT I 1994 I I 1995 I I 1996 I I 1997 I I 1998 I I 1999 I I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I 2003 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2001 I 2ooa I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 !BUILD OUT 2013 I TOTAL 904,252 ================================================================= 58 C V. ZONE 11 REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 addresses eleven separate facilities at three levels of analysis. Facility City Admin. Facilities Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Park Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection Water Distribution Citywide X X X Level of Analysis Quadrant X Zone X X X X X X X Each of these facilities is evaluated to determine conformance with the adopted performance standard. For each facility analysis the following is provided: a. An illustrative map showing facilities discussed in the section and district boundaries; b. The adopted service level performance standard which must be complied with at all times as development occurs; c. A detailed facility adequacy and planning analysis d. e. A list of conditions necessary to ensure conformance with the adopted performance standard; and A discussion of mitigation measures and financing mechanisms. 59 C C Citywide facilities (City Administrative, Library, and wastewater Treatment) have been analyzed in the '86 CFIP. Analysis of these facilities are also included in this Local Facilities Management Plan to verify compliance with the '86 CFIP or to suggest alternatives that assure conformance with the adopted performance standard. This plan shows how each adopted performance standard will be complied with as development occurs within Zone 11. This plan includes financing of all public facilities and services. The plan also includes a complete facility phasing schedule which is linked to public facility demands within the zone. 60 C CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD 1,500 square feet per 1, ooo population must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS This analysis provides an inventory of existing and programed City Administrative Facilities owned and leased by the city of Carlsbad. These facilities include both permanent and temporary structures. This analysis projects the build out demand for City Administrative Facilities and determines compliance with the adopted performance standard. Exhibit 23 on page 62 shows the location of the existing and future City Administration Facilities. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing and Build out City Administrative Demand: Citywide projected population comes from the 1986 CFIP. Zone 11 projected population comes from Exhibit 16 on page 45. Existing (1/1/87) Citywide Zone 11 Build Out Citywide (2013) Zone 11 (1997) Projected Population 57,693 1,433 134,914 8,883 61 Performance Standard Demand {Sq. Ft. ) 86,539 2,149 202,371 13,324 HOUSING AND REDEVB..OR.ENT CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES * CITY ADMINISTRATION -EXISTING FIRE & POLICE SAFETY CENTER 1 7 1 8 * CITY ADMINISTRATION -PLANNED NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. C ~=--~:--r-::a---~------=G-=R-=o..,..,W'"""T=-H-,-----------=E.....,xh ...... ib,,....,it""""2~3 MANAGEMENT e Cit -Wide Faci 1t1es NO SCALE PROGRAM Zone 11 62 C 2. C. C Inventory of Existing City Administrative Facilities: The existing city Administrative Facilities owned and leased by the City of Carlsbad as of January 1, 1987 are: City Hall (1200 Elm Ave): Permanent (Sq Ft) Main Building 12,899 Finance Modular Purchasing/Personnel Modular Redevelopment (2965 B Roosevelt) Community Development (2075 Las Palmas Ori ve) : Public Safety and Service Center (I) (2560 Orion Way): Police and Fire Vehicle Maintenance Totals 22,627 53,700 10,358 99,584 TOTAL EXISTING FACILITIES Temporary (Sq Ft) 2,700 1,800 4,500 Leased (Sq Ft) 2,000 2,000 106,084 Existing City Administrative Facilities as of January 1, 1987 exceed the performance standard. However, 1.9 percent of the total square footage is leased and another 4.2 percent are in temporary modular units. If the leases are terminated or temporary facilities are no longer used, thereby reducing existing City Administrative Facilities, this analysis would need to be re-done to assess compliance with the adopted performance standard. If compliance was not being maintained, all residential development in the City would be stopped until the appropriate mitigation could be implemented. 63 c: 3. Inventory of Approved Future City Administrative Facilities: The adopted '87-'92 Capital Improvement Program {CC Reso. 9271) funds the following City Administration Facilities for construction within 5 years {1992): Facility Public Safety Center (II): Design Construction TOTAL Square Feet 62,000 62,000 Funding Year '86-'87 $255,000 '92-'97 $3,455,000 $3,710,000 Source PFF PFF/S/W7 No other City Administrative Facilities are identified within the City's adopted CIP. Existing City Administrative Facilities plus those budgeted in the adopted 1987-92 CIP are scheduled for construction within five years as follows: Existing '87-'92 CIP Subtotal TOTAL FACILITIES Permanent (Sq Ft) 99,534 62,000 161,584 Temporary (Sq Ft) 4,500 4,500 Leased (Sq Ft) 2,000 2,000 168,084 B. PHASING 7 The citywide residential phasing projections on Exhibit 17 on page 48 are incorporated into Exhibit 24 on page 65. Exhibit 24 projects the adequacy of City Administrative Facilities on a city wide basis by comparing the projected facility demand with existing and funded facilities. Analysis of Exhibit 24 shows that City Administrative Facilities currently meet the performance standard and that the facilities are projected to conform to the performance standard until 2005. PFF = Public Facilities Fee, S = Sewer Enterprise Fund and W = Water Enterprise Fund. 64 EXHIBIT 24 ZONE 11 -PHASING OF CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES (1,500 SQUARE FEET PER 1,000 POPULATION) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS I ADOPTED PHASING ADEQUACY ANALYSIS I I '86 CFIP ADEQUACY ANALYSIS I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I IN I I I I PROJECTED I PROJECTED 11 I PROJECTED I II YEAR I OTHER I I IN TOTAL I ADOPTED I ADOPTED CITYWIDE CITY I ADOPTED I I CITYWIDE I CITYWIDE I ADOPTED IN I IN IN I ADOPTED I WNES ZONES ADMINISTRATION ADEQUACY/ 11 POPULATION CITYWIDE ADEQUACY/ STATUS I (AS OF 1/1) I ZONES ZONE 11 I ZONE 12 ZONE 19 I PLANS I POPULATION I DEMAND I SUPPLY I (INADEQUACY) 11 PRO,:ECTIONS DEMAND I ( INADEQUACY) I I I I I I I I I 11 I I NOTES: I I ( 1) (2) I (3) (4) I (5) I (6) I I I II I I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 EXISTING I I 1987 I 20,110 I 580 589 0 I 21,279 I 57,693 I 86,540 I 106,084 I 19,545 I 57,693 I 86,540 I 19,545 I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 PROJECTED 1' 1987 I 1,160 383 O O 1,543 57,693 86,540 106,084 19,545 I 57,693 I 86,540 I 19,545 I 19sa I 779 111 o 139 1,035 60,250 90,376 106,084 1s,1os I 60,782 91,173 14,911 I 1989 I 410 432 436 251 1,529 64,029 96,043 106,084 10,041 I 63,871 I 95,806 I 10,278 I I 1990 I 218 510 382 392 1,502 67,740 101,610 106,084 4,474 I 66,959 I 100,439 5,645 <7> I 1991 I 321 I 375 296 426 1,418 7j,244 106,866 168,084 61,218 I 7o,o4B 1os,012 63,012 I I 1992 I 362 I 275 1Bs 362 1,184 74,110 111,2s4 168,084 s6,83o I 73,137 109,105 58,379 I I 1993 I 382 I 240 BLD O'JT 410 1, 032 76, 720 115,080 168, 084 53,004 I 76, 226 114,338 53,746 I I 1994 397 240 332 969 79,114 118,671 168,084 49,413 I 19,314 118,971 49,113 I I 1995 I 235 I 201 431 873 81,271 121,907 168,084 46,177 I e2,4o3 123,6□5 44,480 I I 1996 I 21a I 164 301 683 s2,9s9 124,438 168,084 43,646 I ss,492 12a,23s 39,846 I I 1997 I 134 I 72 226 432 a,.,026 126,040 168,084 42,044 I ss,ss1 132,s11 35,213 I I 1998 184 I BLD OUT BLD OUT 184 84,481 126,722 i68,084 41,362 I 91,669 137,504 30,580 I I 1999 1e4 I 184 &.,936 127,404 168,084 40,680 I 94,758 142,137 25,947 I I 2000 184 I 184 es,390 12s,oe6 168,084 39,993 I 97,847 146,770 21,314 I [ 2001 184 I 184 as,845 128,768 168,084 39,316 I 100,936 1s1,403 16,681 I I 2002 184 I 184 &6,300 129,450 168,084 38,634 I I 104,024 156,036 12,G~8 I I 2003 184 I 184 86,754 130,132 168,084 37,952 11 107,113 160,67□ 7,4151 I 2004 134 I 184 81,209 130,814 168,084 37,2?0 11 1·,0,202 165,303 2,1s1 I 200s 1s4 1 184 87,664 131,496 168,084 36,588 11 113,291 169,936 <1,852)1 I 2006 184 I 184 88, 11a 132, 11a 168,084 35,9□6 11 116,379 174,569 <6,485> I 2007 134 1 184 88,573 132,860 168,084 35,224 11 119,468 179,202 c11,11a>1 I 2008 184 I 184 89,02a 133,542 168,084 34,s42 11 122,557 1s3,a3s c1s,751> I 2009 i84 I 184 89,482 134,224 168,084 33,860 'I 125,646 188,468 (20,384) I 2010 184 I 184 e?,937 134,906 16s,084 33, 11a I 12s, 734 193,101 c2s,01?) I 2011 184 I 184 90,392 135,588 168,084 32,496 11 n1,e23 197,735 <29,651> I 2012 BLD OUT I BLD OUT 90,392 135,588 I 168,084 32,496 Ii 134,912 202,368 (34,284) I BUILD OUT I I 2013 I 90,392 135,588 I 168,084 32,496 11 134,914 202,371 (34,287) 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 TOTAL 27,302 I 3,595 I 1,888 I 3,270 I 36,055 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··------------------------------------- NOTES: (i) Dwelling units in adopted zone plans are those projected in the LFMP for Zones 1-6. (2) Source -Exhibit 19, page 52. (3) Source -Zone 12 LFMP. (4) Source -Zone 19 LFMP. (5) Total dwelling units include the adopted zones 1-6 and 19, along with zones 11 and 12. (6) Existing citywide pop~lation is the base population used for projecting Adopted Zone Plan Populations. (7) City Safety Center Phase II. 65 C C. ADEQUACY FINDINGS Analysis of Zone ll's demand on City Administrative Facilities as of 1/1/87 indicates no mitigation is needed at this time. The performance standard is currently being conformed to and is projected to conform until 2005. III. MITIGATION IV. A. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 If the adopted performance standard for City Administrative Facilities is not being complied with then residential development in Zone 11 will be stopped until the standard is met. B. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 No special conditions are necessary at this time. FINANCING The city collects a public facility fee (PFF) which is set at 3.5% of permit valuation. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. In calculating the PFF the following expenditures were projected for City Administrative Facilities: Public Safety Center Phase II City Hall -Future TOTAL $3,400,000 $23,100,000 $26,500,000 In addition to the PFF funds, the adopted '87-'92 CIP indicates the use of sewer funds and water enterprise funds for part of the public safety center Phase II. Public Facility Fees will continue to be paid by development in the zone. Thus, no special financing mechanism for City Administrative Facilities is required as a condition of development within Zone 11. Exhibit 25 on page 67 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 66 EXHIBIT 25 ZONE 11 -CITY ADMINISTRATION FACILITY FINANCING AS OF 1/20/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&·-----------------I FUNDING OPTIONS I I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I I FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD l NOTES I !============================================================================-====================================-=---------------====~=================! I CITY ADMINISTRATION I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------, I 1. Las Palmas Purchase 22,627 sf I $2,500,000 I 1987-97 I City -PFF I I I ?FF=Publ ic I 1 1 I I I I I ! racility Fees I 2. Safety Center Phase I I 62,000 sf I $3,710,000 I 1992-97 I City -PFF I I I I I I I I I ; I I 3. New City Hall NA I $23,100,000 1997+ I City -PFF I I I I I I -------------I I I I I I TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION COSTS $29,310,000 I I I i I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 87 1 -92 1 CIP has a balance forward of $10,589 from City Hall Remodel. I 67 I \ I l l I ' I. LIBRARY FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD 800 square feet per 1,000 population of library must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS This analysis provides an inventory of existing and approved Library Facilities owned and leased by the City of Carlsbad. This analysis projects the build out demand for Library Facilities and determines compliance with the adopted performance standard. Future citywide library facility demand is projected based on the 1987-92 Capital Improvement Program, the adopted LFMP's and Zone 11. Exhibit 26 on page 69 shows the location of existing and future library facilities. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing and Build Out Library Demand: Citywide projected population comes from the '86 CFIP. Zone 11 projected population comes from Exhibit 16 on page 45. Existing (1/1/87) Citywide Zone 11 Build out Citywide (2013) Zone 11 (1997) 68 Projected Population 57,693 1,433 134,914 8,883 Performance Standard Demand (Sq Ft) 46,154 1,146 107,931 7,106 ( ..,..__ CIVIC CENTER LIBRARY /ADULT LEARNING CENTER -LIBRARIES * .LIBRARIES -EXISTING * LIBRARIES -PLANNED NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. NO SCALE 1 5 --WAREHOUSE 1 8 ,____ LA COSTA BRANCH LIBRARY GROWTH Exhibit26 MANAGEM N -Wide Facilities PROGRAM Zone 11 69 8 9 C 2. 3. Inventory of Existing Library Facilities: Existing library facilities owned and leased by the City of Carlsbad as of January 1, 1987 are the following: Facility Civic Center Library (1200 Elm Avenue) Adult Learning Center (1207 Elm Avenue) La Costa Area Library8 (7750 El Camino Real) Warehouse (6351 Yarrow Drive) TOTAL TOTAL EXISTING FACILITIES Owned Sq.Ft. 24,600 24,600 Leased Sq. Ft. 400 4,500 2,000 6,900 ------------------------------------31,500 Inventory of Approved Future Library Facilities: The adopted the 1987-92 Capital Improvement Program allocates funds for the acquisition of land and the construction of the South Carlsbad Library. This library is projected to be 58,000 square feet in size and be occupied for library use in two phases. Phase I consists of 48,000 square feet of library and is projected to open in 1992 with the remaining 10,000 square feet to be leased out by the city. According to city staff (see Appendix 3), the 6,900 square feet of leased library space will expire and be vacated when Phase I is completed. Phase II would terminate the lease to provide 10,000 square feet of additional library space to meet the performance standard. The South Carlsbad library site was approved by the City Council on July 7, 19879 . The site is near the According to the La Costa Area Library, lease will end when the new South Carlsbad Library is constructed. The staff report for this action is contained in Appendix 3, Agenda Bill No. 8667. 70 B. C northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road as shown on Exhibit 26 on page 69. The following is a Improvement Program facilities: summary of the 1987-92 funding allocation for capital library South Carlsbad Library: Description Land Acquisition Grading Design Construction Debt Financing TOTAL Funding Year 1988-89 1988-89 1988-89 1989-91 1988-2008 Cost ('87 dollars) $1.1 million .9 million .6 million 8.4 million $7.1 million $18.1 million No other Library Facilities are identified in the City's adopted CIP. PHASING Existing Library Facilities plus those budgeted in the adopted 1987-92 CIP for construction within 5 years are as follows: Square Feet of Library Space Added Subtracted Total 1987: Existing: 31,500 Civic Center Library Adult Learning Center La Costa Area Library Warehouse 1992: S. Carlsbad Library (I) 48,000 79,500 Adult Learning Center 400 La Costa Area Library 4,500 Warehouse 2,000 72,600 1997: s. Carlsbad Library (II) 10,000 82,600 71 c. To assess when the threshold for future Library Facilities will be reached, the phasing projections on Exhibit 17 on page 48 are used. These phasing projections are incorporated into Exhibit 27 on page 73. Exhibit 27 projects the adequacy of Library Facilities on a citywide basis by comparing the projected facility demand with existing and funded facilities. Analysis of Exhibit 27 shows that Library Facilities currently meet the performance standard and that the facilities are projected to conform to the performance standard until 2002. ADEQUACY FINDINGS Analysis of Zone ll's demand on Library Facilities as of 1/1/87 indicates no mitigation is needed at this time. The performance standard is currently being conformed to and is projected to conform until 2002. III. MITIGATION A. B. GENERAL CONDITIONS If the adopted performance standard for Library Facilities is not being complied with then residential development in Zone 11 will be stopped until the standard is met. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 No special conditions are necessary at this time. IV. FINANCING On July 7, 1987, the City Council took action for the acquisition, grading, design and construction of the 58,000 square foot South Carlsbad Library. Al though the City Council has guaranteed the needed funds, the long term financing mechanisms may be modified at sometime in the future. The adopted 1987-92 CIP has appropriated $18,112,000 for library facilities. Of this total amount, in 1988-89, $2,032,000 is budgeted for land acquisition, design and construction of the south Carlsbad Library. $771,500 per year is budgeted for debt service payment which would be payable over the next 20 years. The primary source of funding will be Public Facility Fees (3.5% of building permit valuation). This fee is collected at the time building permits are issued for all residential, commercial and industrial developments. 72 n u EXHIBIT 27 ZONE 11 -PHASING OF LIBRARY FACILITIES (800 SQUARE FEET PER 1,000 POPULATION) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS I ADOPTED PHASING ADEQUACY ANALYSIS I I '86 CFIP ADEQUACY ANALYSIS I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I I IN I I I PROJECTED PROJECTED I PROJECTED I I YEAR I OTHER I IN TOTAL ADOPTED ADOPTED CITYWIDE ADOPTED GHYWIDE CITYWIDE I I I ADOPTED IN I IN IN ADOPTED ZONES ZONES LIBRARY ADEQUACY/ PCPULATION CITYWIDE ADEQUACY/ I STATUS (AS OF 1/1) ZONES ZONE 11 I ZONE 12 ZONE 19 PLANS POPULATION DEMAND SUPPLY (INADEQUACY) PROJECTIONS DEMAND (INADEQUACY) I I NOTES: I (1) (2) I (3) (4) (5) (6) 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EXISTING I I 1987 20,110 580 I 589 I O I 21,279 I 57,693 I 46,154 I 31,500 I (14,654)11 57,693 I 46,154 I (14,654) 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECTED I I 1987 1,160 383 0 0 1,543 57,693 46,154 31,500 (14,654)1 57,693 46,154 (14,654) 1988 779 117 0 139 1,035 60,250 48,200 31,500 (16,700)1 60,782 48,625 (17,125) I 1989 410 432 436 251 1,529 64,029 51,223 31,500 <19,723>1 63,a71 51,096 c19,596> I 1990 218 510 382 392 1,502 67,740 54,192 31,500 c22,692>1 66,959 53,567 c22,067> (7) 1991 321 375 296 426 1,418 71,244 56,995 31,500 (25,495), 70,048 56,038 (24,538)1 1992 362 275 185 362 1,184 74,170 59,336 72,600 13,264 73,137 58,509 14,091 1993 382 240 BLD OUT 410 1,032 76,720 61,376 72,600 11,2241 76,226 60,980 11,620 I 1994 397 240 332 969 79,114 63,291 72,600 9,309 79,314 63,451 9,149 1995 235 201 I 431 873 81,211 65,011 12,600 7,583 I 82,403 65,922 6,678 I 1996 218 164 I 301 683 82,959 66,367 12,600 6,233 I 85,492 68,393 4,201 I 1997 134 12 I 226 432 84,026 61,221 82,600 15,3791 Bs,5s1 70,864 11,7361 1998 184 BLD OUT I BLD OUT 184 84,481 67,585 82,600 15,015 91,669 73,335 9,265 1999 184 1' 184 84,936 67,949 82,600 14,651 I 94,758 75,806 6,794 I 2000 184 184 85,390 68,312 82,600 14,288 I 97,847 78,277 4,323 1 2001 184 I 184 ss,845 68,676 82,600 13,924 I wo,936 80,748 1,8521 2002 184 I 184 86,300 69,040 s2,600 13,560 I 104,024 s3,219 <619> 2003 184 I 184 86,754 69,404 82,600 13,196 I 101,113 85,690 <3,090>I 2004 184 I 184 s?,209 69,767 s2,600 12,s33 I iio,202 88,161 <5,561>1 2005 I 184 184 87,664 70,131 82,600 12,469 1 i3,291 90,632 ,a,032) 2006 184 184 88,118 70,495 82,600 12,105 116,379 93,103 (10,503) 2007 184 184 88,573 70,858 82,600 11,742 119,468 95,574 (12,974) 2008 184 184 89,028 71,222 82,600 11,378 122,557 98,045 (15,445) 2009 184 184 89,482 71,586 82,600 11,014 125,646 100,516 (17,916) 2010 184 184 89,937 71,950 82,600 10,650 128,734 102,987 (20,387) (8) I 2011 184 184 90,392 I 72,313 I 82,600 10,287 I 131,823 105,458 (22,858) I 2012 BLD OUT I BLD OUT 90,392 I 72,313 82,600 10,287 134,912 107,929 (25,329) I BUILD OUT I I 2013 I I I I 90,392 I 72,313 I 82,600 10,287 11 134,914 107,931 I (25,331) 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I TOTAL 27,302 I 3,595 I 1,888 I 3,270 I 36,055 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------- NOTES: (1) Dwelling units in Other Adopted Zone Plans are those projected in the LFMP for Zones 1-6. (2) Source -Exhibit 19, page 52. (3) Source -Zone 12 LFKP. (4) Source -Zone 19 LFMP. (5) Total adopted dwelling units include the adopted zones 1-6, along with zones 11, 12 and 19. (6) Existing citywide population is the base population used for projecting Adopted Zone Plan Populations. (7) Phase I Expansion of South Carlsbad Library. (8) Phase II Expansion of South Carlsbad Library. 73 C c: Exhibit 28 on page 75 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 74 n J EXHIBIT 28 ZONE 11 -LIBRARY FACILITIES FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------- FACILITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED COST TIMING I FIRST FUNDING OPTIONS SECOND THIRD NOTES ----------------------------=----------------------==------------------====--==--------------------------------=--===================-----============== LIBRARY FACILITIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Library Remodel Unknown $3,948,000 1997+ City -PFF 2. Library -For Build Out Population 15,331 sf $5,060,000 1997+ City -PFF 3. Library -South Carlsbad 58,000 sf $18,112,000 1988-2008 City -PFF -------------TOTAL LIBRARY COSTS $27,120,000 75 I. WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five year period. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS A. INVENTORY Wastewater Treatment in the City of Carlsbad is provided by three independent agencies: The City of Carlsbad Sewer Service District, Leucadia County Water District {LCWD) and San Marcos County Water District (SMCWD) as shown on Exhibit 29 on page 77. Wastewater Treatment for Zone 11 is provided primarily by the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and also by satellite treatment facilities. Ownership as well as wastewater treatment capacity of the Encina WPCF is shared on a percentage basis by six independent sewer districts. Exhibit 3 o shows the six agencies and their permitted treatment capacity to the' Encina WPCF. Exhibit 30 ENCINA WPCF CAPACITY ANALYSIS (1) I Revised I I Permit Capacity Avai table Amended Avai table I Capacity Adjusted Existing Permit Permit Permit Agency I (MGD) AADWF For Leases Flow CMGD) Capacity CMGD) Capacity Capacity --------------1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes: I (2) (3) (4) --------------1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vista I 6.75 5.55 5.28 0.27 5.55 0.27 Carlsbad I 5.n 5.n 5.01 0.71 6.92 1.91 Buena I 1.03 0.65 1.28 -0.63 1.65 0.37 San Marcos I 4.00 4.00 3.n 0.28 6.00 2.28 Leucadia I 3.75 5.48 3.74 1.74 6.23 2.49 Encinitas I 1.25 1.10 0.88 0.22 1.10 0.22 1---------------------------------------------------· ----------------------------·--- TOTAL I 22.50 22.50 19.91 2.59 27.45 7.54 NOTES: 1. Analysis provided by Encina staff. 2. AADWF -Average Anra.1al Dry Weather Flow 3. Sunnary of leases: 1) Vista to LC\JO 1.2 MGD; 2) Buena to LCI.D 0.375 MGD; 3) Encinitas to LCI.D 0.15 MGD 4. As of October 21, 1987. 76 C ENCINA. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WASTEWATER FACILITIES CALAVERA HILLS RECLAMATION/TREATMENT FACILITY (EXISTING BUT NOT OPERATIONAL) 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 MEADOWLARK RECLAMATION FACILITY * WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -EXISTING NOTE:· ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. C-=:---:-~~--:r----------,G=R,,...,,O,..,..,W,....,,T'""""H __________ __ Exhibit29 MANAGEMENT • City-Wide Facilities NO SCALE PROGRAM Zone 11 77 C 10 11 12 13 Currently, the Encina WPCF has capacity to treat 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD). Ultimately, this facility will be able to treat up to 45 MGD. As shown below, the two sewer districts which provide wastewater treatment to their respective sewer service areas within Zone 11 (LCWD and SMCWD) own limited treatment capacity at the Encina WPCF as well as capacity in smaller localized satellite treatment facilities: Leucadia county Water District: Percentage of Encina Capacity (16.67) Gafner Satellite FacilitylO Leased Capacity fromll: Vista to LCWD12 Buena to LCWD Encinitas to LCWD TOTAL CAPACITY San Marcos County Water District: Percentage of Encina Capacity (17.78%) Meadowlark satellite Treatment Capacity13 TOTAL CAPACITY 3.75 MGD 0.75 MGD 1.20 MGD 0.37 MGD 0.15 MGD ----- 6.22 MGD 4.0 MGD 2.0 MGD 6.0 MGD Capacity at the Encina WPCF is separated into two categories: treatment capacity and outfall capacity. This analysis will deal primarily with treatment capacity. The Encina Ocean outfall is a drainage line that transports the treated sewage (effluent) from the Encina WPCF and satellite facilities and discharges approximately 8,900 feet into the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the Encina Ocean Outfall has a 65 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity. The outfall capacity is shared by six sewer districts and is Ultimate capacity is 1.5 MGD. Leased capacity expires in 1992. Vista lease to LCWD expires when Phase IV expansion begins construction in 1989. Ultimate capacity is 4.0 MGD. 78 C. 14 projected to provide sufficient capacity to the year 200014 . outfall capacity just as treatment capacity, is shared on a percentage basis by the six sewer service districts. 1. Existing Facilities: Leucadia County Water District Two sources of wastewater treatment capacity are available to LCWD: Encina WPCF and LCWD Gafner water Reclamation Plant (GWRP). Disposal of effluent for both plants is through the Encina Ocean Outfall. The LCWD's wastewater is conveyed to the outfall in two ways. The first involves pumping raw sewage and wastewater to Encina for treatment and subsequent disposal to the ocean outfall. The second involves pumping effluent from the Gafner plant through a 12 and 14-inch effluent pipeline ( failsafe pipeline) directly to the ocean outfall where it is blended with Encina effluent and effluent from the other satellite reclamation plants. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Gafner plant will remain at the present capacity of .75 MGD and that no new treatment facilities will be constructed within the LCWD service area. Therefore, all additional treatment capacity is projected to be obtained at the Encina WPCF. This assumption can always be modified in the future if, for instance, it is deemed appropriate to increase the capacity of the Gafner plant as a result of increased demand for reclaimed water. San Marcos County Water District San Marcos County Water District also utilizes two treatment plant facilities, 1) Encina WPCF, and 2) Meadowlark Treatment Plant. Primary treatment capacity is provided through the Encina water Pollution control Facility. SMCWD currently retains a 17. 78 percent ownership which represents a 4.0 MGD treatment capacity. The Meadowlark Treatment Plant currently has the ability to treat 2. O MGD of sewage with an ultimate capacity of 4.0 MGD. Source of Information -Leucadia County Water District Planning study. 79 c:. 15 16 2. Reclaimed Water LCWD and SMCWD presently have an active program to provide for the storage of reclaimed water. These two districts currently have reclaimed water storage facilities, however, the market for the re-sale of reclaimed water is not fully available. Presently, certain open space areas and the La Costa Hotel and Spa Golf Course use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Phasing and Service Demand Wastewater treatment service area population projections for the Encina WPCF service district is depicted in the following chart: ENCINA WPCF PLAN SEWER SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONslS Year Service 1980 1990 1995 2000 Vista 35,300 46,200 49,100 52,700 Carlsbad 24,400 56,500 69,000 81,500 Buena 5,500 15,900 22,800 24,100 Vista16 0 3,000 6,100 6,100 San Marcos 20,800 45,000 49,000 53,000 Leucadia 25,000 48,000 61,000 74,000 Encinitas 7,000 8,300 8,900 9,500 ------------------------ TOTAL 118,000 222,900 265,900 300,900 Projections approved by Joint Advisory Committee January 28, 1987. Portion of the City of Vista served by Buena Sanitation District. 80 C B. PHASING 1. Leucadia County Water District Exhibit 31 shows the existing and projected demand and treatment capacity for LCWD. Existing demand is 3. 25 MGD17 with current capacity at the Encina WPCF at 5.48 MGD (including leased capacity). LCWD projects a growth rate of 660 EDU's per year. With the Phase IV expansion of Encina and the termination of leased capacity from other districts, the capacity at Encina will become 4.57 MGD in 1992. EXHIBIT 31 ZONE 11 -LEUCADIA caJNTY WATER DISTRICT WASTEWATER PROJECTIONS STATUS I I YEAR I FLOW AT FLOW AT ENCINA TOTAL I I I LC.O 220/Gal/EDU 238/Gal/EDU CAPACITY GAFNER TREATMENT ADEQUACY/ I I I AS OF 1/1 I EDU'S (M.G.D.) (M.G.D.) (M.G.D.) (M.G.D.) CAPACITY (INADEQUACY) I I INOTES: I I (1) (2) (3) (M.G.D.) I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 !EXISTING I I 1987 I 14,762 3.25 3.51 5.48, 0.75 6.23 2.98 I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 PROJECTED I I 1988 15,422 3.39 3.67 5.48 0.75 6.23 2.84 I I <4> I 1989 16,082 3.54 3.83 4.28 o.75 5.o3 1.49 I I I 1990 16,742 3.68 3.98 4.28 o.75 s.o3 1.35 I I <S> I 1991 11,402 3.83 4.14 4.57 o.75 5.32 1.49 I I I 1992 18,062 3.97 4.30 4.57 o.75 s.32 1.35 I I I 1993 18,122 4.12 4.46 4.57 o.75 5.32 1.20 I I I 1994 19,382 4.26 4.61 4.57 o.75 s.32 1.06 I I I 1995 20,042 4.41 4.77 4.57 o.75 5.32 o.91 I I I 1996 20,102 4.ss 4.93 4.57 o.75 5.32 0.11 I I I 1991 21,362 4.70 s.os 4.57 o.75 5.32 0.62 I I I 1998 22,022 4.84 s.24 4.57 o.75 5.32 o.48 I I I 1999 22,682 4.99 5.40 4.57 o.75 5.32 o.33 I I I 2000 23,342 s.14 s.56 4.57 o.75 5.32 0.18 I NOTES: 1. Flow at 220 gallons/EDU as provided by LC.O. 17 2. Flow at 238 gal tons/EDU per the LCW> Master Plan. 3. Lew> has leased capacity from other sewer districts as follows: a. Vista to LCW> 1.2 MGD; b. Buena to LCW .375 MGD; c. Encinitas to LCW> .15 MGD 4. 1.2 MGD tease fran Vista expires when Phase IV construction begins. 5. Phase IV expansion of Encina. LCWD currently assumes (see Appendix 4) a flow rate of 220 gallons/EDU, however, the district is re-evaluating the flow rate based on actual flow data. Previously, LCWD had used 238 gallons/EDU per the Master Plan. 81 C. 18 2. San Marcos County Water District Exhibit 32 provides the projected demand and the available treatment capacity at Encina WPCF for SMCWD to the year 2000. Existing demand is 3. 73 MGD with current treatment capacity in SMCWD at 6._o MGo.18 In 1991, the Phase IV expansion of Encina results in a total capacity of 6.97 MGD. EXHIBIT 32 ZONE 11 -SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WASTEWATER PROJECTIONS I I ENCINA MEADa.iLARK I YEAR I SMC\oO DEMAND CAPACITY CAPACITY ADEQUACY/ I !STATUS I I EDU'S (MGO) (MGD) (MGD) (INADEQUACY)! I I IAS OF 1/1 I I I INOTESI I (1 )(2) (3) I 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 !EXISTING I I 1987 I 14,920 3.73 4.00 2.00 2.21 I ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 !PROJECTED 1988 15,525 3.88 4.00 2.00 2.12 I I 1989 16, 130 4.03 4.00 2.00 1.97 I I 1990 16,735 4.18 4.00 2.00 1.82 I I (4) 1991 17,340 4.34 4.97 2.00 2.64 I I 1992 17,945 4.49 4.97 2.00 2.48 I I 1993 18,550 4.64 4.97 2.00 2.33 I I 1994 19, 155 4.79 4.97 2.00 2.18 I I 1995 19,760 4.94 4.97 2.00 2.03 I I 1996 20,365 5.09 4.97 2.00 1.88 I I 1997 20,970 5.24 4.97 2.00 1 .73 I I 1998 21,575 5.39 4.97 2.00 1.58 I I 1999 22,180 5.55 4.97 2.00 1.43 I I 2000 22,785 5.70 4.97 2.00 1.21 I NOTES: 1. Average of March, April, May and June, 1987 flows. 2. 605 EDll's are the yearly projections for SMCWO. 3. Flow at 250 gallons/day as provided by the SMCWO. 4. Expansion of Encina Phase IV. Includes capacity at Meadowlark. 82 C c. ADEQUACY FINDINGS 1. 2. Leucadia County Water District Currently, LCWD has adequate treatment capacity at the Encina WPCF to handle existing sewer need for their service area until the year 2000. San Marcos county Water District Currently, SMCWD has adequate treatment capacity at the Encina WPCF and Meadowlark Reclamation Facility to handle existing sewer need for their service area until the year 2000. III. MITIGATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11: The following actions shall be pursued jointly by each sewer district to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity throughout a five year period: 1. 2. Monitor Encina treatment plant flows on a monthly basis to determine actual flow rates and to have an early warning of capacity problems. Actively pursue acceleration and phasing of treatment plant Phase IV expansion to provide adequate capacity. 3. Increase National Pollutant. Discharge Eliminations Systems (NPDES) permit to 27. 45 MGD to allow full utilization of reclamation plant and ocean outfall. 4. The six member agencies shall form an agreement to maximize the utilization of available treatment capacity at Encina WPCF. IV. FINANCING Sewer connection fees provide the primary source of funding for both sewer line upgrades and expansion of treatment plant capacity. The timing of sewer facilities upgrades and the mechanism of financing are critical to analysis of the adequacy of funding for plant expansion. Both LCWD and SMCWD have programmed Capital Improvement Plans to provide for needed facilities. 83 C C Exhibit 33 on page 85 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 84 u EXHIBIT 33 ZONE 11 -WASTEWATER FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FUND I NG OPT IONS ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- FACILITY COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD i NOTES !========================================================================-============================================================--================== I WASTEWATER FACILITIES ,-~:--~~~~~~-~~~;~ii-~~~~~;----------------i---~:~~~:~~~------~~;=~~~-------;;:;~-~;;;-----------------------------i--------------------------------- 2. Encina Outfall Punp #'3 3. Encina Phase IV Expansion 4. Encina Solids Management TOTAL WASTEWATER COSTS 1 $325,000 I $39,800,000 I I $10,000,000 =============I ss8,92s,ooo I 1987-88 Sewer Fees 1987-91 Sewer Fees 1987-91 Sewer Fees 85 C C C PARK FACILITIES I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD Three acres of Community Park or population within Park District 4 struction within a five year period. Special must be II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Use Area scheduled per for 1000 con- Park facilities are addressed on a Park District basis. There are four Park Districts which correspond to the four quadrants of the City. Zone 11 is located in the eastern portion of Park District 4 as shown on Exhibit 34 on page 87. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing and Build Out Park Demand: The projected population for Park District 4 comes from Exhibit 18 on page 51. Park District 4 Existing (1/1/87) Build out ( 2013) Projected Population 17,762 42,817 Performance Standard Park Demand (acres) 53.28 128.45 Of this, the Zone 11 existing and projected build out population and demand is: Zone 11 Existing (1/1/87) Build out (2013) 86 Projected Population 1,433 8,883 Performance Standard Park Demand (acres) 4.30 26.65 C C LEGEND Northwest Quadrant -Park District 1 Northeast Quadrant -Park District 2 Southwest Quadrant -Park District 3 Southeast Quadrant -Park District 4 * Macario Park ~PARK DISTRICTS 1 8 c- 19 20 21 2. Inventory of Existing Park Facilities In Park District 4: The inventory of existing parks as of 8/11/87 listed below was approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 9129 on August 11, 1987.19 These parks are shown on Exhibit 35 on page 89. These are the following: Community Parks Type Ownership Acres La Costa Canyon Active City 9.0 Stagecoach Active City 28.0 TOTAL 37.0 Special Use Areas Type Ownership Acres Cadencia Active City 2.0 El Fuerte Active City 3.6 La Costa Heights Elementary20 (Levante Elem.) Active EUESD 5.4 La Costa Meadows Elementary21 (Fuerte Elem.) Active SMUSD 2.0 TOTAL 13.0 ---- TOTAL EXISTING FACILITIES 50.0 acres See Appendix 5. An existing one year joint use agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Encinitas Union Elementary School District (EUESD) is contained in Appendix 5. An existing one year joint use agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) is contained in Appendix 5. 88 LEGEND ■ Existing Conwnunity Park □ Future Community Park • Existing Speci'al Use Area 0 Future La \ '\. La Costa Canyon ■ cos\a •· La eo.ta ttei\lWI• Elem. ' .. • City ct San r.1arcos City ::if Encinitas ··-... NOTE: Facility locations are approxi"'ate. ·-1' C .. NO SCALE Sout1east Quacrant: I Park District 4 ~/GI( t b/dtt8J>tg 89 GROWTH EXHIBT 35 P OG M Zone11 C 3. 4. Inventory of Projected Future Park Facilities: An inventory of projected park facilities was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 9129 on August 11, 1987. These parks are shown on Exhibit 35 on page 89. These are the following: Community Parks Macario Park Alga Norte Park Special Use Areas Carrillo Ranch TOTAL PROPOSED FUTURE FACILITIES ~ Active Active Type Active Ownership City City ownership City Acres 25.0 21.2 46.2 Acres 10.0 56.2 Projected Build out Adequacy/Inadequacy of Park Facilities: 50.0 acres of existing park facilities are operational and can be applied toward meeting the adopted parks performance standard. The 56. 2 acres of projected future park facilities are proposed facilities per the City's adopted Parks Inventory. These proposed facilities are not scheduled and funded for construction within five years (1992) and can not be used to meet the adopted performance standard. Assuming these proposed facilities were scheduled and funded for construction prior to build out, the projected build out adequacy/inadequacy of park facilities in Park District 4 is as follows: Existing Facilities Proposed Future Facilities Total Build Out Park Facilities Park District 4 Build Out Demand Projected Park District 4 Adequacy/Inadequacy 90 so.a 56.2 106.2 acres 128.4 <22.4> acres B. PHASING Exhibit 36 on page 92 shows Park District 4 supply and Park District demand based on Park District 4 population projections. Exhibit 36 shows that existing park facilities do not conform to the performance standard in Park District 4 and park facilities are projected to be inadequate through to build out without the proposed mitigation. As of January 1, 198·7, the parks demand was 53. 28 acres leaving a shortage at that time of 3. 28 acres of parks. Between January 1, 1987 and October 31, 1987, the park demand within Park District 4 has increased to 60.55 acres leaving a shortfall of 10.55 acres. In addition, 2379 units within Park District 4 have received discretionary approval. Upon approval of the Local Facilities Management Plans within the quadrant, these units could receive final maps and obtain building permits provided all the performance standards are met. For purposes of park facility planning, therefore, these units are considered as 'committed' units. If these units are constructed, an additional 17. 64 acres of parks would be necessary to meet the parks demand in Park District 4 . Assuming that all these 'committed' units are constructed, the park demand for Park District 4 increases to 78.18 acres leaving a shortfall of 28.18 acres. The adopted '87-'92 Capital Improvement Program does not include funds for construction of any specific parks in this quadrant. However, funding of $1,000,000, is allocated for an unidentified 22.5 acre park within Park District 4. C. ADEQUACY FINDINGS Park District 4 does not conform with the adopted performance standard. The existing and committed demand for park facilities as of October 31, 1987 is 78.18 acres. Existing park facilities total 50.0 acres. The total shortfall for park District 4 as of October 31, 1987 is 28.18 acres. 91 n 0 u EXHIBIT 36 ZONE 11 -PHASING OF PARK FACILITIES -PARK DISTRICT 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES I D~ELLING UNITS ADEQUACY ANALYSIS I !ADOPTED LFMP D~ELLING UNIT AND POPULATION ANALYSIS I 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I TOTAL YEARLY SE SE YEARLY ADOPTED ADOPTED TOTAL PARKS PARKS ADEQUACY/ STATUS YEAR 6-SE 10 11 12 17 18 ADOPTED PROJECTED POPULATION ADOPTED DEMAND SIJPPLY (INADEQUACY) I ICAS OF 1/1) PHASED DU'S DU'S INCREASE POPULATION (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) NOTES: I (1) (4) (2) (3) (4) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------- EXISTING I 1987 I 6019 580 589 7,188 7,188 17,762 17,762 I 53.28 50 (3.28) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------- PROPOSED I 1987 195 383 0 578 7,766 1,428 19,190 57.57 50 (7.57) 1988 70 117 0 187 7,953 462 19,652 58.96 50 (8.96) 1989 0 432 436 868 8,821 2,145 21,797 65.39 50 (15.39) 1990 0 510 382 892 9,713 2,204 24,001 72.00 50 (22.00) 1991 184 375 296 855 10,568 2,113 26, 114 78.34 50 (28.34) 1992 180 275 185 640 11,208 1,581 27,695 83.08 50 (33.08) 1993 246 240 BLD OUT 486 11,694 1,201 28,896 86.69 50 (36.69) 1994 246 240 486 12, 180 1,201 30,097 90.29 50 (40.29) 1995 131 207 338 12,518 835 30,932 92.80 50 (42.80) 1996 120 164 284 12,802 702 31,634 94.90 50 (44.90) 1997 36 72 108 12,910 267 31,901 95.70 50 (45.70) 1998 85 BLD OUT 85 12,995 210 32,110 96.33 50 (46.33)1 1999 85 85 13,080 210 32,320 96.96 50 (46.96) 2000 85 85 13,164 210 32,529 97.59 50 (47.59)1 2001 85 85 13,249 210 32,739 98.22 50 (48.22) 2002 85 85 13,334 210 32,948 98.84 50 (48.84) 2003 85 85 13,419 210 33, 158 99.47 50 (49.47) 2004 85 85 13,503 210 33,367 100 .10 50 (50.10) 2005 85 85 13,588 210 33,577 100.73 50 (50.73) 2006 85 85 13,673 210 33,786 101.36 50 (51.36) 2007 85 85 13,758 210 33,996 101.99 50 (51.99) 2008 85 85 13,843 210 34,205 102.62 50 (52.62) 2009 85 85 13,927 210 34,415 103.24 50 (53.24) 2010 85 85 14,012 210 34,624 103.87 50 (53 .87) 2011 85 85 14,097 210 34,834 104.50 so (54.50) 2012 BLO OUT BLD OUT 14,097 BLD OUT 34,834 104.50 50 (54.50) BUILD OUT 2013 14,097 34,834 104.50 50 (54.50) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··--·-------------------------------------------------------·~------------------ TOTAL 8,614 3,595 1,888 14,097 14,097 34,834 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··------------------ NOTES: (1) Source -Zone 6 LFMP. (2) Source -Exhibit 19, page 52. (3) Source -Zone 12 LFMP. (4) No confirmed data at this time. As these LFMPs are adopted, more accurate phasing schedules will be prepared. 92 C [II. MITIGATION C A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11: 1. Prior to the adoption of this Local Facilities Management Plan by the City Council, the existing parks agreement between the City of Carlsbad and La Costa Ranch shall be amended to include the following provisions. a. The secured dedication by the La Costa Ranch Company of 21.2 acres of Alga Norte Park with the execution of this agreement at a location to be determined acceptable by the city. b. The secured dedication of an additional 6.98 acres of park land by the La Costa Ranch Company with the execution of this agreement at a location to be determined acceptable by the City. c. The .secured dedication of an additional 4.12 acres of park land by the La Costa Ranch Company with the execution of this agreement at a location to be-determined acceptable by the City. d. Provide a plan which establishes acceptable access to these park sites subject to the approval of the Planning Director and the City Engineer. e. Provide a letter of credit or some other secured financing acceptable to the City in the amount of $2,241,265 guaranteeing the construction of 19.48 acres of park land, from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the approval of the Finance Director and City Attorney, at the time this agreement is executed. f. Earmark the budgeted 1991-92, $1,000,000 from the '87-92 CIP, for park development purposes in Park District 4 to the development of 8.7 acres of Alga Norte Park. g. Provide for the operating expenses of the parks either though a letter of credit or some other secured financing from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the Finance Director and City Attorney or the establishment of a Park District wide Growth Management Fee that would cover operating costs for the park. The amount of the costs and the time for which the La Costa Ranch Company or 93 B. C 2. h. i. developers in Park District 4 would be responsible for these costs shall be provided for within the Parks Agreement. The Parks Agreement must be consistent with the requirements of the City's Growth Management Program. If any reimbursements and/or park-in-lieu fee credits are to be given, the Parks Agreement shall provide a mechanism to do so. At any time the parks performance standard complied with within Park District 4, no residential development will be allowed District 4 or in Zone 11. is not further in Park POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PARK ACREAGE: In addition to the community parks and special use areas listed in the existing and projected inventory, the following schools could possibly enter into joint use agreements with the city of Carlsbad when the schools are constructed: Potential Estimated Special Use Areas Type Ownership Acres Elementary School No. 3 Active EUESD 2.5 Rancho Santa Fe Elementary Active EUESD 2.5 La Costa High Active SDHSD 10.0 La Costa J. H. Active SDHSD 7.0 TOTAL 21.0 It is not proposed that these schools be used towards fulfilling the parks requirement in the southeast quadrant. It is however, acknowledged that these schools, when operational, could become special use areas upon a written agreement between the respective school district and the city of Carlsbad to joint use playground facilities. When a joint use agreement is in effect these facilities may be used towards meeting the parks performance standard so long 94 as the area is not used for temporary classrooms. This LFMP will need to be formally amended when this occurs. IV. FINANCING The City's approved Capital Improvements Budget contains the following funding for park facilities in Park District 4: Park Project Alga Norte (21.2 acres) Alga Norte with Community Center Macario (credit) 1991-92 $1,000,000 1992-97 1997+ $1,587,500 $3,915,000 $7,000,000 As shown, the only park facilities to be scheduled for the construction within a five year period in Park District 4 is $1,000,000 for Alga Norte Community Park. The City estimates this expenditure would allow approximately 8.7 acres of park to be constructed. In order to bring parks into conformance with the adopted performance standard, the La Costa Ranch Company and City of Carlsbad will be modifying the existing Parks Agreement guaranteeing the dedication of 3 2 • 3 O acres of park land and construction of 19.48 acres of additional parks in Park District 4 within a five year period from the execution of the Parks Agreement. This dedication of land and the guarantee to construct additional acreage will allow the park supply to conform with the adopted performance standard. The amended Parks Agreement will define the specific park-in-lieu credits and other, if any, reimbursements to be received by the La Costa Ranch Company as well as guaranteeing the costs of operating this additional park acreage. If reimbursement arrangements are to be made, the specific timing of the reimbursement shall be made in accordance with the City's adopted Capital Improvement Program and incorporated into the park agreement. Exhibit 37 on page 96 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and tiiqing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 95 n n u EXHIBIT 37 ZONE 11 -PARK FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------FUNDING OPTIONS ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I NOTES I==================================================================================================================================--=--=~=========-===== I PARK FACILITIES -PARK DISTRICT 4 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1. LAND ACQUISITION I I -Alga Norte Park -Additional Park Land Subtotal 2. CONSTRUCTION -Alga Norte Park -Additional Park Land Subtotal 3. OPERATION I 21.2 ac I $3,392,000 11.1 ac 32.3 ac 8.7 ac I I 12.5 ac I I I I 6.98 ac I I I -----------1 28.18 ac 2 yrs I I s1,776,ooo I I I I -------------1 ss,168,000 I I I I I s1,aaa,aaa I s1,437,soo I I I $802,700 $3,240,200 $500,000 1988 1988 1992 1992 1992 1992-94 Developer Dedicates w/ Future PIL Fee Credit/Reimbursement Developer Dedicates w/ Future PIL Fee Credit/Reimbursement City-PFF Developer-w/ Future Reimbursement. Developer-w/ ~uture Reimbursement. Growth Management Mel lo Roos Mello Roos Developer I I I I I I I I PlL = Park-in- Lieu ( 1) =============I I I I I TOT AL PARKS COSTS $8,908,200 I I I I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I CIP Budget: 91'·92' $1,000,000 {Alga Norte) I I 92'-97' $5,502,500 {Alga Norte) I I 1997+ $7,000,000 (Macario) I Balance Forward $113,872 {Fuerte Park Design, Macario-SE Quad, Stagecoach) I (1) All credits and future reimbursements will be part of the revised Parks agreement with La Costa Ranch Co. 96 C C I. DRAINAGE FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Drainage facilities must be provided as required by the City concurrent with development. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS As was indicated in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, drainage is distinguished from all other public facilities and improvements because by its very nature it is more accurately assessed as specific development plans are finalized. However, certain facilities may be necessary which are larger than those required from a single development project and, therefore, need to be identified so that the proper funding can be collected for the construction of these facilities. The majority of Zone 11 is located in the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed. The storm water within this watershed in Zone 11 flows through storm drains, man-made channels, and natural drainage ways in open space areas to either San Marcos Creek or Encinitas Creek. These creeks, in turn, flow into the Batiquitos Lagoon. The boundary between the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek drainage basins within Zone 11 is shown on Exhibit 38 on page 98. A very small portion of the southeast corner of Zone 11 is located in the San Elijo Lagoon watershed. The storm water within this watershed in Management. Zone 11 flows into the Escondido creek, which in turn, flows into the San Elijo Lagoon. The boundary of this drainage basin within Zone 11 is shown on Exhibit 39 on page 99. The information contained in this report was extracted from the Master Drainage Plan entitled, "Master Drainage Plan for the City of Carlsbad, California," June, 1980, prepared by VTN Southwest. This Master Plan sets forth the comprehensive local drainage system necessary to meet the long-term needs of the city and should be used as a tool in planning for future improvements. Appendix 6 of this plan includes a map delineating Management Zone 11 on the master drainage plan. The City's Master Drainage Plan is currently being revised. The revised Plan will address facility and fee requirements within Zone 11. Although major changes in facilities are not expected, drainage-area fees may be established. Fees were not established by the current Master Plan because the facilities were owned by the County Flood Control District at the time the Master Plan was written. The City became owner of these facilities in July, 1986. 97 C C LEGEND: •-•-• Zone Boundary •••••• Drainage Basin Boundary ~. Flow Line of Major Creek--·...;;·~:.. c~-------~~ ~ GROWTH EXHIBIT 38 /CJf No scALE () MANAGEMENT • Drainage Basins ,1&,,.p..;...~....;.')flfi-'--z~rn1~------------P ....... R __ U........,GR-=A-=M,;,,;..________ Zone 11 98 n CITY OF CARL f -..J O 300 600 1200 ce 'R ·lrJ< ,,,_..·.\. IJ/dmritlt! COUNT':' ·:;F ';AN DiEGO SAN ELIJO LAGOON BASIN -- GROWTH MANAGt:.MENf PROGRAM Existing & Proposed Major Facilities EXHIBIT 39 • Drainage Zone 11 C A. C INVENTORY 1. Existing Facilities: The existing major drainage facilities that are within Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 39 on page 99. These facilities were determined in a field investigation. A letter from the city of Carlsbad, contained in Appendix 6 of this plan, defines major storm drains to be 30- inch in diameter or larger. The existing major drainage facilities within Zone 11 are as follows: Facility Designation Facility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Double 4'x 8' box culvert Double 4'x 9' box culvert 30" storm drain 36" storm drain 2'x 4' box culvert Double 24" storm drain Double 30" storm drain 42" storm drain Double 60" storm drain 30" storm drain Triple 66" storm drain Detention basin 36 inch storm drain with 20' overflow weir 24" to 30" storm drain Double 72" storm drain 30" storm drain 36" storm drain Bridge Double 24" storm drain 36" storm drain 54" storm drain 72" storm drain 18.5' concrete channel 30" storm drain 36" storm drain 100 Location Rancho Santa Fe Road " " " " Olivenhain Road Rancho Santa Fe Road " " " " " " Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe Road Calle Lomas Verde Adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road and Vista Santa Fe (B) Southern end of detention basin Calle Lomas Verde " " La Costa Avenue to Calle Lomas Verde La Costa Avenue Rancho Santa Fe Road over San Marcos Creek Rancho Santa Fe Road Corintia Melrose Avenue " " From Melrose Avenue to San Marcos Creek Rancho Santa Fe Road " " ,ff-. \ I PHASE~A () V o 300 soo ,200 ~/~/( 7J/dJ1niflrJ 101 P~Agfu C . u , PFiASE· B ------~:-1--:::si~~i✓---· sAriauitos·· ~'JlrGo·oo sAsiN . ----·_,--·' ~-/ .... -✓ LEGEND GROVV I H EXHIBIT 40 MANAl:it:MENT • Drainage Phase Boundaries PROGRAM Zone 11 ( 2. Proposed Build Out Facilities within Zone 11: The Master Drainage Plan proposes a 48-inch storm drain to be constructed along a tributary of Encinitas Creek. The approximate location of the proposed storm drain is shown on Exhibit 39 on page 99. The purpose of this storm drain would be to collect runoff in the northern portion of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin that is located within Zone 11. This proposed storm drain would allow the storm water to flow to the open space area located northeast of Calle Lomas Verde. The storm water would then flow through the existing storm drains and natural drainage channels in the open space areas to Encinitas Creek. The Master Drainage Plan also proposes two desilt basins to be located in the southern portion of Management Zone 11. The desilt basin proposed in the Master Drainage Plan to be located in the northwest of Zone 11 is shown on Exhibit 39 as the existing detention basin. The other desil t basin proposed in the Master Drainage Plan, to be located within Encinitas Creek in Zone 11, does not exist and is shown as proposed on Exhibit 39. The location and size of the proposed 48-inch storm drain and the proposed desilt basin shown on Exhibit 39 has been approximated only for the purpose of this plan. The actual location and size will be better defined as the surrounding area develops and the storm water runoff is analyzed per the current City stan- dards. The proposed storm drain is anticipated to be located along the alignment of a proposed future road or within an open space easement. The Master Drainage Plan does not recommend any other additional major drainage facilities within Zone 11. However, for the purpose of this plan, two 66-inch diameter storm drains are proposed to cross the proposed extension of Calle Acervo at Encinitas Creek. This drainage system is requested in the Conditions of Approval for the approved Tentative Map CT 85-10. The storm drain will be designed per the current City standards. If the Tentative Map CT 85-10 is allowed to expire, the two 66-inch storm drains will be required with the development responsible for the extension of Calle Acervo. 102 C 3. Proposed Build Out Facilities outside of Zone 11: The Master Drainage Plan does not recommend any improvements to any of the major drainage facilities outside of Zone 11. However, the drainage in this area was not within the City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction at the time the current Master Drainage Plan was prepared. The Master Plan is currently being revised. The Master Plan update will evaluate the existing master drainage facilities within Zone 11. If these facilities are deemed inadequate, the Master Plan will propose a mitigation program. B. PHASING c. The approach to phasing taken by this Local Facilities Management Plan is based on ensuring that needed facilities are in place prior to or commensurate with development. Phasing boundaries are shown on Exhibit 40 on page 101 and correlate with the natural drainage basins of the proposed facilities within the Zone. There are five separate phases, labeled Phases A through E, and thresholds for the major drainage facilities within each phase can be easily established, thereby determining the appropriate mitigation measures. The phasing boundaries allow for independent review and development for the drainage facilities within each boundary. Development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase. However, the City may require improvements outside of the phase boundaries if deemed necessary to serve development. ADEQUACY FINDINGS Phases A and E in Zone 11 currently meet the adopted performance standard for major storm drain facilities. Major drainage facilities will be constructed or upgraded as development occurs so that conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained. The adequacy findings for Phases B, C, and Din Zone 11 have not been determined due to the fact that the drainage study has not been prepared in this area. The following ~itigation section will outline a program to ensure compliance with the performance standard. 103 C ( III. MITIGATION A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 All development in Zone 11 shall comply with current city standards and the Batiqui tos Lagoon Enhancement Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development permit. PHASE A: Special Conditions: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase A, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. Financing: There is no special financing required for Phase A. PHASE B: Special Conditions: 1. 2. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The 48-inch storm drain proposed along a tributary of Encinitas Creek shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase B, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be completed by the landowners of Zone 11 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to Batiquitos Lagoon. If the study identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved mitigating any deficient facility. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zone 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. 104 C C 3. Financing: Prior to approval of any final map within Phase B, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. The cost of the proposed 48-inch storm drain is estimated to be $431,00o.22 This storm drain is anticipated to be financed by the developers in Phase B requiring the need for it. If the hydraulic study indicates mitigation is necessary, a financing plan shall be established. PHASE C: Special Conditions: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase c, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to Batiquitos Lagoon. If the study identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved mitigating any deficient facility. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zones 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. 3. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase c, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. 22 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 6. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 105 Financing: Presently there is no special financing required for Phase C. If the hydraulic study indicates mitigation is necessary, a financing plan shall be established. PHASED: Special Conditions: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The desilt basin proposed in Encinitas Creek shall be provided as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first final map in Phase D. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map in Phase D, a comprehensive hydraulic study shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This study shall include an analysis of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin from Zone 11 all the way to Batiquitos Lagoon. If the st,udy identifies improvements that currently fall below the performance standard, a financing program with reimbursement provisions shall be approved mitigating any deficient facility. This drainage study also benefits Zone 23. Therefore, when the LFMP for Zone 23 is submitted to the City for review, the Drainage Section should address a reimbursement agreement to the property owners within Zones 11 and 12 who financed the drainage study. 3. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase D, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. Financing: The cost of the proposed desilt basin is estimated to be $36,ooo.23 This desilt basin is anticipated to be financed by the developers in Phase D requiring the need for it. If the hydraulic study indicates mitigation is necessary, a financing plan shall be established. 23 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 6. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 106 C C. PHASE E: Special Conditions: 1. Drainage facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to approval of any final map within Phase E, the developer shall pay or enter into an agreement to pay any drainage area fees established by the forthcoming revised Master Drainage Plan. Financing There is no special financing required for Phase E. Exhibit 41 on page 108 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 107 u EXHIBIT 41 ZONE 11 -DRAINAGE FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I FUND I NG OPT IONS ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD j NOTES I ==============================================================---=====-===========-=====================================================================I DRAINAGE FACILITIES I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------ PHASE B: I ! 1. 4811 Storm Drain 3,000 LF $431,000 PHASED: I Concurrent w/ Develop- ment. Developers of Phase B 2. Desilt Basin 4,300 cy $36,000 I Concurrent I Developers I w/ Development! I I -------------1 I TOTAL DRAINAGE COSTS $467,000 I 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I CIP Budget: 87'-88' $150,000 (Drainage Master Plan) -SOURCE: GCC I Notes: (1) No fees are currently being collected. 108 I l Drainage Fee (1) I ! LF -Lineal Feet I ! I I I ! I l I ! Drainage Fee (1) I I cy -Cubic Yards I l I l I I I i C C C CIRCULATION I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD No road segment or intersection in the zone nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a Service Level C during off-peak hours, nor Service Level D during peak hours. Impacted means where twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facility Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not the circulation system within Zone 11 conforms to the adopted performance standards. It will also address all Circulation Element road segments and intersections outside of Zone 11 impacted by twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by Zone 11 to ensure conformance with the adopted performance standard. A. INVENTORY As shown on Exhibit 42 circulation element road located within Zone 12. on Page 110, the following segments and intersections are Number of Lanes Roadways Existing Buildout Melrose Avenue (N) Melrose Avenue (S) Olivenhain Road Rancho Santa Fe Road (Olivenhain to Melrose) Rancho Santa Fe Road (South of Olivenhain) Mision Estancia La Costa Avenue Intersections Rancho Santa Fe Road at Rancho Santa Fe Road at Rancho Santa Fe Road at 2/6 6 6 2 6 2/6 6 2 4 4 4 4 4 Melrose Avenue Melrose Avenue Mision Estancia Rancho Santa Fe Road at La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue at Mision Estancia La Costa Avenue at Melrose Avenue (S) (N) (S) (N) Classification Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Major Arterial Secondary Arterial Secondary Arterial Also shown on Exhibit 43 on page 111 shows the estimated percentage of traffic leaving Zone 11. This estimation has 109 ( Legend Prime Arterial existing Major Arterial -existing Secondary Arterial -existing --• Prime Arterial proposed ---Major Arterial -proposed ---Secondary Arterial -proposed rn Seate: 1 ":2900' ·t· . < ~ . ,i,~":L~---Ji-\ : -~ , ·-':_~.r.,,·: Jli, .• ·.:_, __ \:· .• ,,_r __ , ~;0~?:s:\~:~ . :l ,~ . . J{\~~,~~:c-~-·\ ,\ -·-~,. ..• --~~-,"j.i-i":'-;_,-,.,;~".'"-·. ' . : i-, ' ,_ , / J t-"' ,''! ,._","',""'"'_,- ·Palq,m€\f). ', .. -., . / .r~. . .. .. :~-,;>~ \:: ;~_:,,.-..-..._\ "1--'· . <,L ... ____ r ... ~ ' \l_r_,_·; __ :_·~_r,-;;:.~-~-:.;::,:_,_ •. -.~_:~ __ r,:_:_;,'_,••:,'..~.;.;_,,-,'.!. Lj ~-"'::·--·/ ., /l -. . J .. 1.-. 1-, -· e;_ p < •• t . . ,, ,r,, __ -', .. ,,...,,, .. ,,, . ;,,.•, --.-·--.. .;fr,·,· ·;,,,~--::--·"'·•-.::> j• .. "/i? :,. ! 1 \:'-, /' • .,. ..... --;i,"(\· ~-........ )0: _.·23 ,t\ ':,' ,,,' .... ~·g ·--~~\-· , _,,..,. ~-·'···,t. •. ,_:,..;~ ... ·,,.; :;•,:·-·-.. -:; __ .-,.:;, ... _-, __ ,:j <-e:~,.;. ... ·'•"w\\.\;.>'i'\l l ; . : •-'/ -x..__.,------~~~ ' .,,,. . I '-/ ~., •• ,,:'•r-. ,'· 1 .:, '-..... , . , ·,.z --. ·''j "tt:,U.~'-",_,_L;,::l';:~,"1~-:lt-:~k;;::i:,.,,='--.. ='.'~'",.-_-+t .. e""·.;;·:;;;.;;,.·~"';~~ .... :;;,~~t<~:-7 ; ·-.~~ --\ )i ,.._. "\'-"': ;,~✓----~---. J --~ ! _, \' .:_:~~~:_ _ • ~-· \, -·---· :~~iZ~~'.'-::;~2'~, ;; ,._.. : . " , !t, " .. ----·-•---...... 4 ..... __ \ if ~,--1,; ,, :x· · '> '-·r t --'#1-' ,V•!i""' -\·..!;!La•·,-:·1-...: · 1. r:·: .. : ~ ,,,,;:~ rv .. J,~> :. : ·•· .:j§ r-FI[ -/:<·~ -~ _, _<7 .. :\f.::~;r:-.. _.--~~ :~\;.~);.i -·· -t~~f::]-:~~: 'i:< -~ ' sf;..,,\ ,,.. ; ,, " ' ~ ' Le;, ' ; ' ,;, ,l,, .• ,-v',,,-, ~~----:. ·, ,,, /,-,.; L..:...i.~lf~---~~J'.~~_:_{f~f~~(,m~j~t:~~i-111(::,,~; l~~tlt ~llll~li1,1ii -F~~~'.li \ ·r.,li!::!.W'.J ',\-it. ' . ; ;',; ' ' ),,~·, -.i'·"> -{--., '\ ,. ·'-. .. ' b'' ,. 'I ·; •-~\,-',,,:1,.. ·.·.·.·.·.•-•,••:-:•.·.·.·.···-··•J-:-.-.-.·.·.·. , / t· :::.::::::t-,. ---· ,g i;c e ,J '--'---'Jµ- .,_,•~ii. i • "i-Y-p<. · t· •~, ~\'., \_ ,1 /'0-:. , lii J ··, --:-:-:-:-:•.·-:-:-:-:-:,:-:·.·.·.;.;.;.j::~.:,·-:•:t, ,, t:r-t~lf -~t}!~~;{\;tf~·-.. ~lt~) ::_c-'-tttE::1 ·-::::::::::)1:S[tf iitt . :? :·· -----~--'-----....l-.. ....-t.~ t·\· \ .,:;-..1.•//.;. ->'\'--; ., • : ........ «,,/:_:,, :-•. t , l':r ·( _.. __ _. ,.·.·:::... -.,.·.·--.·.·.·-.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.•·~----·-· , ~ ... _.. . '· , ') J \Citr bf' E;ncinitas /,'Ti..:., -, \ \.,. :5--"-, .. -·· '/✓-·, ~,,:-' ,::·;:~-: ·- '-, ' / ~ ,,·.•ci' ,., ) : .' I, f '\ f'.. /_::-<,<--_ \ .~~\\Id. :· -~:----\-! D -->Sil ,j 'i .lb~<fa'tliat -~::< \, ,if __ . __ :, ,,, · ~ 1 H .1:1 ,. s. 'I,! .;; : ,._,....• GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 110 Exhibit 42 Zone 11 -Circulation u Legend ------ Prime Arterial existing Ma1or Arterial -existing Second ary Arterial existing proposed Prime Arterial M" aJor Arterial -proposed Secondary A rterial -pr oposed 0 Impacted Intersection _% rn Project R per Ro elated Trip Scale: 1 ,, :2900' ad segment Distribution GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 111 P a\ornar12/ 20%·- Zone 11. Circulation-Trip . Exhibit 43 Distribution C C determined that the following roads and intersections outside of Zone 11 are impacted by 20% or more of Zone 11 traffic: Number of Lanes R-0-W Roadways Existing Buildout Width Classification El Camino Real from 4 6/8* 126' 0livenhain Road to La Costa Ave. Olivenhain Road from 2 6 126'** Rancho Santa Fe Road to El Camino Real La Costa Ave. from 2 4 102' El Camino Real to I-5 La Costa Ave. from 2/4 4 84' Rancho Santa Fe to El Camino Real * Refer to "Zone 11 Issues" for discussion. ** Width varies from 107' to 126'. Intersections El Camino Real at Levante St. El Camino Real at La Costa Ave. La Costa Ave. at I-5 Northbound La Costa Ave. at I-5 S.outhbound 0livenhain Road at El Camino Real Rancho Santa Fe Rd. at Olivenhain Road Prime Arterial Prime Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Improvements needed to completely develop the Circulation Element Roads, such as sidewalks, street lights, etc. are discussed separately for informational purposes in Appendix 7. B. PHASING The phasing of circulation system impacts and required improvements necessary to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard are somewhat complicated. Zone 11 has a potential of 2015 more residential units to be built and there is still a significant amount of development potential within the region surrounding Zone 11. The buildout projections for Zone 11 will generate an estimated 28,454 average daily trips by build out. Also, due to Zone 11' s location, traffic generation will increase with the general growth of the region as a whole. Some contributing factors include: 112 C C C 1. A significant proportion of expensive housing stock with typically higher traffic generation. 2. Employment opportunities that do not significantly match the housing stock which increases the potential for commuting. 3. Zone ll's location along the following: A. Major N-S corridor (El Camino Real) B. Major NE-SW corridor from Highway 78 to I-5 (Rancho Santa Fe Road). The traffic circulation network and the projected impacts resulting from traffic generated from Zone 11 were analyzed by utilizing data from the following reports: 1. Traffic Analysis -Zone 11 and 12 Growth Management Plan prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates. 2. The Barton-Aschman City Wide Traffic Study. 3. SANDAG Traffic Projections (1986). The traffic analysis prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates is a detailed study dealing with the specific traffic generated from within the boundaries of Zone 11. This study analyzes the impacts of traffic on existing and proposed road segments and intersections affected by the traffic from this zone. The report also proposes a mitigation plan to ensure conformance with the adopted performance standard through buildout of Zone 11. The Barton-Aschman Citywide Traffic Study and the SANDAG Traffic Projections were used as reference data in the analysis of Zone 11 traffic. The Barton-Aschman Study is used to determine the existing and existing plus committed traffic projections while SANDAG is used to analyze the buildout traffic projections. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate impacted road segments and intersections serving Zone 11 and propose a mitigation plan if these facilities are determined to operate below the adopted performance standard. The phasing of development and analysis of traffic impacts will be monitored on an annual basis. However, for the purpose of this study, the timing of the necessary improvements will be presented in the following increments: Improvements needed now Improvements needed prior to 1990 Improvements needed prior to 1995 Improvements needed prior to 2000 Improvements needed prior to buildout 113 C c. C The Phasing Schedule noted above shall not limit needed traffic improvements to the years mentioned. If a future traffic analysis indicate that the timing of the necessary improvements has changed, the required improvements shall also be adjusted to guarantee that conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained. ADEQUACY FINDINGS This section will analyze the existing and proposed intersections and road segments affected by the traffic generated from Zone 11. For the purpose of the analysis of the traffic facilities, this section will analyze intersections and road segments separately. In accordance with the adopted performance standard, the existing and proposed traffic facilities within and surrounding Zone 11 will be identified by an evaluated level of service. The performance standard determines that during peak hours a level of service A-Das acceptable and a level of service of E or worse to be unacceptable. If a facility is determined to fail to meet the standard, a mitigation program must be prepared so that the facility will operate at an acceptable level of service. The proposed mitigation program will be discussed more thoroughly later in this report. 1. Intersections The following chart lists the impacted intersections studied and indicates the levels of service for each of the intersections in the phasing increments previously discussed under phasing. The intersections were evaluated using data and methods contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. 114 n n n ---------!Existing ----I 1990 _____ 1_995 ___________ 2_00_0 ________ I Buildout Intersections El Camino Real@ Calle Barcelona El Camino Real @ La Costa Ave. El Camino Real @ Levante St. El Camino Real @ Ol ivemain Rd. La Costa Ave.@ I ·5 Northbound La Costa Ave.@ 1-5 Southbound Rancho Santa Fe Rd. @ Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe Rd. @ Mision Estancia Rancho Santa Fe Rd@ La Costa Ave. Rancho Santa Fe Rd@ Melrose Ave. (N) Rancho Santa Fe. Rd. @ Melrose Ave CS) Rancho Santa Fe Rd. @ 0livemain Rd. I W/lq>rov. IPro·ected WI rov. Pro·ected AM PM AM PM AM PM 1AM PM AM PM Peak Peak !Peak Peak !Peak Peak! Peak Peak !Peak Peak (1) (1) A B A C B C D D F F A A A A A A B C F D D D F B D D B A C B D C E D B A C C C C (1) (1) B B B D A A B C C E A A D E C C F F B A E F A A A B C 1 > (1) (1) (1) A B A A C D F F (1) Currently not constructed. WI rov. Pro·ected WI rov. Pro·ected W Im rov. 1AM PM I AM PM AM PM !Peak Peak !Peak Peak !Peak Peak 1AM PM 1AM PM !Peak Peak !Peak Peak A A A A C D B D D D A A F C D C B D B D D D D C B D C C B C C D A A B C D F A D A A A D A D B C B C D D A B B C B D B C D D C C C As shown, there are currently 2 intersections which fail to meet the adopted performance standard. By the year 1990, an additional 3 intersections fail to meet the standard. By the year 1995, an additional 5 intersections fail the performance standard and one more intersection by the year 2000. With buildout traffic there is 1 intersection which fails to meet the performance standard unless mitigation beyond the city standard improvements are constructed. These intersections are identified in tabular form on the chart shown below. The chart below provides an estimated time to failure in the periods as discussed previously under phasing. I Intersection t IEl Camino Real at Ila Costa Ave. I TIME TO FAILURE Existing By 1990 By 1995 I 1-------------------------x I I By 2000 Bui ldout I IEl Camino Real at ILevante St. 1--------------------------------·--------------x I IEl Camino Real at I I IOl ivenhain 1-------------x-----------x I I I Ila Costa Ave at II-5 Northbou-.d 1-------x I I Ila Costa Ave. at 11-s southbou-.d I I 1-------x I !Rancho Santa Fe Rd atl IMision Estancia (1>1-------------------------x---------x I I !Rancho Santa Fe Rd atl Ila Costa Ave. 1------------x-------------x I I !Rancho Santa Fe Rd at! !Melrose Ave. (N) 1-------------X I I !Rancho Santa Fe Rd atl IOlivenhain Road 1-------------------------x (1) See "Zone 11 Issues" for discussion. 116 2. C Road Segments The City of Carlsbad utilizes a two-tier evaluation to analyze the level of service for road segments. The two methods utilized are as follows: 1. Daily Capacity 2. Peak Hour Volumes The first level of analysis determines an approximate off peak level of service using a ratio of existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to an assumed average roadway capacity. This volume to capacity ratio provides an indication of level of service (A-F) of the road segments. This method is a very generalized approach in determining levels of service and is used as an indicator of the off peak level of service. According to the adopted performance standard, no road segment or intersection impacted by traffic generated from Zone 11 shall exceed a Level of Service c during off peak hours or a Level of Service D during peak hours. The daily capacity method, as described above, analyzes a road segment for a daily average volume and is not an indicator of peak hour volumes. Therefore, in conjunction with the performance standard, the evaluated levels of service utilizing the daily capacity method is indicative of off peak operating levels and a Level of Service C will not be exceeded. The second level of review for road segments analyzes peak hour capacities. This is a more detailed analysis and is performed when it can be shown that the road segment is functioning at a capacity greater than the assumed capacity. This method utilizes traffic counts during peak hours to determine the appropriate level of service. This more detailed analysis is used to more accurately project the timing of failure of the road segment. This allows the needed improvements to be scheduled so that conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained. 117 C C C The following table lists the road segments which are impacted by traffic generated from Zone 11. The Level of Service results were derived using the daily capacity method. ZONE 11: ROAD SEGMENTS -LEVELS OF SERVICE -OFF PEAK I --1 !Exist-I BJ! 1990 BJ! 1995 BJ! 2000 IBld' I I ing I Proj'djw/Improv.jProj'd jw/Improv.jProj•d lw/Improv.j I ------1 IA. El Camino Real From I I I I I I Olivenhain Rd to I I I I I I La Costa Ave. I A B I B I D A I C I I ------1 IB. Olivenhain Rd. From 1. I I I I I I El camino Real to I I I I I I I Rancho Santa Fe I B I D A I D A I B I A I I ------1 IC. Rancho Santa Fe From! I I I I I I Olivenhain Rd. to I I I I I I I Melrose Ave. (N) I B I D B I D B I C I C I ------1 ID. Rancho Santa Fe I I I I I I South of Olivenhain I A I D A I B I B I C I I ------1 IE. La Costa Avenue From! I I I I I I I-5 to I I I I I I I El Camino Real I D C 1) I D I D B I B I C I I ------1 jF. La Costa Ave. From I I I I I I I El Camino Real to I I I I I I I Rancho Santa Fe (2) I A I A I D C I C I B I I I I I I I I €..----------------- (1) Peak hour analysis c~letecl -See following section for details. (2) See "Zone 11 Issues" for discussion. The analysis shown in the chart above indicates that one road segment, La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to I-5 is currently operating below the acceptable Level of Service. As a result, a Peak Hour Volume Analysis was conducted by Barton Aschman and Associated and presented in the Citywide Traffic Study. This analysis, as discussed below, more accurately assessed peak hour operating levels for this intersection. La Costa Avenue East of I-5 Using data contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, the maximum capacity of a two lane arterial with similar geometries and conditions as La Costa Avenue is approximately 1,750 vehicles per hour per lane in each direction. Using this information and the peak- 118 C C C Direction WB EB Direction WB EB hour traffic counts on La Costa Avenue, the levels of service are estimated as follows: Existing AM Peak Hours 1,117 813 AM Vol 1,540 890 .64 .46 B A Existing Plus Committed (Approximate year 1995) Peak Hours _::w;_ Los .88 D .51 A 933 980 Vol 1,220 1,460 PM Peak Hours PM ~ Los .53 A .56 A Peak Hours _::w;_ Los .69 B .83 D This analysis indicates that there are acceptable conditions along La Costa Avenue east of the interchange area, and that widening of La Costa Avenue between I-5 and El Camino Real is not required for existing conditions. La Costa Avenue is projected to fall below the performance standard by 1995, based on the projected phasing of development and increased traffic volumes. As presented earlier, the La Costa Avenue/I-5 overpass currently fails the performance standard and the necessary widening of the overpass may take up to five years to complete construction. La Costa Avenue is projected to fail about the same time as the completion of the overpass. Therefore, it is logical to coordinate the construction of La Costa Avenue and the overpass widening so that completion of both improvements will coincide. This will be discussed further in the mitigation section of this report. The Road Segments impacted by traffic generated from Zone 11 are identified in tabular form on the chart shown below. This chart also represents an estimated time to failure in the categories previously discussed under phasing. 119 C C C I Road Segment Existing 1990 1995 2000 Buildout I t I IA-El Camino Real From I I 0livenhain Road to I I La Costa Ave. ---------------------------x I I I 1s. 0livenhain Road Fran I I El Camino Real to I I Rancho Santa Fe --------------x------x I I I 1c. Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Fran I I 0livenhain to Melrose Dr. I I (North) --------------x------x I I I 10. Rancho Santa Fe Road I I South of Olivenhain Road --------------x I I I IE-La Costa Avenue Fran I I 1-5 to I I El Camino Real ---------------------x I I I IF. La Costa Avenue Fran I I El Camino Real to Rancho I I Santa Fe Road (1) ---------------------x I I I (1) See "Zone 11 Issues" for Discussion. III. MITIGATION The proposed mitigation is divided into the categories established under the phasing portion of this section. It should be understood that all cost estimates presented in this plan are preliminary in nature and will need further refinement as the actual scope of work, utility needs and right-of-way dedications are determined. A. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED NOW 1. Interstate 5 and La Costa Avenue Necessary Improvements a. Widen overpass to accommodate 4 lanes plus left turn channelization. b. Signalize both northbound and southbound ramp intersections. Estimated Cost -$3,300,000 Completion Date -1993 120 C C C Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing the construction of the interchange of I-5 and La Costa Avenue shall be approved prior to the issuance of a development permit for any development within Zone 11. B. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED BY 1990 1. Olivenhain Road Necessary Improvements a. Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to prime arterial standards ( 12 6') from El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road. b. Minimum of 4 lane improvements. c. Improved intersection, including signalization of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real. Estimated Cost -$1,500,000 Completion Date -1990 Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing the construction of 4 lanes of Olivenhain Road between Rancho -Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real, including the improvement of the intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real, shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. 2. Rancho Santa Fe Road -(La Costa Avenue to Carlsbad City Limits) Necessary Improvements a. Complete grading to ultimate right-of-way width to Prime Arterial Standards (126') from La Costa Avenue to the Carlsbad City Limits b. Minimum of 4 lane improvements. c. Include signalization and left turn channelization where necessary. Estimated Cost -$12,000,000 Completion Date-1990 121 C C c. C 3. Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road to 4 lanes including adequate signalization shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. Rancho Santa Fe Road -(South of Olivenhain Road) Necessary Improvements a. Full width street improvements to major arterial standards for all portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road within the Carlsbad City limits. b. Necessary street improvements to accommodate 4 through lanes and a fully improved median adjacent to the existing improvements along the Carlsbad- Encinitas city boundary. c. Including adequate signal modifications Estimated Cost -$3,400,000 Completion Date-1990 Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road to major arterial standard from Olivenhain Road to the southerly city limits shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED BY 1995 1. Rancho Santa Fe Road -{La Costa Avenue to the Carlsbad City Limits) Necessary Improvements a. Two additional lanes to complete full width improvements to prime arterial standards from La Costa Avenue to the Carlsbad City Limits. b. Including adequate signal modifications. Estimated Cost -$5,000,000 Completion Date -1995 122 C 2. C 3. C Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing the additional improvements necessary for Rancho Santa Fe Road to comply with Prime Arterial Standards shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. Olivenhain Road Necessary Improvements a. Two additional lanes to complete full width improvements to prime arterial standards form El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road. b. Adequate signal modifications. Estimated Cost -$1,500,000 Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing construction of the additional improvements necessary for Olivenhain Road to comply with prime arterial standards shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. La Costa Avenue Necessary Improvements 1. Full width improvements to Major Arterial Standards from El Camino Real to I-5. Estimated Cost -$5,000,000 Completion Date -1995 Special Condition -A financing program guaranteeing the construction of La Costa Avenue from I-5 to El Camino Real to Major Arterial Standard shall be approved prior to the recordation of the first final map within Zone 11. 123 C C C 4. Rancho Santa Fe & Mision Estancia Necessary Improvements a. Provide an additional westbound left turn lane. Estimated Cost -$2,000 Completion Date -1995 or with adjacent development, whichever occurs first. Special Condition -The necessary improvements for Mision Estancia as described herein shall be guaranteed prior to any development permits for any adjacent properties or by 1995, whichever occurs first. D. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED BY 2000 1. El Camino Real Necessary Improvements1 a. Additional lanes necessary to complete full width improvements to Prime Arterial Standards from Olivenhain Road to La Costa Avenue. Estimated Cost -3,700,000 Completion Date -2000 Special Condition -Prior to the recordation of the first final map with Zone 11, a financing program shall be approved guaranteeing the construction of a proportional share of El Camino Real from Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue. The proposed plan shall address the possibility of an ultimate right-of-way width to accommodate eight lanes if it is shown by more detailed analysis that 8 lanes is necessary. 1 see "Zone 11 Issues." 124 C 1. 2. C ZONE 11 ISSUES INTERSTATE 5 (which affects the La Costa Ave. Interchange) The latest SANDAG projection for Interstate 5 is that it will need to carry 173,000 Average Daily Trips through Carlsbad at the buildout year of 2013. In order to accommodate this amount of traffic it is likely that additional lanes and some from of ramp metering will be required. Ramp metering is a method whereby the flow rate of vehicles entering onto the freeway is controlled to eliminate congestion caused by vehicles merging into the flow of traffic. A side effect of metering is increased congestion which occurs on the freeway on ramps and the arterial feeders as traffic backs up waiting to get onto the freeway. There is little the City can do to relieve the problems related to this type of congestion. The freeway systems and map meting programs are not within the control of the City but are the jurisdiction of Cal trans. As the City and region nears buildout failures of this nature will become unavoidable. In order to help mitigate these problems the City can do the following: 1) Work closely with Caltrans on the redesign of freeway interchanges to provide greater queuing areas on freeway ramps. 2) Develop an effective Peak Hour Traffic Management Program which includes provision for express bus service, car pooling, bike riding and alternative work hour scheduling. 3) Encourage greater participation in regional transportation programs which includes rapid transit and light rail use. La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to I-5 The Barton-Aschman study analyzed the effect of existing plus committed traffic volumes on this roadway link. Their analysis indicated the existing 2 lane road can handle both A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes within the acceptable Level of Service (D or better). The report did indicate the westbound A.M. peak and the eastbound P.M. peak were at the low end of D Level of Service. The Barton-Aschman study was prepared on the assumption that no other east/west links from the La Costa area to Intestate 5 would be made. It is increasingly likely that the Alga Road/Poinsettia Lane connection will be constructed in advance of completion of the La Costa Avenue/I-5 Interchange improvements. Construction of this alternative link will siphon approximately 4,000 -6,000 Average Daily Trips from 125 3. 4. this section of La Costa Avenue. magnitude would have the effect of service to and extending the useful lane roadway for many more years. A reduction of this improving the level of life of the existing two The City is presently completing design of the La Costa Avenue improvements between El Camino Real and I-5. It has been proposed that construction should begin as soon as funding is available. City Engineering staff recommends that the need for this facility be investigated thoroughly with regard to Growth Management implications prior to making further commitments to the construction of the project. Melrose Drive at Rancho Santa Fe Currently this intersection operates at Level of Service A for A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With existing plus committed traffic it will still operate at an acceptable level of service. However, due to a traffic fatality which occurred at this intersection, City Council requested staff to investigate the intersection. At a subsequent Council meeting staff presented several alternative proposals for improving the intersection. Council selected an alternative which would realign Melrose Avenue north of its current location. This alignment would curve Melrose into Rancho Santa Fe Road making a more nearly 90 degree intersection. Interim improvements to include signalization would be installed along this alignment to handle the existing and near term traffic needs within the accepted performance standard. The interim improvements will be constructed by the City utilizing City funds as well as funds provided by the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego. Both the Carlsbad and San Marcos share of the project will be subject to reimbursement by the developer at the time adjacent development occurs. The developer will also be responsible for the ultimate improvement of Melrose Avenue as a condition of development. El Camino Real at Levante Street The SANDAG buildout projections for this intersection is at odds with the Barton-Aschman buildout projections. Staff analysis of the SANDAG projections indicate this intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service (A for both A.M. and P.M. peaks). The Barton Aschman study of this intersection indicates a Level of Service F and E for A.M. and P.M. peak hours respectively. As noted in the phasing section of the report, staff is utilizing the SANDAG projections and therefore does not recommend mitigation at this time. 126 C s. c·· 6. 7. City staff is currently working with SANDAG to obtain updated traffic projections for the City. If the new study indicates a change in the projections for this intersection then appropriate mitigation will be recommended and included in this zone plan. As an added note it should be understood that the Barton-Aschman projections assume Levante will "T" into El Camino Real with no extension into the undeveloped property to the west. It is likely this intersection will be made '4 way' to provide access to the Green Valley area. Staff will require the Zone 23 Plan, which includes this property, to adequately address this impact at the time the plan is submitted. El Camino Real from Olivenhain Road and La Costa Avenue. The traffic studies prepared by Barton-Aschman and Weston Pringle and Associates both indicates that El Camino Real should be widened to eight lanes to accommodate buildout traffic projections. This conclusion is due to the amount of traffic using El Camino Real as a route to I-5. There exists a possibility that Leucadia Boulevard will be extended through the City of Encinitas connecting El Camino Real and I-5. At the time a peak hour analysis is required, the timing and construction of the Leucadia Boulevard extension will be addressed and considered in the evaluation of the carrying capacity of El Camino Real. The ultimate width of El Camino Real will be determined at that time. But for the purpose of this plan, all development adjacent to El Camino Real shall guarantee additional right-of-way to accommodate the possibility of future widening. Extension and Alignment of Leucadia Boulevard currently there is a tentative alignment of Leucadia Boulevard which may function as an east-west connection between I-5 and I-15. The proposed alignment is adjacent to the southerly borders of Zones 11 and 12. Route 680 follows the same alignment of Leucadia Boulevard and Olivenhain Road then swings southerly along the southern Carlsbad city limits. The City will attempt to maintain adequate right-of-way width along this route to facilitate the construction of this roadway in the future. La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road This section of La Costa Avenue currently exists and is fully improved to ultimate width to secondary arterial standards. A portion of La Costa Avenue is striped for only two lanes. 127 C C C As discussed previously, La Costa Avenue is projected to fall below the adopted performance standard by 1995. This is primarily due to traffic generated from Zone 11, which will temporarily saturate the two existing lanes beyond the approved carrying capacity of the road segment. An alternative is to prohibit on-street parking and re- stripe La Costa Avenue to accommodate 2 through lanes in each direction. This will improve the level of service so that conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained through build out of this zone. 8. Rancho Santa Fe Road and Mision Estancia This intersection currently meets the adopted performance standard, however, is projected to become inadequate by 1995. The necessary improvements to maintain its adequacy through build out are a westbound left turn lane on Mision Estancia. These improvements are not considered regional in nature and will be required of the adjacent developments. A special condition has been included in this Local Facility Management Plan that will ensure that the improvements will be made. IV. FINANCING Financing for circulation facilities will be provided in a number of ways. Options ranging from City financing from existing Capital Improvement funds to direct Developer financing are available. Exhibit 44 on page 129 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 128 0 EXHIBIT 44 ZONE 11 -CIRCULATION FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FACILITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED COST TIMING FUNDING OPTIONS -------------------------------------------------------I FIRST SECOND THIRD NOTES =====--================-----==============-=--------=------====-=-========-=-===-------------------------=================---====-====-==========-====== CIRCULATION FACILITIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 • INTERSECT IONS -El Camino Real/ Cl ivenhain Rd. -La Costa/I-5 interchange and Bridge ~idening -RSF/Calle Lomas Verde 2. ROAD SEGMENTS -Olivenhain Rd fr/ El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe -Rancho Santa Fe fr/ La Costa Ave to Melrose Ave -La Costa Avenue fr/ El Camino Real to I-5 -El Camino Real fr/ Olivenhain Rd. to La Costa Avenue I I I I I Full Full 1 Lane (W) 4 Lanes (3) 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 6 Lanes 4 Lanes (3) I I I I I I I I 6 Lanes (4) TOTAL CIRCULATION COSTS (1) $3,300,000 $2,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $12,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $3,700,000 $32,002,000 1992 1993 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1993 2000 Developer w/ Reimbursement from PFF City w/ BTD Fees Adjacent Developers Developer w/ Reimbursement from PFF Developer Developer w/ Reimbursement from TI F Developer as Normal Frontage Improvements Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Mello Roos Mel lo Roos I I I I Developer w/ Reimbursement from BTD TIF -Traffic Impact Fee (2) BTD -Bridge and Thorough-I fare District (2) (2) T.I.F. C 1 • 9 Mil l ion) (2) (2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIP Budget: 87'-88' 87' -88' 1992-97 1992-97 1997+ 1997+ 1997+ $125,000 (RSF/Melrose(N) Traffic Signal) $400,000 (1-5/La Costa Improvements) $5,000,000 (La Costa Ave Widening to I-5) $5,821,327 (I-5/La Costa Improvements) $2,000,000 (El Camino Real Medians) $120,000 (RSF/Melrose(S) Traffic Signal) $125,000 (ECR/Olivenhain Traffic Signal) SOURCE: SOURCE: SOURCE: SOURCE: SOURCE: SOURCE: SOURCE: PFF BTD TJF BTD Gas Tax PFF PFF NOTES: (1) Costs included in Olivenhain Road Segment Estimate (2) All reimbursement is based upon City's adopted c.I.P. and City policies. (see Finance Section of Executive Surrmary) (3) Existing Alignment (4) Does not include provisions for 8 lanes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129 .. ZONE 6 . ' ' ( \ / ' .a A ' ' MATCH LINE ~ ' .. '~-··~ , . --. ' ' .... . ' ' ------- ' ' . ' . . LA COSTA RAQUET CLUB (EXISTING) • ~c . . IP .!\l!.iii--■•■•■ · . a· I ZONE 11C . ZONE , 11A I A w z I _S.D.G .&E. EASEM ENT /~ 1 / j J ., I ' I ' I ' I L /:,}, j J / ' ' ' •• ' \ \\- I 24 1b{n G\'7 t:! i:{l 5uL=JUwU lJ < '' I \ \ I \ \ .I , FIRE STATION f.1.-.. GROSS ACRES -157.7 NET ACR ES -127.2 A ,, • ( 1•[• J GROSS ACRI ES -1~·4.1 NET AC RES -102,5 1· , k'- . ! • ' , I SANTA FE KNOLLS (EXISTING) I \ \ I I I I 8 ,I ,~ ; I . I I l \ ' ' ' \ I \ I B SITE / ;' r---, I I ~- I .I , ' . ---J i'' ·' ( I ..... , _I I I I ' \ J \ J \ . I ' I ' r-i; )TT Cn-.., 1..r11L:::rt:l c:~ GROSS A CRES -310.0 NET AC RES -187.8 I I J I I I ----------------------- A D ' ,,/ / ·' ' 7 / .~ 7 "'-,¢,· :----:_~-...-... ,,,..,, D ) ! .. ' v;r;:::;:;-,h.:,;'' DENK I I TANK SITE •• -· J .. . ... . --... J \ J D J GROSS A C RES -191.7 NE T ACRES -16.3 I J I I >-. er• .,, 0 z ::, 0 "" >->- u I w z 0 N U, 0 >-. " I I I I I I CIRCULATION ROADS -ALIGNMENT • saker ssociates San Diego, inc. PIANNll\iG • ENG'INJ:."'ERJN(,' • SUR VEYING 6 122 Na 1uy Ridge D ,-;,,e. S11il e I OI San Uie1,:,o. C..A ')112 1 • (619) 535-2150 Offices: S11 11 D iego • Jrl'i11 e • O ntar io w.o. 470;-6 ! ' -t 1 L ' f I ·-' I _ _L -•· . i I j r -_,-L , I i -. --1 r - ! i T l ,3-,q-,--- ! i. ' i T j 1 T -. ' ~---f---. -__ J -+ ' • 1 r-...., -_;.._ -' -' i -I --t-- j j j 1 ; -l-l ' L ----... - I r L l ·r7-· . I i -l--- I r -j--· I -! _, T ... + l -i -,-1 I J__~ _ _J -.,. -+ I --1- '. I t ' i ;__. --+ i I J L i j . -+ ~ I 1 i __ j_ I . T i r ' + --1 ! 1 - t ' L. ,,=,,,,, =-.5---f';,-7' ✓ _ :b '.,-.7 /? &v • I r i ' ' + ' i -, l t I . -i ' . J 1 I f _ _. j - I ' i j I I I i ~ l I I t- _J_ --1' ' I I ' T -' 1 +- ' -. I ---i r ' T I L T T +- I l 1 l . ' t I j I t I l I t NO. I 269-PROfllE PlAH A "CLEARPRINT PAPER CO." MAOl: IN U.S.A. _,__j_ • l I + ' 1 ' l ' l I ' ' I-11 F-o=--1--_ -r--, l. -~ -1 I I I l J ' -:---..... --~ -r-- ., .J. 1 5 ~-1 ' ! l 1 l I t I I I l I i 7 11 a ----t-+-=l---- L r --..l--J__ • ' j L _ _.; --.j. J ' _,_ L---t ' ' I ! -+-f ' ! i .l -~ -+--L i. ' ' ' I. j -+-- ' 1· -· r I ' -l ,,_ 1 --_!..__ _ ___i__ ~-_L __ I __ j_ J __ ; ' J ' ' ' l _ t-i j i ; -·-' i ..._ l --j--T -i- i T --i- i , l L -+-L .L I I t i ,- 1 • I t _ _J __ _ ' ,-- i l t 1 . -t ., 1 t ' ! '--+ 1 t j I ..L ---,---, l -'-r :- t 1 J L ' 1 ' r --+--- l-' +-- ' r ' _j I i j t 1 1 j . ' i I I ' l I ! I j t - l I I + J I ... __ :- , 1 r -/2":=~~c; _z ~-4zf;7,.L.c~ I j j l 1 I ' I i I --,---- I I ' 1 1 I , l I l r -' i ·-r---1.. t . 1 ' ' I 7 I I -l ' 1 I ' l -l I j j ' r ' l .L ' -----~---+---~ ,- J . L 1 ! 2 r --, ' ' _j_ -.,__ I I . l 1- 1 0 --,-• i_ _j_ I .f~--:--'------'-~ ' j f + l I J._ .... J... T ---\ 0 I l t 2 ·-t - • I t l ' 1 l ' l I r l i j NO 1269-PtOF!lE Pl,t,fE A "CLEARPRINT PAPER CO." MAD£ IN U.S.A. I' r r -" -, r --,-, -•· I i .... -~------;, 1 t • ,. I t I -'---' I J ----r-·---1- l -------~_, _________ _ j l t i I . t -404? -1 I i ~ I i • t •-' t . _____ ..,.......__,. L t 1 --r-7 --i ' ' ---. . ' l --1 ' +-_...:.__ --1 I . r ,-- t --1 I l r ' -' t -r i---:L :------·1 . ' . ' j·-! ----t + -i ~ ' a ' i t l _..__J : j r-~ ' ' ._ -----; i ' 1 t __.L_"---"j I -c........---, I I t ' l j l l i- j I ' ' ..l 1 TI -l--_j i -➔ I i l 1 -! --1-:- ' r---+:---i I ssociates San Diego. inc. /'/ I\ \/\f, • I\(./\/ I H/\(, • II Ill/ I /\I. hi.!.! \u11, l H1d1,:,' lln, ,. 1,.,/,· /Iii \1111 //i,•g,, l I 'J.'l.!I • (r./1J _J )i~ ..'/~fJ llj}.,,·, 1,,., /11,•.1.:.,• /ni,u•· •n,1m·,,, 7-1 l I i-;--t I I ' r r-,--t-·· ! ; -i I ; -• i • l--I < '--+-----.---t--i ' ' • 1--r l --, ! ' .L + ,- ' ' --~---.l -t-----l. : ' J -.!--.L---i -:_ ! ;· + r j i -+ r ;-r-J}·---1 I t--1 --- -I • . . ' ' ; +--.J .... ; . . -.r---1-, - I T J_ -~r-T ~·~ - * t-:-~---- i. .. _j_ I -+-- L r-t ; ( -r-, __ J l --+-_ I ! ... _ ---t- 1 t , ·1 • I I ----i---~--0 I I ' I I ,-·t--I- i f. i -r PROPOSED MELROSE AVE. AND LA COSTA AVE. L .;. L 1 ' t -, -t -I t---1 -I -~-T""" --1 t- i _J _, r ' -I-I : -+ i l t j ... _.;__ 1 ' -l 1 l 7 ' + ' I ~ r ·""t ' -r I 1 ' . :\. -.i--r -- ' + l -l -_l I .I-i I l I i ! l l ; I l--1 i I -l -1 j ' ' --~ J_ l- ' T --,_ --- j_ -L +.--.i -I ' ' ! I ' j t --• ----+--' --i j - _l ' ' NO. 12.69 -l'R:Ofllf PlAT£ A "ClEARPRINT PAPER CO." MADE It,! U.S.A. '-- L -.... -r ; l I ,- .J, -- i--- ' T +---.-- ' -, -1 I I i l f I C T -, ' r 1 I L r ' ,-·-r 1 -·- t ' I ' I l-.... -+- _j I _,_ I • ->--- ' T ! 1 t l ' L L i 1-- -- i ,- ,- _, t L _j_ T .L - f- l ,-f--7-~-+-;- -' ·---r -+---, i -L t 1 ' I __ ...L_ .:----' -; I . ' ' l -1--- , -• l -I i -l--.j i I -T _j 1 I • r ' -t I I • r· _ _, __ .! j i 1 t ' T ·-+ ! _J !. ' - ' L' j ! ·+ j f L ➔ j { 1 l I I I 1 t -l ' t I L l ' L ' . .!... ~ I -; -,...... -• ; 1 l -+ ---,.--i 1 l .L -i-- -----_..1_ l --.. L L ' T --_,_ . l---' ' J ..!,_ ,._ . --t i l --·!---_..,. : l ·1· f ·,: t· - I I j_ ~; I--;-t · i-1--~'~ I ; ' • ! t---L-----,~- -' ' I ~ • 1----- / i t +-r----1 i • -, l t I 1 J__ l i -1 J_ 1 '- -, --r -t i ! r, -l-... .t..-1 1 _..._. -.l . ' : ' ssociateJ, San Diego. inc. /"L I \\/\1, •I\/,/\// l<f\f, •\II<'\ 11 f\(, /,/.!.! \,111,·1 l<'id~,•lld 1,•. \,u/,· IOI '"" /Ji,·.t:".; ! 'J.!/.!I • (Id ')) fH ..!.l~/J l!fj1<,•,· \uu l>i,•.t:"• /,-,;,,. .• •mt,,,.,., C C FIRE FACILITIES I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD No more than 1500 dwelling units outside of a five minute response time. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS A. INVENTORY 1. 2. 25 Inventory of Existing Demand: A total of 2703 existing dwelling units in Zones 6, 11 and 12 are presently outside a five minute response time from Fire Station #2. The existing developments outside the five minute response time are itemized in Appendix 8. A summary of fire demand is as follows: Existing Units outside Five Minute Response Performance Standard Unit Limit Existing Units in Excess of Performance Standard Inventory of Existing Fire Facilities: 2703 -1500 1203 At the present time, Fire station #2 is the only station which serves the southeast area of Carlsbad that includes Zones 6, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18. This station is located at 1906 Arenal Road as shown on Exhibit 45 on page 131. This exhibit also shows the five minute fire response time within this area. A 30 mph average driving rate is used to determine the five minute response time25 • The five minute response time begins when the fire truck leaves the fire station. This is equivalent to a 2.5 mile driving distance from the fire station. Per Stewart Gary, Battalion Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department and Mr. Phil Carter of the city of Carlsbad. 130 • • • . C, . ~ u --. STATION +2 . · LEGEND 5 MIN. RESPONSE TIME C ~ NO SCALE ~lGI<: p/dfuu)fg Cit'! of Vista i City of Enc:nitat~ EXISTING GROWTH EXHIBIT 45 MANAGEMENT • Fire Response Time PROGRAM Zone 11 131 B. C. 3. Inventory of Future Approved Facilities: Fire Station #6 is currently scheduled in the city's '87-'92 Capital Improvement Program and is scheduled for funding in fiscal years '88-'89 and '89-'90. The station would be operational six months after construction begins. The location for the Fire station #6 is on Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose Avenue and La Costa Avenue as shown on Exhibit 46 on page 133. The City of Carlsbad has purchased a one-half acre site for this fire station along the existing alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. With the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road26 to the east, a suitable land transfer must take place to provide the city with a permanent location for Fire Station No. 6. Since the City has already purchased a site, there would be no additional cost to the city. As shown on Exhibit 46, the approximate location of the Station #6 site will not provide a five minute response time consistent with the adopted performance standard, however mitigation is proposed that will ensure compliance with this standard. PHASING The City of Carlsbad's '87-'92 Capital Improvement Plan has allocated $650,000 for the construction of Fire Station #6 in 1989-1990. Exhibit 46 shows the five minute fire response time from Fire Station #6. As shown on this exhibit, the five minute response time will extend over most of Zones 11 and 12 and extend into Zones 6 and 18. Within Zone 11, approximately 615 dwelling units will be outside the five minute response time of Fire Station #6 at build out. Within Management Zone 12, 406 dwelling units will be outside the five minute response time of Fire Station #2 and #627_ 26 27 City Council Resolution 9271 adopted October 10, 1987. This approximation is based on applying the Growth Management Control Point to the unconstrained portions of 't;he properties that are located outside of the five minute response time boundary. 132 • • C ~ () STATION #2 __ _..,. w LEGEND • Existing Fire Station f) Proposed Fire Station • • 5 MIN. RESPONSE TIME: -Station #2 ,.,,,.---.....,~a; r,~~,,/· ~ ... ----=-.., --Station #5 ··--- ••• Station #6 «C'w C NO SCALE ~/GI( flM1lng 406 UNITS OUTSIDE OF '~--~ RESPONSE TIME ... , GROWTH 615 UNITS OUTSIDE OF RESPONSE TIME PROPOSED EXHIBIT 46 MANAGEMENT -• Fire Response Time PROGRAM · Zone 11 133 C C C c. ADEQUACY FINDINGS As shown in the inventory section, a total of 2703 dwelling units are currently outside a five minute response time. As a result, this exceeds the City standard by 1203 units, thus, Zone 11 currently does not meet the adopted performance standard. This situation will exist until Fire Station #6 is constructed. III. MITIGATION A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 1. Prior to the adoption of Management Plan by the City actions shall take place: this Local Facilities Council, the fallowing A. The La Costa Ranch Company shall provide a suitable fire station site at a location acceptable to the Fire Chief, Planning Director and City Engineer. This site shall be exchanged for the existing site located along the present alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. B. A letter of credit or some other secured financing acceptable to the City in the amount of $1,118,000 guaranteeing the construction of Fire Station No. 6 shall be provided from a financial institute and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the approval of the Finance Director and City Attorney. c. Prior to the City accepting a location for Fire station No. 6, the preparers of this LFMP shall be required to prepare a modified five minute response time map for the southeast quadrant to ensure compliance with the performance standard. 2. Prior to the approval of any final map within Zone 11, a schedule shall be approved by the City guaranteeing the construction of Fire station No. 6 by 1989. 3. No residential building permits shall be issued until the Planning Director and City Engineering make the findings that sufficient progress has been made towards the completion of Fire Station No. 6 and the opening of this station is projected to occur prior to the completion of any residential units. 4. 5. No residential units will receive a utility inspection until Fire Station No. 6 is operational. Prior to the occupancy of the Fire Station No. 6, an access road shall be provided from the new Fire Station No. 6 location to the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road by 134 C C IV. FINANCING the La Costa Ranch Company or other property owners within Zone 11 acceptable to the Fire Chief, Planning Director and the City Engineer. The City of Carlsbad's '87-'92 Capital Improvement Program has allocated $650,000 for the construction of Fire Station No. 6 in 1989-1990. If the station construction is accelerated by the Zone 11 owners by one year, the cost for the construction of the station is reimburseable at the time the city would have built the station per the 1987-1992 CIP (i.e. 1989-90). The cost of operating the station until the time the City would have operated it is not reimburseable. · Also, the costs for the construction of the temporary access road are not reimburseable. Exhibit 47 on page 136 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 135 u EXHIBIT 47 ZONE 11 -FIRE FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------1 FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I NOTES I !======================================================================================================================----============================== I FIRE FACILITIES 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Fire Station No. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -Construction and Equipnent -Operation (1 year) I I I I I I $650,000 I 1989 Developer w/ I PFF Mello Roos I I I I Reimbursement I I I I I I I 1, 1, I I $530,000 1989-90 Developer w/no I I I Reimbursement I I ============= I I I ( 1) 1--------------------------~~~~:-~:~=-~~:~:-----~~:~~~:~~~-! ________________ ! _______________________ ! _________________________________ ! __________________ I I CIP Budget: 88'-89' $400,000 (Fire Station No. 6 and Apparatus) -SOURCE: PFF I I 89' -90' $250,000 ( 11 11 ) I I Notes: (1) Costs per 187-1 88 C.I.P. I 136 C -C C I. OPEN SPACE FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Exhibit 48 on page 138 shows graphically the existing, approved and future performance standard open space within Zone 11. Performance standard open space consists of 1) developed open space areas within existing and approved projects and 2) unconstrained undeveloped open space.throughout the remainder of the zone. Unconstrained undeveloped open space is land that will remain as permanent open space and is free of environmental constraints. Environmental constraints include: beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodway, slopes greater that 40%, significant wetlands, significant riparian habitats, significant woodland habitats, major power line easements railroad track beds, and other significant environmental features as determined by the environmental review process. Slopes 25-40% and major powerline easements that are improved for open space purposes can count for open space purposes. A. INVENTORY 1. Inventory of Open Space Demand: The performance standard open space required to be provided for Zone 11 is 15 percent of the total land area that is exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land. The total land area within Zone 11 that falls under this definition is 1650.9 acres28 . Zone 11' s build out performance standard requirement for open space, therefore, is 247.64 acres. The existing, approved and future performance standard open space demand and supply is itemized in detail on Exhibit 49 on page 139. 28 See Exhibit 11 on page 36. 137 \ CITY OF SAN 'v1ARCOS ~, ... -~~ ~v" '\ / ,' i J l: -,,,; t, CITY OF CARLSBAD ~~~~~~~~~~ . \ 1/. ---= -~,.,,-/ -------- 'ii "' 53 --c:===~~!s; ;/J -~ !;; ZONEO , ·c __ / ,, . ~ .-,..,,,,.,----; . , __ / etO"'e -_\\ '\\ \ ( ' \ \ ,,, \,t· i ~ & --~ _ _.,,-~/- \ .. ,-._; " ------~ ' (._-------., <~ ~------'-. ___ .,,,,_/'---~ ...... ~-'-',,-- ·--. ~' , ~ t ~()~) ~ ZONES ~t 'S;~-' ~, : ~ 300 600 \,,._,,,, 1200 COUNTY OF 3AN DIEGO ZONE 0 ' ----,,,,--.. i --... ' I , __ _J I I l "°' " ENC,Nff" ,1 ----: ------------: .. :~.J ·-_/· , ___ , ___ ,...._ __, .J ~ ,•, ' --·--_, . . \. -\ ~ _..-----' / \ ,. I ~-~-------) .__,_, __ ./ . / / I -.-~ -----~--,~ / ( ___ / -~ // / / J\ ( ' , / ~ \ , ' ,_r' t·· <r' -..._; - " \._ ta F,; Knolls L., ~\ '---~~'"'"°''C~K* ' ~-\< nta F,e \ ; 1 ..... , t -ec ; i :'=?a::::cue t.,,u ,--~ ~ '-· ,c,xi"BO -. : ... (ex1st1 _ __ ________ __, _// --/ i , -I ~/ .mJi;..,,...-.,_ ·, ,({; , , \ss-11 '/8 ' ~ :r a~-1 "J ,le "'·,. ·-., / /:-re -.-.. . I', ==---~--\/m EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE OPEN SPACE ,fr ·Vista Santa F,; : 1 Ar<c!a 6 "' (existing} ZONE 12 CITY OF CARLSBAD LEGEND 11111111111111111 I I II I [: ... :.::::::;:::] / ~ NON-PERFORMANC " I J J J ,.-. J-,, -~ ·~ I . : . \1 \• ,.. ____ _j I ) I I I MANAGEMENT PROG_RAi'-1i EXHIBIT 48 eOpen Space Zone 11 C C C EXHIBIT 49 ZONE 11 -INVENTORY OF PERFORMANCE STANDARD OPEN SPACE EXISTING: PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD STANDARD PROJECT OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ADEQUACY/ GEN PLAN SUB-AREA PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER ACRES DEMAND SUPPLY (INADEQUACY) RLM 4 Vista Santa Fe CT 81-16 RLM 3,4 Santa Fe Knolls CT 75-9(8) RMH 1 Racquet Club CT 84-7 RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL OS 1 OS 2 OS 3 OS 6 OS 7 78.84 63.90 31.70 174.44 11.83 9.59 4.76 26.17 1 .20 0.00 1.25 2.45 53.60 16.30 32.10 22.90 8.80 I I OS 8 37.50 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE SUBTOTAL 111.20 I ======================================================================================I TOTAL EXISTING OPEN SPACE 174.44 26.17 173.65 I !===============================================================================================! I I I APPROVED : I I PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE I I STANDARD STANDARD I I GEN PLAN PROJECT PROJECT OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ADEQUACY/ I I SUB-AREA PROJECT NUMBER ACRES DEMAND SUPPLY (INADEQUACY)! I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I RLM 4 Vista Santa Fe CT 85-9,11 94.30 14.15 0.60 I I RLM 7 Rice Properties CT 85-10 90.20 13.53 16.00 I I RM 2 Park View West CT 85-15 26.70 4.01 0.45 I I RM 3 Park View East CT 85-21 6.80 1.02 0.17 I I ======================================================================================I I TOTAL APPROVED OPEN SPACE 218.00 32.70 17.22 I 1===============================================================================================1 I I I I I FUTURE: I I I I ======================================================================================I I FUTURE OPEN SPACE 57.00 I 1===============================================================================================1 I I I BUILD OUT: I I I I ======================================================================================I I TOTAL BUILD OUT OPEN SPACE 247.64 247.87 0.23 I ======================================================================================-======== 139 C 2. C 3. currently, the existing and approved performance standard open space demand is as follows: Acres of Required Developed/ Performance Approved Standard Acres Open Space Existing 174.44 26.17 Approved 218.00 32.70 ----------- 329.44 58.87 The performance standard open space demand created by existing projects and approved projects in Zone 11 is 58.87 acres. Inventory of Existing and Approved Open Space Supply: An inventory of the existing and approved performance standard open space supply is also shown on Exhibit 49 on page 139 and is summarized as follows: Existing Approved TOTAL Acres of Performance Standard Open Space 173.65 17.22 190.87 The total existing and approved performance standard open space supply is 190.87. The existing and approved performance standard open space demand is 58.87 acres. Therefore, 132 acres of open space are existing in Zone 11 in excess of the demand generated by existing and approved developments. The open space performance standard in Zone 11, therefore, is currently being met. Inventory of Future Open Space Supply: As shown on Exhibits 48 and 49, 60 acres of future performance standard open space are identified within Zone 11. This future open space, when added to existing and approved open space provides 247.87 acres of performance standard open space at build out. The build out demand for open space is 247.64 acres, 140 C C C B. C. therefore, the performance standard open space is projected to meet the demand at build out. The areas that could be set aside for future open space are shown on Exhibit 48 on page 138. This plan fully recognizes that a revision to the present La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(G)) could affect the exact location and dimensions of performance standard open space provided in this plan. Any amendments to the open space created by the La Costa Master Plan amendment will require a corresponding amendment to this Local Facility Management Plan. PHASING As documented in Appendix 9, the affected landowners within the Zone 11 LFMP have agreed to permanently set aside existing, approved and future performance standard open space identified in this analysis. Since the Zone 11 phasing schedule does not address the yearly amount of acres developed within Zone 11, no phasing of future open space facilities demand can be projected at this time. As part of the yearly monitoring program the developers of Zone 11 will provide evidence to the Planning Director ensuring that the open space performance standard is met. ADEQUACY FINDINGS As of 1/1/87, Zone 11 has sufficient permanent performance standard open space to meet the adopted performance standard for existing and approved development. However, Zone 11 will require continual monitoring of this open space until build out. For that reason, the following special conditions are being added to this plan. III. MITIGATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11 1. All future development within this zone shall be required to show how it contributes to meeting the open space performance standard and that the development does not preclude the provision of performance standard open space at build out of Zone 11. 2. Open space compliance will be monitored annually and as individual projects are reviewed within this zone. 3. Prior to the approval of any development within this zone, the Planning Director shall be required to find that the development does not preclude the provision of performance standard open space at build out of Zone 11. 141 C C IV. FINANCING Funding for performance standard open space will be provided by the property owners of Zone 11. Affected property owners or homeowners associations will be responsible for maintaining open space facilities within their development. Unconstrained open space that is not develope~ will not require maintenance. If unconstrained open space is developed, the funding will be provided by the developer of that open space. 142 C C C I. SCHOOL FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD School capacity to meet projected enrollment within the zone as determined by the appropriate school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS As shown on Exhibit 50 on page 144, the Encinitas Union Elementary School District, San Dieguito High School District and the San Marcos Unified School District serve Zone 11. Exhibit 51 on page 145 provides a detailed map of school district service areas in Zone 11. This exhibit shows most of the boundary line between San Marcos Unified District and the Encinitas and San Dieguito School Districts is along San Marcos Creek to the southwest and east/west as it nears the eastern border of Zone 11. The San Dieguito High School District and Encinitas Union School District have jurisdiction south of San Marcos Creek within Zone 11. San Dieguito High School District serves the secondary students (7-12) and Encinitas Union School District serves the primary or elementary students (K-6). The San Marcos Unified School District serves both the elementary and secondary students north of San Marcos Creek. Since Zone 11 is served by three different school districts, the analysis of school facility adequacy shall be addressed by individual district. A. BUILD OUT ASSUMPTIONS The following analysis is based on the build out projections on Exhibit 16 on page 45. Since Zone 11 is served by three districts in two school service areas, dwelling unit student generation projections are broken down by school district service areas as shown on Exhibits 52 and 53 on pages 146 and 147. The proposed Zone 11 LFMP build out projections as shown on Exhibit 17 on page 48 are included to assist in analysis of the Encinitas Union Elementary School District facilities. Exhibit 54 on page 148 shows the build out projections for Zone 12. Exhibit 55 on page 149 identifies student generation rates used by the school districts to predict demand for school facilities. Exhibit 56 on page 150 lists existing and future school facilities that serve Zone 11. 143 C .. . . .. . ············ • • . . . • . . • . . • . . • • . . • .... . . . . • • . • . ..... • . . ······ . . . . . . . . . • ..... • . . • ........... . . • "' • San Marcos . Junior High School La C Meadows Elem.. e .::::. : . _,,;;:r:I sAN MARcos UNFED I : Nil~ SOHOOL DISTRICT _ {·· • .. • · ••. . --i~lllill r ···· · · · · · · · ·· · •• •• • ••• • ••••• •••••• ..: • • ·•·❖:• ,~,........... • • •• • i;t ,-· ·-·-••..;..••....;.•-'--· •..;.;••;.;..• .=....• -----+ ft SAN DEGUITO La Costa Heights Elem. ,Ji;, HIGH SCHOOL DIST. ~~~ ~±:~ 0 A~~ ~~::~;Q~~~:~T. " Rancho Santa Fe Elem. I DiegJeno Junior High School an Dieg.ito . h Scho GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 144 LEGEND • Existi"lg School O Proposed School •··· Schoo I District Boundary Exhibit 50 • School Locations Zone 11 , COUNTY OF SAN Dff:GG i r----...... f JS88. ll 811 881M .,.ll1 r t 18SdlllllB!IA -_,. --7··1 I I ""'""' ___ ,.. ____ J RL-2 ~ -.. r-.. · •. , RL-2 . \ ILtJiiwr.;. ' ' ~ "• RlM-2 ·• \ --. I ZONE 5 · LEGEND: -■-■-■-School District Boundary ---WJ.1--,~~~ smzmqm~:w--fOm:~~--... -7 t I HI; . CHOOL DIST I RL-3 1 AS LI ELEMENTA OOL DISTR G/0 RLM-5 ,RLM-7 I I LM-J . I j -r I ....... .........J I ...... J es . EXHIBIT 51 ····-·-. chool District Boundaries Zone 1 i (; u I EXHIBIT 52 ZONE 11 SCHOOL FACILITY DEMAND TABLE -ENCINITAS UNION-SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS OF 1-1-87 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I RES. IN D.U.'S AND NON-RES. IN SQ. FT STUDENT GENERATION RATESI EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE BUILD OUT GENERAL PLAN I ---------------------------------I PROJECTION LAND USE I BUILD OUT I SUB-AREA I EXIST APPROVED FUTURE PROJECTION I E JH HS I E JH HS I E JH HS I E JH HS I E JH HS I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I RESIDENTIAL I I I I 1----------------I I I RL-1 0 0 131 131 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.09 15.72 32.75 I 51.09 15.72 32. 75 RL-2 0 0 188 188 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.32 22.56 47.00 I 73.32 22.56 47.00 RL-3 0 0 168 168 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.52 20.16 42.00 I 6s.s2 20.16 42.00 RLM-1 0 0 386 386 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.54 46.32 96.50 I 150.54 46.32 96.50 RLM-2 0 0 328 328 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 127.92 39.36 82.00 I 127. 92 39.36 82.00 RLM-3 0 170 (6) 164 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 66.30 20.40 42.50 (2.34) (0.72) (1.SO>I 63.96 19.68 41.00 RLM-4 260 299 (113) 446 0.390 0.120 0.250 101.40 31.20 65.00 1116.61 35.88 74.75 (44.07)(13.56)(28.25)1173.94 53.52 111.50 RLM-5 0 0 24 24 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.36 2.88 6.00 I 9.36 2.88 6.00 RLM-6 0 0 70 70 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.30 8.40 17 .so I 27.30 8.40 17.50 RLM-7 0 189 306 495 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 73.71 22.68 47.25 119 .34 36.72 76.50 I 193.05 59.40 123.75 RM-2 0 131 12 143 0.200 0.089 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 26.20 11.66 22.93 2.40 1.07 2.10 I 28.60 12.73 25.03 RM-3 0 35 17 52 0.200 0.089 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 7.00 3.12 6.13 3.40 1.51 2.98 I 10.40 4.63 9.10 RMH-1 320 176 ( 105) 391 0.200 0.089 0.175 64.00 28.48 56.00 I 35.20 1s.66 30.80 (21.00) (9.35)(18.38)1 78.20 34.80 68.43 UNIT TRANSFER 385 385 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.15 46.20 96.25 I 150.15 46.20 96.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NON-RESIDENTIAL I ----------------, C-1 I 0 46,885 0 46,885 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C-2 I 0 0 586,914 586,914 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C-3 I 0 0 113,980 113,980 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 I 0 0 190,534 190,534 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G/0 I 0 0 64,646 64,646 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H I 0 0 249,032 249,032 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ELEM I 0 0 38,000 38,000 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------- SUMMARY INFORMATION EXIST APPROVED FUTURE BUILD OUT ESTIMATED PROJECTION I STUDENT GENERATION I FROM ZONE 11 EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE BUILD OUT PROJECTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS D.U.S SQ. FT. 580 0 1,000 1,791 46,885 1,243,106 3,371 1,289,991 ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH SENIOR HIGH 165 60 121 325 713 1203 109 217 386 224 453 799 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146 I I I I I I I r, EXHIBIT 53 ZONE 11 SCHOOL FACILITY DEMAND TABLE -SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS OF 1-1-87 GENERAL PLAN RES. IN D.U.'S AND NON-RES. IN SQ.FT I LAND USE ---------------------------------STUDENT GENERATION RATES! EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE I SUB-AREA EX I ST APPROVED FUTURE BU I LO OUT I I I I PROJECTION I E JH HS I E JH HS I E JH HS I E JH HS I ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 RESIDENTIAL I I I I I 1----------------1 I I I I I RL-1 I O O 130 130 I 0.322 0.098 0.194 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 41.86 12.74 25.22 I RLM-1 I O O 21 21 I 0.322 0.098 0.194 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 6.76 2.06 4.07 I RM-1 · I O O 73 73 I 0.094 0.028 0.057 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 6.86 2.04 4.16 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------··------------------------------------------------------------------ I SUMMARY I EXIST APPROVED FUTURE BUILDDOUT I ESTIMATED I EXISTING I APPROVED I FUTURE I INFORMATION I PROJECTION I STUDENT GENERATION I I I I I I FROM ZONE 6 I I I ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 TOTALS I I ELEMENTARY I O I O I 55 I o.u.s I O O 224 224 I JUNIOR HIGH I O I O I 17 I I I HIGH SCHOOL I O I O I 33 u 147 E BUILDOUT PROJECTION JH HS 41.86 12.74 25.22 6.76 2.06 4.07 6.86 2.04 4.16 BUILD OUT PROJECTION 55 17 33 ( ) u EXHIBil 54 ZONE 12 SCHOOL FACILITY DEMAND TABLE -ENCINITAS UNION-SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS OF 1-1-87 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··----------------------------- GENERAL PLAN RES. IN D.U.'S AND NON-RES. IN SQ.FT STUDENT GENERATION RATESI EXISTING APPROVED FUTURE I BUILDOUT LAND USE ---------------------------------I I PROJECTION SUB-AREA EXIST APPROVED FUTURE BUILDOUT I I PROJECTION I I E. JH HS I E. JH HS E. JH HS E. JH HS I E. JH HS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1--------------------- RESIDENTIAL I ----------------I RLM-1 0 85 275 360 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.15 10.20 21.25 107.25 33.00 68.75 I 140.40 43.20 90.00 RLM-2 0 0 42 42 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.38 5.04 10.50 I 16.38 5.04 10.50 RLM-3 589 0 181 no 0.390 0.120 0.250 229.71 70.68 147.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.59 21. 72 45.25 300.30 92.40 192.50 RM-1 0 0 144 144 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.80 12. 10 25.20 28.80 12.10 25.20 RM-2 0 0 9 9 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.76 1.58 1.80 0.76 1.58 RM-3 0 578 (123) 455 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.60 48.55 101.15 (24.60)(10.33)(21.53) 91.00 38.22 79.63 RMH-1 0 0 81 81 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.20 6.80 14.18 16.20 6.80 14.18 RMH-2 0 0 76 76 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.20 6.38 13.30 15.20 6.38 13.30 RMH-3 0 0 52 52 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.40 4.37 9.10 10.40 4.37 9.10 RMH-4 0 126 (47) 79 0.200 0.084 0.175 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.20 10.58 22.05 (9.40) (3.95) (8.23) 15.80 6.64 13.83 UN IT TRANSFER (179) (179) 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (69.81)(21.48)(44.75) (69.81)(21.48)(44.75>1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NON-RESIDENTIAL I ----------------1 TS-1 I SUMMARY INFORMATION TOTALS D.U.S SQ. FT. 0 0 EXIST APPROVED 589 0 789 0 46,885 FUTURE 511 46,885 62,726 0 0 BUILDOUT ESTIMATED PROJECTIONS I STUDENT GENERATION I FROM ZONE 6 I 1,889 I 62,726 I ELEMENTARY JUNIOR HIGH SENIOR HIGH 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXISTING APPROVED I FUTURE BUILDOUT I PROJECTION I I I ----------------------------------------------------------------1--------------------- 230 I 174 I 163 I 566 71 I 69 I 54 I 194 147 I 144 I 113 I 405 148 C C C EXHIBIT 55 -STUDENT GENERATION RATES SCHOOL DISTRICT Encinitas UESD San Dieguito HSD San Marcos USO NOTES: SCHOOL TYPE Elementary Junior High High School Elementary Junior High High School 1. Multi-Family= RM, RMH and RH 2. SFD = RL, RLM MULTI FAMILY (1) 0.200 0.089 0.175 0.094 0.028 0.057 SOURCE: Generation rates were provided by the respective School Districts. 149 SFD (2) 0.390 0.120 0.250 0.322 0.098 0.194 n I-' u, 0 n EXHIBIT 56: EXISTING AND FUTURE SCHOOLS SERVING ZONE 11 SCHOOL EXISTING EXISTING FUTURE SCHOOL TYPE STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT DISTRICT (3) SCHOOL NAME CAPACITY ENROLLMENT I CAPACITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EUESD E La Costa Heights 588 560 E Rancho Santa Fe E Elementary School #3 SDHSD JR Oak Crest Jr. High 933 988 H San Dieguito H.S. 1,835 1,992 JR Zone 12 Jr. High HS La Costa High School SMUSD E La Costa Meadows 500 502 JR San Marcos Jr. High 750 886 HS San Marcos H.S. 1,500 1,753 E Future Elementary NOTES: 1. Encinitas Union Elementary School District 2. San Dieguito High School District 3. San Marcos Unified School District 4. E -Elementary; JR -Junior High; HS -High School 5. San Marcos Unified School District has not estimated the future enrollment for this school. 588 588 1,000 2,500 N/A PROJECTED FUTURE STUDENT I ENROLLMENT ------------ 590 590 1,000 2,500 N/A n I PROJECTED I YEAR OF I OPERATION NOTES ---------------------- (1) 1990 (2) 1992 (3) 1989 (5) C C C 1. 2. Existing Population: Zone 11 12 SFD Units 260 589 Multi Units 320 0 Total 580 589 2.471 2.471 Population 1433 1455 TOTAL 849 320 1169 2888 Build out Population: 11 12 SFD Units 3099 1888 Multi Units 496 0 Total 3595 1888 Rate 2.471 2.471 Population 8,883 4,665 TOTAL 4,987 Assumptions: 496 5,483 13,548 1) Of the potential dwelling units to be built in Zone 11, it is projected that 224 dwelling units will be located within the San Marcos School District (north of San Marcos Creek) with the remaining potential dwelling units located south of San Marcos Creek. 2) Potential units include 385 SFD transferred into Zone 11 from Zones 10 and 12. III. ENCINITAS UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Most schools within the Encinitas Union School District are currently on a year round track system. Students at schools with a track enrollment system attend school on a cycle of nine weeks in school followed by three weeks vacation. This system signi- ficantly increases the regular school capacity and can be further augmented by portable (temporary) classrooms. In this analysis, it is assumed that a track enrollment system will occur when enrollment exceeds regular capacity. The Encinitas Union School District has entered into an agreement with La Costa Ranch Company, the major land holder of this area, that provides for the dedication of school sites in exchange for school availability letters. This agreement has been in force for the last several years and has resulted in the dedication of the La Costa Heights Elementary School site and an additional elementary school site located on the east side of Rancho Santa 29 Per California Department of Finance. 151 C c· C Fe Road, south of Calle Lomas Verde (Rancho Santa Fe Road School). The agreement also provides for a third school site (School #3) to be dedicated in the southwest portion of La Costa within Zone 12. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing Enrollment: 2. 30 School La Costa Heights Assumption: Enrollment 560 Regular Capacity 588 Track Capacity 784 The enrollment figure is the total number of students from Zones 11 and 12 previously housed at Capri and Flora Vista Elementary Schools before the construction of La Costa Heights Elementary in April, 1987. Conclusion: The La Costa Heights Elementary School meets the existing demand for school facilities for Zone 11. Build out Projections30 : student Population at Build out: Build out Unit Student IYP§ Units ~ Population SFD 3778 .39 1473 Multi 1481 .20 296 ----- TOTAL 5,259 1,769 Totals are for Zones 11 and 12 and exclude 224 dwelling units to be located in the San Marcos Unified School District located within Zone 11. 152 C C Build Out Capacity, Enrollment, Surplus/Deficit: Future Regular Track Surplus/ School Enrollment Capacity Capacity Deficit La Costa Heights 590 588 784 -2(+194) Rancho Santa Fe 590 588 784 -2(+194) School #3 590 588 784 -2(+194) () Denotes surplus/deficit under track system. Assumptions: 1) The future boundary line for La Costa Heights Elementary School jurisdiction will generally correspond with Zones 12 and Zone 11 south of San Marcos Creek. 2) Future enrollments for each school are calculated by equally distributing the total number of projected students generated from Zones 11 and 12. 3) The capacity of Elementary School #3 will be the same as Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Heights Elementary Schools. 4) According to Mr. Donald Lindstrom, School Superintendent, the Encinitas Union School District will continue on the track system. B. PHASING The Encinitas Union Elementary School currently has sufficient facilities to serve students from Zone 11. In addition, new school facilities are scheduled to be in place to serve increasing enrollment generated from Zone 11. A yearly phasing schedule for Encinitas Union Elementary school is difficult to project as the school boundaries overlap management zones and city boundaries. However, Exhibit 52 on page 146 lists the number of students in zone 11 that will be generated on a yearly basis based on the schedule listed in the phasing section. In addition, Exhibit 54 on page 148 indicates the total school capacity as Rancho Santa Fe Road School and School #3 come on line. The Encinitas Union School District's existing School Agreement with La Costa Ranch Company provides for the dedication of two additional school sites to be dedicated concurrent with additional development in Zones 11 and 12. 153 1. 2. C Rancho Santa Fe School: Encinitas Union School District is presently making application to the state for funding of the Rancho Santa Fe Road School site. Land for this site has been dedicated to the Encinitas Union School District by the property owner per the School Agreement mentioned above. The district is projecting 1990 as the date of opening of this school. School #3: The completion date of School #3 has not been determined by Encinitas Union School District at this time. The district's Business Manager points out that the exact date of operation of School #3 will depend on the rate of growth in this area. The land for this site will be dedicated by La Costa Ranch Company per the existing School Agreement and Encinitas Union School District will make the necessary applications for land purchase at the time the need arises. 154 C C C c. ADEQUACY FINDINGS The Encinitas Union Elementary School has capacity to meet the existing and build out demands generated from Zone 11. D. MITIGATION Special Conditions For Zone 11: No special conditions apply to Zone 11 regarding school facilities that would require any mitigation at this time. Encinitas Union Elementary School District has indicated31 that existing and future school facilities will meet the student demand created by Zone 11. E. FINANCING 31 Financing for both the Rancho Santa Fe School and School #3 will be from state revenues through the mechanisms provided under the Leroy-Greene Lease Purchase Law. The sites for both schools will be dedicated by La Costa Ranch Company per the terms of the existing agreement between the Encinitas Union School District and La Costa Ranch Company. The estimated cost of construction of the Rancho Santa Fe School is approximately $3,5000,000. One hundred percent of the financing will be provided by Encinitas Union School District through the Leroy Greene Lease Purchase Law and school fees collected concurrent with development. See Appendix 10 for letter from Encinitas Union Elementary School. 155 C C C IV. SAN DIEGUITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Diegueno Junior High School and San Dieguito High School of the San Diegui to High School District serve the secondary students from Zone 11 south of San Marcos Creek. These two schools also serve the surrounding areas with school enrollment depending on development within the region. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately determine the junior high and high school student impact based solely on Zone 11 projections. However, discussions with Dr. Phillips, District Manager and Mr. Berrier, Superintendent of the San Diegui to High School District have provided phasing information for the entire district. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing student Generation: 32 To determine the existing junior high and high school student population, the existing number of dwelling units for Zone 11 were divided into single family detached and multi family and multiplied by the districts student generation rate as follows: High Sghool: Unit Student ~ Units Rate32 Population SFD 260 .25 65 Multi 320 .175 56 TOTAL 121 Junior High School: Unit Student ~ Units Rate Population SFD 260 .12 31 Multi 320 .084 26 TOTAL 57 Generation rates were provided by the San Dieguito High School District. 156 2. C 3. C 33 Existing Enrollment: School Diegueno Junior High San Dieguito High School Enrollment 908 1992 Build Out Projections: Regular Capacity 887 1835 Student Population at Build out: High School: Unit ~ SFD Multi TOTAL33 Junior High: Unit units 2785 586 3444 ~ Units SFD Multi TOTAL 2785 586 3444 .25 .175 Rate .12 .084 Temporary Capacity 116 204 Build Out Student Population 696 102 798 Build Out Student Population 334 49 383 Total Capacity 1003 2039 Totals exclude 224 potential dwelling units to be built in the jurisdiction of San Marcos Unified School District. 157 C B. C C Build Out Capacity, Enrollment and Surplus/Deficit: Future surplus/ School Capacity34 Enrollment Deficit La Costa High School 2500 2500 -0 - New Junior High School 1000 1000 -0 - Assumptions: 1) The capacity of the future junior high school is assumed to be similar to Diegueno and Oak Crest Junior High Schools. 2) School capacity will meet student enrollment at build out. PHASING The San Dieguito High School District's junior high and high school boundaries overlap several management zones within the City of Carlsbad and extend into the City of Encinitas. Therefore, an accurate yearly phasing schedule for the entire district is difficult to project. This LFMP provides the Zone 11 yearly student generation projection that can be used to more accurately assess the number of students generated from this area. Exhibit 52 on page 146 shows the yearly number of junior high students generated from Zone 11 and the total capacity provided by San Dieguito High School District. Exhibit 52 indicates the high school students generated by Zone 11 and the total capacity provided by the existing high school and projected high school. 1. La Costa High School: 34 35 La Costa High school is projected to be built within 1989-199235 . The actual date will depend on the district's ability to obtain the necessary funding from the state. The San Dieguito High School District is in the process of acquiring the land for the high school site. The site selected is in the southeast section of La Costa. Per Dr. Phillips, San Oieguito High School District. Phasing information for the la Costa High School was supplied by Mr. William Berrier, Superintendent, and Dr. Rodney Phillips, District Manager. 158 C C The land was made available to the district by La Costa Ranch Company pursuant to an existing agreement between La Costa Ranch Company and the San Dieguito High School District. The total amount of land that has been reserved is approximately 88 acres of which 50 acres are suitable for construction of the high school facility. The San Dieguito High School District may purchase the land at any time at a purchase price to be determined by a real estate appraisal. San Dieguito High School District is in the process of securing financing for this site. Details are contained in the finance section. 2. Junior High School: The phasing schedule for the junior high school to be located in Zone 12 is not known at this time. The San Dieguito High School District has indicated, per letter from Mr. William Berrier, that this school will not be needed in the immediate future. As future development within Zone 11 and the City of Encinitas occurs, two options are available to mitigate overcrowded conditions at Diegueno Junior High School: a. Temporary classrooms will continue to be added to Diegueno High School to accommodate additional students; and b. When the La Costa High School is opened, grade assignments can be modified to allow 9th grade students to attend the new high school. C. ADEQUACY FINDINGS San Dieguito High School District is currently exceeding its fixed capacity however, it is mitigating this shortage by utilizing re-locatable units. Future school demands will require a new senior high and junior high school. D. MITIGATION 1. Special Conditions For Zone 11: No special conditions apply to Zone 11 regarding school facilities that would require any mitigation at this time. I. FINANCING 159 C E. C C FINANCING 1. La Costa High School: The total cost to purchase land and to construct a new high school in La Costa is $35,000,000 according to the figures compiled by the San Dieguito High School District. The San Dieguito High School District is in the process of securing this funding. Two funding sources are available: a. State funding through the Leroy Greene Lease- -PUrchase Law; and b. North City West School Facilities Authority. State Funding: San Dieguito High School District is in the process of making applications to the state for funding under the provisions of the Leroy Greene Lease-PUrchase Law. Two applications are in the process: l) an application for Advanced Site PUrchase (to be submitted to the State within 3 months), and 2) an application for the design and construction funds. The timing for application submittal for the design and construction funds is expected to be completed within the next six months but the school district could not indicate an exact date. State funding will amount to one half the total cost of land purchase, design and construction. North City West School Facility Authority (NCWSFA}: North City West School Facility Authority (NCWSFA) is a joint powers authority consisting of the Del Mar Elementary School District, the Solana Beach Elementary School District and the San Dieguito High School District has been established. Dr. Phillips is the Executive Director of the NCWSFA. NCWSFA receives money from school fees collected from developments in the North City West area in the City of San Diego. NCWSFA has budgeted one-half of the funds necessary for completion of the high school; approximately $17,500,0-oo. Conclusions: It is estimated developer fees and other sources of local funding will provide approximately half the cost 160 C 2. C C of the proposed senior high school. State funds and/or other financing alternatives will be required to complete the facility. Junior High School: The San Dieguito High School District will apply for state funding through the Leroy Greene Lease Purchase Law to purchase land and to construct the new junior high school. 161 --------c C C V. SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The southwest section of the San Marcos Unified School District crosses the City of Carlsbad's boundary to overlap with portions of Zones 6, 10, and 18 as well as Zone 11. Within Zone 11, the San Marcos School District has jurisdiction over the general area north of San Marcos Creek. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing Capacities and Enrollment: 2. 36 37 Within Zone 11, development has not yet begun in the area north of San Marcos Creek which is under the jurisdiction of the San Marcos Unified School District. Therefore, the San Marcos Unified School District is not yet impacted by Zone 11 students. Listed below, however, are the existing capacities and enrollments for all of San Marcos Unified School District: current36 Gross Surplus{ Site Enrollment Capacity37 Deficit 8 Alvin Dunn 758 750 8 SME 682 638 44 Richland 791 796 -8 Woodland Park 842 895 -53 La Costa 570 679 -109 SM.JR 872 761 111 SMHS 1612 1195 417 New Horizons 114 30 84 As development occurs in the area of Zone 11 under the jurisdiction of San Marcos Unified School District, students will attend La Costa Elementary School, San Marcos Junior High and San Marcos High School. Build Out Projections: The San Marcos Unified School District is in the process of developing a long-range master plan. Within the preliminary master plan, student growth is forecast Enrollment as of 6/11/87 Capacity of each site is determined by classrooms upon the maximum number of permitted in each grade under State standards. loading students 38 Students in excess of capacity are housed in leased portable classrooms. 162 C B. c. C D. by grade level to the year 2000 with the need and timing of future schools based on these forecasts. The build out projections for Zone 11 are incorporated into the district wide forecast, however, to assess the impact of Zone 11 on the San Marcos Unified School District, the projected student impact from Zone 11 is listed on Exhibit 53 on page 147. PHASING The preliminary school master plan for SMUSD has indicated a need for an additional elementary school site within the City of Carlsbad. The timing of this school has not be determined, however, the school district is in the process of locating and acquiring the school site. ADEQUACY FINDINGS All of SMUSD facilities are currently at capacity. Temporary classrooms and re-locatables are being used by the district to provide capacity. The school district believes it will be able to provide capacity at build out, although SMUSD feels it is premature to indicate adequacy because it is contingent upon the development and implementation of a successful financing plan. MITIGATION Special Conditions For Zone 11: Prior to the approval of a final map for any projects within the San Marcos Unified School District, an agreement shall be entered into between the San Marcos Unified School District and the La Costa Ranch Company that shall provide for the following: 1.. The deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District. 2. The guarantee for the financing and construction of a school for the District. This guarantee shall be in the form of bonding, cash deposit or some other form of security as specified in said agreement. If any reimbursements and/or school fee credits are to be given, the school agreement shall provide a mechanism to do so. 163 C E. C FINANCING Exhibit 57 on page 165 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing.budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 164 EXHIBIT 57 ZONE 11 -SCHOOL FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 I FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------1 FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I NOTES I !==--=---=---=-----------=---=---=--==-===--=-----------------------------·-=-------------------=-======================================================= I SCHOOL FACILITIES 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ENCINITAS -RSF Elementary -Elem. No. 3 2. SAN DIEGUITO -High School -Jr. High 3. SAN MARCOS -Elem. School $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $35,000,000 Not Available 1990 1997+ 1989-92 $3,500,000 1989 =============I TOTAL SCHOOL COSTS $45,500,000 I State State State State Developer w/ Future School Fee Credit or Reimbursement 165 School Fees School Fees North City West School Facilities Authority School Fees School Fees State/School FeeslMello Roos I I I I I C I. SEWER FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Trunk-line appropriate development. capacity to meet sewer district to demand, as determined by be provided concurrent the with II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Zone 11 is within the sphere of influence of two Sewer Districts, Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) and San Marcos County Water District (SMCWD). LCWD serves approximately 1,590 acres of the southern portion of Zone 11 and the San Marcos County Water District serves approximately 530 acres of the northern portion of Zone 11. Exhibit 58 on page 167 shows the approximate location of the boundary between these two districts. The information contained in this plan was obtained from the master plans of these two agencies. LCWD's master plan is entitled, "Planning Study, Leucadia County Water District", September, 1985, prepared for LCWD by Engineering Science. SMCWD's master plan is entitled, "San Marcos County Water District, Water and Sewer Master Plan, Volume 1 11 , August, 1986, prepared by NBS/Lowry. The LCWD Master Plan provides a comprehensive evaluation of their sewer system and is used as a tool in planning for future improvements. The SMCWD 1986 Master Plan has not been adopted by the District to date. A letter from SMCWD, contained in Appendix 10, explains District's policy on the 1986 Master Plan allowing it to be used as a tool in planning for future improvements. A. INVENTORY 1. Existing Facilities: Zone 11 is located within three major sewer drainage basins. One drainage basin is within the SMCWD service area. The other two drainage basins are within the LCWD service area and are designated as drainage basins 8 and 10 in the Planning study. Exhibit 58 shows the boundaries between the three sewer drainage basins. 166 n () l) CITY OF SAN ',!ARCOS O 300 600 1200 l< LC7< p!di,,i;ng GROWTH MANAGt:.1'vh::.l\l t PROGRAM . . EXHIBIT 58 • Sewer t-acilities Within Zone Zone 11 C c- This section will analyze the major sewer lines that serve Zone 11, from Zone 11 to a sewage treatment facility. The sewage from the portion of Zone 11 that is within SMCWD is treated at Meadowlark Wastewater Treatment Plant. The sewage from the portion of Zone 11 is within LCWD is treated at the Encina WPCF. The SMCWD' s Meadowlark Wastewater Treatment Plant is located within Zone 11. All of the sewage generated by Zone 11 within the SMCWD service district will flow, by gravity, to this treatment plant. Therefore, no other major sewer lines that are owned and operated by the SMCWD were analyzed in this plan. All of the sewage generated by Zone 11 within LCWD drainage basin 8, will flow, by gravity, through local and major sewer facilities within Zone 11 to the major trunk sewer in Olivenhain Road. This major trunk sewer ties into a major trunk sewer in El Camino Real and flows, by gravity, to the Leucadia Pumping Station near the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. The sewage is then pumped through a force main along La Costa Avenue to the Batiquitos Pumping Station near the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. The sewage is again pumped through a force main along Carlsbad Boulevard to a point where it assumes gravity flow. The sewage then flows, by gravity, through the Ponto interceptor which is parallel to the AT & SF railroad track to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). All of the sewage generated by Zone 11 within LCWD drainage basin 10, will flow by gravity through local sewer facilities in Zone 11 until it reaches the major trunk sewer in the golf course. The sewage will then flow, by gravity, through the major trunk sewer in the golf course until it reaches the Leucadia Pumping Station. The sewage will reach the Encina WPCF through the same major sewer facilities from the Leucadia Pumping Station as described for LCWD drainage basin 8. 168 C C C The existing major sewer facilities that are within Management Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 58 and are as follows: Sewer Facilities within Zone 11 No. Facility 1 12-inch trunk line stub 2 12-inch trunk line stub 3 12-inch trunk line 4 15-inch trunk line 5 6 7 8 9 10 18-inch trunk line 12-inch trunk line 10-inch trunk line 12-inch re- clamation line Meadowlark treatment plant and No. 2 lift station Reclaimed water reservoir 169 Sewer Location District crossing Calle Lomas Verde LCWD Crossing La Costa Avenue LCWD Parallel to Rancho Santa Fe Road and along the northern boundary of Stage- coach Park LCWD Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Olivenhain Road parallel to Rancho Santa Fe Road Adjacent to Melrose II II Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Southerly of Corintia Street Approximate 500' east of proposed intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and future Melrose LCWD LCWD SMCWD SMCWD SMCWD SMCWD SMCWD C C C The existing major sewer facilities that are located outside of Zone 11 but serve Zone 11 by transporting the sewage to the Encina WPCF are shown on Exhibit 59 on page 171 and are as follows: · No. Facility Location Sewer District 39 1 12",15",and 18" Trunk sewer Through Green View Golf Course from Gibraltar st. to El Camino Real 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 18" and 21" trunk sewer Leucadia Pump Station 24-inch force main Batiquitos Pump Station Parallel 24-inch force mains 21" and 1811 trunk sewer 39",42" and 48" Ponto interceptor Along alignment of El Camino Real from Olivenhain Rd. to La Costa Avenue Northeast corner of La Costa Ave. and El Camino Real Along alignment of La Costa Avenue from El Camino Real to Carlsbad Blvd. Northeast corner of La Costa Avenue LCWD LCWD LCWD LCWD and Carlsbad Blvd. LCWD Along alignment of Carlsbad Blvd. from La Costa Ave. to 21-inch trunk sewer LCWD From parallel 24-inch force mains, crossing the railroad track LCWD From 18-inch trunk sewer crossing railroad track to Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant LCWD39 This line is also shared by the Encinitas and Carlsbad Sewer District. The ownership percentages are: Carlsbad 40.0%, LCWD 40.3%, and Encinitas 19.7%. 170 () u LEGEND ---* Existing Major Trunk Sewer Existing Force Main Existing Pump Station ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY -0 / r.,-,:...../?'e-. -----------.-~.+-------------------------G~::1:--;-R-;---O;--;;\N-;;T:;;-;:H~---;-;:::=-; ___ EXHIBIT 59 MANAGEMEl\ft • Ma ·or Sewer Facilities Outside of· Zone NO SCALE PROGRAM_ Zone 11 -~~------------------·------------------------------------------------- 17 C 2. C C Build out Assumptions: The section in this plan entitled, "Build Out Projections", determined the ultimate build out projections for Management Zone 11. Since Zone 11 is located within two sewer districts, the build out projections have been separated into each district. The following shows the ultimate build out projections for each sewer district serving Zone 11. Ultimate Build out Projections per Sewer District in Zone 11 Total Build Out Land Use Projections Residential 3595 d.u. Commercial 46.5 acres Office 11.2 acres Government Office 3.8 acres High School 84.6 acres Elementary School 10.0 acres Public Utilities 4.8 acres Open Space 221 acres 172 LCWD 3140 d.u. 46.5 acres 11.2 acres 3.8 acres 84.6 acres 10.0 acres 2.8 acres 167 acres SMCWD 455 d.u. 2.0 acres 54 acres 3. C. C Technical Assumptions: The average unit flows assumed by the LCWD planning study to project average sewer flows are as follows: Land use Unit Flows Residential 238 GPD/d.u. Commercial 6.25 EDU/acre or 1500 GPO/acre Elementary School 60 students/EDU Junior High School 50 students/EDU High School 30 students/EDU The average unit flows assumed by SMCWD 1986 Master Plan to project average sewer flows are as follows: Land Use Unit Flow Low Density Residential (1-2 DU/AC) 280 GPO/DU Low-Med Density Residential (2-4 DU/AC) 280 GPO/DU Med. Density Residential ( 4-10 DU/AC) 240 GPO/DU Med. High Density Residential (10-20 DU/AC) 200 GPO/DU High Density Residential (20 DU/AC) 160 GPO/DU Estate Residential (0.29-0.5 DU/AC) 420 GPO/ACRE Institutional/Parks 1,200 GPO/ACRE Commercial 1,200 GPO/ACRE Office Professional 1,200 GPO/ACRE Industrial 1,200 GPO/ACRE 173 C 4. c~ C Projected Build out Demand: The projected ultimate average sewer flows can be determined for each sewer district within Zone 11 by using the build out projections as established by this plan and the average Unit flows obtained from each master plan. LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The following chart depicts the yearly build out projections for that portion of Zone 11 served by LCWD. I EXHIBIT 60 I I Z111E 11 I TEAii. Y am» C1JT PIIOJECTIONS AID PEAK FUii I LBDDIA IDllrY IMTER DISTRICT I I I ,------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CLMJLATIVE CLMJLATIVE QJKJLATIVE I YEARLY RESIDENT NON-RESID NON-RESID PEAK I YEAR UNITS UNITS ACRES ACRES FLOW ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987 963 963 2.8 2.8 0.7 1988 117 1080 0.0 2.8 0.7 1989 402 1482 o.o 2.8 1.0 1990 '367 1849 52.6 55.4 1.5 1991 232 2081 137.3 192.7 2.2 1992 1'36 2217 52.6 245.3 2.5 1993 240 2457 37.2 282.5 2.9 1994 240 2697 0.0 282.5 3.0 1995 207 2904 0.0 282.5 3.2 1996 164 3068 0.0 282.5 3.3 1997 72 3140 43.4 325.9 3.5 1998 0 3140 0.0 325.9 3.5 1999 0 3140 0.0 325.9 3.5 2000 0 3140 0.0 325.9 3.5 Build out 3140 325.9 3.5 NOTE: Peak flow assunes an average 111it flow of 238 GPO/Unit for residential ard 1500 GPO/Acre for non-residential ard a peaking factor of 2.8. This yearly projection is for planning purposes only and should not be used as a limitation to development. 174 C The estimated ultimate average sewer flow for the portion of Zone 11 that is served by LCWD is as follows: LCWD Project Build Out Sewer Demand for Zone 11 Projected Projected# Build Out Land use Units/Acres Demand Sewer Demand RLM 1,630 DU 238 GPO/DU 387,900 GPO RL 488 DU 238 GPO/DU 116,100 GPO RM 246 DU 238 GPO/DU 58,500 GPO RMH 391 DU 238 GPO/DU 93,100 GPO DU Transfer 385 DU 238 GPO/DU 91,600 GPO C 46.5 acres 1,500 GPO/AC 69,700 GPO 0 11.2 acres 1,500 GPO/AC 16,800 GPO C G/0 3.8 acres 1,500 GPO/AC 5,700 GPO H 84.6 acres 238 GPO/EDU 19,800 GPO (2500 students) (30 students/EDU) E 10.0 acres 238 GPO/EDU 3,200 GPO (800 students) (60 students/EDU) u 2.8 acres 1,500 GPO/AC 4,200 GPO OS 167 acres -------------------- TOTAL 866,600 GPO or 0.86 MGD =========== 175 C cfy SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The following chart depicts the yearly build out projection for that portion of Zone 11 served by SMCWD. EXHIBIT 61 mE 11 YEARLY lllllD CIJ1' PIO.IECTlm5 All) PEAi: FUii SAIi IUIRCDi IXUITY WATER DISJRICT llll.lLATIVE llltlLATIVE Cl.llJLATIVE YEARLY RESIDENT NON·RESID NON·RESID PEAK YEAR UNITS UNITS ACRES ACRES FLCM -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987 0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1988 0 0 o.o 2.0 o.o 1989 30 30 0.0 2.0 o.o 1990 143 173 o.o 2.0 0.1 1991 143 316 0.0 2.0 0.3 1992 139 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1993 0 455 a.a 2.0 0.4 1994 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1995 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1996 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1997 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1998 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 1999 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 2000 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.4 BUILD CIJT 455 2.0 0.4 NOTE: Peak flow assunes an average unit flow of 280 GPO/Unit for residential and 1200 GPO/Acre for non-residential and a peaking factor of 2.8. This yearly projection is for planning purposes only and should not be used as a limitation to development. 176 The estimated ultimate average sewer flow for the portion of Zone 11 that is served by SMCWD is as follows: SMCWD Projected Build Out Sewer Demand for Zone 11 Projected No. Land use of Units/Acres RLM 304 DU RL 130 DU RM 21 DU u 2.0 acres OS 54 acres Unit Flow Demand 280 GPO/DU 280 GPO/DU 240 GPO/DU 1200 GPO/ACRE -0 - TOTAL = Projected B/0 Sewer Demand 85,100 GPO 36,400 GPO 5,000 GPO 2,400 GPO -0 - 128,900 GPO 0.13 MGD =========== The LCWD Planning Study projected the ultimate sewer flow for the area in Management Zone 11 served by LCWD to be approximately 0.95 MGo.40 The SMCWD master plan projected the ultimate sewer flow for the area in Management Zone 11 served by SMCWD to be approximately o. 26 MGD. 40 These ultimate demands were used by the master plans to evaluate the sewage collection system within each district. The ultimate sewer flow determined by this plan is lower than projected in the master plans. Therefore, each district's master plan can be used as a tool for determining the proposed major sewer facilities for Management Zone 11 and conformance with the adopted performance standard will be assured through build out of Zone 11. 40 These demands were extrapolated from the master plans based on data obtained from the master plans and their appendices. See Appendix 6 for determination of these demands. 177 5. C 6. C Proposed Build Out Facilities within Zone 11: The portion of Management Zone 11 that is served by LCWD has most of the major sewer trunk lines in place within Zone 11. The LCWD Planning study recommends an 8 and 10-inch line in Rancho Santa Fe Road as shown on Exhibit 58 on page 167. The LCWD Planning Study does not recommend any other major sewer trunk lines within Management Zone 11. For the purposes of this plan however, two 12" sewer lines are proposed from existing stubs in La Costa Avenue and Calle Lomas Verde to the existing 12" sewer line in Stagecoach Park. These two lines will be needed to serve the portion of Management Zone 11 in LCWD that is north of the existing La Costa Avenue and east of the existing Calle Lomas Verde. The southeast corner of Management Zone 11 is currently within LCWD sphere of influence, but has not been annexed into their service area to date. This area naturally drains towards the Cardiff Sanitation District. The present policy of the Cardiff Sanitation District allows areas outside their sphere of influence to annex into their district. For the purpose of this plan, it was assumed that this portion of Management Zone 11 would flow into either sewer district as determined by gravity. However, at the time of development, if this property remains in LCWD sphere of influence and is annexed into LCWD service area, then a pump station and force may be required to serve this area. The sewage generated by this area would be approximately 0.01 mgd. The location and sizes of proposed major sewer lines are approximated only for the purpose of the Facilities Plan. The exact sizes and locations will be defined as individual projects within Management Zone 11 develops and the sewer lines are designed per the District's current standards. The portion of Management Zone 11 that is served by SMCWD has all of the major sewer lines in place and SMCWD does not foresee a need for any additional major sewer lines to serve this area at this time. Proposed Build Out Facilities Outside of Zone 11: LCWD' S Planning Study recommends improvements to the major sewer facilities that are located outside of Zone 11 but are utilized by Zone 11 to transport sewage to the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Planning Study was prepared in 1985 and since that time LCWD has made or is in the process of making the appropriate 178 C B. 7. improvements to their sewer system, as recommended in the Planning Study, so that the increasing needs of development continue to be met. There are a few improvements recommended in the Planning study to be made in the future that have not been required to date. These facilities are shown on Exhibit 59 on page 171 and the projected date for improvements are as follows: Construction Date Projected Improvement41 in Planning Date Projected Facility Study by LCWD Leucadia Pump Station Phase III 1985-1990 1988 Phase IV 2000-2005 1988 4 Force Main from Leucadia Pump Station to Batiquitos Pump Station 1985-1990 1992 5 Batiquitos Pump Station Phase III 1985 1988 Phase IV 2000 2000 8 Ponto trunk sewer to Encina Treatment Plant 2000-Bld Out Build Out Possible Uses of Reclaimed Water: SMCWD and LCWD have suggested that all the open space within their service area in Management Zone 11 be irrigated with reclaimed water. Potential areas of open space that possibly could be irrigated with reclaimed water include a golf course and common landscaped areas. PHASING The approach to phasing taken by this Local Faciiity Management Plan is based on ensuring that needed facilities are in place prior to or commensurate with development. Phasing boundaries are shown on Exhibit 62 on page 181 and 41 LCWD uses the Planning Study as a guide for recommended improvements. However, LCWD keeps continual data on actual flows to project improvement date. 179 C C correlate with the natural drainage basins of the proposed facilities within the Zone. There are six separate phases, labeled Phases A, through F, and thresholds for the major sewer facilities within each phase can be easily established, thereby determining the appropriate mitigation measures. The phasing boundaries allow for independent review and development for the sewer facilities within each boundary. Development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase. However, the districts may require improvements outside of the phase boundaries if deemed necessary to serve development. C. ADEQUACY FINDINGS The sewer collection system for Zone 11 currently conforms to the adopted performance standard. SMCWD indicated that the existing sewer system will conform to the adopted performance standard to ultimate build out. The Planning Study for LCWD recommends improvements to their major sewer system, as mentioned under the section "Proposed Build Out Facilities outside of Zone 11", so that conformance to the adopted performance standard will be maintained through ultimate build out. III. MITIGATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11: PHASE A Special Conditions: 1. Phase A is located within the SMCWD. Since SMCWD will maintain conformance to the adopted performance standard until ultimate build out, there are no special conditions for Phase A. Financing: There is no special financing required for Phase A. 180 c~,..., 6 '\ 7 . ·,. , .... ~- f ) \ J I I ' I ~..._ 6,,11 •· ""'c,.......,_..__ ___ J ® MCWD M~aO~Ytfla8< ._, Trea·lment Plant • & Lift Station +2 It -------... -----=-~ ---------___ ...,. -@ MCWD. : ', '---~ .. servoar · : LCW ! ffQ1 ASE-~~--c---~ ~ 41, CONS S '" ' ' \ ___ \\ ' ,-, ,, --~' ~>----..:.- LEGEND Phase Boundaries Existing Trunk Lines -----Proposed Trunk Lines il!l!llllllllllll Direction of Natural Drainage Areas Drainage Basin Designation per Planning Study ,LCWD Sewer District Boundary between SMCWD and LCWO I I i t l t f ! ! i ? l i ! .. -~~-: .:,.~ -: GRO\NTH j MANAGEMENI PROGRAM - J PHASE E I PHASf F I /' _.·/ ., , .-.,. ,, /,,-(' ;., ,r ! -:,,,·.·-~ ::--i ! ' r , ~ ; l / • Sewer Phase Boundaries Zone 11 PHASE B: Special Conditions: 1. Prior to any occupancy within Phase B, the proposed 12-inch sewer line east of La Costa Racquet Club, from the existing 12-inch stub in Calle Lomas Verde to the existing 12-inch terminus in Stagecoach Park must be installed. 2. Phase B is located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning Study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to_LCWD. Financing: The cost of $92,100.42 • developers recommended the proposed 12-inch sewer is estimated to be This sewer is anticipated to be financed by the of Phase B. LCWD will finance the facilities in the Planning study through the collection of sewer fees. PHASE C: Special Conditions: 1. Phase C is located within LCWD drainage basin 10. The LCWD Planning Study recommends improvements for the development of their drainage basin 10. These improvements will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within Phase C will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. Financing: LCWD will finance the facilities recommended in the Planning Study through the collection of sewer fees. 42 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 6. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 182 C C. C PHASED: Special Conditions: 1. Prior to occupancy in Phase D, the proposed 12-inch sewer line west of La Costa Racquet Club, from the existing 12- inch stub in La Costa Avenue to the existing 12-inch trunk sewer in Stagecoach Park, must be installed. 2. Phase D is located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning Study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. Financing of the proposed 12-inch sewer is estimated to be This sewer is anticipated to be financed by the of Phase D. LCWD will finance the facilities in the Planning Study through the collection of sewer The cost $59,100.43 developers recommended fees. PHASE E: Special Conditions: 1. Phase E is located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. Financing: LCWD will finance the facilities recommended in the Planning Study through the collection of sewer fee. 43 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 6. This estimate only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 183 C C PHASE F: Special Conditions: 1. Prior to occupancy in Phase F, one of the fallowing must occur: a. The pump station and force main must be installed. b. An agreement must be reached with the Cardiff Sanitation District. c. A septic Sanitation lots that system. system must be approved by the County Department and the City of Carlsbad for the can't gravity flow toward the LCWD sewer 2. Phase F is located within LCWD drainage basin 8. The improvements recommended by the LCWD Planning study will continue to be made by LCWD to maintain conformance with the adopted performance .. standard. All development within this phase will pay the required sewer fees to LCWD. F:inancing: The cost of the proposed pump station, force main is estimated to be $200,000.44 These sewer anticipated to be financed by the developers in will finance the facilities recommended in the through the collection of sewer fees. and trunk sewer facilities are Phase F. LCWD Planning Study Exhibit 63 on page 185 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 44 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 6. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 184 EXHIBIT 63 ZONE 11 -SEWER FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------ FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD / NOTES I ========================================================================================================================================================! SEWER FACILITIES I 1-PHASE B: -1211 Sewer Main 2200 LF 2. PHASE D: -1211 Sewer Main 1400 LF TOTAL SEWER COSTS $92,100 $59,100 s1s1,200 I Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Concurrent w/ Develop- w/ Develop- ment 185 Developer LF=L ineal Feet Developer C C I. WATER FACILITIES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Line capacity to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. A minimum 10-day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. II. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Zone 11 is served by two water districts, Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) and San Marcos County Water District (SMCWD). OMWD serves approximately 1,600 acres of the southern portion of Zone 11 and SMCWD serves approximately 520 acres of the northern portion of Zone 11. The location of the boundary between these two Districts is shown on Exhibit 64 on page 187. The information contained in this plan was extracted from the master plans of these two agencies. The report prepared for OMWD is entitled, "Water System Analysis for the Planned Development of La Costa Within the Olivenhain Municipal Water District," dated November, 1975, prepared by Boyle Engineering. This report serves as the District's Master Water Plan in this area and, according to OMWD, should be used as a tool in planning for future improvements in Zone 11. The report prepared for SMCWD is entitled, "San Marcos County Water District, Water and Sewer Master Plan, Volume 1, August, 1986," and was prepared by NBS/Lowry. This Master Plan has not been adopted by SMCWD to date, however, according to SMCWD should still be used as a tool in planning for future improvements. A letter from SMCWD is included in the Appendix 10 stating their policy on the use of the 1986 Master Plan. 186 n •••••••• • e GATY • •• • •••• •• LEGEND Existing Transmission Main Existing Reservoirs ' ~.a-• -• •-•i!-• -s -• ..:a..--~ -.u .. ~ -fill..,. ·-lii ••--:__:---• _......... L 1 LAS POSAS RES. f'"/ -,,..- ' ... · .. ~ .' ,.- -~ 'c-' 'ji--'. ~--·--~-""' ---,,___ ' LEGEND 11111111111111111111111111 STORAGE FACLITY FOR SAN MARCOS COUNTY Existing Water Lines Proposed Water Lines Boundary between OMWD and SMCWD. OMWD ' .. ~('JG) ..'~ 1 '\\ ' . • ',~, ., . :J,i,a--Jl9 -___j l ; ~~ A. C INVENTORY 1. Existing Facilities: The existing major water facilities for OMWD and SMCWD that are in place within Zone 11 are shown on Exhibit 64 on page 187. The facilities are as follows: No Facility 1. 12" line 2. 1211 line 3. 1811 line 4. 1611 line 5. 18" line 6. 1211 line 7. 18" line 8. 16" line 9. 16" line 10. 12" line 11. 30" line 12. 6.0 MG Denk Storage Supply Tank 13. 12" line Location Olivenhain Road Rancho Santa Fe Road Rancho Santa Fe Road Within easement from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Denk Tank OMWD From Rancho Santa Fe Road north and east through easements to eastern boundary of Management Zone 11 La Costa Avenue From easterly end of La Costa Ave. northeast to water District OMWD OMWD OMWD OMWD OMWD 18" line in easement OMWD Calle Lomas Verde Calle Acervo Calle Barcelona Parallel to southern boundary of zone Northwest portion of OMWD Service Area in Management Zone 11 El Fuerte 188 OMWD OMWD OMWD OMWD OMWD SMCWD C Water No Facilit:£ Location District 14. 2711 line Alga Road SMCWD 15. 2111 line Alga Road SMCWD 16. 2711 line Rancho Santa Fe Road SMCWD 17. 12 II line Corintia Street SMCWD 18. 2111 line Melrose Avenue SMCWD 19. 2011 line Rancho Santa Fe Road SMCWD C C 189 2. (,~ 3. Build out Assumptions: The section entitled, "Build out Projections" on page 25, presents the ultimate build out project1ons for Management Zone 11. Since there are two water districts that serve Management Zone 11, the build out projections have been separated into each water district as follows: Land Use Projections Residential 3,595 DU 1,301 ac Commercial 46.5 ac Office 11.2 ac Gov't Office 3.8 ac High School 84.6 ac Elementary School 10.0 ac Public Utilities 4.8 ac Open Space 221.0 ac Technical Assumptions: OMWD 3140 DU 1011 ac 46.5 ac 11.2 ac 3.8 ac 84.6 ac 10.0 ac 2.8 ac 167.0 ac SMCWD 455 DU 290 ac 2.0 ac 54.0 ac a) Each of the District's master plan has established dwelling unit demand factors as a basis for determining projected average water demands. The following shows the average dwelling unit demands as determined in the OMWD report: Land Use Residential with 10 DU/ACRES or less with greater than 10 DU/ACRE School and Recreation Commercial and Public Utilities Open Space and Parks 190 Unit Demand 555 GPO/DU 450 GPO/DU 1,250 GPO/ACRE 2,500 GPO/ACRE 625 GPO/ACRE C C C The following shows the average dwelling unit demand recommended in the 1986 ~MCWD Master Plan: Land Use Low Density Residential (1-2 EDU/ACRE) Low-Med. Density Residential (2-4 EDU/ACRE) Medium Density Residential ( 4-10 EDU/ACRE) Medium High Density Residential (10-20 EDU/ACRE) High Density (20 EDU/ACRE) Estate Residential 0.25 -0.5 EDU/ACRE) Multi-Rural (0.125 EDU/ACRE) Low-Multi-Rural (0.05 EDU/ACRE) Intensive Agriculture (0.125 EDU/ACRE) Institutional/Parks/Schools Commercial Office Professional Industrial Open Space Unit Demand 1,000 GPO/ACRE 1,300 GPO/ACRE 2,000 GPO/ACRE 3,500 GPO/ACRE 4,500 GPO/ACRE 1,000 GPO/ACRE 1,000 GPO/ACRE 800 GPO/ACRE 2,000 GPO/ACRE 1,500 GPO/ACRE 1,500 GPO/ACRE 1,500 GPO/ACRE 1,500 GPO/ACRE b) The master plans for each District used the following fire flow demands in conjunction with maximum day demands to analyze their water systems. 191 C 4. C The fire flow demands used in the OMWD report are as follows: Land Use Fire Flow Demand Residential with 4 DU/ACRE or less 1,500 GPM Residential greater than 4 DU/ACRE 2,000 GPM School 3,000 GPM Commercial 3,500 GPM The fire flow demand used in the SMCWD Master Plan is a maximum flow of 2,500 GPM. For any buildings requiring a higher fire flow, sprinkler systems were assumed. Projected Build Out Demand: l The projected build out average water demand can be determined for the portion of each water district within Zone 11 by using the build out projections as established by this plan and the average dwelling unit demands obtained from each master plan. 192 C C OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The following chart depict the yearly build out projections for that portion of Zone 11 served by OMWD. I I EXHIBIT 65 I I ZONE 11 I YEARLY BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS AND WATER DEMANDS I OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT I I CUKJLATIVE CUKJLATIVE ClKJLATIVE I YEARLY RESIDENT NON-RESID NON-RESID WATER DEMAND I YEAR UNITS UNITS ACRES ACRES (MGD) I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------1 1987 963 963 2.8 2.8 0.5 I 1988 117 1080 o.o 2.8 0.6 1989 402 1482 0.0 2.8 0.8 1990 367 1849 52.6 55.4 1.1 1991 232 2081 137.3 192.7 1.4 1992 136 2217 52.6 245.3 1.5 1993 240 2457 37.2 282.5 1.7 1994 240 2697 0.0 282.5 1.8 1995 207 2904 0.0 282.5 2.0 1996 164 3068 o.o 282.5 2.0 1997 n 3140 43.4 325.9 2.1 1998 0 3140 0.0 325.9 2.1 1999 0 3140 0.0 325.9 2.1 2000 0 3140 o.o 325.9 2.1 BUILD OUT--------3140 -----------325.9 2.1 NOTE: Average water denana assunes an average 111it flow of 555 GPO/DU for residential ana 1200 GPO/ACRE for rr:n-residential. This yearly projection is for planning purposes only and should not be used as a limitation to development. 193 C The estimated build out average water demand for the portion of Zone 11 that is served by OMWD is as follows: Projected Average Unit B/0 Average Land Use Projected BIO Demand Water Demand RLM 1,630 DU 555 GPO/DU .90 MGD RL 488 DU 555 GPO/DU .27 MGD RM 246 DU 555 GPO/DU .14 MGD RMH 391 DU 450 GPO/DU .18 MGD DU Transfer 385 DU 555 GPO/DU .21 MGD C 46.5 ACRES 2,500 GPO/AC .12 MGD 0 11.2 ACRES 2,500 GPO/AC .03 MGD G/0 3.8 ACRES 2,500 GPO/AC .01 MGD C H 84.6 ACRES 1,250 GPO/AC .11 MGD E 10.0 ACRES 1,250 GPO/AC .01 MGD u 2.8 ACRES 2,500 GPO/AC .01 MGD OS 167 ACRES 625 GPO/AC .10 MGD ------------TOTAL = 2.09 MGD ------------------------ C 194 C c: SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The following chart projections for that SMCWD. depicts portion EXHIBIT 66 ZONE 11 the of yearly zone 11 YEARLY BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS All> WATER DEMANDS SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CUKILATIVE CUKILATIVE ClNJLATIVE YEARLY RESIDENT NON-RESID NON-RESID WATER DEMAND YEAR UNITS UNITS ACRES ACRES (MGD) 1987 0 0 2.0 2.0 o.o 1988 0 0 o.o 2.0 o.o 1989 30 30 0.0 2.0 0.0 1990 143 173 0.0 2.0 0.1 1991 143 316 o.o 2.0 0.2 1992 139 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 1993 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 1994 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 1995 0 455 o.o 2.0 0.3 1996 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 1997 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 1998 0 455 o.o 2.0 0.3 1999 0 455 o.o 2.0 0.3 2000 0 455 0.0 2.0 0.3 BUILD OUT--------455 -----------2.0 0.3 NOTE: THE AVERAGE WATER DEMAND ASSU.ES AN AVERAGE UNIT FUJI OF 610 GPO/DU FOR RESIDENTIAL AND 2500 GPO/ADIE FrR IOf-RESIDENTIAL. build out served by This yearly projection is for planning purposes only and should not be used as a limitation to development. 195 C 5. C The estimated build out average water demand for the portion of Zone 11 that is served by SMCWD is as follows: Projected Projected B/0 Average Unit B/0 Average Land Use Unit/Acres Demand Water Demand RLM 95 ACRES 1,300 GPO/AC 123,500 GPO RM 12 ACRES 2,000 GPO/AC 24,000 GPO RL 130 ACRES 1,000 GPO/AC 130,000 GPO u 2 ACRES 1,500 GPO/AC 3,000 GPO OS 54 ACRES -------------------------TOTAL 280,500 GPO = 0.28 MGD For planning purposes a yearly build out projection for each water district is shown on Exhibits 65 and 66 on pages 193 and 195. This yearly projection is for planning purposes only and should not be used as a limitation to development. The OMWD report projected the ultimate average water demand for the area in Zone 11 served by OMWD to be 2.32 mgd. The SMCWD Master Plan projected the ultimate average water demand for the area in Zone 11 served by SMCWD to be 0.52 mgd. These projected build out average water demands were extrapolated from data obtained from the master plans of the districts. The details of these extrapolations are contained in Appendix 11 of this plan. These ultimate demands were used by the master plans to evaluate the water distribution system within each district. The projected build out average water demand, as determined by this plan, is lower than projected in the master plans. Therefore, the master plans for each district can be used as a tool for determining the proposed major water facilities for this zone, and conformance with the adopted performance standard will be assured through build out of Zone 11. Proposed Build Out Facilities: The portion of Zone 11 that is served by OMWD has all of the major water facilities in place, and, according to the district does not foresee a need for any additional major water facilities. However, additional water distribution lines are proposed, as shown on Exhibit 64 on page 187, to serve the ultimate build out 196 C C C of the portion of Zone 11 within the OMWD service area. They are as follows: Facility 12 11 line 16" line Location From existing 12-inch stub in Calle Barcelona east to existing water line in Calle Acervo. From existing stub in southerly along proposed future collector streets water line in Rancho Santa 197 Calle Acervo alignment of to existing Fe Road. 0 300 6DO 12GD sa Denk Tank .. Reservdr LEGEND Phase Boundaries Existing Water lines Proposed Water Lines Boundary between OMWD and SMCWD. GP()\M t H --------- QM\1VD PHASED ( l \ ~---~-----·-'('_!~CH7 C::.=j i\t VVater Phase· sci1·n-dari~s ,; .-...I-'""!,....., ~ -t ~ . ' :-:: : f . ---------· B. C 6. 7. These additional water lines will be needed to serve the southern portion of Zone 11. The portion of Zone 11 that is served by SMCWD has all of the major water distribution lines in place and SMCWD does not foresee a need for any additional facilities for build out of Zone 11 at this time. For the purpose of this plan, however, an additional 12- inch water line is proposed along the alignment of Corintia Street from Melrose Avenue to El Fuerte Street, as shown on Exhibit 68 on page 187. This line will be needed to serve the northern portion of Zone 11 that is in the SMCWD service area. The location and sizes of the proposed water lines have been approximated for the purpose of this plan. The actual location and sizes will be determined as individual projects within Zone 11 develop. Potential Areas for Reclaimed Water: The portion of Zone 11 that is located within the SMCWD boundaries has the potential of several acres of open space area. The SMCWD has expressed an interest in irrigating open space areas within their district with reclaimed water. Average 10-Day Storage Capacity: OMWD has indicated that there is currently sufficient storage capacity in the district system to serve its needs as determined by the OMWD Board of Directors. They also indicated that the district has plans to provide for an average 10-day storage capacity based on ultimate build out of the district and accordance with the districts capital improvement program (CIP). A letter from OMWD concerning the district's 10-day storage capacity is contained in Appendix 11. During the preparation of the Citywide plan, it was determined that an average 3.2-day storage was acceptable for SMCWD. SMCWD indicated that they currently have an average 3.2 day storage capacity and have plans to maintain the storage capacity for ultimate build out of their District. PHASING The approach to phasing taken by this Local Facilities Management Plan is based on ensuring that needed facilities are in place prior to or commensurate with development. Phasing boundaries are shown on Exhibit 67 on page 198 and correlate with property boundaries or logical boundaries for the proposed water facilities within the Zone. There are six separate phases, labeled Phases A through F, and 199 C c. thresholds for the major water facilities within each phase can be easily established, thereby determining the appropriate mitigation measures. The phases are located within each water district as follows: Phase Water District Phase A SMCWD Phase B OMWD Phase C OMWD Phase D OMWD Phase E OMWD Phase F OMWD The phasing boundaries allow for independent review and development for the water facilities within each boundary. Development within one phase is completely independent of the improvement requirements of another phase. However, the water districts may require improvements outside of the phase boundaries if deemed necessary to serve development. ADEQUACY FINDINGS The water distribution system for Zone 11 currently conforms to the adopted performance standard. The development review process established by both SMCWD and OMWD will ensure that Zone 11 will remain in conformance with the adopted performance standard through build out of this Zone. III. MITIGATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 11: PHASE A: Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of SMCWD. The 12-inch water line proposed from the existing 12-inch stub in Corintia Street to El Fuerte Street shall be installed as required by SMCWD. 2. All development within Phase A shall pay the appropriate water fees established by SMCWD. 200 Financing: The cost of the proposed 12-inch water line is estimated to be $154,600.45 This water line is anticipated to be financed by the developers of Phase A. PHASE B: Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. 2. All development within Phase B shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. Financing: There is no special financing required for Phase B. PHASE C: Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The 12-inch water line proposed in the extension of Calle Barcelona and a portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase C shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. Financing: The cost of the proposed water lines are estimated to be $151,800.46 These water lines are anticipated to be financed by the developers of Phase c. 45 46 The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 12. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. The itemized cost estimate is contained in Appendix 12. This estimate should only be used as a guide to approximate costs for preliminary planning purposes. Further cost analysis should be made as planning and design progress in Zone 11. 201 PHASED: ( Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed, as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase D shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. Financing: The cost of the proposed water line is estimated to be $114,4002 for Phase D. This water line is anticipated to be financed by the developers of Phase D. PHASE E: Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. The portion of the 16-inch water line proposed in the future extension of Calle Acervo shall be installed, as required by OMWD. 2. All development within Phase E shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. Financing: The cost of the proposed water line is estimated to be $116,6002 for Phase E. This water line is anticipated to be financed by the developers of Phase E. PHASE F: Special Conditions: 1. Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of OMWD. 2. All development within Phase F shall pay the appropriate water fees established by OMWD. Financing: There is no special financing required for Phase F. 202 Exhibit 68 on page 204 shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 203 n 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I J EXHIBIT 6'8 ZONE 11 -WATER FINANCING MATRIX AS OF 1/20/88 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FACILITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED COST TIMING I FIRST FUNDING OPTIONS SECOND THIRD NOTES ========================================================================================----==-----============-----=----------==---------------------- WATER FACILITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PHASE A: I I -1211 Water Main 4500 LF $154,600 I Concurrent Developer I w/ Develop- I ment I 2. PHASE C: I I -1211 Water Main 1100 LF $40,200 I Concurrent Developer I w/ Develop- I ment I -1611 Water Main 2000 LF $111,600 I Concurrent Developer I 3. PHASED: I I -1611 Water Main 2000 LF $114,400 I Concurrent Developer I w/ Develop- I ment I 4. PHASE E: I I -1611 Water Main 2000 LF $116,600 I Concurrent Developer I w/ Develop- I ment =============I TOTAL WATER COSTS $537,400 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 204 C FINANCING The financing section presented in this plan summarizes how all future public facilities will be built and paid for as Zone 11 builds out. The specific financing of public facilities is critical to the overall ability of the developers in this zone to ensure that all facilities will maintain compliance with the adopted performance standards as growth occurs. FACILITY FINANCING MATRIX The financing section of this completes the analysis by available to fund these public matrix is present on Exhibit matrix supplies the following: Local Facilities Management Plan providing financing mechanisms facilities. A facility financing 69 beginning on page 206. This 1. Identification of the Facility. The identification of each facility includes both the actual facility and land acquisition and operation where appropriate. 2. Amount. The area in acres (ac), lineal feet (LF) or number of units of a particular facility. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost. The cost estimate for each facility is based on the most accurate information as of the writing of this plan. The costs are in 1987-88 dollars and will be updated as yearly monitoring takes place. Timing. The projected date the facility will be constructed. Funding Options. The funding sources are listed in priority order and include City sources, developer sources and public financing sources. In many cases, a combination of sources are proposed. At the end of each facility summary is a list of projects that are currently budgeted in the City's approved 1987-1992 Capital Improvement Program. Various financing options are summarized in the Executive Summary of this report on page 1. 205 EXHIBIT 69 ZONE 11 -FACILITY FINANCING SUMMARY AS OF 1/20/88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- 1 FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES 1====================================================================================================================================================================1 I CITY ADMINISTRATION I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 1. Las Palmas Purchase I 22,627 sf I $2,500,000 I 1987-97 I City · PFF I I I IPFF=Publ ic I I I I I I I I I I Fae i l i ty Fees I I 2. Safety Center Phase I I I 62,000 sf I $3,710,000 I 1992-97 I City -PFF I I I P. 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. New City Hall I NA I $23,100,000 I 1997+ I City · PFF I I I P. 50 I I I -------------1 I I I I I I TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION COSTS $29,310,000 I I I I I I ,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 871-92 1 CIP has a balance forward of $10,589 from City Hall Remodel. FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I I FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES I i==============================================================================================================================================~=====================I I LIBRARY FACILITIES I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 1. Library Remodel (North) I Unknown I $3,948,000 I 1997+ I City -PFF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Library -For Build I I I I I I I I I Out Population I 15,331 sf I $5,060,000 I 1997+ I City -PFF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. Library -South I I I I I I I I I Carlsbad I 58,000 sf I $18,112,000 I 1988-2008 I City -PFF I I P.55 I I I ============= I I I I I I I TOTAL LIBRARY COSTS $27,120,000 I I I I I I I FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- 1 FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES !===========================================================================================================================-==================~===---=============== I UASTEUATER FACILITIES 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 1. En:::ina Outfall Upgrade I I_ $8,800,000 I 1992-1997 I Sewer Fees I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Encina Outfall Pump #3 I I $325,000 I 1987-88 I Sewer Fees I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. Encina Phase IV Expansion! I $39,800,000 I 1987-91 I Sewer Fees I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. Encina Sol ids Management I I $10,000,000 I 1987-91 I Sewer Fees I I I I I I -------------1 I I I I I I I TOTAL UP.STEUATER COSTS $58,925,000 I I I I I I I 206 i ) EXHIBIT 69, page 2 of 6 FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I I FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES I 1====================================================================================================================================================================1 I PARK FACILITIES -PARK DISTRICT 4 I 1-;~--~~~~-;~~~;;;~;~~---------i ___________________________ i ________________________________________ i __________________ i ______________ i ________ , _____________________ _ I I I I -Alga Norte Park 21.2 ac $3,392,000 I 1988 Developer I p. 95 PIL = Park-in- 1 I Dedicates w/ I Lieu I I Future PI L Fee I Credit/Reimbursement I -Additional Park Land Subtotal 2. CONSTRUCT ION -Alga Norte Park -Additional Park Land Subtotal 3. OPERATION 11.1 ac $1,776,000 I I I -----------1 -------------1 I 32.3 ac $5,168,000 I I I I I I I I I I 8.7 ac $1,000,000 I I I I 12.5 ac $1,437,500 I I I I 6.98 ac $802,700 I I I ------------------------1 28.18 ac $3,240,200 2 yrs $500,000 I =============I TOTAL PARKS COSTS $8,908,200 I CIP Budget: 91 1 -92' $1,000,000 (Alga Norte) 92'-97' $5,502,500 (Alga Norte) 1997+ $7,000,000 (Macario) 1988 1992 1992 1992 1992-94 Developer Dedicates w/ Future PIL Fee Credit/Reimbursement City-PFF Developer-w/ Mello Roos Future Reimbursement. Developer-w/ Mello Roos Future Reimbursement. Growth Management Fee Developer Balance Forward $113,872 (Fuerte Park Design, Macario-SE Quad, Stagecoach) (1) All credits and future reimbursements will be part of the revised Parks agre~nent with La Costa Ranch Co. I p. 95 p. 95 p. 95 p. 95 p. 95 (1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··---------------------- 207 ) EXHIBIT 69, page 3 of 6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES I ,=~;;~~~;;;;~=;;~;~;;;;;==========================================================-================================================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . INTERSECTIONS -El Camino Real/ Ol ivenhain Rd. -La Costa/I-5 interchange and Bridge Widening -RSF/Calle Lomas Verde 2. ROAD SEGMENTS -Olivenhain Rd fr/ El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe -Rancho Santa Fe fr/ La Costa Ave to Melrose Ave -La Costa Avenue fr/ El Camino Real to 1-5 Full Full I I 1 Lane CW) I I I 4 Lanes <4> I I 6 Lanes <4> I I 4 Lanes I I 6 Lanes I I I 4 Lanes I (2) $3,300,000 $2,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $12,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 1992 1993 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1993 Developer w/ Reimbursement from PFF City w/ STD Fees Adjacent Developers Developer w/ Reimbursement from PFF Developer Developer Developer w/ Reimbursement from TIF Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Mello Roos Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Mel lo Roos Developer w/ Reimbursement from STD ITIF -Traffic Impact Fee I <3> I STD -Bridge and Thorough- fare District (3) (3) I I I I I I I I I I I I I -El Camino Real fr/ Developer as I Olivenhain Rd. to Normal Frontage I La Costa Avenue 6 Lanes (5) I $3,700,000 2000 Improvements Mel lo Roos (3) I TOTAL CIRCULATION COSTS -$32~002~000-1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I CIP Budget: 87'-88' $125,000 (RSF/Melrose(N) Traffic Signal) SOURCE: PFF NOTES: I I 87'-88' $400,000 (I-5/La Costa Improvements) SOURCE: STD (2) Costs included in Olivenhain Road Segment Estimate I I 1992-97 $5,000,000 (La Costa Ave Widening to I-5) SOURCE: TIF (3) All reimbursement is based upon City's adopted C.I.P. and I I 1992-97 $5,821,327 (I-5/La Costa Improvements) SOURCE: STD City policies. (see Finance Section of Executive SUITITlary) I I 1997+ $2,000,000 (El Camino Real Medians) SOURCE: Gas Tax (4) Existing Alignment I I 1997+ $120,000 (RSF/Melrose(S) Traffic Signal) SOURCE: PFF (5) Does not include provisions for 8 tar.es I I 1997+ $125,000 (ECR/Ol ivenhain Traffic Signal) SOURCE: PFF I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 208 n EXHIBIT 69, page 4 of 6 I FUND I NG OPT IONS ESTIMATED FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES I =======================================================================================-========-===================================================================I DRAINAGE FACILITIES I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 PHASE B: I I I I I I I I 1. 48" Storm Drain 3,000 LF $431,000 Concurrent w/ Develop- ment. I Developers Drainage Fee (6) II pp. 84-85 LF -Lineal Feet I I of Phase B Appen. p._ I I I I I I PHASED: I I I I 2. Desilt Basin 4,300 cy $36,000 Concurrent I Developers Drainage Fee (6) I pp. 85-86 Icy -cubic yards I w/ Development I of Phase D I I I I =============I TOTAL DRAINAGE COSTS $467,ooo I CIP Budget: 87'-88' $150,000 (Drainage Master Plan) -SOURCE: GCC Notes: (6) No fees are currently being collected. I I I I I I I I I FUNDING OPTIONS I I ESTIMATED ---------------------------------------------------------I I FACILITY AMOUNT cosT TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFEREricE NOTES I 1====================================================================================================================================================================1 I FIRE FACILITIES I ,-~:--;i~~-;;~~~~~-~~~-6 _______ i ____________ i _______________________________ i __________________________________________ i ______________ i ______________________________ , I -Construction I I I I I pp. 91-92 I and Equipment I $650,000 1989 Developer w/ PFF !Mello Roos I Appen. p._ I I Reimbursement I I I I I I I (7) I -Operation (1 year) I $530,000 1989-90 Developer w/no I I I Reimbursement I TOTAL FIRE COSTS ==;~:~;~:~~~=, I I I I I ,-~i~-~~;~~~--~::~~:--~~~:~~~-~;~~~-;~~~i~~-~~~-6-~~~-~;;,~~~;~~;-:·;~;~~~--~;;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 891 -90' $250,000 C 11 11 ) -SOURCE: PFF I I Notes: (7) Costs per 1987-88 C.I.P. I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------- 209 EXHIBIT 69, page 5 of 6 I FUNDING OPTIONS I ESTIMATED --------------------------------------------------------- 1 FACILITY AMOUNT COST TIMING I FIRST SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES I==================================================================================================================================================================== SCHOOL FACILITIES 1. ENCINITAS -RSF Elementary -Elem. No. 3 2. SAN DIEGUITO -High School -Jr. High 3. SAN MARCOS -Elem. School FACILITY $3,500,000 $3,500,000 I I I $35,000,000 I I I Not Available! I I 1990 1997+ 1989-92 $3,500,000 1989 I =============I TOTAL SCHOOL COSTS $45,500,000 I AMOUNT ESTIMATED COST TIMING State State State State Developer w/ Future School Fee Credit or Reimbursement I FIRST School Fees School Fees North City West School Facit ities Authority School Fees I I I I School Fees State/School Fees Mello Roos FUNDING OPTIONS SECOND I I I THIRD p. 154 p. 154 p. 160 p. 160 p. 164 I REFERENCE NOTES ==------------====================================================================================================================================================== I SEWER FACILITIES 1------------------------------ 1. PHASE B: -1211 Sewer Main 2200 LF 2. PHASE D: -1211 Sewer Main 1400 LF TOTAL SEWER COSTS $92,100 $59,100 =============I s151,200 I Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Concurrent w/ Develop- w/ Develop- ment Developer Developer 210 p. 182 p. 182 I ILF=Lineal Feet I I I ;f _) V FACILITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED COST EXHIBIT 69, page 6 of 6 TIMING I FIRST FUNDING OPTIONS SECOND THIRD I REFERENCE NOTES --------=============================================================--============================================================================================= WATER FACILITIES 1. PHASE A: -1211 Water Main 2. PHASE C: -1211 Water Main -1611 Water Main 3. PHASED: -1611 Water Main 4. PHASE E: -1611 Water Main 4500 LF 1100 LF 2000 LF 2000 LF 2000 LF TOTAL WATER COSTS $154,600 $40,200 $111,600 I I I $114,400 I I I I I I $116,600 I I I =============I $537,400 I Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Concurrent Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Concurrent w/ Develop- ment Developer p. 201 Developer p. 201 Developer p. 201 Developer p. ?.02 Developer p. 202 211 C C C REFERENCES "Master Drainage Plan For The City of Carlsbad, California", VTN Southwest, June, 1980. "San Marcos County Water District Water and Sewer Master Plan." Volume 1, NBS/Lowry, August, 1986. "Water System Analysis For The Planned Development of La Costa Within The Olivenhain Municipal Water District", Boyle Engineering Corp., November, 1975. "Planning Study Leucadia County Water District", Engineering Science, September, 1985. "Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan", City of Carlsbad, Revised September 29, 1986. "Capital Improvement Program", 1987-1991 212 --------------------0,•···-··-·· C APPBBDIX 1: LARD OIIRBRSBIP C C -C STAGECOACH PARK ASSESORS PARCEL NUMBERS SCALE: 1 • = 500' n n ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS SCALE 1:500 __________________ ,_,,_, ________ _ C C C 228-32 1 OF 2 223-31 10F 2 223-31 2 OF2 ZC>rE 1.1 AA>adx LOT MAP ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS SCALE 1: 500 -------------·--~--------- C APPBIIDIX 2: COIISTRAIIITS IIAP C C (CONSTRAINTS MAPS MISSING) C APPBIIDIJ: 3: LIBRARY -AGBRQA BILL 8867 C C ;;;;;;~~--;;;;..--iiiiiiii,iii,i ........... iioiiiiiio,iii,iiiiioi,iiiiijiiiiiiiiiiii-------~-----·· .... ------- C C z 0 g C ..I Ci 8 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL All J!/k?-#/ TITLE: ---LIBRARY SITE AND FUNDING RECOMMEN- • 1 DEPT.HD." __ MTG. 7/7/87 DATION FOR A NEW LIBRARY IN SOUTH DEPT. LIB ·CARLSBAD crrv ArrvYt£..- crrv Mo;;tS\ ' ;\ RECOMMENDED ACTION: l. Approve the recommended library site and direct the City Manager to negotiate a purchase agreement with the owner. 2. Direct the City Manager to include funds in the CIP for land acquisition and construction of a library. 3. Direct the City Manager to evaluate alternative methods of financing and constructing the library (developer build vs. City build). ITEM EXPLANATION: On January 27, 1987 the City Council directed staff to negotiate th• acquisition of a library site and/or a developer proposal to build and lease back a library facility. Council action was based upon the library site selection committee report which listed five sites for consideration. All five sites met the selection criteria recommended in the Library Strategic Plan. Subsequent investigation and negotiations with Carlsbad Retail Associates has resulted in the selection of a preferred site. At its meeting of April 16, 1987 the site selection committee endorsed Site! as the best site for a new library. The library boa~d also has endorsed the site. The asking price for the property appears to be consistent with other property in the area. Design funds of $650,000 are already budgeted in the CIP. Design of the building · will occur upon purchase of the site. Purchase is anticipated during 1988. nsCAL IMPACT: The City has several alternatives available for funding the acquisition of a new library. All options depend on the City pledging public facilities fee funds, both existing and future, to this project. The ultiaate decision on exactly how to finance the c011■truction will determine the extent of public facilities fees cOlllllitted to the project in future years and the effect the library will have on the timing of other improvements. The library project coats are summarized in the folloving table: Description Land Acquisition Grading Design Construction Total Project Coat Operations Fiscal Year -1988-89 88-89 88-89 89-90 to 90-91 90-91 and thereafter Approximate Amount lleceived $1,1 million 0.9 million 0. 6 llillion _ 8.4 11illion $ 11. 0 million $0.5 to 0.9 million Purchse of the library site and funding grading coats prior to 1989-90 may require dedication of all available public facilities fee revenues for 1987-88 and delay of certain existing PFF projects. The list of ptojecta to be delayed includes Palomar Airport Road improvaMnta, park improvements in tha ·northeast and southwest quadrants, the Public Safety Center phase II and III and many smaller projects. ---------------·-··-------------- C C C Page 2 AB NO •• Wt· ,.t/ This ~elay in funding other improvements is brought on by reduced PJ1' revenue due to the slowing of development activity. Existing resources must be allocated to only top priority projects. Staff is recommending that Council reserve funds for the acquisition of land and grading costs from 1987-88 revenue. (assuming 87-88 revenues are sufficient to cover these and other committed costs). Actual purchase of the property would not occur until 1988-89. The long term financing of the building construction costs could be done in one of three ways: 1. Building construction funded by site developer with lease back agreement -under this concept the City would enter into a lease back agreement with-the site developer to build the library to City specifications. The City would then enter into a long term lease back agreement with the developer pledging up to $1 million per year of public facilities fee revenue to lease payments over a 20 year period. The actual lease payments will depend on construction costs and interest rates during this 20 year period. By allowing the site developer to build the build- ing, the City may be able to lower total construction costs by taking advantage of certain economies of scale. 2. Certificates of Participation -The City may issue Certificates of Participation for the construction of the building. The public facilities fee fund would be pledged, along with City general fund revenues, to the repayment of the debt, as in the above approach the library debt would have first claim of PFF revenues. This alternative offers the City a lower interest rate due to our ability to issue taz exempt debt. B.epayment would require up to $1 million per year for 20 years; however, due to lover interest rates, the actual cost to the City could be slightly less ehan alternative #1. · 3. Mello-Roos District Reimbursement -Under this alternative the City must put together a series of financing steps. First, the building could be constructed by the site developer or by the City through the use of Mello-lloos tax exempt debt. In either case the ultimate cost of the building would be supported by the Mello-Roos district. The developers supporting the district could have the annual assessment placed upon their district reduced by the amount of public facilities fees payed by that developer. the cost to the City 1s limited to the amount of public facilities fees paid by developers within the district. Any shortfall could be assessed against property with the district. Council is not required to· select a funding alternative at this time. However, an understanding of the alternatives is necessary before the City moves forward with the project. two important points found in all financing methods are 1) Public facilities fees are pledged to repay the ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;..;;;;;;;;;;;;.;;.;.___,..;;;;;;;;;;;;;;_iiiiiiiiiii,o~~ .......... -----------------.. C Page 3 AB NO. ,/J'~? ~#/ cost of the building and, 2) The City will be de1aying many public facilities fee projects to make way for library funding. The CIP which will be presented to Council in the next few months will detail the fiscal impact of this project. The City will require development of 400 to 600 dwelling units per year to fund the library construction. The operating costs for tbe n•w library will run from $500,000 to $900,000 per year depending on the level of operations. the City presently is unable to support this additional cost. PreliJDinary projections of General Fund revenue show that an operating deficit of about $1.5 million will exist in 1990-91, the first year of operations for this facility. The City aust consider revenue enhancements or zone fees assessed against development to cover operating costs for the first year or two of operations. EXHIBITS: 1. Memo from Library Director to Site Selection Committee dated April 16, 1987. C 2. Site plan. C 3. Letter fro■ Johnson Wax Development Corporation to Frank Hannen date June 26, 1987. 4. Site map. C C c· APRIL 16, 1987 TO: SITE SELECTION COMMiffiE FROM: Library Director LIBRARY SITE SELECTION PROGRESS REPORT Library and city staff have had six meetings with the developers who plan to build a shopping center on El Camino Real between Alga Road and Dove Lane. The result of those meetings has been the development of a tentative sfte plan for a library building. The next step will be to develop a final site plan • • The addition of the new post office to this general site plan has caused some of the revisions we have developed. That has also required the developers to purchase an additional seven acres of land to accommodate both the library and the post office. The developers are in the process of purchasing the prop~rty at this time. We have also been working wfth some prelfmfnary financial data to purchase the ~fte and the building. The follow- ing options appear to be possible: 1. Purchase the land from the developer and lease back the build- ing. • 2. Lease back the land and the building. 3. Purchase outright the land and the building from the developer after the building 1s built. Any one ·or a combination of these options may be feasf.ble. More work needs to be done on various financing alternatives. This proposed site appears to be the best possible site for the library 1n the southern half of the city. The combination of a shopping center. post office and library will make for an ideal mix and should provide a convenient source of services to the public. The site satisfies all the major criteria we have used to evaluate various potential library sites • PAB Oistrfbutfon: Geoff Armour John Cahi 11 Bebe Grosse Michael Holzm;11er Ann Kulch1n Sharon Schramm Seena Trigas • ------------···------- C C C SOUTH CARLSBAD • LIBRARY SITES· ·' --·, ". , ·· DOVE . ALGA -- N C APPBIIDIX 4: WASTBlfATBR -LCWI> LBftBR C C C C C LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OPP'tCIE aox as•7 • LIEUCADIA. CAUP'OltNIA •aoa,-o.s, • 1•1•1 711:l•Ol!IS December 2, 1987 Rick Engineering 365 South Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, CA 92069 Attention: Cheryl Cunningham RE: Flow/EDU Dear Mrs. Cunningham: • At the current time the District has determined its historical use of 238 gpd/EDU appears to be too high. An Inflow and Infiltration Study of the District1s collection system was initiated last year. However, because of low rainfall, the study will continue into this rainy season. For information purposes the District is currently calculating flow at a range of 210-225 gpd/EDU. Our statis- tical data for the period July 1986 -October 1987 indicates a high of 216, a low of 193 and an average of 204 gpd/EDU. Until the Inflow and Infiltration Study has been completed the District will continue to use the range of 210-225. Yours very truly, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT JRG/am n--R~ ~R. Geiselhart Secretary-Manager DISTRICT O,,ICE. 19eO LA COSTA AVENUIE • CAltLS■AD. CALll'OIINIA RICK ENG. CO. DATE REr'.EIVEO , ·, ;.-r~ 0 ,.;_ '09·7 . ., ... ~--l,;.i C C C APPBIIDIX 5: PABKS IRVBl!i".L'04Y JOift USB AGBBBMBftS 111TB SMUSD UD.BDBSD .-" / C C CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# o// .;>2 MLE: MTG. ··a/fj /87 PARKS IHVEH'I'ORY DEPT .. _P_&R __ _ RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT.HD.~ CITY ATTY ':Jf13 CITY MG~:;s;? The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff are recommending that the City council direct staff to do the :following: 1. To implement the new inventory as an informational base for preparation and review of the Local Facilities Management Plans, and 2. Use this new inventory as the basis for beginning the update to the City's Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. UBI IRleNJA'UQJJ; on April 20, the Parks and Recreation commission appointed a three :member sub-committee charged with the :following four tasks: 1. Review the·currant Park Inventory. 2. Determine the classification of the new Hosp Grove acquisition. 3. Discuss the classification of Larwin Park. Discuss the need to acquire additional land on the Robertsdn Property. The sub-committee J1Bt several times before developing their recommen- dations tor the Parks and Recreation Commission consideration. On May 20, the Parks and Recreation Commission received the sub-commit- tees report and. t.ook_ the following actions which are explained in more detailed in the attached memorandum dated June 1, 1987 to the City Manager. Cgpgp.issign Actions; 1. Accepted new park definitions as developed by the sub-committee. These are attached. as Exhil,it fl to the 1ll8llO ta the City Manager. 2. Revised the Park Inventory to c01Dply with the new park cate- gories. The revised inventory is attached u Exh!l,it 12 to the mo to the City Manager. 3. Classified the new voter mandated purchase of Hosp Grove into the Miscellaneous Landscaped/Open Space category. 4. Delayed the decision on Larwin Park and Robertson acquisition pending the Larwin development feasibility study. ,XSCAL DJPAC'J'; Nona. mp;Brrs; ,_ Mamo co the Citv Manager dated June 1, 1987 June l, 1987 C TO: CITY MANAGER C C FROM: David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director pr~ ✓-..,,,. REVISED PARKS INVENTORY OVERVIEW The purpose of this memorandum is to detail the actions taken by the Parks and Recreation. Commission regarding the· current P.ark inventory, the classification of the voter approved acquisition of Hosp Grove, the classification of Larwin Park, and the need to acquire additional land on the Robertson property. BACltGROUND On April 20, 1987, the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed Commissioners Regan, Dahlquist, and Lawson to serve on a subcommittee charged with analyzing and making recommendations to the entire Conmission on the following four items: l. Review of the current Park Inventory. 2. Determine the classification of new Hosp Grove acquisition. 3. The classification of Larwin Park. 4. The need to acquire the Robertson Property. The sub-committee·met several times before developing their recommendations for the entire Parks and Recreation Commission to consider. On May 20,. 1987, the Parks and Recreation Commission received the sub-committees report and took the following actions which are detailed below. Review of the current Park Inventory Prior to recommending changes to the current park inventory, the sub-committee reviewed and revised the definitions used to classify all park acreage. The Commission reviewed and supported these revised definitions. The new definitions used to classify park acreage is attached as Exhibit tl. With these new definitions, the Commission supported the recommended changes to the current park inventory and included the reference that all park acreage which was being •grandfathered• in to a particular classification should be noted in the revised inventory. This special note was added to the revised inventory to assure that in the future it will be understood why certain park sites are classified in a ~rticular category. Exhibit 12 is a listing of the revised inventory. C C C June l, 1987 City Manager Page Two This new inventory included several changes of which the major ones are briefly described as follows: * * The elimination of all previously counted developed parkland in the Southwest Quadrant (Spinnaker -4.0 acres was deleted and Alta Mira -12.0 acres was moved from existing into the future category). This change will increase the shortage of developed park acreage in this quadrant from approximately 10 acres to 26 acres. In the Northeast Quadrant, Larwin -18.3 acres was moved from existing to future parkland pending the_feasibility study which is being done to determine its ultimate developability as a park site. This change will cause the conformance of park supply to park demand in this quadrant to fall below the adopted performance standard. There are several smaller changes which were made to the inventory and these are shown on Exhibit t2. Determine the classification of new Hosp Grove acquisition. Based on the recommendation of the sub-committee which was made following a discussion of the park classifications, existing park facilities, the revised :eark category definitions, and current park development trends, the Commission voted S to 1 to classify the voter mandated purchase of Hosp Grove into the Miscellaneous Landscape/Open Space category. The dissenting Commissioner felt that the Special Resource Area was the classification which should have been used to classify Hosp Grove. The classification of Larwin Park. The Commission voted unanimously to hold off making a decision as to the classification of Larwin Park until the feasibility study to determine its ultimate developability is completed. The need to acquire the Robertson Property. · Because the need to purchase this property is contingent upon the outcome of the feasibility study of Larwin Park, the Commission will be making a decision following the completion of that study. Attachments DB:POC:pksrpt C C C EXHIBIT 11 ( Page 1 of ,) Presently the City of Carlsbad's Parkland Inventory is composed of three primary park classifications: • • • community Parks Special Use Areas Special Resource Areas These classifications are the basis for the City's standards to assure optimum park and recreational facilities. The standards for each park classification are as follows: Community Par·Ju Special Use Areas Special Resource Areas 2.5 acres/1,000 population .s acres/1,000 population 2.5 acres/1,000 population ~h• pre-1982 Parks and Recreation Blement emphasized more passive use concepts with the·acquisition and development of saaller neighborhood, mini, and vest pocket parks. Additionally, natural open space areas, meant to serve as connective corridors and greenbelts throughout the City, were accepted as park-in-lieu dedicated under the Quimby Ordinance. Due to the characteristics of these natural open space areas, many of the sites once accepted for park purposes are considered undevelopable by today'• standards. ~he revised 1982 Parks and Recreation Element indicated a shift in recreational trends toward those uses which are ■ore active in nature. In order to accolUltOdate these current trends, parkland dedication requirements became geared toward the acquisition of developable parkland which could provide both active and passive use. Today, current and future parkland dedicated under the Quimby Ordinance is subject to more stringent conditions than were once required. Roting the shift in acquisition policy, developable parkland is considered to be buildable acreage similar to acreage associated with the subdivision for which dedication is required. Typically, it has slopes of less than 101 and is located in other than an area on which building is excluded due to environmental and geographical constraints, flooding, easements, liens, or other encumbrances and/or restrictions. ,L_ __ ~-- C C C EXHIBIT ll (Page 2 of 4) Miscellaneous landscape/open space areas is a secondary classification within the park inventory. This category has been established-to provide accountability for additional acreage currently under maintenance responsibility of the Park operations division, however, is not usable to meet the City's park standards. In addition, accountability is provided for the natural open space areas once considered as parkland; however, by today's standards, they are not considered to be conducive to park use and/or development. The following are definitions of the aforementioned classifications and descriptions of active and passive use. COMMUNITY PARK Co■■unlty P•rks are leisure facilities, approximately 20 to 50 acres in size; however, due to a 1982 revision of the Park and Recreation Element to the General Plan, pre~1982 neighborhood parks of less than 20 acres have been reclassified to the community park classification. This reclassification was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in Hay 1987. Typically, community parks are designed to serve the recreational needs of several neighborhoods. The nature of this type of facility encourages and attracts ·family unit populations from a nearby vicinity on a daily frequency. Community parks generally provide active and passive use amenities; however, they are not limited to the exclusive use of either. Minimum facilities should include: • • • • • • • • • Family-oriented picnic areas Croup picnic areas Turfed open space areas for free play Multi-purpose lighted playfield(s) Tot areas Structures for lectures, meetings, skills instruction, etc • Buffer areas Special use facilities as per specific community demand Tennis courts Special use facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts, horsehoes, handball and racquetball courts, etc. may be located within these parks if appropriate to the interest and need of the community in which the park is located, The service radius for community park sites is approximately two miles. The primary access orientation is vehicular. It is therefore established that community parks should be located adjacent to a secondary arterial or circulation route o; greater heirarchy as defined within the Circulation Element. --------------·,...~·----l':"1--------.--. ----- C C C SPECIAL USE AREAS EXHIBIT tl (Page 3 of 4) Special Use Areas are typically local facilities that meet the needs of only one or two activity type uses, either passive or active in nature. They are between one to five acres in size and generally do not provide the basic universally accepted facilities found in a community park site. Facilities of this type are, but not limited to, swim, tennis or racquetball complexes, ■eetlng halls, athletic complexes, play lots, picnic and inter·pretlve walk areas. Pre-1982 Parks and Recreation Element included mini and vest pocket parks. The revised 198Z Parks and Recreation Element has incorporated these parks into the special use category which typically defines the nature of these areas. Location of special use area sites should be based upon adequate access to its supporting community population. SPECIAL RESOURCE AREAS Special Resource Areas are local amenities that have either city- wide or potential regional significance. The significance is in the quality of the site that makes it unique as either a passive and/or active recreation area; this quality may be of a natural (water, geological, ecological, etc.), historical (architectural, etc.), or a combination thereof. Consequently, the special resource area as defined has a visitor attraction or drawing power to users locally and beyond. Typically, special resource areas provide a unique character and/or use not found in community parks or special use areas. In general, they are larg~r than community parks. They are a recreational site characterized by the.•xistence of a special or unusual feature, natural or man-made, i.e., a water body, earth for■ation, historical amenity, ecological reserve, etc. MISCELLANEOUS LANDSCAPED/OPEN SPACE AREAS Landscaped Areas are acreage presently maintained by the Park operation division. The degree of landscape maintenance performed varies from high to minimum depending upon public e~posure, desired aesthetics, safety and/or liability concerns. Maintenance areas typically include land adjacent to public buildings such as. City Hall, Libraries, Fire Stations, Administration Buildings, Safety Center, street medians, and public right-of-ways. C C C EXHIBIT #1 ( Page II of 11) Op•• Space Ar••• typically are unimproved and require minwnum or no maintenance. These araas are generally considered to be undevelopable by today's park standards due to environmental and/or 9e09raphic constraints or the prohibitive cost to rectify those constraints. Some open space areas in this c:lassif'ication were accepted for park purposes under the Quimby Ordinance prior to 1982. &ctl•• •ark Ar••• typically provide a form of or9anized, supervised, often extra-curricular recreation. Park amenities denoting active use may include gymnasiums, swim co■plexes, multi-use ballfields, tot lots, hard court play surfaces, volleyball, horseshoe areas or a combination thereof. ••••i•• Park Areas often provide minimal or n·o amenities associated with active use. The vary nature of passive use implies undemonstrative, nonparticipating, complacent, subdued activity. Park amenities generally associated with passive use include nature trails, walkways, picnic tables, benches, and aaall turf and/or landscaped areas. ..................... -■ -n n (Page 1 of() Quad-1982 Raco•-OWner-Deval- rant Class. mendation Site Acreage ship oped KEY --------~-------~-~~-~-~---~-~-----~~----~----~--~-~-~-----~---~~~~---~-~~--NW Northwest NW N COM Holiday 5.4 . City A NE Northeast NW N COM Laguna Riviera 6.8 City A SW Southwest NW N COM Hagee 3.0 City A SE Southeast NW N COM Hosp 27.0 City p COM Community SUA Special Use Area Total Community Park 42.-2 SRA Special Resource Area NW N/A. SUA Pio Pico o.a City p N Neighborhood NW N/A SUA Oak 0.4 City p NW M SUA Maxton Brown 1.4 City p M Mini NW M SUA Rotary 1.0 City p A Active NW SUA SUA Buena Vista 2.3 CUSD A p Passive NW SUA SUA CHS 'tennis eta 3.0 ·cuso A NW SUA SUA swi• Complex 3.0 City .A NW SUA SUA Chase Field 2.3 City A NW SUA SUA HSCC 1.0 City A NW SUA SUA Jefferson Bla11 2.6 CUSD A NW SUA SUA Kelly Blea 2.a CUSD A NW SUA SUA Magnolia 4.2 CUSD A NW SUA SUA Pine Bl~ 2~0 CUSD A NW SUA SUA Valley Jr. BS 7.5 CUSD A NW ff/A SUA car country 1.0 City p NW M SUA cannon 1.7 SDGE A Total Special Use Area 37.0 FUTURE/ANTICIPATED NW H/A SUA cannon Lake 6.7 City A NW H/A SUA Pine School 7.0 CUSD A NW ·SRA COM K~cario 25.0 City A NW N/A SUA Pine Sr. ctr. 3.0 CUSD A Total 41.7. EXISTING PWS FUTURE 120.9 ARCES REQUIRED BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AT BUILDOUT 118.4 () () Quad- rant 1982 Class. Reco■- mendation Site HB COM COM Calavera Hills Total Comnity Park NB COM SUA Larwin HB N/A SUA Safety Center Total Special Use Area Total FUTURE/AHTICIPATBD NB N/A COM Calavara Hills Phase II NE SRA COM Hacario NE COM COM Larwin Total EXISTING PWS FUTURE Ball field* ARCBS RBQUIRBD BY GROWTH MANAGBHBN'l' AT IIUILDOUT * This is a temporary facility. Acreage a.o a.o 4.0 2.0 6.0 14.0 10.-0 25.0 18.3 53.3 67.3 62.5 owner- ship City City City City City City Devel- oped A p p A A ** EXHIBIT .n (Page 2 of 6) Pending the outcOllle of the feasibility of Larwin, none of this acreage should count in the inventory. Following the deteraination of the study only.that acreage which is developabla should ba added to the parks inventoey when it is scheduled for construction.· ' 0 () () EXHIBIT 12 (Page 3 of 6) Quad-1982 Recoa- rant Class. aendation Site SW COM Total ColDllunity Park Total Special Use Area FUTURE/ANTICIPATED SW N/A COM SW N/A COM SW N/A COM SW N/A COM SW N/A SUA SW N/A COM EXISTING PWS FUTUU HPI SalDlllis/Alta Mira Macario City Acq./Alta Mira School Dist. SUA Altaaira • Total ARCES REQUIRED BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AT BUILDOUT Acreage o.o o.o 28.0 10.0 25.0 10.0 6.0 12.0 91.0 91.0 95.3 owner-Devel- ship oped HPI A SaJIIJlliS A City A City j\ CUSD A city p * This site should be grandfathered into the park inventory provided that another 10 acres or more can be purchased adjacent to this site which will allow the entire site to be developable park land. Until this additional acreage is purchased and scheduled for construction it should not be counted in the existing inventory. n Quad-1982 Recom- rant Class. aendation Site SE H COM La Costa Canyon SE COM COM stagecoach 'l'otal SE H SUA FUerte SE H SUA Fuerte Blea SB H SUA Cadencia SE SUA SUA Levante Total FUTURE/ANTICIPATED SE COM COM Alga Horta SB SRA SUA Carrillo SE SRA COM Macario Total EXISTING PIUS FU'1'URE Aiiss REQUIRED BY GROWl'H HAHAGEKBN'l' AT BUILDOUT n Acreage 9.0 28.0 · J7.0 3.6 2.0 2.0 5.4 13.0 21.0 10.0 25.0 56.0 106.0 128.5 owner-Devel- ship oped City A Cit .Y A SNUSD A SHUSD A City A EUSD A Lacosta A Ranch City A City A (Page 4 of() EXHl..l:U '1' f.t: 6,n n n (Page S of Quad-l.982 Reco111-OWner-Devel- rant Class. 111endation Site Acreage ship oped -~--------~~---~~-~--~--~-~---~---~--~------------~~--~~---~~-~-----~~-~~--- SPECIAL RESOURCE AREA IHVBNTORY LIST NW SRA SRA Auga Hedionda Lagoon 254.0 · SDG&B A/P NW SRA SRA Buena Vista Lagoon 202.0 State p NW H/A SRA Beaches (credit) 28.3 Stllte A/P NW SRA SRA Macario (credit) 47.0 City A/P HW SRA SRA Hub 92 SDG&B A/P l 'l'otal 623.3 l ! HE H/A SRA Beaches (credit) 28.3 State A/P · \ HE SRA SRA Macario (credit) 47.0 City A/P t l 'l'otal 75.3 SW H/A SRA Beaches (credit) 28.3 state A/P SW SRA SRA Macario (credit) ,,.o City A/P SW SRA SRA Batiquitoa 484.0 City p Total 559.3 SB N/A SRA Beaches (credit) 28.3 state A/P SB SRA SRA Macario (credit) 47.0 City A/P 'l'otal 75.3 SRA 'l'O'l'AL 1,333.1 C ~s INVD?ORY S'CMMARY SHEET COMMUHITY PARKS '!OTAL SPECllL OSE AREAS 'rOTAL 87.2 209.3 296.5 56.0 32.7 88.7 'rO'rAL COMMUNITY PARl<S AND SPECIAL USE AREAS C C -roTAL EXISTING tu'?OU SPECIAL RESOURCE AREAS TOTAL ACDAGB GRAND '?O'?AL 143.2 242.0 385.2 1333. l 1718.3 EXHIBIT 12 (Page 6 of 6) , .... ---------------~-------.,,..-,--CITY • ) CARLSBAD -AGENDA • -~l.L C C 0 LI.I > i ca. ~ All ./J2' MTG. 8/6/85 DEPt P&R ffl'LE; -. . . . AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CI'l'Y AND SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FO,_SERVICES PERFORMED AT FUERTE 'D'I.WK DEPT.HD.~ CITYAmw::6 CITYMGR.2f-, RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council adopt Resolution No. J/JL, approving the agreement between the City and the San Marcos School District for work and services performed by the district at Fuerte Park and authorize the payment of $55,000 to the district. ITEM EXPLANATION: In cooperation with the planning and development of the La Costa Meadows Elementary School, the San Marcos Unified School District administered and,contracted out certain work that was performed on the adjacent city owned property (Fuerte Park). Because the overall development of the park/school project will benefit the city, staff recommends that the City reimburse the District for the following work and services performed on the park site: A. Grading B. Fill Dirt c. Elimination of the Corintia access (mounding and landscaping) D. Fencing.top of slopes and the Corintia Street frontage E. Architect & Engineering Services TO'rAL $20,000 20,000 4,000 8,000 3,000 $55,000 The City will administer the remaining park development which will cost approximately $95,000. A. Soil Amendments (turf section) B. Irrigation installation and turf planting c. Purchase and installation of (1) back stop (large field only) D. Purchase and installation of bleachers and drinking fountain E. Installation of stairway F. Installation of walkway, South section of school if necessary PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On July 15, 1985 the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved the proposed agreement to pay the San Marcos Unified School District $55,000 for work and services performed by the District on the Fuerte Park property. SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: On July lS, 1985 The San Marcos Unified School District unanimously approved the City's offer to pay $55,000 for work done on the City park site adjacent to the La Costa Meadows School parcel. / c- C .J AGENDA BILL t ,PJ(, Page Two FISCAL IMPACT: .J $150,000 in the CIP is available for the Fuerte Park School Project. Reimbursement to San Marcos Unified School District Estimated amount to complete project TOTAL EXHIBITS: $55,000 95,000 $150,000 l. Resolution No. ,l/~ / 2 •. Letter from San Marcos Unified School District 3. Site plan C C 1 a I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 8131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND THE SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE DISTRICT AT FUERTE PAR!C WHEREAS, the San Marcos Unified School District developed a portion of Fuerte Park and all of La Costa Meadows School; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reimburse the San Marcos Unified School District for services performed to develop Fuerte Park in the amount of $55,000. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: l. That the a:>OV'e recitations are true and correct. 2. That certain agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the San. Marcos Unified School District for work and services performed by the District, a copy of which is attached and on file in the City Clerk's office, is hereby approved. 3. · That the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. 4. That the City Council will approve the payment of $55,000 from account number 333-820-1824-3139 to the San Marcos Unified School District. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August , 1985, by the following vote, to wit: ..1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 c 1, C 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: Council M!d)eJ::s Casler, Lewis, Kul.chin, and Quck NOES: &:me ABSENT: Coancil M!!lrblr Pet1::i11e L.~;/~ MARY B. ~LER, Mayor ATTEST: t:1/,Mt,. L f<4µ*ttftn · ALETHA L. RAOTENKRANZ, City bi.erk (SEAL) C C '"' ,. I AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OP CARLSBAD AND THE SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR WORK AND/SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE DISTRICT ON CITY PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this____: day of _____ , by and between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the •city• and the San Marcos Unified School District, San Diego County, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the •District•. WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS, the City and District wish to provide recreational and educational facilities for the residents of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, the District has performed certain services to develop a portion of Fuerte Park for the City; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to reimburse the District for the services they have performed. 1. The City will pay the following amount for work and services: A. Grading $20,000 B. Fill Dirt 20,000 c •. Elimination of the Corintia access 4,000 (mounding and landscaping) D. Fencing top of slopes and the Corintia Street frontage E. Architect & Engineering services TOTAL 8,000 3,000 $55,000 " C C ..... ' Agreement With San Marcos Unified School District Page ho 2. The City will administer and contract out the following remaining portion of the park development. A. Soil Amendments (turf section) B. Irrigation installation and. turf planting C. Purchase and installation of (l) backstop (large field only) D. Purchase and installation of bleachers and drinking fountain E. Installation of stairway F. Installation of walkway, South section of school if necessary IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. AffEST: tita4. L ,e..* '-=;. ALETHA L. RAUTDDANZ City Clerk Clerk, Board of Trustees APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CARLSBAD, A Municipal Corporation of the State of California ~ER, Mayor SAN MARCOS -DBIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT President, Board of Trustees APPROVED AS-TO FORM: SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNSEL _____ ,... __________ ...,.11_, -··---A-MIJ ___ ilj■------= C 4 5 6 7 -· RESOLUTION NO. ---- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AG~EMENT. BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ANO TBE E~CINITAS UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR USE OF LEVANTE SCHOOL SITE FOR · A COMMUNITY RECREATION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, C~lifornia, does 8 hereby resolve as follows: 9 1. That that certain agreement between the City of 10 Carlsbad and the Encinitas Union Elementary School District for ll use of Levante School site for a community recreation program, 12 a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "Aq and made a 13 part h~reof, is hereby approved. 14 2. That the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad is hereby 15 authorized and dir~cted to execute said agreement for and on 16 behalf of the City of Carlsbad. 17 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 18 City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 day of 1979, by the following vote, to wit:· ----------- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RONALD C. PACICARD, Mayor ATTEST: 26 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, ':ity Clerk C 27 (SEAL) 28 .EXHIBiT "A" TO RESOLUTION AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENAHCE ~D USE OF LEVANTE SCHOOL SITE, LA COSTA, BETWEEN 'l'HE CITY OF CARLSBAD AUD ENCI?lITAS UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. THIS AGREEMENT is.made and entered·into this 16th day of __ ... J_a...,nu.......,ar..,.Y ___ , ·197JL, by and b~tween the City of Car1sbad, a municipal corporation, her~inaft!er referred to as the "City,• , and the Encinitas Union ElementaJ:Y School District, San Dieg~ county, State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "District.• W. IT NESSETH: • . . WHEREAS, in ord~r. to promote and ~rovide for the health and general welfare of the people'of Carlsbad, and to cultiva~e C the development of good citizenship by an adequate program of ·community recreation, the parties hereto desire to enter into an agreement for a community recreation program on the Levante School site within the City; and C lvHEREAS, the City has heretofore created and established a Park and Recreation Commission and has developed and established a park progra.nt and.desires to employ pers~ns qualified to supervise, direct, and conduct a recreation program for the City of CarlsbadJ WHEREAS, the operation of a conununity recreation program. on a school.district site· or with school district facilities,. through the City Park and Recreation Department, when said site .. or facilities are not in use by the Dis~rict, ~ill promote the hc~lth ~nd_welfare of the community and.will contribute to the attainment of the general recreation objectives for children and C C ) adults within the comm~ity; and UHEREAS, cities and school ~is~riqts are authorized by· ' Chapter 10-of Part 7, Division 1, Title i of the Education· code of·the Sta~e of California to organize, promote, and conduct . . . a program of community recreation and to operate a community I . . . . recreation-center within and wi~hout their territor~a1 limits; .· and \'lHEREAS, it is also provided by said Chapter 10 of Part 7, Division 1, Title 1 of ~e Education Code that the foregoing entities may cooperate.with each other to carry out these purposes, and to that end :may apter into agreements with each other and may ' . I • do a~l things necessary or convenjent to a~d·and cooperate in c~rrying out such purposes; and -.. WHEREAS, the District owns the Levante School Site and does . . not intend to use said site until such time as construction of a school facility therein is begun;·but desires that tHe City shall . have the use of said site for co~unity recreational purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, 'l'HE CITY AMD ·THE OISTRICT·agree as follows: --,... l. The District sha11 provide at no cost to the City for outdoor recreational activities the use of the landscaped _grounds, s restroom facilities, storage area and all playground eq~~.E!!'ent ---------·-----. . presently located in the area known as the Levante School site, Parcel lto. 24, Lot No. 250 as shown on San Diego County· Assessor's Map No. 7457, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 2.' C C ) 2. The City ae Ca~Jsb.od, through its Park and Recreatio_ri ..-l · . . commission and Park and Rec-reation Departme~t, agree! to conduct, m~intain, and operate on said•si~e and pn such fac,iU,tica....and equipl!'~.l=,. as may bt:: __ m~de_,.avail.al:>J.•J?Y the District, a program · .--·~-- of supervised r~creation and the City agrees to supply all necessary supervision, leadersh~p, planning, and personnel for . . the maintenance and operation of said program. ..... ._.......... . 3. The City shall at all times be responsible for the planning and operation of the recreation program, as well as for the acts of its employees, or any event, ·thing, accident· or occurrence that should occur during the operation of said program and which is within the scope of control of said City or its employees. 1 4. ~he recreation program shall he under the jurisdiction and control· of the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City. Said program shall consist of activities and at that level as determined by the City Council or its authorized representative. For the purpose of coordinating the activities herein contemplated, the City-hereby appoints its Parks and Recreation . Diracto~ as the representative 0£ the City and the City's Park ~nd Recreation Commission, who shall be the responsible manager . of the recreation program,and shall coordinate all aspects of this program with.the District, its governing Board, and the Park and Recreation Commission of the City • • 3 •. ..• C C i 5~ City shall be allowed to use 1;;he site for its recreational programs from 8:00 A.M."until 11:00 P.M. daily. However, the District shall have priority in the use of the site or any part thereo~, or any facility or equipment thereon for District purposes . . if it notifies the City in writing at least forty-eight hours in ) advance of the intended use of ~he sit~ • . 6. All persons emplored in the performance of services and functions for said City shall be deemed City employees and no City e~ployee as such shall be considered as~ employee of the District or under the jurisdiction of ·the Dis·trict, nor shall such City Employees have any District pension,· civil service, or other . &t~tus or like while an employee of the City. • • " Said District shall not be called upon to assume any ... : lillbility for the direct payment of any· salary, wage, or other compensation to any City.~ersonnel perfo.rming·services hereunder for said City, or any liability other than that provided for in this agreement. Said City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any District employee-for injury or sickness or· wages arising out of his employment with said District. 7. It is further convenanted and agreed, except as other- wise provided, neither party shall be responsible to the other party for the cost of this program. The city covenants and __ agrees --•• '■-----........ • --" to bo responsible and to pay all charges that it should incur in ;aspect to the operation of this recreation program, includ~ng the cont of service of its employees as wall as incidental costs . . . in connection therewith4 The District covenants and agrees to .· ... _..___,,_ ____ _ 4. , C C -----------------------------) pay all costs o·f its employees necessaxy in connection with~ this prog~am and said District further covenants and agrees that no rental charge or fee will be imposed on-the City in respect to the operation of this program. s. The recreation program~conducted by the City shall be open to participation by any ana all persons residing within the boundaries of the District and City, but s~ch participat~on shall be subject to any rules and regulations adopted by the.Park and · Recreation D~partment of the City. ·@ !Pe Cl:_t~ shali maintv.J\ the landsca~ed ar_=!_EL]!!~ri...ng, -fertilizing and edging the grass; maintaining tl:].e 1?~.~-a~lJ.e4 . --· ... • ~-~ .. .....__..~,... •--.....-. -·-··-■ ~ .. -.. t irrigation system; applying nece~sary chemicals; and cleaning ■-• ~ ~ • .. ---·-· •• • and stocking the restroom facilities at the expense of the.,.Ci.t.y. p n • .., ... ~• •-4'-.. --~ ~--• __ .. • .:. " 10. T~e District shall be responsible for all repairs e-- ~ecessary to maintain the restroom and storage facilities and . all playground equipment in a safe and usable·manner. The District shall make such repairs within a reasonable time after . being requested by the City. • 1 ·ii:· No alterations, improvements or additions shall be made ~ ......... .,. by City without prior-written approval of District. Any and aii alterations, improvements or additions shall be m~de and performed 'in a good workmanlike manner and in accordance with all statutes, ordinances and regulations applicable thereto. -12~ The District shall provide and pay for all water.and .. saw~go utilities necessary to maintain and op~rate the g~ounds and restroom and storage facilities. s. . _) , '13; -The City shall provide and pay· for all electrical , utilities necessary to maintain and'·operate the grounds and rest-· room and storage facilities. 1.4. City ·and District, at their respective expense, shall comply with and observe_and sec~re compliance and observation with ) all the requirements of the Carrsbad Municipal Code and all . . Municipal, County, State and Federal -ordinances, codes, statutes ' . and regulations now in force or which may here~fter be in force • applicable to the grounds, restroom and storage facilities and equipment. -15. Insofar-as it is ;egally authorized, District shall hold ■ • I • ■ free and harmless City·, members of the City Council, t boards or commissions, its employees, officers and agents, while acting as C ,aach, from all claims, loss, damages, cos1?,s, expenses or liability which may arise by reason of liability imposed by law because of inj~ey to property or injury to _or death of perso~s, rec~ived or suffo:?rcd by reason of any defective or dangerous· condition of C . . any -,;round, site, building, equipment, play areas, recreation ... facilities or other improvement located on the premises owned or . ~aintained by District·. Xnsofar as it is legally authorized, City shall hold free ~nd harmless District, membe~s of.the governing board, its employees, officers and agents, while acting as such, from all claim~, loss, damages,: costs, expenses or li~bility which may 6. C . ········---···--------) arise by reason of liability imposed by law because of injury , to property or injury to or death of persons, received or . . suffer.ed by reason of operation of the community recreational . program upon said premises and,_further, the City shall be • • responsible for any and all damages to school property caused ~ as a direct result of any recreational activity·being conducted on said premises by the City. 16. The City further covenants and agrees during the term . . of this agreement, to maintain liability insurance, insuring snid City, as·well as said.District, fts .officers and responsible employees,. from any liability that might arise b_ecause of ,, rv,gligcnce, negligent act, or omission .on the part of any City . =-(H!iccr or employee during the course ~f,-and arising·out of, t.ha performance of this agreement. 17. Except as hereinafter provided, this agr~ement shall terminate on the 16th day of Janunry , 19 80 and at the ·-option of the City, wit~ the consent and approval of the Governing Board of the District, may be renewed·for successive periods.of time as agreed upon between th~ City and the District. 18. This agreement may be texminatcd at any time by either ) p~rty hereto upon sixty days written notice. ,. •. . ' .. . . . .. .. •.' -.·· · .. .... -.. ... • .. ~ : ~ . 1, ... " . --.. ... 't ~ ·' . .. . ,: ' ~ SHT.I .-.. • u '-=--------# . FU:GL PL; ~ ,.,,,,,.., .. . ' •t.~ s.-.$., 1.1. ... ., ~ "· \., ) ~1 " " " ~ Ii • ,. " ' .. ' \ ' ... :zl ® m @) .. . 7~ St1 T.I. ' -T.r.lT 7-"S.,j ~ ,@ "' @ vs .,. ~ 2lJ"1 ' ., :,; i.j ~ • ~ :;: . .. • ... .1..\1:fl ~th r.r 111. .. C~~---~: :G:S --... ·•· ..... "" . ~ .. ,, . :i~-. ~~;:1:.~;::~-; =~ I I I I I I I I I ! ' I I .I I I I I =f=-l -~ -. ---• I I I J I . I . . . -.. . . . ... I ' I .. · .. · . ... - I I I + ..... -. . . . ., u C C j -IN WITNE$S WHEREOF·, -th:e parties have executed this agreement ... on the day and year written above. AT?EST: 1\Ll:TUA L. RAUT.ENKRANZ, City Clerk ATTEST: 1.,,r •·tfa ~1. Smith. Clerk .Board or 1·rustces APPROVED AS 'rO FORM: . . : C:tTY OF CARLSBAD, A Municipal _ . ; Corporation of the State of C~liforni~ • ROHALD C.. PACKARD, Z.,,..ayor I 'ENCINITAS ONION ELEMEHTAltY SCHOOL DISTRICT Mary L · chultz, President Board of :trustees and Sccre ,• VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney C C C APPBBDIX 6: DRAIRAGB -LBftBR PR.OIi CITY OP CARLSBAD IIASTBR DRAINAGE Pt.AB DRAillAGE COST ESTIMATES C C ZONE ll DRAINAGE COST ESTIMATES (JOB NUMBER 7950-A) December 14, 1987 PBASBS A, C, ARD B Drainage Facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PBASB B Proposed 48-inch storm drain located in the northern the Encinitas Creek drainage basin. lli.!!! 49• S .o. 2 c.o. 4/inlet Headwall PBASB D DESILT BASIN Item - Desilt Basin Quantit:t 3,000 LF3 12 EA l EA Quantity 4,300 CY Unit Pricel $ 130/LF 3,000/EA 5,000/EA TOTAL Unit Pricel $36,000/EA TOTAL $ $ $ $ portion of Cost 390,000 36,000 SiOOO t 3,.goo ~ 36,000 36 ,99° Proposed double 66-inch storm drain located extension of Calle Acervo and Encinitas Creek. on the proposed ll!!! Two 66• s.o. Headwall Rip-rap Quantity 530 LF 2 EA 100 cyS 1 Unit price from City Unit Pricel $ 190/LF 5,000/EA 135/CY TOTAL of San Diego, $ $ •unit Checking Subdivision and Permits,• March 1, 2 Storm drain. 3 Linear feet. 4 Cleanout. 5 Cubic yards. Cost - 100,700 10,000 13,500 •ii1iQ2 Prices for 1985. / C t ........................ ~......_....: ................. . ......... --·------ Pl.ANNING DEPARTMENT Citp af <arlffaall October 16, 1986 Ma. Cheryl Cu111d.n1haa R.lCX. ENGINED.ING COKPAHY 365 s. l.allcho Sat& Pe load San Marco•, CA 92069 Dear Charyl: ................ ,,. .. ·---... 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD. 'id~-~ (1191)M11 IICIIVB> OCT 201986 .In reapon•• to tha quaationa raiaad in your October 8 latter, the following la betn1 provided to clarify thea• areas. · la. On p•a• 62, under Drainage it uka to liat all existing and proposed drain•&• faciiitiea includin1 headwalls and cleanouta. lb. ADavar -Headwall• and claanouta aay be deleted fro• the map aad listing of facilities acept u abovo oath• Maatar Drainage Plan. · • Also under Draioa1•1 f.c au to t.Dcluda aiatin1 apd propoa•d·pip••• Do•• this•• all storm drain pip•• or only the pip•• that are in th• uin ayatea? (f.. ••, 36 inch di ... ter and larger) . Aaawar -All atona drain !acilitiea on th• Master Storm Draiaaga Syate■ muat be abown ·u well u all other pip•• JO•illcb or.greater. 2. On paa• 64, mdar Severa, the capacity for each facility 1a aaked co be p.ven ill c!a. · Allaver • Saver capacicr· and water capacity abould be ••••ur•d ill ■ llion 1allona per day (H.G.D.). If you have any queation• re1arding tbia teeter 01: any other coacerna, pl•••• call• at 438-1161. Sin~.1 ly,, ·· ~dµ PHILIP O. CAll'?Ell Ada:l.niatrativa .A.aaiatant POC:bo c: M1chael J. Holailler t t C , ✓ /~/;':., ( / r,.,, ' -, ' • • ' I) • I -.. -~ ~ .. ,' . _.' I I C APPBRDIX 7: CIRCULATION -TRAPPIC RBPOR'f C C C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 11 and 12 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN The City of Carlsbad has enacted Ordinances and Po11ci_es that require growth management plans which include consideration of traffic and circulation. In . . response to that requirement, analyses have been completed for Zones 11 and 12. As per the City 1s request, the traffic analyses for these two zones have been combined and these analyses are summarized in this report. This study has followed the Guidelines for Preparation of Local Facility Management Plans and the results of discussions and clarifications by City Staff. STUDY AREA The study area, for traffic analysis purposes, 1s defined as those streets and intersections which would be utilized by 20 percent or ·more of project generated traffic. Figure_l illustrates the location of Zones 11 and 12 along with the trip. distribution assumptions for the existing arterial system, which are based upon previous traffic studies fn thts area. The dfstrfbutton assumptions for future additions to the arterial system along with the distribution percentages illustrated in Figure 1 were utilized to define the road segments and intersections that are included tn this study. ~ . . METHODOLOGY This report contains an analysts of existing, the year 1990, 1995, 2000 and City Buildout (year 2010) conditions~ Existing conditions .ere determined through the use of manual and machine counts ·conducted by Barton-Aschman Associates .Inc •• the City's traffic count progru, and Weston Pringle and Associates.. Conditions for the years 1990, 1995 and 2000 were calculated using a compounded three percen~ growth rate of existing volumes. Adjustments were made for future additional arterial segments that do not presently exist. The City Bufldout_ (year 2010) traffic volumes at 1ntersec~fons and segments were obtained from the SANDAG Series 6 Constrained General .Plan Model run, completed fn. 1986. Adjustment were made to the SANDAG model volumes for differences in proposed and modeled land uses for Zones 11 ind 12. C EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing arterial system and general boundaries of Zones 11 and 12 are illustrated on Figure l. Classtf1cattons of the various existing arterials tn .EGEND ••• --------------0 n Prime Arterial -aalallng M•Jor Arterial -exlallng B"1Nl41•rr Artetlal -•alat- Colleclor "' uJating PrlaH Art•lal -propoHd Major Arterial -pnaposed 8ec1Dftdarr Artwlal -propoHc! Colector -proposed lmll•ct•d ~ .. : PwcNI Ill Pnlect Traffic• Roadhglneal •:~Aaad8eallcNa . ·"" f'---_,. . ......--.,._ ,· ···'----....._ _ _,r-" ..... __ -- 81tiquhos Lagoon -·-.... .. _,;--... -··· Cily al Encinitas rJ • I I ' n L t--•-· . ~ Leucadia II d-IJ- ---··-...... --Blvd. aoJo + r llvenh~ Rud GROWTH ~ENI n "J...,,., Ci1,-ol San Marccs zone C C .. z .. the environs of Zones 11 and 12 are also indicated. Existing daily traffic ·volwnes, daily volume/capacity ratios and Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for the existing circulation· system, based upon the existing intersection geometrics contained in Table 1, are illustrated on Figure 2. The ICU methodology and relationship of ICU to Level of Service are described in Appendix A. ICU calculation sheets are contained 1n Appendix B. ICU values are provided for the AM and PM peak hour conditions. Table 1 su111Dilr1zes. the existing intersection geometrics, Table 2 sunaarizes existing road segment volumes, capacities and volume/capacity ratios and Table 3· sunnarfzes existing intersectfon ICU values. These data were obtained· from the report prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. entitled "Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Study•. Review of the data on Figure 2 as contained fn Tables 2 and 3 indicates that .the intersection of La Costa Avenue and I-5 Southbound Ramps ts currently operating· at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) with an ICU value of 0.97. All other r.oad segments and intersections are currently operating with acceptable conditions. The road segment of La Costa Avenue from I-5 to El camtno Real is currently operating wfth acceptable condi~ions. Initial analysis, based upon a maximum daily capacity (LOS D) of 20,000, indicated that this road segment was operating over capacity with a daily traffic volume of 21,000. Field observations indicate acceptable conditions with an approxi•te volume to capacity ratio of 0.85. On this basis the maximum daily capa.city (LOS D) for La Costa Avenue between I-5 and El Camino Real has been revised to 22,200. ZONE 12 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to quantify traffic conditions with the development of Zones 11 and 12 added to existing and future conditions, it was· necessary to define land use plans and estimate trip generation. Since the SANDA& Traffic Model ts a basis for analyses of City Bufldout conditions, ft was also necessary to compare proposed uses to those 1n the model and adjust as necessary. Table 4 lists the land use assumptions for Zones 11 and 12 utilized in the SANDAG mdel and the land uses proposed by the developers. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by both the SANDAG and developer land use proposals. These estimates were based upon SANDAG trip generation rates which are SUlllllilrfzed fn Table 5.. Estimated daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the SANDAG Model and proposed project· land uses n TAB[) () EXISTING -INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS .. ZONE 11 le 12 INTERSECTION NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR -~-~~~--~--~-----~~-~~-~~~--~--~-~ ~~~-~~.-..-~-~~~~-~-------------__,.--~-------------~----~-- La Costa Ave. le 1-5 Southbound Raaps 0 0 0 1 La Costa Ava. le 1-5 Northbound Ramp& 1 0 FREE 0 La Costa Ave. le El Camino Real 2 3 1 2 El Camino Real le Levante 0 2 1 1 El Camino Real le Olivanhain 0 2 1 1 Rancho Santa Fe le Ollvenhain 1 2 0 1 Rancho Santa Fe It Calla Barcelona 1 0 1 Rancho Santa Fe le La Costa 1 2 0 1 Rancho Santa Fa le Melrose 1 1 0 0 O · FREE 0 1 0 0 0 1 :, 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2. 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 FREE· 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1.5 0 1 1 0 0 I w I LEGEND n I ,Prlllle Arleflal -••laliraa ;Major Arlnlal -••lalln8 !S•CllllllarJ Arterial -.. Isling !coleclor -•••llll9 n -'-• ICU V.._ - Ml Peak/PM Peak ~ = Deir Traffic ••• ,Prillle Arterial-Pf'opoaed '1t'> = ~., v---,eapac11r Ratio ----. ~ Artarial -Pf'opOHd - 0 jS•candarr Arterial -proposed - :C01ac1• -pt'opoaed !Impacted~ I . -.--"'... f-'\ --.___,,..,,.....,__.,...,. . ..-. . ...._f' '--} BatiQultoa Lagoon ...----·-.... ------::--,..... .-., .. • ,,-_~· · .;.,.ta Ave. ··-::'\ . ........-: \.• 1§.,ooo I tff> ......... Q.,q/9.t~ ., / f o,,vo,,p/ I -I Cilr ol Encinitas -- I L..r·-· ;.;: :t - . -····--.. ~~~,----. ...... -'/ bucadle Blvd. a '"L"· ..,Y / • n City ol Sen Marcos -~!:l ~:..;;,l ... ~-2.l!l:a..( ~~~i't ~~ I (~_r--· ··. ·--'·\I\t_ I'. ;;::.t: r:;;;---, I 10.100 '\,,,._..;.· _.,_,_. r·-· - Road un f,~v,;-__h_ G~ EXHIBIT E.x,~f,,,;..! C-vid,f,,·.,.s p,, J,., ,,,,,,.,,..., ,e "'ts C Table 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION EXISTING EXISTING(l) DAILY DAILY VOLUME CAPACITY La Costa Avenue: I-5 to El Camino 21.000 24,700 El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Camino 10,100 ' 27.780 -West of Rancho Santa Fe 6,400 ,. 27,780 El Cami no Rea 1 : La Costa to Calle Barcelona 22,800 44,450 Calle Barcelona to Olivenhain 22,800 44,450 Olivenhain Road: E•st of El Camino 1~.200 16,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of Olivenhain 7,600 22,230 Olivenhain to Calle Barcelona 12,700 66,670 Calle Barcelona to La Costa 12,700 66,670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa l4,400 22,230 -South of Melrose 14,400 22,230 c ( 1) Based upon LOS F -4- EXISTING LEVEL VOLUME/ OF CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO 0.85 D 0.36 A 0.23 A .0.57 A 0.51 A 0.67 B 0.34 A 0.19 A 0.19 A 0.65 B 0.65 B C C Table 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. & I-5 southbound Ramps .. La Costa Ave~ I I-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave.&· El Camino Real El Camino & Levante El Camino & Olivenhain Rancho Santa Fe I 01ivenha1n Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Ut111zat1on LOS• Level of Service . 1iM Peak 0.97/E 0.90/D 0.64/8 0.38/A 0.64/8 0.38/A 0.22/A 0.53/A 0.63/8 ICU/LOS(l) -5- PR Peak 0.90/D 0.82/D 0.73/C 0.40/A 0.74/C 0.40/A 0.24/A 0.51/A 0.60/A LAND USE ZONE 11: Low Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (RM) High Density Residential (RMH) Elementary School Hfgh School Park " C Connunity Conaercial Office Golf Course ZONE 12: Low Medfum Density Residential Medium Density Residential (RM) High Density Residential {RMH) Elementary School Jr. High School Travel Service C Table 4 LAND USE SUMMARY Zone 12 DESCRIPTOR (RLM) Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwell fng Unit Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre (RLM) Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Acre Acre Acre -6- UNITS SANDAG PROJECT 2962 2839 465 756 245 0 10 10 72 84 ---28 40 38.6 9 .11.2 ---170.0 871 1888 693 0 300 0 10 10 19 20 3 3.5 LAND USE Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) Medium Density Residential (_RM) High Density Res1dent1al (RMH) Elementary School .Jr. High School High-School C Comunity C011111ercial Office Golf Course Park (Regional) C Table 5 TRIP GENERATION RATES Zone 11 I 12 DESCRIPTOR TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR Da11_x AM In AM Out PM In Dwelling Unit 10.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 Dwelling Unit 8.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 Dwel lfng Unit 6.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 Acre 60 9.4 6.2 0.9 Acre 40 6.3 2.7 o.a Acre 50 8.0 2.0 2.1 1000 SF -70 1.26 0.84 3.5 1000 SF 20 2.5 0.28 0.52 Acre 8 0.38 0.09 0.21 Acre 5 0.1 0.1 0.2 -7- PM Out 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.1 1.9 4.9 3.5 2.0 0.5 0.2 C -S- are sunnarized in Table 6. As indicated in Table 6. the proposed development . of Zones 11 and 12 would result in an addition of 15.025 daily, 725 AM peak hour and 1450 PM peak hour trip ends from those contained fn the SAHDAG Model. These data were utilized to adjust SANDAG traffic volumes at City Buildout. Table 7 contains the proposed yearly development of Zones 11 and 12 along with the volume of trips generated per year. Review of Table 7 indicates. that the development of Zone 11 is proposed to be completed by the year 1997 and Zone 12 by the year 1993. Estimated project traffic from Table 7 for the years 1990. 1995 and 2000 was assigned to the roads and fntersectfons in conformance with the trip distributions contained on Figures 3, 5 and 7 respectfully. These Zone 11 and 12 volumes were combined wfth the projected future volumes to simulate conditions in the . years 1990, 1995 and 2000 respectively. Figures 4. 6 and 8 illustrate these simulated traffic conditions and are su.arfzed in Tables 8 and 9, 10 and 11, and• 12 and 13 respect1 ve ly, for road · ·segments and c intersections with no circulation improvements. C Review of Tables 8 and 9 for the year 1990 indicates road segment. deficiencies on La Costa•. Avenue between I-5 and El Cimino Real, Olivenhafn Road east of El Camino Rea] and Rancho Santa Fe from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Avenue. Review of Table 9 ind1cfi1s unacceptable conditions at ffve intersections, one additional intersections cannot be analysed as a result of existing intersection a11gn•nts that will change by the ~•r 1990. Review of Table 10 for the year 1995 indicates road segment def1c1ences on El Camino Real from La Costa Avenue to Calle Barcelona, 011venhain Road east of the El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road in addition to those segments deficient 1n the year 1990. Table 11 indicates (1) The existing intersection geometrics of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Calle Barcelona do not include the extension of Calle Barcelona west of Rancho Santa. Fe Road. Therefore, the analyses of this intersection for traffic projected in-the year 1990. 1995 and 2000 1s not valid. t ... C LAND USE ZONE 11: (SANDAG MODEL) Low Medi um Densi-ty Residential (RLM) Medium Density Residential (RM) High Density (RMH) Elementary School High School Connuntty Co•rcial C Office Totals ZONE 11: Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) Medium Density Residential (RM) Elementary School High School Co1111Unity Co1111ercial Office Totals C ZONE 11 DIFFERENCE Table 6 TRIP GENERATION Zone 11 & 12 QUANTITY Daiii 871 Units 8710 693 Units 5545 300 Units 1800 10 Acres 600 72 Acres 3600 40 Acres 28000 9 Acres 2700 • . 70040 2839 DU 28390 · 756 DU 6050 10 Acres 600 84 Acres 4200 572,500 40100 142,900 2860 82200 +12160 -9- TRIP ENDS AM In AM Out PM In PM Out 175 520 610 260 70 345 415 140 30 120 150 60 95 60 10 20 575 145 150 350 480 335 1400 1400 340 35 70 280 - - - 2155 2700 4135 3095 565 ~705 1985 850 75 380 455 150 95 60 10 20 670 170 175 410 720 480 2005 2005 355 40 .-1! 285 - -- 2480 2835 4705 3720 +325 +135 +570 +625 -10- Table 6 (con't) .... C TRIP GENERATION Zone 11 a 12 • LAND USE QUANTITY TRIP ENDS Daily AM in AA Dut PM In PM Out ZONE 12: (SANDAG MODEL) Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) 871 Units 8710 175 520 610 260 Medium Density Residential (RM) 693 Units 5545 70 345 415 140 , H1gh Density (RMH) 300 Units 1800 30 • 120 150 60 Elementary School 10 Acres 600 95 60 10 20 Jr. High School 19 Acres 760 120 . 50 15 ~ - - - Totals 1"7415 490 1095 1200 515 C ZONE 12: Low Medium Density 1888 Units 18880 380 1135 1320 565 Residential (RLM) Elementary School 10 Acres 600 95 60 10 20 Jr. High School 20 Acres 800 ...m 55 15 ~ --- Totals 20280 600 1250 1345 625 ZONE 12 DIFFERENCE +2865 +110 +155 +145 +110 Grand Total (Zone 11 I 12) 102480 3080 4085 6050 4345 ZONE 11 I 12 DI'FFERENCE +15025 +435 +290 +715 +735 C .. u .. . . Table 7 .... C TRIP GENERATION BY YEAR Zone 11 & 12 LAND USE QUANTITY TRIP ENDS Da11t AM In AM Out PM In PM Out '1987 ZONEll Res1dent1al (RLM) 213 DU 2130 45 130 150 65 Res1dent1al (RM) 415 DU 3320 40 210 -250 85 TOTAL 5450 85 340 400 150 1988 ZONE 11 Residential (RLM) 117 DU 1170 25 70 80 35 SUB-TOTAL 1170 -,g 70 80 35 TOTAL (1987 I 1988) 6620 110 410 480 185 1989 ERE'll Residential (RLM) 432 DU 4320 85 260 300 130 Coaun1ty Connerc1al 46,900 SF 3280 60 40 165 165 C ZONE 12 Residential (RLM) 436 OU 4360 85 260 305 130 SUB-TOTAL 11960 ~ 560 -m ~25 TOTAL (1987 -1989) 18580 340 970 1250 610 1990 ER 11 Residential (RLM) 510 DU 5100 100 305 355 1.55 Co•unity C0Dm1ercial 175,200 SF 12260 220 1'45 615 615 Office 47,600 SF 950 120 15 25 95 Elementary School 10 Acres 600 95 60 10 20 High School 84 Acres 4200 670 170 175 410 ZONE 12 Restdential (RLM) 382 DU 3820 75 230 265 115 SUB-TOTAL 26930 mo 925 1445 · 1410 TOTAL (1989 -1991) 45510 1620 1895 2695 ---2020 1991 'ZURr 11 Residential (RLM) 375 DU 3750 75 225 265 115 Comunity Coamercfal .. 175,200 SF 12265 220 145 615 615 C Office 47,600 SF 950 120 15 2s-95 ,.._ ...... , -12- Table 7 (con 1 t) ... C TRIP GENERATION BY YEAR Zone 11 & 12 LAND USE QUANTITY TRIP ENDS Daill AM In AM Out PM In PM Out 1991 Elirl2 Residential (RLM) 296 DU 2960 60 175 205 90 SUB-TOTAL 19925 · 475 560 1110 915 TOTAL (1987 -1991) 65435 2095 2455 3805 2935 1992 ERE' 11 Residential (RLM) 275 DU 2750 55 165 195 85 Comun1ty Co1111ercial 175,200 SF 12265 220 145 615 "615 Office 47,600 SF 950 120 15 _n 95 - ZONE 12 Residential (RLM) 185 DU 1850 35 110 130 55 Eleantary School 10 Acres 600 95 60 10 20 Jr. High School 20 Acres 800 125 55 15 40 C SUB-TOTAL· 19215 ,m 550 9§11' 910 TOTAL (1987 -1992) 84650 2745 3005 4795 3845 1993 ZONE 11 Res1denita1 (RLM) 240 DU 2400 50 145 170 75 SUB-TOTAL 2400 5lr 145· 170 75 TOTAL (1987 -1993) 87050 2795 3150 4965 3920 1994 ERE' 11 Resfden1tal (RLM) 240 DU 2400 50 145 170 70 SUB-tOTAL 2400 50 145 -m; 70 TOTAL (1987 -1994) 89450 2845 3295 5135·· 3990 1995 ERE" 11 Res1den1ta1 (RLM) 207 DU 2070 40 125 145 60 SUB-TOTAL 2070 7lS 125 -rn 60 TOTAL (1987 -1995) 91520 2885 3420 5280 4050 C -13- Table 7 (con 1t)· ·-C TRIP GENERATION BY YEAR Zone 11 I 12 LAND USE QUANTITY TRIP ENDS Da11,l AM In AM Out PM In PM Out 1996 ZONE 11 Restdenftal (RLM) 164 DU . 1640 35 100 115 50 SUB-TOTAL 1640 35 100 115 50 TOTAL (1987 -1996) 93160 2920 3520 5395 4100 1997 IlJRE" 11 Restden1tal (RLM) 72 DU 720 15 45 50 20 SUB-TOTAL 720 75 45 7<f 20 TOTAL (1987 -1997) 93880 2935 3565 5445 4120 C C n LEGEND PrllN Artarial -ealatlng ~ : Paraut ot ProJact Traftlc on Major Art•lal -ealallng Road 8e1J1Mn1 r ----Secoadarr Arlerial -ealallfts • : a.pactecl Road 8eclloft Collector -ealatlnO ••• Prime Arlarlal -prapoaed -----Ma)Gr Arterial -propoHd -----8ec:oadary Arterial -propoH~ Colec:t• -propoaacl .o •acted aw...ctian Leucadia, 4' .... • n -. . . .. '." ~, -::<' ; "::. t ~,. ;~C{~;S~r~~! n , .LS'".:. Cit)' 01 6an Marcos _____ /--~/~--~t:1 =--- Road r!ri\ ~if;r~ f.jv~~ 3 GROWTH r:=~NT EXHIBIT • CircufafiQn::Pirectional ~i~ r" LEGEND ••• ---------_,... __ _ 0 n Prlllle ArtaMI -••latine Major Arterial -•alatlng ~•condUJ Arterial -eal&llng CollKIW -eaial1119 Prlllle Arterial -propoaed Major Art•lal -prgpoaed Secoadar, Arterial -propMed · Colleelor -propoHd lmpec:ted lllerNc1bl • ... -'-• ICUY .... - AU PeMIPM Peak = Delly TNfflc CitJ of Encinitaa L . -- n D _;;.··:.; ---~f--~: 1l;~l::): ~: ····.--:-.:-:-· .• :,\;i;c) .•_: I J r--··· ,·· ( '\.=,··· .. rm·-----, / .. ~ '-'" Citll' of San Marco& P.f.>·"° 1- (l,l.} ,.;:< <;:;_f' J .. flll!--~------·-· Road ~n7:;:::--i:~---~~~---L-•_u_c_•_di_• __ •_1w_e1. ___ :l::::::::: __ -===~Cl--.3-)------~..J-:!!:/::!_~:: ;~(] ~ 'GK: 45 GROWTH f. Is".,-(. 't EXHIBIT . 1 r ' MANAGEMENT p/titm/Jtg :..;;: T =° PROGRAM ..... __ • cfculation- .ye~-, l?o/0 c,,.,. J, f,o;,.~ Vo .r,,,,,. P""V<•'"' ... ts Zone 11 C C C Table 8 YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION 1990 1990(1) DAILY DAILY . VOLUME CAPACITY La Costa Avenue: I-5 to El Camino 2s.ooo 24.700 El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Cmnfno 14.800 27.780 · -West of Rancho Santa Fe 14.600 27.780 El Camino Rea 1: La Costa to Cille Barcelona 33,000 44,450 Calle Barcelona to 011venha1n 30,300· 44,450 Olfvenhatn Road: East of El Camino 22.200 ·16,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of Olivenhatn 18,400 22,230 011venha1n to Calle Barcelona 27,700 66.670. Calle Barcelona to La Costa 29,700 66.670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 27,600 22,230 -South of Melrose 28,200 22,230 ( 1) Based upon LOS F -14- 1990 LEVEL VOLUME/ OF CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO 1.01 F 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.74 C 0.68 B 1.33 F 0.83 D 0.42 A 0.45 A 1.24 F 1.27 F C C C Table 9 YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION ., La Costa Ave I I-5 southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & 1-5 Northbound Ramps 1 La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real El Camino I Levante El Camino I 011venhain Rancho Santa Fe I Olivenhain Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 1.11/F 1.04/F 0.83/D 0.54/A 1.04/F 0.79/C N/A 0.88/D 0.95/E -15- ICUlLOS(l) PM Peak 1.07 /F 0.99/E 0.87/D 0.54/A · 0.90/D 0.90/D N/A ·o.98/E 1.03/F LEGEND ••• --------- 0 n ..,_ Alt ... 1 -Hlallng M~lor Arterial -Hlallng . •~coadarr Arterial -eai.tlnf: Colactor -eai.11111 Prime Al'lerlal -propoaed Major Artnlal -proposed &■condary Arterial -propoaet ~lOr -prapoau Impacted NISMClloQ 1' ~ Pa-cent of Projllcl Traffic _. ........... • : llnpacled Road Section . .,/'\..__ f""""\.,_ ---_ _;,---...../_,,,,... .... ...._, '-· J BatlQuilos La;oon . -·-..... _________ _ Co•ta Ava. CltJ Of EncinltH • rJ • I I I t-....r·-· Leucadia . ---·----···-· . . lllwd. lvenh■.'n Raad GROWTH n. I. . Cl1y of San Marcos 'tT~-;/i ~?;,:·: ·~t: 'ti 1vEXHIBIT : • CirculaUmtQrectjonat Disz!':~ LEGEND n- ,, ... ,.,. ..... -••latlng ..... Art•lal -••latlng aecondur Arterial -exlalln9 ColeCtor -••latlng ••• PriMe Arterial -proflOHd •••-MafQr Art.-lal -prop-d ----Secondarr Arterial -proposed -----Colec1Gr -propDHII Q Impacted larMoticln. -L-• ICU VUIH - AMPflklPMPdk ~ =o.a,Trafflc C/,t,) BatiQultos Lagoon n _._...-;r•-...•• --•••-~•--..... ----~--,....-:~ Costa Awe. ··• ~ "° (is:,oo I er.,, ,.1,3!/1,31 /;0.!,, I, I~ Cilr ot Encinitas L...r·-· ·····-----~-111!1-----··· ./. Leuc:allla Blwo. /.3$'//, 'S ' r··-~ -,~;.;;-~----, . r ! l.~3tlO ...__ ... ~ ,; j,~A ~ .. _:/.::•:,-y:~1::-:·r\.:·l- ---=~=---:-,G-=--:-f(-::--------::4 .... ,=---------------------~G:r.e:-::o=-=WTH=::-:-----_;_---=-•;;:;;-= · r ' MANAGEMENT · Circulation-plibinlllg ;.;: :; =-PBOGBAM • y~., l't'I.C C.,.,. J, f,,,~.t. iJ o T ~ f ,/ "., -e..-, e .... 1.s Chy of San Marcos • Zone 11 • C C Table 10 YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS~ ROAD SEGMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION 1995 19950) DAILY DAILY VOLUMES CAPACITY La Costa Avenue 1-5 to El Camino 35.600 22.230 El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Camino 23.300 '£1.780 -West of Rancho Santa Fe 24.500 27.780 El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 41,000 44,450 Calle Barcelona to 011 venha1n 36.700 44,450 011venha1n Road: East of El Curlno 32.400 16,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of 011venha1n 27.600 22.230 011venha1n to Calle Barcelona 43.900 66.670 Calle Barcelona to La Costa 46.700 66,670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 44,900 22,230 -South of Melrose 43,200 22,230 C ( 1) Based upon LOS F -16- 1995 LEVEL VOLUME/ Of· CAPACITY SERIVCE RATIO 1.60 F 0.84 D · 0.88 D 0.92 E 0.83 D 1.94 . F 1.24 F 0.66 B 0.70 C 2.02 F 1.94 F C' C Table 11 YEAR 1995 CONDITIOHS • INTERSECTIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 I 12 INTERSECTION . La Costa Ave. I 1-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. a 1-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real El Camino I Levante El Camino I Olivenhafn Rancho Santa Fe a Olfvenhafn Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe a Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Ut111zat1on LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 1.39/F 1.31/F 1.03/F 0.66/8 1.35/F N/A N/A. 1.27/F 1.27 /F -17- ICUlLOS (l) PM Peak 1.41/F 1.31/F 1.13/F 0.66/B 1.65/F N/A N/A 1.72/F 1.53/F LEGEND r __ _ "-· ••• ----------------0 n Prime Arterial -.... lina MaJor Arterial -ealallng Secontlerr Arterlal -austlils; Collector -... ,iDG Prlllll• Arlarlal -pi-opoaad Map Arterial -propond Secondarr Arterial -proposed Colector -propoaed · lnlpacted w...ctan "4 : Per08III of Project Traffic en Road ....... *: -actad RNd 811c11on . -~ ,,.---.._ _ _,,.-""'_,.,,,, . ..,,,-... .._r • . ....___J BadQullos Lagoon ~--.... ____ ... -··· ; / CHy ol Encinitas Laucadla . Blvd. n enlaaln Road ,o,,, \ DJ&eNI . 0,.,-cc.t,.~1, I .. ,n • f 2.•0 ,. City of San Marcos ioo-0 ~ · EXHIBIT = • c;cu1a1=Luona1 '3~ D,~-f ,,., bu+,.;..._ () LEGEND ••• --------- 0 Pr• Arlellll -......... Major Arterial -ealatina &econdm'r Arterial -Hlallfta Colaelor -e11latlng Pr,.. Arterial -propoaed Mejor Artarlel -prapoaed · Seconder, Arlerlal -prop0 .. d ~olec:tor -proposed · Jlllpacted 111.-..eUon _,_ ~ • ICUValuff- MIPnltlPMPnk = Daa, Traftlc . .,-'"'._ /-"\ --.._ _ _,,r·""--/"' ..r ... ..._/' '-- BatiQUlto• Lagoon I .3.J A. 3 i: • CHr 01 Encinitas Leucadia n c:;;,-·--.. , l-13C'1o Road ,a.71 : ~ /GK 4' GROWTH n San Marcos =,,tmi,,hr MANAGEMENT_______ Circulalion-·rirmatdlf--...!!;;;:ei ... ::;ol'!!!:!!:!!1!!!!:!'"e...... ___________________ .....1PR~OO~RABAMM... ________ ......;..,------------JZ~o!!!nll!eL11.:1L ye • .,., -'J.tJOt> Co ... cJ, f ,.~ ,_,, A/,, :f ""'p✓11.J-c th c.."' -f ~ unacceptable conditions at six intersections, two additional fntersectfons(2) ··cannot be analysed as a result of existing intersection alignments that will C change by the year 1995. Review of Table 12 for the year 2000 indicates no additional road segment def1c1ences from those listed for the years 1990 and 1995. Table 13 indicates unacceptable (l~OJ1d1t1ons at five intersections with three · additional intersections-that cannot be analyzed as a result of existing intersection alignments that will change by the year 2000. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Traffic conditions for existing. the year 1990 plus Zones 11 a~d 12, the year 1995 plus Zones 11 and 12, and the year 2000 plus Zones 11 and 12 have been analyzed. The circulation improvement needs for each of these_condftions are i~entified and listed fn Tables 14, 18, 22 and 26 respectively. The Cfty has developed a City Arterial . Phasing Plan for road segments that indicates the approximate year fn which road improvements will take place along with a cross section width of these improvements. This Phasing Plan along with the C projected volume/capacity ratios for each road segment were used to determine the approxiEte year in which improvements would be constructed. Those road segments and intersections .that do not require improvements on the basis of deficient volume/capacity ratios, but are shown as needing improvements solely on the basis of the City Arterial Phasing Plan are indicated in Tables 14, 18, 22 and 26. In other words. those intersections and road segments that are projected to have acceptable Levels of Service and are indicated as needing improvements solely as a result of the City Arterial Phasing Plan have been . footnoted. (2) The existing intersection geometrics of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road will change alignment by ·the year 1995. Therefore, the analyses of this intersection with existing gem:netrfcs for traffic projected in the year 1995 and 2000 is not valid. (3) The existing intersection geometrics of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Raod Cw111 change alignment by the year 2000. Therefore, the analyses of this intersection with existing geometrics for traffic proj~cted fn the year 2000 ts not valid. ... C C C Table· 12 YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS 'NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION 2000 2000Cl> DAILY . DAILY VOLUME CAPACITY La Costa Avenue 1-5 to El Camino 31.100 22.230 El Camino-to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El camino 21,300 27,780 -West of Rancho Santa Fe 21.900 27.780 El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 40.000 44,450 ~alle Barcelona to Olivenhain 37,400 44.450 01ivenha1n Road: East of El Calllino 46,200 16,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of 011venhain 26,900 22,230 011venha1n to Calle Barcelona. 49.300 66,670 Calle Barcelona to La Costa 50,800 66.670 La Costa to Melrose. • North of La Costa 49.000 22,230 -South of Melrose 49.100 22,230 (1) Based upon LOS F -19- 2000· LEVEL VOLUME/ OF CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO 1.40 F 0.77 C 0.79 C 0.90 D 0.84 D 2.77 F 1.21 F 0.74 C 0.76 C 2.20 F 2.21 ·F C C C Table 13 YEAR 2000 CONDTIONS -INTERSECTIONS NO IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. & I-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & I-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & El Cu1no Real El Camino & Levante El Camino I 011venha1n Rancho Santa Fe I Olfvenhain Rancho Santa Fe & cane Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe & La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 1.33/F 1.23/F 1.04/F 0.64/B N/A N/A N/A 1.39/F 1.45/F -20- ICU/LOS (1) PM Peak 1.32/F 1.22/F • 1.17/F 0.66/B N/A N/A N/A 1.76/F 1.70/f .. C C C Exisfting Improvements All of the critical road se~nts·for Zones 11 and 12 are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service. No inmediate road segment improvements are required. The intersections of La Costa Avenue and the 1-5 Northbound and Southbound ramps will require improvements and signalization to maint~1n an acceptable LOS. The · Southbound ramps wi 11 require a westbound 1 eft turn 1 an_e and the Northbound ramps will require an eastbound left turn lane. Discussion with City staff disclosed that the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Avenue is planned to be realigned and signalized by the year . 1990. The interim and ultimate geometrics were obtained (vfa City Staff) from a report prepared by Wtlldan Associates. Melrose Avenue will have an approximate east-west alignment and •r0 into Rancho Santa Fe Road having an approximate north-south alignment. The interim ge011etrfcs of this intersection are contained in Table 15. The ultimate geometrics were used for Cfty buildout conditions. Table 14 suamarizes the intersection and road segment improvement needs for existing ·conditions. The existing intersection -geometrics are contained fn Table 15. Figure 9 illustrates these existing conditions with improvements, Tables 16 and 17 SWlllllrize the conditions illustrated in Figure 9. · Year 1990 Improvements Three road segments and five intersections would require improvement by the year 1990 as a result of Zones 11 and 12 development or projected growth traffic volumes. One intersection will be constructed and four will undergo improvements. Three road segments Will require improvements by the year 1989 (December 31, 1989) to maintain an acceptable LOS. The segment of La Costa Avenue between I-5 and El camino Real, the segment of Olivenhain Raod east of El Camino Real and the segment of Rancho Santa Fe from La Costa to Melrose will require two lanes in each direction plus left turn.channelization. -21- C C C LOCATION ROAD SEGMENTS Table 14 EXISTING -CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 IMPROVEMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED INTERSECTIONS YEAR REQUIRED La Costa Ave. I I-5 Southbound Ramps Add two additional westbound 1987 left turn lanes. and signalize intersection. La Costa Ave. I I-5 Northbound Ramps Add one eastbound left turn 1987 Rancho Santa Fe & Melrose lane, and sfgnalfze intersection. New alignment -see Table 15 for geometrics. -22- TAOU5 n; EXISTING -INTERSECTION BEOMETRICS WITH lt1PROVEl1ENTS ZONE 11 le 12 INTERSECTION ·NL NT NR BL BT BR EL ET ER WL WT WR .... ._. .... ~~-------------------~------.-~ ~----~~----~~~----~-~-------~--~----~-~---~--~-~---~---~- La Costa Ave. It I-5 Southbound Ramps 0 0 o. 1 INPROVEMENTS * - La Costa Ave. It 1-5 Northbound Ramps 1 0 FREE 0 111PRDVEl1ENTS * La Costa Ave. It El Camino Real 2 3 1 2 IMPRDVEl1ENTS El Camino Raal le t..evanta 0 2 1 1 IMPRDVEt,ENTS El Camino Real le Olivenhain 0 2 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa ~e le Olivenhain 1 2 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fe It Calle Barcelona 1 3 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS· Rancho Santa Fe It La Costa 1 2 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fe It Halrose ... 1 1 0 0 IMPROVEMENTS * Bridge to be widened and intersections to be signalized. 0 FREE 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2-0 0 0 2 0 0 0 .... 2. 1 0 1 :, 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 -2 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 :0 1 1 1.5 0 1 1 - 0 0 I N w I LEGEND IF Prim• Arter.a -ulstino Major Arta,lal-HlalinD Secondary Arterial -existing Collector -existing --------- 0 Prima Artfilal -PfDPOHd Major _Ar1erial -propoMd Secondarr Arterial -proposed Collector -proposed Impacted lnlersec:tion .. i _,_ • ICUY...._- AM Peak/PM P•ak = Dail)' Traffic ''if> = ~ally Yolume/Capacitr Ratio ····-... --···-.. Costa Ave. LHtJ"0 I t."l'f) IJ. • a,.,fe. 7~ .. Cil!f c,f Encir:ilas n· <,~-----Bar ,.,-....... __ _ SI> iDol n ;·; . . . . . ~ . . . . . .' : b: ,.l.. o· .. { .. . . .. ,..........,.,., ___ _.....~~'() f;.ic;.s.tit-a!J Co11tdif,oh.t. V,~ :IM f ✓O VCIA "-"'1S Cily cf San Marccs C C C Table 16 EXISTING CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION EXISTING EXISTING(!) DAILY DAILY VOLUMES CAPACITY La Costa Avenue I-5 to El Camino 21,000 22,230 El Camino to Rancho Santa.Fe -East of El Camino 10,100 27,780 -West of Rancho Santa Fe 6,400 27,780 El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 22,800 44,450 Calle Barcelona to 011venhafn 22.soo 44.450 Olfvenhafn Road: East of El Calll'lno 11,200 16,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of Olfvenhafn 7,600 22,230 011venha1n ~ Calle Barcelona 12,700 66,670 · Calle Barcelona to La Cost.a 12,700 66,670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 14,400 22,230 -South of Melrose 1~.400 22,230 (1) Based upon LOS F -24- VOLUME/ LEVEL CAPACITY OF RATIO SERVICE 0.94 E 0.36 A 0.23 A 0.51 A 0.51 A 0.67 B 0.34 A · 0.19 A 0.19 A 0.65 8 0.65 B ----------·--------------·----····------· -----·---·---- C C C Table 17 EXISTING CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 -INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. I I-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I I-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real El Camino I Levante El CUlino I Olfvenhafn Rancho Santa Fe I 011venha1n Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 0.63/B 0.62/8 0.64/B 0.38/A 0.64/8 0.38/A 0.22/A 0.53/A 0.58/A -25- ICU/LOS(l) PM Peak 0.60/A 0.53/A 0.73/C 0.40/A 0.74/C 0.40/A 0.24/A 0.51/A 0.57/A • •·. C -26- • As a result of the development of Zone 12 the intersection of El Camino Real and Calle Barcelona will be constructed and the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and Calle Barcelona will be improved. The fntersectfon of Rancho Santa Fe and Calle Barcelona will require the addition of one eastbound left turn. one through, and ·right turn lane. one westbound through lane·, and one southbound . right turn lane.· These improvements are to be constructed concurrently with the development of Zone 12. The intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenha1n Road wfll require one westbound left turn lane to maintain acceptable conditions. This improvement is requried by the year 1989 and can be phased w~th the improvements required to that segment of Olfvenhain Road. As a result of the required improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road, by the year 1989, between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue, the intersections of Rancho Santa Fe at La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue will also require improvements. Two northbound and southbound through lanes are required at each intersection. C Discussions with 8111 Hollingsworth and· Frink Fontanesf of the 011venhafn Water District disclosed that the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe· and Olivenhain Road is planned to be realigned prior to the year 1990. The Water District plans to remove the eastbound •free• rfght turn leg and improve the C . existing fntersectfon to provide acceptable safety and traffic conditions. No specific plans were available at the time this report was written. The assumed geometrics are contained in Table 19. Table 18 sU111111.rizes the intersection and road segment improvement needs for the year 1,90. The entire intersection geometrics for each intersection with improvements are contained fn Table 19. Tables 20 and 21 contain a breakdown of the road segment and intersection conditions that are illustrated fn Figure 10. Year 1995 Improve•nts Four raod segments and nfne intersection will require improvements as a result of Zones 11 and 12 development, projected background traffic volumes and improvements planned 1n the City Arterial Phasing Plan by the year 1995. These improvements are fn addition to those listed for the year 1990. C LOCATION ROAD SEGMENTS Table 18 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS -1990 Zone .11 & 12 IMPROVEMENTS La Costa -I-5 to El Camino Widen to provide two lane in each direction plus left turn channelization 011venha1n -East of El Camfno Widen to provide two lane in each direction plus left turn channe 11 za ti on. -27- YEAR REQUIRED 1989 1989 Rancho Santa Fe -La Costa to Melrose Widen to provide two lane 1n 1989 each direction plus left turn channe 11 zat1 on. C INTERSECTIONS C El Camino ~eal & Calle Barcelona (1) El Camino Real I Olfvenhain New intersection -see table 19 for.geometrics. Add one westbound left turn lane. (3) 1989 Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona (1) Add one eastbound left tum lane, (3) through lane and right turn lane, Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa (2) Rancho Santi Fe I Melrose (2) one westbound through lane, and one southbound right turn lane. Add one southbound through lane. Add one southbound through lane, and one northbound through lane. {l) -Required for the construction of Calle Barcelona. (2) -Improvement required to acco111110date road segment widening. (3) -To be constructed concurrently with development of Zone 12. 1989 1989 n TA()19 n • , VEAR 1990 -INTER~ECTIDN GEOMETRICS WITH IMPROVENENTS ZONE 11 II 12 INTERSECTION NL NT NR SL st SR EL ET ER WL WT WR ~-~---~--------~---~--~~~-------------~---------------------------~--------------~--------- La Costa Ave. le I-5 Southbound Ramps 0 0 0 1 0 FREE 0 1 1 2 1 0 INPROVEHENTS -- L& Costa Ava. le 1-5 Northbound Ramps 1 0 FREE 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 l"PRDVEMENTS La Costa Ave. le El Camino Real 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 It1PROVEMENTS El Camino Real II Levante 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1. 5 IMPROVEMENTS El Camino Real le Calle Barcelona 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 o. 0 1 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 1 El Camino Real le Olivenhain 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 Rancho Santa Fe le Olivanhain 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fe le C&lle Barcelona 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 Rancho Santa Fe le La Costa 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 IMPROVEMENTS -1 Rancho Santa Fe le Melrose 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 ·o 0 lttPRDVEt'IENTS 1 1 I ~ I ()- LEGEND ••• --------- Prime Arterial -exla11na Major Arterial -•x•ling _ Secondary Arterial -exi.ting Colleclor -exlatlng Prime Arlerlal -propoaed Major Arterial -propoaed Secondary Arterial -propoHd Collector -proposed Impacted ... eraectb, • ICUYa ... s- AU Peak/PM Peak = Dally Trame -C ) • l!•llr Yolume/Capaclly Ratio . . ·'""'-.. .,-"\. ... -_..,...,,__ __ .,,,-...... /' ......_ __ J -1 -....._ _ _,,.. ------·' B111iQui101 Lagoon -~·--... ... ----·· Costa t4'.c,oo) Cl.I) 0.1.j/o.,~ rn Chy ot Encinitas n n Citr of San ~-rca1> ,;/m,ufM :..:::_ ·-;: .-MANA.GE.ME~, ____________ ...;:Cc::ir~c-=ul=a:.u.tio=in-LL--__ -f'Gl4£U.LIUtr--=-=--.r.••--=~-----------------..:.P7Bi:ioOOB:.z:..,uAMw_ __ _;,_ ______________ ·=-~Z.QJDn[!!eLJL1L -Yeo"' 1c;qo Co'1 cJi-1·,o.,, s. \Al, ti, IM P"Dfl C14-I e,_.,. IJ; C. C C Table 20 YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION 1990 1990<1> DAILY DAILY VOLUMES CAPACITY La Costa Avenue I-5 to El Camino 25,000 44,450 El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Camino 14,800 27,780 -West of Rancho Santa Fe 14,600 27,780 El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 33,000 44,450 Calle Barcelona to 011venha1n 30,300 44,450 011venhain Road: East of El Camino 22,200 44,450 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of 011venha1n 18,400 22,230 011venha1n w Calle Barcelona 27,700 66,670 Calle Barcelona to La Costa 29,700 66,670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 27,600 44,450 -South of Melrose 28.200 44,450 (1) Based upon LOS F -29- 1990 LEVEL VOLUME/ OF CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO 0~56 A 0.53 A 0.53 A 0.74 C 0.68 B o.so A 0.83 D 0.42 A 0.45 A 0.62 B 0.63 B C C C Table 21 YEAR 1990 CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 a 12· INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. & I-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & I-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real El Camino & Levante . El Camino I Calle Barcelona El Camino & Olivenhain Rancho Santa Fe I 011venha1n Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 0.71/C 0.73/C 0.83/D 0.54/A 0.52/A 0.88/D 0.79/C 0.64/B 0.72/C 0.51/A -30- I CUL LOS (1) . PM Peat 0.73/C 0.62/8 0.87/0 0.54/A · 0.67/8 0.81/D 0.90/D 0.6f/B 0.74/C 0.60/A · .. C C C -31-. The segment of El Camino Real from La Costa Avenue to 011venhain Road will require three lanes in each direction plus left turn channe11zation by the year 1994 to maintain an acceptable LOS. The segment of 011venhain Road east of El Camino Real will require three lanes . . in each direction plus left turn channelizat1.on by the year 1995.-as contained fn The City Arterial Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan schedules this segment to be improved to a four lane facility in the year 1990 and to an ultimate six lane fac11ity fn the year 1995. The segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of 011venhain w111 require two lanes in each direction plus left turn channelization by the year 1991 to maintain an acceptable· LOS. This segment is not contained fn the Phasing Plan but will obtain an unacceptable LOSE in the year 1991. The segmen.t of Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue will require three lanes fn each direction plus left tum channelization by the year 1993, to maintain an acceptable LOS. The City Arterial Phasing Plan schedules this segment to be improved to an ultimate six lane facility in the year 1995. The intersection of La Costa Avenue and 1-5 Southbound Ramps w111 require an additional southbound left tum lane by the year 1994 to maintain an acceptable LOS. The intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real will require an addftfonal northbound. southbound and westbound through lane by the year 1991 to maintain an acceptable LOS. These improvements will provide the ultimate geometrics for this intersection and no further improvements muld be required. As a result of.the required improvements to El Camino Reali by the year 1994~ between La Costa Avenue and Olivenhain Raod, the intersections of El Camino Real at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona w111 also require improvements. Three northbound and southbound ·through lanes -are required at each intersection. C C c. -32- The intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will require the. addition of a northbound and southbound through lane, a northbound free right turn lane, and an additional southbound and westbound left tum lane, by the year 1991 to maintain anacceptable LOS. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs the segments of El Camino Real and Olivenhafn Raod adjacent to this intersection are· projected to need ultimate improvements by the years 1994 and 1995 respectively. The ultimate alignment of thi~ intersection is required before the-year 1995. The segments of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road will be constructed to an ultimate conffguratfon fn the year 1995, as indicated fn the City Arterial Phasing Plan. The intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Raod and Olivenhafn Raod will require reconstruction to provide for this ulti1111te alignment. The SA 680 Route Location -Proposed SA 680 and Ulti•te Rancho Santa Fe Road Exhibit (Page 4 of 17) prepared by Rick Engineering (September 28, 1983) was referenced to indicate the ultimate location and alignment of this intersection. Rancho Santa Fe Road will maintain an approximate north-south alignment and is proposed to •y• into Olfvenhafn Road which will obtain an approximate east-west alignment. This intersection will require dual left turn lanes at all approaches with two eastbound and westbound through lan~s. A ·southbound and westbo~nd •tree• right turn lane fs · also required. With these geometrics acceptable conditions will be obtained in the· year 1995. The intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Calle Barcelona will require . the addition of one northbound, southbound and westbound right turn lanes, and one additional eastbound left turn lane, by the year 1992 to aintain an accept~ble LOS •. The intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue wfll require dual left turn lanes at all approaches, an additional northbound and southbound through lane, and one northbound, eastbound and westbound right turn lane, by the year 1991 to •intafn an acceptable LOS. As a result of the required improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue, by the year 1993, the intersections of El c. C C Camino Real at Levante Street and Calle Barcelona will also require improvements. Three northbound and southbound through lanes are required at each intersection. Table 22 su11111Brizes these intersection and road segment _improvements. needed by the year 1995. The entire fntersectfon geometrics with-improvements are contained 1n Table 23. Figure 11 illustrates this condition. Tables 24 and 25 suDDarfze conditions on road segments and at intersections. Year 2000 Improvements In order to maintain an acceptable LOS. two intersection w111 require improvements as a result of Zone 11 and 12 and projected growth traffic volumes prior to the year 2000. All road segments will operate at an acceptable LOS with no additional improvements. The improvements required at the intersection of El Camino Real and Olfvenhain Road are in addition to those listed for the years 1990 and 1995. The intersection of El Camino Real and Olfvenhain Raod will require the addition of one northbound left and •free• right turn lane, an additional northbound and southbound through lane, a southbound right turn lane. an eastbound left, three eastbound through, and one eastbound right turn lane, and two westbound through lanes to maintain an acceptable LOS. These improvements reflect the ulti,mate alignment of the intersection _ and the extension of Olivenhain Road west of El Camino Real connecting to Leucadia Boulevard. These improvments are required by the year 2000. as construction of Leucadia Boulevard between I-5 and El Camino Real is scheduled in The City Arterial Phasing Plan to be completed by this year. The Phasing Plan indicates a four lane facflfty for this road segment. Three eastbound through lanes and two westbound through lanes are required at this intersection. The 1ntersectton of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road will require an · additional eastbound left turn lane by the year 1998 to maf-ntafn an · acceptable LOS. Four northbound lanes are required at thfs fntersectf~n to recteve the traffic from the eastbound triple left tum. Table 26 SU111111rizes these intersections and road segments improvement needs for the year 2000. The entire intersection geo•trfcs with improvements are -33- . . C C C Table 22 . CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS -YEAR 1995 Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION ·IMPROVEMENTS ROAD SEGMENTS El Camino -La Costa to Olivenhain Widen to ·provide three lane in each direction plus left tum channelization Olivenhain -East of El Camino (1) Widen to provide three lane in each direction plus left turn channelization. Rancho Santa Fe -South Of Olivenhain Widen to provide two lanes in each direction plus left turn channelization Rancho Santa Fe -La Costa to Melrose Widen to provide three lane fn each direction plus left tum channelization. INTERSECTIONS YEAR REQUIRED 1994 1995 1991 1993 La Costa Ave. I I-5 Southbound Ramps Add an additional southbound left 1994 turn lane. La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real Add an additional northbound. 1991 southbound and westbound through lane. · El Camino Real I Levante (2) Add an additional northbound and 1994 El Camino Real I talle Barcelona (2) southbound through l~ne. El Camino Real I Olivenhain Add·an additional northbound and 1991 southbound through lane. a north- bound.free right tum lane. and an additional southbound and west- bound left turn lane. New alifn•nt -see Table 23 for geometr cs. · Rancho Santa Fe & Olivenhain -34- ... C C C LOCATION INTERSECTIONS Table 22 (con't) CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS -YEAR 1995 Zone 11 & 12 IMPROVEMENTS YEAR REQUIRED Rancho Santa Fe I Calle Barcelona Add one additional easbound left 1992 Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (2) turn lane. · Add dual left turn lanes at all 1991 approaches~ an additional north- bound and southbound through lane. and a northbound, eastbound and westbound right turn lane. Add one southbound through lane. 1993 and one northbound through lane. (i) -Required per City Arterial Phasing Plan. (2) -Improvement required to acCOlllllOdate road segment widening. -35- n TA023 n . • VEAR 1995 -INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS .. WITH IMPROVEMENTS ZONE 11.1& 12 INTERSECTION NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR ---------~------.--.--------------------~--------------.... ----------------------------.-.- La Costa Ave. I& I-5 Southbound Ramps 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 0 1 1 2 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS 1 La Costa Ave. le l-5 Nor-thbound Ramps 1 0 FREE 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS La Costa Ave. It El Camino Real 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 1 El Camino Real• Lavante 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 El Camino Real It Calle Barcelona 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 El Camino Real It Dlivenhain 0 3 FREE 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 -INPROVENENTS 1 FREE 1 1 1 Rancho Santa Fe It Olivenhain * 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 2 2 0 0 2 FREE It1PROVEl1ENTS Rancho Santa Fe It Calle BArcelana 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 INPROVENENTS 1 Rancho Santa Fe It La Costa 2. 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 U1PRDVEMENTS 1 1 1 1 1· 1 1 1 1 Rancho Santa ~e It Melrose 1 3 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 * -New Alignment I (.,.) O'I I LEGEND --------- 0 Prime AriNial -eaisUq Ma)or Arterial -ealaling Second•J Arterial -existing Collector -e&lsting Prime Arterial -proposed Maior Arterial -propo•ed Secondar, Arterial -proposec Collector -proposed Imp.acted '11•section -'-• ICU Values - AM Peak/PM Peak = Dall1 Trame ;:;-'!air Volulne/CapacitJ Ratio n . . : ) I: . .. . -_,_ City of San Marccs ;j j&q.u,o! i C,t,5J. ,... . .---..,__ ...... .. -.._· _ _,,,,. . .--...... ... .,,,.,,.. .. -.-·.'-.....J ···--·· ..I' ~ 7 •.. ~ .,_r,. . ~ • , .. i . _.':'/~ . .· ,., · .. ~-~· .. ,-~ -·r .~~':i~_ ~-· ih ·.)' " ;;: I , ....~~~-6:·=}:·'-~ <I \ ;,m ----·, f' \ '·.-------~ ·;...___: .• ~_:,. .:_, .•, ••' ...--····---.. --------·-......... r.. ·.. ,-·· Co1ta Ave. J.\l!llrlll. -: ... ✓ \.• !3S, ,co] UOJ ... '--o. •IJ/o, 7g o,,.rjo.,o /i r·-' • O,S"¥0SII I . Ba\iQuitos La;;oon Cit~ ot Enchill.S _..i-~ -~---"''l...,.~l. , ~e, -, ......-""'-"-'- (.61} L .... & .... ~= .... 'OdOI ---.;,;:,:~--y- '"') ll;-; . '/~./. . . .·.. . .. . f ~=~R~~fi;J~==-==-=~=-~---~~2.~~t~~_;_=~=~-====--====-::._:::=:_:::_::~~::·=-=.::-=-=.::-=-=.::-=-=~-=-=:-=-=--=· =~~:0i'lornrAri.~ruEM1;Ni;1:i~=I;:.::=-t.='-2)=.::-=-=-.::-=~~=~:=: ~-~=--~;:_··~:··_:-:::=~_· ·=··--:--:~!~C"-!:ir~l-=-cu=··=-~~'1~'.-=~..,,...~±i·~~-6....5~~~~t!!!'fe~~Ll _· PRQGRAM Zone 11 Yc:r..r f'lc;s' Co""cL:fr'cn11S w ,-fL.,. I.,,,. po1" v-< '"" ,c,..,.., t .s .. C C C Table 24 YEAR 1995 CONDiTIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 I 12 LOCATION 1995 1995(l) DAILY DAILY VOLUMES CAPACITY La Costa· Avenue ', I-5 to El Camino 35,600 44,450 El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Camino 23,300 27,780 -West of Rancho Santa•Fe 24,500 27,780 El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 41,000 66,670 Calle.Barcelona to Olivenha1n 36,700 66,670 011venha1n Road: East of El Camino 32,400 66,670 Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of Olfvenhain 27,600 44,450 011venha1n to Calle Barcelona 43,900 66,670 Calle Barcelona~ La Costa 46,700 66,670 La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 44,900 66,670 -Sou~h of Melrose 43,200 66,670 (1) Based upon LOS F -37- 1995 LEVEL VOLUME/ OF -CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO 0.80 D 0.84 D 0.88 D 0.61 B 0.55 A 0.49 A 0.62 B 0.66 8 0.70 C 0,67 B 0.65 B C -- ·c C Table 25 YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. I I-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I 1-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & El tam1no Real El Camino & Levante El Camino & Calle Barcelona El Camino I 011venha1n Rancho Santa Fe & Olivenha1n Rancho Santa Fe & Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe l Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Ut111zat1on LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 0.79/C 0.90/D 0.75/C 0.53/A 0.57/A 0.64/8 0.69/B 0.69/8 0.58/A 0.55/A · ICUlLOS(l) PM Peak 0.80/C 0.78/C 0.90/D 0.51/A 0.73/C 0.84/D 0.82/D 0.87/D 0.88/D 0.69/B •• C C C Table 26 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS -YEAR 2000 Zone 11 & 12 LOCATION ROAD SEGMENTS NO IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED INTERSECTIONS El Camino Real I 011venhain (1) Rancho Santa Fe I Olivenhafn IMPROVEMENTS YEAR REQUIRED Add one northbound left turn lane. 2000 an add1t1onal northbound through . lane. a northbound free right tum lane. an additional south- bound through lane, a southbound right turn lane. one eastbound left. three eastbound through, and one eastbound right turn lane. and two westbound through· lanes. Add on additional eastbound left 1998 turn lane. -39- C • ...40 ... ·contained in Table 27. Figure 12 illustrates this condition, Tables 28 and 29 sunmarize conditions on road segments and at intersections. CITY BUILDOUT CONDITIONS {YEAR 2010) The SANDAG Series 6· Constrained General Plan Model run, completed in 1986. provides AM and PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes for conditions at buildout of the City of Carlsbad. These City buildout (year 2010) traffic volumes. were adjusted for the differencps between the modeled and proposed land uses for Zones 11 and 12 (as contained in Table 7) in conformance with the distribution assumptions illustrated in Figure 13. -Appendix B contains ICU analyses for City bufldout conditions. The SANDA& 110del assumes SA 680 extending in an approximate east-west orientation as an extension of Olivenha1n Road. Since_ the ultimate alignment of SA 680 is different from these assumptions, the SANDAG volumes at this ·intersection were adjusted. Appendix B contains ICU analyses for City buildout conditions. No road segments. require additional improvements from those listed under conditions for existing, the year 1990, 1995 and 2000. Two intersections will undergo additional improvements by the year 2010. C The intersection of El Camino Real and Levante Street will require dual northbound and eastbound left tum lanes, an additional northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound through lane, and one southbound and eastbound right turn lane, by the year 2010 to maintain an acceptable LOS. These geometrics reflect the extension of Levante Street west of El Camino Real. C The ultimate gemnetr1cs· for •the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose Avenue were obtained from City Staff. These geometrics are contained in Table 32 and are projected to provide an acceptable LOS for this intersection at City Buildout. The results of these analyses are sumnarfzed in Table 30 and Table 31 as illustrated in Figure 14. These analyses assume a completed circulation system and would require the intersection geometrics listed in Table 32. TD27 n VEAR 2000 -INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS WITH IMPROVEMENTS ZONE 11 le 12 . INTERSECTION NL NT NR .SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- La Costa Ave. le 1-5 Southbound Ramps 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 0 1 1. 2 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS La Costa Ave. It I-5 Northbound Ramps 1 0 FREE 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 INPROVEMENTS -- La Costa Ave. le El Camino Real 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 IMPROVEMENTS El Camino Real It Levante 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1. 5 0 1.s IMPROVEMENTS El Camino Real le Call~ Barcelona 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 IMPROVEMENTS - El Camino Real le Olivenhain * 1 4 FREE 2 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 1 FREE 1 1 1 3 1 2 Rancho Santa Fe le Olivenhain 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 3 2 0 0 2 FREE I11PROVEMENTS l Rancho Santa Fe It Calle Barcelona 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 . IMPROVEMENTS - Rancho Santa Fe le La Costa 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fe le Melrose 1 3 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 IMPROVEMENTS * -Addition oi Leucadia Boulevard I ~ .... I LEGEND ••• --------- 0 Prime Arlefial -eala1ing Ma;or Arlerlal -eio.lsling ... •-· iWli Leucadia -n n = ICU V•-•- AM Pnk/PM Peak San Marccs Blvd. GROWTH MANAGEMENT C1rculation-PROGRA ------------..-..:~!,:!,!!2!!!~----zone11 -42- • Table 28 .. YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS -ROAD SEGMENTS C WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 . LOCATION 2000 2000Cl) 2000 LEVEL DAILY -DAILY -VOLUME/ OF VOLUMES CAPACITY CAPACITY SERVICE RATIO La Costa Avenue 1•5 to El Camino 31.100 44.450 0.70 B El Camino to Rancho Santa Fe • East of El Camino 21.300 27.780 0.77 C -West of Rancho Santa Fe 21.900 27.780 0.79 C El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona 40.000 . 66.670 0.60 A C Calle Barcelona to Olfvenhafn 37.400 66.670 0.56 A 011venha1n Road: East of El Camino 46,200 66,670 0.69 B Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of 011venha1n 26,900 44,450 0.61 B Olfvenhafn to ca11e Barcelona 49.300 66,670 0.74 -C Calle Barcelona to .La Costa so.soc 66,670 0.76 C La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa 49,000 66.670 0.73 C ... South of Me 1 rose 49.100 66,670 0.74 ·c C (1) Based upon LOS F .. C C C T Table 29 YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. I I-5 southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I I-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I El Camino Real El Camino I Levante El Camino & Calle Barcelona El Camf no & 011 venhain Rancho Santa Fe & Olivenhafn Rancho Santa Fe & Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Ut111zat1on LOS• Level of Service AM Peak 0.77/C 0.84/D 0.70/B 0.53/A 0.51/A 0.67/B .0.70/B 0.73/C 0.59/A 0.68/8 -43- ICU£LOs(l) PM Peak 0.77/C 0.71/C 0.90/0 0.52/A 0.62/B 0.92/E 0.79/C 0.87/D · 0.89/D 0.80/C n LEGEND ,.-__ _ ·- ••• --------- 0 .... ~ 'GJ( ., I I Prime Artwial -ealsllng Ma)or Art•ial -existing SeCOftdarJ Arterial -ealetinSI couector -•alatlng Prim• Arterial -proposed Major Arterial -p.-opoaed Secondary Arterial -propoaed Colector -propoHd lnlpaGted llnlwaeGUan • : llllpaclecl Road SecUon B■tiQUllos L.aaoon ···-..... ... _,-... -··· Costa Ava. City ol Encinitas Leucadia Blvd . n Road GROWJH ) ·L: .. =: .. -. . . . . . .. ·" ... . ... _ ~ . ~ ... -. '.'.-. .. :' ·:··.-:· :· :< . --~--: .. ··. -. -: .. : . Citi, ol San Marcos . ·-·_:~_/:_~~·_':_:;_;~_tt_-.~~_;_.__ . ")..~-d;~ Jtf:tl,, ,_., .. : --~· ~ EXHBrr : • c1rculaJion-Directiona1 OiszJ:ion n LEGEND --------- 0 Prim■ Art■rial -e1li•lin9 Maior AEl■rial -eal■llng Secondary Arterial -existing Colec:IOt -Hl&llng Prime Arterial -proposed Maior Arhirial -proposed· Secondarr Arterial -proposed Collector -prOpOHd lmpaeled n.sectian -'- CJ ( > • ICUValuH- AM Peek/PM pq11. = Dally Traffic: = ~••r vo1u-1Capacily RaUo ' . . ,,...--r-...... ✓-;. ---....__. _,r· ,,,.....___ . .,.,,--· .,,,,. .. '---/ ...__-' "']i BaliQuitos Laoocn Cllr cl i::-.cinitas I o.-uJ Leucadia Blvd. n • • 0: Roau n Ci1y cf San Marco$ ·:: ': :: t.sJ 600 ! . '.' . ; (.f6J •. ··L. .,. .. C C· C Table 30 YEAR 2010 (CITY BUILDOUT) CONDITION -ROAD SEGMENTS WITH IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION La Costa Avenue 1-5 to El Camino El Cami no to Rancho Santa Fe -East of El Camino -West of Rancho Santa Fe El Camino Real: La Costa to Calle Barcelona Calle Barcelona to Olivenha1n Olfvenhain Road: East of El Curtno Rancho Santa Fe Road: South of Olivenhain 011venha1n to Calle Barcelona Calle Barcelona to La Costa La Costa to Melrose -North of La Costa -south of Melrose (1) Adjuected SANDA& volumes (2) Based upon LOS F Zone 11 & 12 2010Cl) 2010C 2> 2010 DAILY DAILY VOLUME/ VOLUMES CAPACITY CAPACITY RATIO 33,700 44,450 0~76 18,200 27,780 0.66 18,300 27,780 0.66 47,300 66,670 0.71 40.300 66,670 0.60 38,100 66,670 Q.57 37,300 44,450 0.84 41,700 66,670 0.63 42,300 66,670 0.63 40,200 66,670 _ 0.60 57,600 66,670 0.86 -44- LEVEL OF SERVICE C B 8 C B A D 8 B B D C C- C Table 31 YEAR 2010 (CITY BUILDOUT) CONDITIONS -INTERSECTIONS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Zone 11 & 12 INTERSECTION La Costa Ave. I I-5 Southbound Ramps La Costa Ave. I 1-5 Northbound Ramps La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real El Camino I Levante El Camino & Calle Barcelona El Camino I 011venhain Rancho Santa Fe I 011venhain Rancho Santa Fe & Calle Barcelona Rancho Santa Fe I La Costa Rancho Santa Fe I Melrose (1) ICU• Intersection Capacity Ut111zation LOS• Level of Service ICUlLOs(l) · AM Peak 0.63/B 0.69/B 0.86/D 0.86/D 0.71/C 0.90/D 0.82/D 0.60/A 0.63/B 0.86/D -45- PM Peak 0.78/C 0.83/D 0.83/D 0.78/C 0.79/C 0.88/D 0.85/D 0.61/8 0.77/C 0.84/D n Tr,32 n t' ... , VEAR 2010 <CITY BUILDOUT> -INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS WITH IMPROVEl"IENTS ZONE 11 & 12 INTERSECTION NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR __________________ _..._.,.._~---------------------------~--~---~--~--------------~-~~----------~ La Co•ta Ava. & I-5 Southbound Ruap& 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 0 l 1 2 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS La Costa Ave. • 1..;.5 Northbound Ramps l 0 FREE 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS La Costa Ave. • El Caaino Real 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 IMPROVEMENTS El Camino Real• Levante * 2 4 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 IMPROVEMENTS 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 El Camino Real• Calle Barcelona 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 It1PROVEt1ENTS El Camino Real• Olivenhain 1 4 FREE 2 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 lt1PROVEt1ENTS Rancho Santa Fe• Olivenhain 0 0 0 2 0 FREE 3 2 0 0 2 FREE -INPROVEt1ENTS - Rancho Santa Fe• Call• Barcelona 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 IMPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fe• La Costa 2 3 1 .2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 INPROVEMENTS Rancho Santa Fa• Nelrose 2 3 0 1 3 FREE 1.5 1.5 FREE 1 1 1 INPRDVEMENTS 1 1 -FREE -FREE 1 1 1 • * -EKtensian of Levante Street West af El Camino I ~ C'I I C C SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to Local . Facilities Management Zones 11 and 12. Existing conditions and have been quantified and projections made for conditions in the years 1990, 1995 and· 2000 using a compounded three percent growth rate of the existing volWRes. Estimated traffic from Zones 11 and 12 has been combined with existing, the year 1990, 1995 and 2000 traffic volumes to simulate condittons·with the development of these Zones. Improvement needs for each condition have been identtfed. -47- All critical _road seg•nts are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service. The signalization and fmprove•nt to the intersection of La Costa Avenue and I-5 Northbound and Southbound Ramps is an existing improvement need. No other intersections require tmprov•nts for existing conditions. In the year 1990, the segment of La Costa Avenue from 1-5 to El Camino Real,. the segment of 011venhain Road east of El Camino Real and the segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road ·from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Avenue will require improvements. The intersection of El Camino Real at Calle Barcelona and Olivenhain Road,· and the intersections of Rancho Santa Fe Road at Calle Barcelona, La Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue will also require tmprovments. In the year 1995, the segment of El CUtino Real from La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road and the segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhafn Road will require improvements. The segment of Olivenhain Road east of El Cimino Real. and the segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Avenue will require also. additional improvements. The intersections of La Costa Avenue and I-5 Southbound Ramps, El Camino Real at La Costa Avenue and Levante Street and the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olfvenhafn Road will require improvements. The intersection of El Cillfno Real at Calle Barcelona and Olivenhain Road 1 and the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road at Calle Barcelona, La COsta Avenue and Melrose avenue will require also additional improvements. In the year 2000 1 the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhafn Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road will require additional C improve•nts. No additional improvements are required for road seg•nts. C C C -48- The SANDA& Series 6 Constafned General Plan Model run (1986) volumes for the AM and PM peak hour and daily conditions were adjusted for differences between the proposed land uses 1n Zones 11 and 12 and those assumed in the model. These volumes were used to identify improvement needs at buildout of the City -of Carlsbad. In the year 2010 the intersection of El Camino Real and Levante Street and the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose will require additional improvements. No additional road segment improvements are required. .. -~· r I IOIIB 11 A11D 12 CillCDLAUOII DIS'HIIG lfiD'i'Od RANCHO SANTA PE ROAD • Melrose to SDG&E Easement Three lanes with an A.C. berm on both sides. • SDG&E Easement ·to La Costa Vale Subdivision Two lanes with an A.C. berm on both sides. • La Costa Vale Subdivision to La Costa Avenue Two lanes with concrete curb and gutter on both sides. • La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Six lanes with a raised median with concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. • Olivenhain to City Limits Two lanes with an A.C. berm on both sides.- LA CO$TA AVENUE 0 I-5 to El camino Real Two lanes with an A.C~ berm on both sid•s 0 El Camino Real to Roaeria Pour. lanes with concrete curb, gutter, and intermitten sidewalk on both sides. 0 Romeria to Rancho Santa Fe Road Three lanes with a stripped median with·concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. 0 Rancho Santa Pe Road to Calle Lomas Verde Pour lanes with a concrete curb and gutter on both sides and a concrete sidewalk on the south side. CALLE LOMAS VERDE 0 La Costa to Rancho Santa Fe Road Pour lanes w~tb a stripped median with a concrete cu.rb, gutter, and. sidewalk on both sides. 1 of 2 CI RCULA'l'I ON Zones 11 and 12 January 18, 1988 Page Two OLIVENBAIN ·o Rancho Santa Fe Road to West Boundary of fonderosa Subdivision !'our lanes with a stripped median with a c·oncrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides. 0 west boundary of Ponderosa subdivision to Bl Camino Real · Two lanes • BL CAMINO REAL 0 Olivenhain to Levante Pour lanes with a stripped median with an A.C. berm on both aides. 0 Levante to La Costa Avenue Pive lanes with a stripped median.with a concrete curb, gutter, and sid•walk on the east side and an A.C. berm on the west aide. 2 of .2 _C C C APPDDIX 81 Pill -STA'lIOR RO. 6 COST BSTINA'lBS DIIBLLIIIG OBITS Otr.rSIDB PIBB RBSPORSB TIIIB C ELM AVSNUE . .SIAD, CA 92008-ta TELEPHONE (919t 438-5521 C ·C Citp of «:arl-'&ab FIRE DEPARTMENT January 20, 1987 William N. Hofman 6994 El Canino Real, Suite 208G Carlsbad, CA 92008 S/E LA COSTA nu STATION COSTS Dear Bill: At.your request, here is our best estimate of the coats associated with buildin1, equipping, and operating this project. The coats are projected iD Fiscal 87/88 dollars. · The revised lire Departunt five year plan now calls for couatruction of this fir• atation iD liscal ·89/90, scheduled to open mid year (1/90). I hope this infonaation uets your requirnenta, I look forward to working with you further on thu project. Plus• feel fr•• to call with any questiou. · Sincerely, --lt~ J~h;;- s. W. GAI.Y . _,. Battali011 Chief, Adm:f.niatrative Services Carlsbad Jira Dapartaent •lh !nclosurH c: Jill Thompson Phil carter Jia Hagaman C STATION 6 -S/! LA COSTA . · ·. · · .:-. · ---.·:=._ .. COST ANALYSIS ------January 1987 .. -.... I. Lad 0 II. lllprovemanta. Site 70.000 fnp. Eng. III •. Ilda. C011struct:Lon 350.000 Subtotal 420.000 IV. lira Truck 1851000 Physical Plant Total $6051000 I. Operatin1 Costa (laintaunce/Vtilitiaa) II. Personnel (9 loaitiona) (Salari••• Benefits. Overtime) • a.ooo ~otal Operatiq $509,250 *Bat111ated Fiacal 87/88 Dollars DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF FIRE STATION NO. 2 C) 'FIVE MINUTE RESPONSE TIME General Plan Land Use Existing Zone Designation File No. D.U.s 6 RLM NIA 1S 6 RLM NIA 293 6 RLM NIA 288 11 RLM CT 81-16 260 12 RLM CT 73-18 419 12 RLM CT 83-16 170 SUBTOTAL 1445 6 RM N/A 335 6 RM CT 84-23 134 SUBTOTAL 469 6 RMH NIA 278 6 RMH CP 36CA) 172 6 RMH NIA 19 11 RMH CT 84-7 320 SUBTOTAL 789 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS OUTSIDE FIVE MINUTE RESPONSE TIME 2703 C C Source: Local facilities management plan for Zones 6, 11, and 12. ------------------------- C APPBllDIX 9: OPBR SPACE -OIIRBBS AmllORIIA~IOll C C --,~:tJ·· ~~:.J--~i. _.-. t·l . J./1 ------_____ __.;..-~------__ /'_ .. ,,. _.,.--· . ' ·' ~-·•' .. · ~ ,,. ---~,,_,.,.,.... , ·' •' ~-,:;;...--<:,--:'""'~-:":--:-~::.~.!:::::.-__ ;,---.,: -. .---__ ,,,,,,/ . . ,, ..... ,.~--~·- --- ---.[ --.. -. ......... ' . , -:.L.::' ~~~ _,.._,..; .. :. >"';.,: ~k'>, \ i ,./ . ) / /. / ,.---;::.. . / ..... -; ,: , / / . i ,:::;·::;:;!::..:;:", :\, ____ \\ I '/ / / '._.'' / ·--"' A / ( _.. ... / _.---·-·-· -, .. , -, , ' ;·;, , I✓ I , I .,.' I l'/, ,:' !j,;1 /, . _,'/ /,f, 11 ·•1 I ,? /1{ / ,1/ /.'' ,./ //.1>:, , // 1'/· ! .'> /; ·//"•, I 'l t. • • I / /: ,f ,' ,' I I /1 ,/,' ,' .'1:1.,,. ' I I I ' I , ; , ,' ,' :1' I , , , I -} · Pi ,' / /:i ~ I I I • ', :' I ; , \ • I ' I \ j ·---7 ) I i i \ , I ; l / ,' i ! l I ,I I ( ! \ \ . ' / _,. ,• / , ,,,,,,,. ,~ .-· ,./ \~.~ / _, . ~- / ._: ~--'' ~ .I /// , ,. , _, --· ,• --· ,f/· . ,,, .// ..;.-,- _,,, .. ~/' ~_I /" . , ~-···--.. - ' / ' /4'/ ~// ..... --a. __________ ............... . i - \. ' '\ / • r-·'· .. I.-', .; ' l \ \ .. .\ ' ·-...,~ '•, :'<~ ··,.... . > ··-~:<.,· -.............. ~ ...... -..... . ,, / . .~ .. ... ~\:>~:;:~<~: ~·~.;• ~ v,t l lff ~- ...... tfi,..'• JI ------------------------------------------------ C. .,,.-;. .... -·~ ' :_ ... •. ! , ✓.) • ,,__-- .. ,.,..... .,,,, ... -"'"" ... . / ,,,,. ,/ _, _,,_ . ·L~✓-··· /··•·-:·:r.:' __ -· •' . . _; ,~ , ·" . ,..-·r.:z..·~-. ,, - .· .,.\U:1/. -_:: -----· t,§JI~ ,,I .I __,/ ,,,._ ,,. . .. . ,,.. . , -··-",) {<'.>•fi:Jfq¼ \ · \ . ·. ---::: ---·· / /'.· ;_~:-~·-?<~~~··~) . . ~:==.-. .j I l .· /,.. ;,<: .--:-~.:.·:::_;:-%~-· ~--·· ·=····· .• T<t~t_~\=~!~l~=~:=~=;~~-~ -::-:.:·::::~-·, .• ,. .,\ , -•i i I l-\ \ J. :\ \ \· -~--. \ \. \ C r 5.DG il (J5tlla1 -.,· -~.:, 1•Rt!'ff--', ~ 200' SCALE C.T. 85-10 RICE PROPERTY I • .-,.-;;.-;.::· /,,r / ~;/ ~, -.... ~ ' .f · ; ]\.~ .-!l:; ·1\·· ,, .. -j4f,5 , . . . \t \ ~ I j \) ---.911,' -~-~ . \ ----' :::t.. \. 2 -....~ • .... . 4 ----~-~-. \" . . ·. Ill, ,.· •, . ......-..... .......... . .. ., . ~ ... 31' ~o ,t "() oJ I 1 ) -l I i i i ! ~' l //.:_ II. ·._:>~ 23_ ~ . Ito at, ~4 ~o.· 2~~0 0,P~· . St>AJII ,..,.. ,, ~< ·-,~ .... ~~ I J ,I;' ~I , f>z.O // . ) . ', I ~ : : r'. 11' . ...., r ,i;N 5pp.C,E ✓#l I .r,1 r __ _pe ~ ;,/,,.K. ! ., 4 -----· i . "". 1>J~J1. ' ''// . ,,,(k_r, f • \ // \ ... \Yl,_.{:,\:·~}i ,J\ l .· --~~ -:. ~! II ',· z .j / :;~--' ,' r_f' . . ' . I . . . ., '. ii .1/I r L. '1 ~ .. . . .... . • f ' . ~ .' $ . , " t :' .- <,j I ; _: . . ' . ,,_;, .· '· _' / I . ' ! / ·~ 21 { ' 2 9_.0 1 \ z..i,\ \, . l J . \ t .28 .\ . ; \ · \.' ,,. ... ~ . C C C APPDDIX 10: SCHOOLS -LBftBBS PRON BUBSD ARD SAR DIBGUITO BIGB SCBOOL DismIC'l'. ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Dll'nUC'f OfflCl ·1aev111o11S1J..t s-itaa. CA 92024 (119)~ IIOAJD 0, TJIUSTDB November 24, 1987 Mr. Phil carter Sr. Management Analyst CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Los Palmas Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Zone 11 and· 12 Dear Mr. Carter: Mery Jo lfortll,p, ,,,.,,,._ WllllaaCadl,c:r.,,t ~J . .......,,"'--v .. iw.,,u..;..r ..... SclNll.,u..;..r DoMldl.~Supma........., -Bo,ud ~ We have received and reviewed the analysis for Zone 11 and 12 related to school facilities and concur with the findings of the plan as it relates to Encinitas Union School District. For clarification, this is the second letter I am sending; I wouldn't want to you think I was delinquent in responding. Sincerely; /;t?UL/'/' ~fla'dlCk/ Donald E. Lindstrom Superintendent cc: Bill Hoffman □ CAPRI MICaprill,,ad &,,,,11111 .. ~ IM4-4J80 s ... Coyle l'tacipo/ D FLOUVISTA lteO Wuclalla9 .... Eaataila 9aoa4 MM32II .,O'Taoi. Prlocipol □ LA COSfA HIIGHTI 303l1Maawll...i C.W-92009 IM-4375 ...,w,i. ,,,_,,. □ OCUN UfOU. tlOW.iballoAd laalailaoll20a4 944-4351 ._ Delfltcti.11 ,,._,,,,,, 0 PACIFICV!IW C PAlllt DALI LAJII □ PAUL ICDCllfflW. IOl'l'llltdlb..i 2090hd,D.i.LMe 1asu.-._. lactaltMno:M laidmta92024 laclallN9ao24 IM-4339 ~ 944.4333 KayNc..u, Qoe._llyu 1-alMlo,la ,,,..... IW,ioipGI ........., --c C December 10, 1987 Mr. Mike Howes Senior Planner City of Carlsbad San Marcos Uni ied School District 270 San Marcos Bluel., San Marcos, California 92069-2797 619-744-4n6 2075 Las Palmas Or. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: ZONE 11 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN -SCHOOL FACILITIES Oear Mr. Howes: The San Marcos Unified School District has been meeting with La Costa Ranch Co. and their consultants to address the concerns we have raised in our response to Zone 11. Based upon those meetings, the District recommends the following mitigation measure be a condition of approval for the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan: •Prior to the approval of a final map for any projects within the San Marcos Unified School District the following shall have been accomplished: 1. The deeding of an acceptable school site to the San Marcos Unified School District. 2. The financing and construction of a school shall be guarant$ed to the District. This guarantee shall be In the form of bonding, cash deposit or some other form of security acceptable to the District.• The District appreciates the cooperation we have recfeved from the La Costa Ranch Co •• Bill Hofman and the staff at the City of Carlsbad. Should you have any questions regarding our proposed condition of approval please contact me.• Sincerely, A(!j__ ray A. Okun Faclllties Administrator cc: Bill Hofman C C C 825 North Vulcan Avenue Leucadia, Callfornla 92024 819/753-8491 November 12, 1987 City of Carlsbad Planning Department Lance B. Schulte 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad CA 92009-4859 · .San .... 01egu1lo Union High School District .. SUBJECT: Response to Zone 11 and Zone 12 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Mr. Schulte: I. Zone 11 Plan, Your letter of 9/24/87. Page 81 "Conclus'ions: the.mechanisms for obtaining funding for the construction of the new.high school are in place" Suggested change: "Conclusions: Developer fees and other sources of local funding will provide approximately half the cost of the proposed senior high school. State funds and/or other financing alternatives will be required to complete the facility. Page 80, top of page" ••• Mr. William Berrier, that this school will not be needed in the near .future, and perhaps not for 10 years." Suggested change: " ••• Mr.William Berrier, that this school will not be needed in the immediate future." II. Zone 12 Plan, Your .letter of 9/24/87. Page 67 "Conclusion: the mechanisms for obtaining funding for the construction of the new high school are in place." Suggested change: · "Conclusions: Developer fees and other sources of funding will provide for approximately half the cost of the proposed senior high school and approximately 10% of the proposed junior high school. State funds and/or other financing mechanisms will be required to complete the needed facilities. .I.._, l' . ..... C C C II Mr. Lance B. Schulte Page 2 November 12, 1987 - Page 62c, top of page" ••• Mr. William Berrier, that this school will not be needed in the near future, and perhaps not for 10 years." Suggested change: " ••• Mr. William Berrier, that this school will not be needed in the immediate future." III. General Comment: The information presented is accurate with the above changes included. the district ability to provide school facilities concurrent with need depends upon available local and state funding. District policy is to explore every available source of funding and to make application for construction funds as necessary. At present we monitor construction through the building permit process. It would be.helpful if the City of Carlsbad were to make forward predictions on single family and multiple family residential construction. With forward predictions we can better anticipate when specific facilities will be needed. IV. Summary: Your management plans will be of considerable assistance to the district in their future planning. You are to be congratulated for the thoroughness and detail of the zone plans. Sincerely, William. A. Berrier Superintendent WAB/jms cc: Mr. Eric Hall Mr. Rodney E.-Phillips ,· i I .. I C C C APPDDIX 11: SBIIBR -DBNUDS l'R<II SBIIBR IIASTBR PI.All SBWBR COS'! BS'lIIIA'rBS C PNIIDINT _._ 11111'1-■ GJID VICI tt IIIJINT ....... Ltlllll- OIMClallll IDNLIYA.IUNII MLl--u,w,...._, G...,.._ MMMIIII aLIAIIW. .... ATn:INCt .,......,...,._ C· C san marcos county water district PHONI! (111t 7....0., • 781 SAN MARCOS BOULIVAAD • SAN MARC:;08, CAUPOIIINfA NIIII DLem er 15, 1987 Ifs. Qmyl ~ Rick ~ O'laplay 36!5 sazt:b Bancb:., sant:a Pa Rm! SUita 100 San MIIJ:'Qal, ca. s20ss a: san N'Ec0II o:uney water District 11198& 1111:er am SelM1:' Maatar Plan" UJiXm raviar of tba prcp2lld e:t:mf'ttal to tba City .ot CRlsbld far their "Iccal Paciliti.1111 llmagl&,e,t Plan, ZClnll 1111, the f0.ll.olmlJ is p:ovidm far yar intm:matial. 'Im District'• Mlstllr Plan dccne◄:d:s ut1J i zad in tba stuay wm:a pr;apartd far tba District by NB9/I0WZY, :bcwlavlB.-.. ya1 baV8 imicatad, t:bl District: baa mt ~ ar appmvm tba tba llt:L11y. District: at:att 1s in the ~··· of mviadn; tba a:ntaut of tba llb:dy to cx:nfi.m tba design pm:amat:&,I am t'acfJi+J.aa ~- ~ am partiaw of tba atmy midl haft belll nt:f l 1ze1 bf tba District fer tac:l.lity -t!111M-. '!bl pc unit dllllrdll fer watar a:mmap:im and. unit fl.CIII far .._, 11IMI •beln partially ~ by tba Dim:ict. 'l1wla ~ my J:le Ulllld tar, tba Olrlsted stL1:!y • a plann:ln;r teal. Aa imicatad in ya.Jr tlipltt;, tba District bas imtalled all Jlllljcr watar b.FwfMiQft aJm in tba ana of ·r.a. u .. Partiaw of tbw fac:IJitila also pcavida am:vica to tba o:.ta Raal Hmicipll 1lltllr D1strict · for . ilm:vica to CLTlshed. 'DJa District doall br::lanr pwpca. . lllliticml temiml st:arage far tba !h1ddrl.ark IIIICVica ana wbid1 in::ludee Zc:m 11. I0cal di.tri1:utim syst:w tar davel.cpilmt in ti. --sha] J ba basacl m paaJc daaestic damu1ds am ara naw raquhamnta. · 'Iba District's Maedclf1arJc Rllclmticn Facility will p:ayida tr..blmt tac:ilities :rcr tm gravity flCII · ~ za. u. 'Iba npart 1nlicatlls that tba Diatdct bas ..,_t.a taciJ.11:iea in tba area to tba ultbata flew ftcll faa1II ll. 'Iba District dma haw collec:tim taci J f,+J.aa in Blncb0 Santa Fa Bead m1 Mall:0lle Avaua, -bowllvar t.bla fac:1 J 1tiaa ara JJmited in capecl.ty m1 will mqu:iza upgrading in t!Ja tatura to al.low f~ bd ldc:m:. 'Iba nat fac11 itias nquind will tie ravielwad by tba District • danlopaut plans an lllda available. WATUI -1A11C TO-UflLHIAI.TH-.AHD 1"0Clflllll, C· son marcos county water district PHONI (11ft 7....., • 711 SAN MAfl00B IOULIVAAD • SAN MAAC0S, CALll'ORNIA- C1c+F14 er 15, 1987 Xs. QJEyl ~ pa;e 2 'Dla pu.crcad h1Udolt water daan:ls an1 ...,_. ganm:aticm tiglmla in:licatad. in tba np:1: baVa net bam O"lll)lataly J:llrieuad by District: staff, an:111111!/ c:banJa in tba rut:ura with speci,ticp:t:Jjacts. '11la dnmc:t.n; of tm nq.w:ed wt£' am ....-tac:11 t"tias for davalqwlt in tba ana of Za1I 11 llball i:. lxa:m by ptivata daval.q:llmnt. 'Jm cl1ly CXbiPUm ta tbis 11111!/ i:. tba additicn of t.tll:adml atata.,-far t:ba m:a . in 'lild.cb tba Diatric:t 11111!/ part::k:ipate in tba coat. All p:ajects pcq»NCl within -Zema 11 sball ta J:'IIYUllllld by tba Dist:rlct, m1 t:b1 tmal datam1ratia1 u to tac1] 1~ nq.w:ed ahaJ J bl 1lllda by tba District:. Deb davalqDmt will ba xaquh-m ta install ec!egata fac:J.J 1:t"ies Clplble al pz.-ovidjnJ pale daallrm far bath lllt:ar ~ mi .... callectian. ccnta::t t1w 48! er Hr. Br:ian smith at tba District if t:hera 111'9 art/ cplllticnl. Sin::m:'9ly, San Mm:a:a Oll.mty watar District: ~a;,;;~ O.Ianb ~ Taeh. II cot/ds a:: Brian Sllith, IDC Garia . , C2wlf l!ng:imc 't"IATU -IIAIC 10...UPLHULTMM.AND PNXIIIIIL C C C Determine: LAND OSB RL - RLN RN RMB 17 2 C PAU PC 'fS 8/S a-1 a-1-15 RLK c-2 101'1111 SBWBR (JOB NUMBER 7950-A) PBBROAllY 3, 1987 OltiJDate average sewer flow projected in the LCWD Planning Study* for the area in Zone 11 served by LCWD. Zone 11· -is located within LCWD drainage zones 8 and 10. 'l'he following was extrapolated from the appendix of the LCWD Planning Study: ACRBS BDO/ACU DL~ llm'a Area Within Zone 8 •- 352 1.5 528 241 4 •. 0 964 27 10.0 270 34 20.0 180 10 0.5 35 22 1.0 22 29 ,.25 181.25 28 0 0 89 3.49 310.CSl 34 2.94 99.96 ' 0 0 60 1.4 84 Area Within Drainage Zone 10 23 3.1 71.3 26 0.62 16.12 161 4.0 164.0 7 ,.2s 43.75 TO'?AL 3970 IDU's Average sewer flow• 238 GPD/BDD Oltimate average sewer flow• 238GPD/BDU z 39701D0 • 944,900GPD • 0.95 MGD ••Planning Study Leucadia County Water District•, lngineering Science, September, 1985. C C ZOHB 11 sma (JOB RUNBBR 7950-A) PBBRUARY 3, 1987 Determine: Ultimate average sewer flow projected in the SMCWD Master .flan** for area in Zone 11 served by SNCWD. LARD OSI RLM 1tL RM OS 'lbe _following demand was derived froa extrapolating information fr011 the SMCIID Master Plan and conversations with Gene Madison, SIICWD Bn9inee~: OllI'Jt DLTJMATR ACUS -DO/ACU DO DD.ARD DBNABD - 63.1 ' -254 280GPD/DO 71,100 GPD 286.4 2 573 280GPD/IXJ . 160,400 GPD · 12.1 10 121 2'40GPD/DO 29,000 GPD 53.1 --------- Tm.AL 210,soo GPD • 0.26 MGD •••san·Narcoa County Water District Water and Sewer Master Plan, Volume 1•, 1188/Lowi-:r, Aaguat, 1986. C C· C ZONE ll SEWER COST ESTIMATES (JOB NUMBER 7950-A) December; 14, 1987 PBASBS A, C, DD B Sewer facilities will be provided at the ti• of development to the satisfaction of the appropriate sewer district. ·~· 8 Proposed 12-inch sewer from the existing stub in Calle Lous Verde to the existing stub north of Calle Lomas Verde. ill!! Quantity Unit Pricel Cost - 12• Sewer 2,200 LP $ 34/LP $ 74,800 Main Manhole 9 BA 1,920/BA 17,300 TOTAL $ 92 ,199 · :eusa D Proposed 12-inch sewer from the existing stub north of Calle Lomas Verde to the existing stub in·La Costa Avenue. .ill!! Quantity Unit Pricel Cost - 12• Sewer 1,400 LP $ 34/LP $ 47,600 Main Manhole 6 IA 1,920/IA 11,soo TOTAL $ 59 ,199 PUSS P Proposed pump station located in southeast portion of Zone 11. ~ guantity Unit Price2 ~ Pump Station, 1 BA $ 200,000/IA $ 200,000 Poree Main, and Trunk Line. TOTAL $ a00 ,000 1 Unit price from City of San Diego, •onit Prices for Checking Subdivision and Permits,• March 1, 1985. 2 Pump station cost estimate from Greg McBain, of Bngineering Science, dated Pebruary 2, 1987. C C C APPBRDIX 12: WATER -DBIIANDS PROII WATER DIS'l'R.ICT IIASTBR PLAN WATER COSTS ESTIMATES Olivenhain Municipal Water District BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ann L. Peay. Presidenr Howard G. Go/em, Vice Presidenr Hariey L. Oenlc. Secretary 1966 OUVENHAIN ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024-9761 PHONE !619) 753-6466 H1Jro/d L. Gano, Treasurer Theima ~-Miller, Director Nock ~ Cc:apmy 365 SolJth Ralldx> Santa :re a>ad SUita·lOO San .Mar0os, caUftmtla 92069 · sr.JBJ!C'.r: City of earl sbld 15 Caailtmx' 1987 Ia:al Pacili:ty MmagaDent. Plan (UMP) b,es 11 and 12 GE.'IERAL COUNSEL Smith ond P.altz~r ENGINEER Bo~-le Engineering Corp. MANAGER William H. Hoilingsworrh T!a District has planned for an ultimate biilcbtt QIP'biliey of ten (10) average days of storage. 'D1e District airrently bas sufficient storage capacity to serve its needs as detem:ined by policies of the Boaxd of Dixect:ors. These criteria as,ly to both UMP Z0nes 11 and 12. I- If them a.re aDf -questicns cancm:niDJ this atter, the undersigned abculd be cxntacted. otIVDIIAIH !IJNICIPAL WMS D~ P.D •. Pcntanas! .Ganeral SeJ:vices Director FOF:lJQn .l. i'IIOhc Agency 1nc.ll'c-1rateu ~11 \tan;!! 24. :9:1: 'orr:"d!o u.,oer •~e "-irt1!1-lt W~:o:' 01srrtr.: ~.1·" -if :,, ! Section ;:ooo lit UQ. <JI me 31a11 at c.;,:-mua ,~let C~e C c· C Determines LARD OSI RIJI RL BM 1UUl a .PAU I 0 TS C ZORB 11. WATBR (JOB RUMBBR 7950-A) PBBRUARY 3, 1987 Ultimate aver age wa tar demand projected in the 0MWD Maater Plan* for area in Iona 11 ■ervad by OMWD. '!ha following was extrapolated from Bzbiblt A in the OIIWD Master Plan. ULTDIATB ORI'f OL'l'IJIATB GROSS AClllS DU'S DBIIAHD DIIWID 405 1,120 55!5 GPD/DU 899 ,_100 GPD 470 705 555 GPD/DU 391,300 GPD 43 430 555 QPD/DO 238,100 GPD 54 1,080 450 GPD/DO 481,000 GPD 77 -----1,250 Gl'D/AC 96,300 GPD 28 ---625 G:PD/AC 17,500 GPD 10 ---1,250 GPD/AC 12,500 GPD 15 -----2,500 GPD/AC 37,500 GPD 13 -------2,500 GPO/AC 32,500 GPD 42 --2,500 GPD/AC 105,000 GPO '!OTAL 2,316,300 GPD -2. 32 .. J(GD ••water System Analysis Por The Planned Development of La Coat.a Within The Olivenbain Municipal Water District•, Boyle Bngineering Corp., Rovellbar, 1975.- C C" ZO!IB 11 WATBR (JOB !IUMBBR 7950-A) PDROARY 3, 1987 Determines Ultimate average water demand projected in the SMCWD Master Plan•• for area in Zone 11 ••rvad by SNCWD. LUD OSB RIJI RN ar. OS '!be following demand vu derived from extrapolating information fro■ the SIICWD Ma■ter flan and conversations with SMOID engineer, Gene Madison: GROSS ACRBS OBIT DIMAIID OL'?IIIA'!B DBMARJ> 118.3 1,300 GPD/AC 153 , 800· GPD 12.1 2,000 GPD/AC 24,200 GPD 345.8 1,000 GPD/AC 345,800 GPD 124.2 --~---____ ,... _ _,_ 1'0'?AL . 523,800 GPD • 0.52 MGD •••san Marcos County Water District Water and Sever Master Plan, Voluae 1•, RBS/Lowry, August, 198&. CC1cea/0004 C C PIIASB A ZOHB 11 WATBll COST D'l'I:IIA'l'ES (JOB RtJDBI. 7950-.A) Decembet l4r ltli Proposed 12-inch wate.r main f.roa .t.be exiat:.int water aain in Corintia Street to Bl Fuerte. Item Quantity U,nit Rr l eel Coat -- 12• Water ,,soo u2 $ 26/U· $ 117,000 Main Pire Hydrant 9 BA 2,800/BA ·2s,200 Blow-off 2 BA 2,200/BA 4,400 Assembly Valve 5 BA 1,600/BA a,ooo 'l'OTAL .$ 15 1,199 PBASB B Water f aci li ties will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District. PIIASB C A portion of the proposed 16-incb water main f:ro11 the existing stub in Calle Acervo to the existing water main in -Rancho Santa Pe Road and the proposed 12-incb water main from the existing stub in Calle Barcelona to the existing water main in Calle Acervo. Item - 12• Water Main 1&• Water Main Quantity 1,100 LP · 2,000 LP Unit Pricel Cost - 26/LF $ 28,600 50/LP 100,000 1 Unit price from Olivenhain Municipal Water District, •unit Price for Bati11at:ln9 Aaount of Secu.ritf for Subdivision Water Systea Agr-ee•nt, • . February 1, · 198,. 2 Linear feet. PBASB C (continued) rn Quantity Pire Hydrant 5 EA Blow-off Assembly Valve PUSS D 3 IA -Siiit Pricel 2,8'08/~ %~2bO/IA Coat -$ l4,0QO. t,uo ,, ~;.1,1°0 A portion of the propoa-ed 1s·;.1nch va~r •in r:c011 the existing stub in Calle Acervo to the e¥i9ting wit.e:c main in Rancho Sant.a Pe Road. ~ 16• Water Main Fire Hydrant Valve PIIASB B Quantity· 2,000 LP 4 BA 2 IA Oilit .Pcicel $ ,.:, SO/LP 2-,aoc:i1BA l,.600)'IA TCnAL Coat - $ 100.000 11,200 3,200 $111,199 A portion of the propoae4 16.;.inch water min f.roa the existing stub in Calle Acervo to the existing water mai~ in llancbo Santa Pe Road. Item - 16• Water Main Pire Hydrant Blow-off Assembly Valve PIIASB I Quantity 2,000 LP 4 IA Unit Pricel $ 50/LP 2,800/BA 2,200/EA 1,600/BA '!O'nL Cost - $100,000 11,200 2,200 $ 11§,§99 Water facilities will be provided at the time of development to the satisfaction of the-Olivenbain Municipal Water Diatrict.