The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; Zone 5; LFMP Zone 5 Park Fees; 1987-10-01I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Carlsbad I California Ill.r* - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT ON LWAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 5 - PARK FEES Sub-committee Members: Commissioner Donovan Commissioner Po povi c h Zone 5 Developers' Representative: I Mr, Mark Hughes I October 1987 I 1 I 1 8 I I I I I I Management Ordinance ................... A-14 I I I I I I TABLE! OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ 1 11. BACKGROUND 2 ............................... 111. NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................... 2 IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION 5 ......... V. FACILITIES ............................... 6 VI. FEE 7 ...................................... VII. GOLF COURSE 8 .............................. I APPENDIX: A. Growth Management Zone Map with Zone 5 Highlighted ..................... A-1 B. SANDAG Survey A-2 I C. Analysis/Research Limited Survey ......... A-4 ............................ D. Section 21.90.050 of the Growth E. Letter from David Bradstreet to the Zone 5 Sub-Committee regarding the development of a Golf Course A-16 ........... I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sub-committee studied each of the four issues which the City Council direc staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Committee's conclusions and recommendations are as follows: NEEDS ASSESSMENT From current use information and the results of two, independ surveys, the Committee concluded that a recreational dema which the City should address, does exist in Zone 5. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION Based on the concentration of employees in Zone 5 and the abil to locate facilities in close proximity to this concentrati the Committee recommends that the proposed fee be applied at zone level. FACILITIES The Committee recommends that the following active recreatio (hereinafter referred to as I'Comrnittee") I 1 facilities be developed: 7,500-10,000 square foot fitness center 1 swimming pool 3 ball fields (lighted) 3 full-size basketball courts (lighted) 6 tennis courts (lighted) 4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted) I These facilities could be placed on one site, or several si and 15 acres to accommodate these facilities at a total cost between $5.8 and 8.9 million. FEE Based on the above program the Committee recommends that a fee 40 cents per square foot be assessed on all building permits Zone 5 pursuant to Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Managem Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE The Committee is aware of the drawbacks of assessing collecting a development fee to pay for the timely construct of recreational facilities. The developers have proposed alternative whereby they would design and build the facilities front on city (Macario Canyon) and/or County owned land. ' Committee believes that such an alternative has potent benefits, to both the City and the developers, and recommei that the City explore this option. throughout the industrial corridor. It would require betweel 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 11. BACKGROUND Zone 5 contains no residential development. The Gro Management Performance Standard for Parks, which only addres residential demand, does not apply in this zone. However, st felt a recreational demand was being generated by the n residential employees in Zone 5 which was not being satisfied the employers and is impacting City park facilities designed meet residential demand. Currently there are 8,000 employees zone 5; at buildout there will be a minimum of 40,000, St felt the situation would get progressively worse without c intervention. Therefore, in the Local Facilities Management P for Zone 5, a development fee to pay for active recreatio facilities to meet non-residential demand was introduced. At the June and July Parks and Recreation Commission meeti this fee was discussed. On August 4, 1987 a recommendation of cents per square foot was presented to the City Council. Af considerable public input and Council discussion, Coun supported the concept of a park fee but asked that several iss be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, namely: Needs assessment Citywide versus zone application Facilities to be developed Amount of fee to be assessed At the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting a s' committee (hereinafter referred to as ItCommitteeti) was formed study these issues. Commissioners Donovan and Popovich w appointed to the Committee. Mr. Mark Hughes, Director Marketing for Centre Development was invited to represent . developers of Zone 5, David Bradstreet, Keith Beverly, Michi Holzmilier, Philip Carter and Grace Manues provided st support. The following report details the conclusions of the Committee. I 111. NEEDS ASSESSMENT To quantify the current, non-residential, recreational demand Zone 5, the city asked SANDAG to conduct a survey, The foi question postcard on page 3 was drafted by City staff i reviewed by SANDAG. 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY The City of Carirbad Is conducting thlr Survey to determine and provlde for the recreational needs of the lndurtrlal populatlon In Carlsbad. Please complete and return this portage-pald card by September 18th. 1. Doer your employer currently offer any on-rite recreational I I I i I 1 I facllitler/programr? 1 Yes (speclfy) 2 No Carltbad park laclIlties/recreatlon programs? 1 None 3 5to8 5 13tO 16 2. 1 to 4 4 9to 12 6 17ormore 1 Ball Fields 5 Picnlc Areas 9. Other (speclfy) 2 Fitness Center 6 Running Tracks 3 Golf Course 7 Swlrnrnlng Pool 10 None 4 Gymnasium 8 Tennls Courts 1. Yes 2 No 2, On a monthly basil, how many days de you personally utlllte City of 3. What recreational facilltles would you like developed to meet your needs? 4. Are you a Carlsbad rerldent? Thank you! i I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 Using the survey results, it is projected that at buildou minimum of 25,000 non-residents will be employed in Zone 5, which half will use City park facilities. In addition to the SANDAG survey, the developers commissione survey through Analysis/Research Limited (A/RL) . (A COPY of survey is provided in the Appendix.) A total of questionnaires were distributed, of which 204 were returned fc response rate of 51%. The results of the two surveys w similar. A/RL reported similar percentages to the reside question and the question regarding employer provided faciliti In both surveys, approximately one-fourth responded they p golf. A/RL determined that "...most people who work in Zone participate in recreational activities in their spare time, that most of these people prefer to engage in their recreatio activities near their home." However, the Executive Summary g i on to conclude: "Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 might include a jogging track and/or "par course" (i.e. jogging track with exercise/workout stations along the path). Such a track should be able to be lengthened or expanded as the park area grows. Combination tennis/basketball courts would accommodate a significant percentage of the Zone 5 employees. Cycling paths through the complex might also be considered, as well as outdoor walled racquet courts (for racquetball and handball). Study findings warrant consideration of an indoor exercise center to be used by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after work. Such a facility might include areas for exercise machines, weight training, and aerobic dance or exercise." In addition to these surveys, an analysis of all adult spo: teams which competed in City leagues during fiscal year 1986-1 indicated that 16.7% were sponsored by Carlsbad industry. Of 1 total adult participation of 3,355, 69% were not Carlsl residents and 560 participants were from industrial sponso: teams. Park facility use by industry, primarily for company picnic from July 1, 1987 through September 13, 1987 netted 1,4 participants and 56 hours of facility use. The recent opening Stagecoach Park gymnasium has also attracted industrial employe during the noon hour for recreation play. An eleven-day sur\ period from August 21 through September 4, 1987 (excludj 4 I I I 1 1 i I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I weekends) netted 46 participants logging 276 hours of use. These statistics are evidence of the recreational dem generated by the influx of employees in Zone 5. IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION The need for recreational facilities in the industrial corri is based on the concentration of industrial land use in this location. At buildout, it will generate a workday population at least 40,000 employees. This situation does not apply commercial and office land uses which are dispersed in m smaller areas throughout the city. It would be difficult establish the relationship requiring commercial and office us1 especially in the most northerly and southerly parts of the ci to fund a recreational park in the industrial corridor which located in the center of the City. Also, when the Parks and Recreation Element of the General P was updated in 1982, it recognized the concentration industrial land use and the resultant concentration of employes It contains policy statements specifically encouraging industr: developments to provide recreational facilities for their day 1 population. The Element does not contain any similar pol: statements relating to commercial or office. The most defensik justification for requiring new development standards or exact] fees is where it is supported specifically by policy statemer, As it is the intent of this report to reflect the opinions of a participants, it should be noted that the developers are not total agreement with the decision of the Committee. The developers understand the practical aspect of assessing t fee on a zone level. However, they disagree with the equity such a fee. They argue that employees of commercial developme throughout the City also impact the City recreational progra but simply because these employees are not as concentrated, t developments are not being assessed. With regard to the General Plan, the developers do not feel t! word nencourage" equates to assessing a fee. The Planni. Director's response was that the General Plan consists of brol policy statements rather than specific action plans. assessing a fee, or by negotiating with developers for t. construction of recreational facilities, the City can be assur that the recreational needs of the employees in the industrii 1 in the General Plan. I corridor will be met. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I V. FACILITIES Based on the results of the SANDAG Survey, the A/RL Survey current facility use information, the following active recreational facilities be developed: the Committee recommends t I 7,500-10,000 square foot fitness center 3 ball fields (lighted) 3 full-size basketball courts (lighted) 6 tennis courts (lighted) 1 swimming pool" I 4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted) These facilities could be placed on one site, or several si located throughout the industrial corridor. Staff estimates t it will require between 8 and 15 acres to accommodate th facilities. square foot, or approximately $350,000 per acre. Staff estima the cost of developing the facilities at $115,000 per acre, p $2,000,000 for development of the fitness center and swimm pool. Therefore, the total cost of the recommended program wo' be $5.8 - 8.9 million, depending on the acreage required. Mark Hughes suggested an acquisition cost of $8 I 8 acres 15 acres Acquisition $ 2.8 $ 5.2 1.0 1.7 Development Total in millions $ 5.8 $ 8.9 (Does not include maintenance and operation expenses.) Fitness Center & Pool 2.0 2.0 In addition to the above active recreational facilities, 1 Committee recommends that developers continue to provide pass: recreational facilities (e.g. picnic areas, par courses, 01 space). Such areas are typically a condition of approval. placing such facilities on-site they will best serve t employees. * Mark Hughes' initial understanding was that the swimming PC subsequent meeting, the commissioners indicated that their lnt€ was a swim complex with a 25 to 50 meter pool. Mark Hughes fee that such a complex is above and beyond what is required to me the demand generated by the employees in Zone 5. would be a 3-lane lap pool adjacent to the fitness center. At 6 1 I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I VI. FEE Staff estimates that the program detailed in Section V abc will cost between $5.8 and $8.9 million. The Local Facilit Management Plan for Zone 5 estimates that there is 18,000, square feet remaining to which this fee could be appli Therefore, a fee of between 32 cents and 49 cents per square j would be required. Mark Hughes estimated that the above facilities could be pl; on 10.25 acres and be developed at a cost of $2 million (Wl includes the cost of a lap pool and not a swim complex). estimates yielded a fee of 30.9 cents per square foot. To a1 for inflation, he suggested that a fee of 35 cents per sqi foot be imposed. The Commissioners considered all estimates and compromised c fee of 40 cents per square foot. Therefore, it is recommendation of the Committee that a fee of 40 cents per sq foot be assessed on all building permits in Zone 5 pursuant tc Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Management Ordinance. As an alternative to assessing a fee, have proposed the following: 1. the developers of Zor Allow the development community of Zone 5 to design and build the &sigrrated--€asilitis-s- up front on city (Macario Canyon) and/or County owned bmd.,-/ 2. If the facilities are located in Macario Canyon, have the developers build the extension of Faraday through to the future Cannon Road to access Macario Canyon with the City entering an agreement to reimburse the cost of Faraday through designated PFF funds. Developers -and City cooperate in establishing a Mello- Roos District to front the cost of developing the recreational facilities and Faraday in the immediate future. 4. Include in the Mello-Roos District other Zone 5 designated improvement requirements (e.g., circulation) to insure the continued development of the commercial/industrial land in the Zone. (Which is the source of repayment of the Mello-Roos.) City staff and developers to cooperate in developing a comprehensive plan and time table for approval by the city Council. . . / I r-.---- / I. -'*, 3. 5. The details of this alternative need to be negotiat Commissioners Donovan and Popovich had many concerns i 7 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I questions, as did the developers. One concern was the expensc maintaining and operating these facilities. At this time, City budget has little room to operate additional facilit: There are basically three alternatives to fund the angc expense of these facilities; (1) require the developers to for the M&O, (2) find the money in the City budget, or include that expense in the Mello-Roos District. issues need to be resolved. In order to reach a final agreement, both the City and developers of Zone 5 must benefit. Therefore, it is recommendation of the Committee that the Parks and Recreat Commission advise the City Council to direct staff to enter : negotiations with the developers on their proposed alternatj The final agreement will be brought before the Parks Recreation Commission for review and subsequently to the ( council for approval. If the City Council approves the final agreement then collec If fees will be refunded to the appropriate parties. agreement is not reached between the City and the developer: Zone 5 then the fee shall remain permanent. The Cornmi. recommends that the fee be reviewed on an annual basis to en! that sufficient funds are being collected to pay for facilities detailed in Section V. Such financ VII. GOLF COURSE It should be noted that in the course of these discussions issue of having the developers of Zone 5 construct a golf cot on the County property next to the Public Safety Center has 1 raised. A public, 18-hole, championship golf course would be a tremenc asset to Carlsbad. It would enhance the City's ovei recreational program. It would satisfy a need in the communj Through privitization, the facility would pay for its maintenz these reasons, the Commissioners on the Committee consider golf course to be an attractive amenity. Mark Hughes has repeatedly stated that the developers of Zor are not willing to construct a golf course. A golf course w( not satisfy the recreational demands of the employees in industrial corridor. Also, they feel a golf course would pro\ citywide benefit and as such should be funded by a citywide fc and operation expense and not be a drain on City revenues. 8 I R I I 1 I I APPENDIX I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I @or F 5 ZONE 5 JAN1 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN A- 1 I I 8 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I -- SANDAG SURWY -- The following survey was conducted by SANDAG on behalf of City of Carlsbad. A total of 3,425 surveys were distribute( randomly selected business in Zone 5. 735 surveys were retu for a response rate of 21.5%. It is SANDAGk experience thi response rate of 17% provides a statistically significant Sam Data from other sources (e.g., 1980 Census) also affirms I reliability of the survey. CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY The City of Carlsbad is conducting this survey to determine provide for the recreational needs of the industrial popula in Carlsbad. Please complete and return this postage-paid I by September 18, 1987. Q1: Does your employer currently offer any on-site recreatil facilities/programs? Number of persons responding (cases) = 721. Number of responses = 863, due to multiple answers. % of % of Responses Resp Cases No 451 52.3 62.6 Rec/Fit/Weights 249 28.9 34.5 57 6.6 7.9 Sports 90 10.4 12.5 16 1.9 2.2 863 100.0 119.7 Aerobics I Other Q2: On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally uti City of Carlsbad park facilities/recreation programs? Cases Percent 0 357 49.2 1 to 4 224 30.9 5 to 8 82 11.3 29 4.0 9 to 12 17 2.2 13 to 16 17 or more 16 2.2 100.0 725 A- 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 43: what recreational facilities would you like developed tc meet your needs? Number of persons responding (cases) = 714. Number of responses = 1611, due to multiple answers. % of % of Responses Resp Cases Ballfields 152 9.4 21.3 Fitness Center 231 14.3 32.4 Golf Course 164 10.2 23.0 Gymnasium 124 7.7 17.4 Picnic Area 263 16.3 36.8 Track 12 1 7.5 16.9 27.6 Swimming Pool 197 Tennis 166 10.3 23.2 Other 102 6.3 14.3 I None 5.6 12.7 91 1,611 100.0 225.6 12.2 44: Are you a Carlsbad resident? I Cases Percent Yes 280 38.1 No 455 61.9 735 100.0 A- 3 ANALYSXS A! ESFF;I=Rm =MI RECREATIONAL BERAVIOR ANALYSIS AMOCX; ZONE 5 EFPLQYEES PREPARED FOR "Zrn 5 GRDUP" SEFTEMBER 1987 Skylight Plaza, Suite 180 4655 Ruffner Street San Diego. California 921 11 (619) 268-48 A- 4 I Analysis/Research Limited I I I I I I 1 I I I' 1; BACKGROUND AND PURFOSE OF STUDY The City of Carlsbad is propsinq a fee to Zone 5 developrs for the puqmse of providing recreational and park facilities for primary use by employees in the area. recreational needs of Zone 5 employees. The main prpse of this study is to determine the Specific objectives of this study I include : 1. 2. To determine which near mrk activities are of mst interest to To profile Zone 5 employees reqarding their recreational behavior employees 3. To determine the importance of and satisfaction with miscellaneous services and amenities in the area 4. To determine current levels of satisfaction amonq Carlshad residen employees concerninq recreational facilities and prosrams in Zone 5. To provide a demographic profile of Zone 5 employees. L *' A- 5 halysis/Research Limit& I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I; I 1 I I STUDY mocom The study rewrted herein was conducted durinq the week of SDtember I 1987, with Zone 5 employees in the City of Carlsbad. administered questionnaires were distributed to employees randomly drawn fi various commercial areas in Zone 5. A total of 204 completed cnlestionnairt were returned, representinq a response rate of 51 percent. All distributic and handling of uuestionnaires were conducted by trained interviewers from Four hundred self- I Analysis/Research Limited. Prior to data collection, extensive discussions were held with the clj reqardinq the questionnaire so that all relevant topic areas and infomatic needed wuld be fully covered in the survey. A pretest was then conducted maximize the efficiency of the survey and validity of resmnses. The marqin of error for the study is plus or minus 6.5 percentaqe pin at a confidence level of 95 percent. A- 6 - I Analysis/Research Limited I I I I 1 I I .facility. I EXECUTIVE FINDINGS AND RFXI”ENDATI0NS The Executive Findings and Recammendations will address the objectives of the study as previously mentioned, i.e. the assessment of the needs of recreational facilities for people employed in the Zone 5 Area. Recreational activities most mentioned as the activities of choice of the employees of Zone 5 were swimning (57%), bikinq (47%)~ and jogqinq/runninq (375 It is perceived that these recreational activities tend to be activities that are mst frequently performed (often ‘alone )“outside of any sinsle recreatiqnal While nearly half of the people surveyed did not know which recreational facilities and programs they muld like to have near to their place of wrk, 15% stated that they wuld like swimninq facilities, 12% desired tennis courts anc7 10% said they mild like to have a physical fitness center.: I I It was determined through this study that most people who mrk in the Zonc Area participate in recreational activities in their spare the, and that mst of these people prefer to engage in their recreational activities near their h~ I I I A total of 56.9% of the 204 respondents stated that swhinq was a- recreational activity in which they participated. A total of 12.7% said that they preferred to swim near their place of work. A total of 12.7% stated that they would be very/somewhat likely to swim near mrk if such whins faciliti were available, while 12.7% said that they wuld swim often/sometimes near wr if facilities were available for them to do so. I u I I I A- 7 Analysis/Research Limited I I I I I I 1 I I I I I were available. I 1 I I In regards tQbikh: 47.1% of the 204 people,surveyed bike; odyA9%, explained that they prefer to bike near their place of wrk; that they muld be very/somewhat likely to bike near wrkif facilities =re available; wrk if biking facilities were available. only 3,9% stated I and 3.4% said they muld bike often/sometimes near their place of In terms of jogging/running: 36.8% of the 204 resprdents said that thev 11 -3% said they preferred to run or jog near their place of mrk; run or jog; 11 -3% explained they would be very/samewhat likely to run or ioq near mrk if facilities were available; otten/scmetims if facilities were available. 9.8% stated they muld nu1 or jos near mrk Of the 204 people surveyed, 32.4% stated that they play tennis". However, onlya4.9% of the 204 respondents stated that they preferred to play tennis near or at their place of wrk, Only 4.9% of the 204 respndents explained that tly would be very/somewhat likely to play tennis near their place of wxk if facilities were available. often/sometimes near their place of wrk if facilities were available. I And, only 4.4% said that they muld play tennis I In regards to golf: 25.5% of the 204 people surveyed said they played; 4.4% stated that they preferred to play golf near mrk; 4.4% said they muld t very/mewhat likely to play golf near wrk if facilities were available; and 3.9% explained they mld play golf often/sometimes near mrk if facilities- - Such findings indicate that many of the people wh wrk in the 7~ne 5 Are would be unlikely to use recreational facilities located near their wrk place L. ~ A- e. -- Analysis/Research Limited I I I I --r ' I It was also determined that an overwhelmins percentase of the employees of Zone 5 usually participate in their preferred recreational activities 'latter wry' and,;'on weekends." Such a participation pattern would most likelv involve activities performed away from a "near wrk" recreational facility; . .---1WI I, Jp I The survey revealed that abut one-third of the companies for which Zone 5 employees mrk provide organized recreational activities. However, half (49%) of the Zone 5 employees wfiose companies provide orqanized recreational activities do not participate in these organized activities, sponsored recreational activity they muld like to participate. 43% of the Zone 5 employees said "none."* I B When asked in which company Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 miaht include a iOSffinq track and/or "par courses" (i.e., the ioqghq track with exercise/mrk out stations along the path). Such a track sbuld be able to be lenqthened or expanded as the park area qrows. 1 I I I I Ccmbination tennis/basketball murts wuld accomodate a significant I percentage of the Zone 5 employees. Cycling paths through the complex miqht also be considered, as well as outdoor walled racquet courts (for racauetball and handball). Study findings warrant consideration of an indoor exercise center to be I I used by Zone 5 employees during regular business burs and after wrk. facility migbt include areas for exercise machines, weiaht traininq, and aerobic dance or exercise, . Such a I I I A- 9 I I I I 1 amrm 2 CUESTICN 3 --- WFSI'ION 1 Please check tte followinq For each activity pi For each activity ypu participate recreational activities in prticipate in. mould in, &often c)o p usually which yw participate in, you rather plav/& it play/&: your spare time: war tow or near mrk: NFARHcx.IE WARWXX 0FrFN SXfTIMFIS SELlXX-l NEVER ~- --- Tennis 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ! col f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swininq (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jowinq/Rimninq ( ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baseball 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 Softball 0 0 0 Basketball (1 0 0 0 0 0 i I I j Rilcquetball Other (SPEC1 FYI i 0 !) 0 I I ----- (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I L "E ( ) 03 'TD Cl1ESTIa-J 7 (NEXT P.9GE) * I I 1 1 I I [ QJFSrION 4 cuEsI?oN 5 CUF-TICN 6 For each of the activities answer4 "near For each of the xtiviti Fbr each activity you participate in, mrk" in. 0.2, please answer tcu liker "very or smevhat likel) durinq what time of the day do you you auld be to participate in thse please anwr b often usually play/&: activities if facilities for th were to participate in those available: war wrk in ynur spare BEFORE LUNCH AFER WEEK IKN.1- VMA- VFaY 934ML4T W!MrP;T WRY LIKELY LIKELY UNLIKELY UNLIKELY OFIEN S(*(F;TIMFS Snoc -- - WORK TIME WRK €NE DAYS TIOPI -- -----____ 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 [I 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ~000000~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 '( ) 0 0 0 ( -b I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 7. Coes your canpany have orqanized recreational activities? Yes ( ) PLEASE ANSWER Q.8 & 0.9 Alur) STC? 'f No ( 1 PLEASE CO TO Q.10 I 8. (IF YES) What are they? 9. Which mpany orqanized recreational activities do you participate i 10. In which company sponsored recreational activities muld you like tc participate, if they were available? I 11.- Did the company or area *re you previously worked have any orqani; recreational activities? Yes ( ) PLEASE CONTINUE WI'I'H 0.12 No ( ) PLEASE G3 TO Q.14 Never Worked ( ) PLFXE 03 ?o 0.14 12. (IF YES) What are they? 13, Which mpany orqanized recreational activities did you participate - I A-1 1 14. How adequate are the current recreational facilities and prosrams in the area around where you mrk? I 1 I Somewhat Frleauate I )-2 I I I I I I I Child care facilities ( )-1 ( )-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 I I I 1 restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 I I I Very Pdeauate ( )-I Somewhat Inadequate ( 1-3 Very Inadmate ( 1-4 15. What additional recreational facilities and prarams, if any, wuld I like to have near to where You mrk? 16. How imprtant are the followinq services to you in your area? VERY SOMEWHAT NOTVERY NOTATALL IMPORTANT IMFORTANT If%TlWm IMPORTANT Fast food restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( )-4 Family type restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 restaurants ( 1-1 ( )-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Upscale adult type ReliQious institutions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 st at ions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Automotive service I 17. How satisfied are you with the followinq services in your area? VERY SOMEWH?T WJ'VERY KTATAJLL SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED .SATISFIED C Fast food restaurants ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Family type restaurants ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Upscale adult tpe Child care facilities ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Reliqious institutions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 stat ions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 Automotive service A-12 I I I 1 1 - 4 years ( 1-2 1 I I I I 26 - 35 ( 1-3 I I 1 8 I I 1 1 I And finally, we have a few questions for classsification purpses. In what city or munitv do you live? How lonq have you live there? 18. 19. Less than 1 year ( )-1 5 - 9 years ( )-3 10 - 14 years ( 1-4 15 years or mre ( )-5 20. What is the ZIP code where you live? 21. Below are some we cateqories. Please check the one that includes your age. Under 18 ( 1-1 18 - 25 ( 1-2 36 - 45 ( 1-4 46 - 55 ( 1-5 56 - 65 ( )-6 Over 65 ( 1-7 I 22. What is your occupation? 23. Are you employed full time or part time? Full time ( 1-1 Part time ( 1-2 PLEASE WRITE YOUR WE, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ON FRO" PAGE "K YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION. A-13 I I 21 I 51 3 jl 41 I I I I i 6! 71 AN ORDIYAb1CY c)F TF’E CITY COUNCIL OF TYE CITY CF CARLSFAD VCSICIPAL CODE PV TWE A@PITION CF CHAPTEF 21.90 ESTABLISHING A GROWTF’ MANAGE~~F?;T PRCCFAM FOP THE CITY The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, Califoi CAFLSBAD, CA.LIF~P~~IA ~EK~IVC TITLE 21 QF TVE does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 21 is amended by the addi 91 IO! 11 I ! l2 I P 13 1 p4 28 I 56 m Growth Manaqerent Sect ions : 21.90.010 Purpose and intent. 21.90.020 Definitions. 21.90.030 General prohibition, exceptions. 21.90.031 Tolling of time for consideration of applications submitted before the efj date of this chapter. >>a s~<3 151 -p $284 development permits. Extensions of prior approvals prohib ComDliance with this chaDter recuirec 21.90.033 21.90.040 22 ‘ 23 i r 21.90.125 Facilities manaaement plan Drocessir 21.90.130 Implementation of facilities and irnprovements reauirements . I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 m I I 21.90.050 Establishment of local facilities manacerpe fee. (a) A local facilities management fee is hereby established to pay for improvements or facilities identified i local facilities management plan which are related to new development within the zone and are not otherwise financed by other fee, charge or tax on development, or are not installed a developer as a condition of a building permit or development permit. .The fee may also be used to pay for that portion of t facilities or improvements identified in the citywide faciliti and improvements plan attributed to development within .the loci zone which are not financed by other means. The facilities management fee shall be paid before the issuance of a building permit. The amount of the fee shall be determined based upon estimated cost of the facility or improvement designated as necessary to accommodate additional development within the applicable local facilities management zone plus the estimated cost of facilities and improvements identified in the citywide facilities and improvement plan attributable to the local zone. The fee shall be fairly apportioned among the new development. (b) The fee required by this section is in addition t any other means of financing facilities or improvements identified by a local facilities management plan or any other tax, fee, charge or improvement reauirement which may be impose on'the development of property under the provisions of state la this code or City Council policy. management zone shall be set by City Council resolution after a public hearing, published notice of which shall be given according to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.060(2) and Government Code Section 54992. permit application submitted after the effective date of this chapter the applicant shall agree to pay the fee established by this section at the time a building permit is issued. (e) The fee established by this section shall be levic at the time of issuance of a building permit. - (c) The amount of the fee for a local facilities (d) As a condition of any building or development A-15 I I September 18, 1987 TO: ZONE 5 SUB COMMITTEE FROM: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ZONE 5 In an effort to provide the community with well balanced, has been involved in an extensive park and recreation developn program. As part of this development program it has been esta that there is a need"to expand upon or create additional park recreation facilities that are currently not provided for i.e. course complex. After review and analysis of the industrial population influx primarily from Zone 5 (40,000-70,000 at buildout), it has beer determined that this population will have an impact upon curre and future planned recreation facilities. This impact may be in the Citys existing and planned facilities only if industry participates in the City's over all recreation facilities deve program. In addition to PFF fees, staff is recommending the implementation of a separate fee to facilitate additional recreational development. Staff further recommends that the development fee be applied t the construction of a golf course complex, A golf complex wou not only provide a well balanced park and recreation program t community, but would also eliminate maintenancejoperation and cost. By operating the complex under a privitization concept, fees would offset maintenance cost by 100% and possibly provid additional revenue to further expand recreation facilities. I suggested that resident and non-resident fees be established 2 that the industrial employeees living outside the city be char a resident fee. Negotiations are currently underway with the county to lease 150+ acres in the industrial zone 5 area. A preliminary evaluatTon of this property indicates suitability the development of a golf course complex. A recent feasibilit study has determined that a golf course complex could be devel within Macario Canyon should negotiations with the county fail The Golf Complex Development cost has been estimated at $8,000 in todays economy. With the remaining industrial development . Zone 5 through buildout, an assessed fee of .42C per square foc would facilitate construction. construction at a later date may substantially increase the de7 ment cost and thereby increase any assessed fee for facilities An alternative to this inflationary factor is that the industr: developers opt for up front construction of a golf complex bui: to City Standards. If the development cost should be less thar the estimated $8,000,000 then the fees will be lowered accordir I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I comprehensive park facilities and recreation programs, staff An inflationary factor for A-16 Zone 5 Sub Committee September 18, 1987 Page Two I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Should the county lease or development of a golf complex on thl Macarlo property fail to materialize, the following alternativ would be recommended. Alternative I - up front or incremental development of a centr 15 acre recreation complex within Zone 5. Alternative I1 - up front or incremental development of three five acre recreation .complexes statigically located throughout Zone 5. The cost to develop either of the above alternatives is estimal ,between $7,822,500 and $8,000,000. The annual maintenance and operation cost associated with these alternatives is estimated $9,00O/Ac/Yr or $130,000 per year. All cost estimates are determined in 1987 dollars and have not determined inflationarl cost should incremental development occur. Should either of tl alternatives be instituted, staff recommends the maintenance aj I operation costs be absorbed by the industrial developers. DB : pa A-17