Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-09; City Council; 6340-3; MARCARIO CANYON PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANAB# h,?@ .*$J TITLE: Macario Canyon Park Development Plan MTG. 2/9/82 DEPT. p & R DEPT. H CITY AT CITY MG I. 1 8 2 2- 0 (z1 cr= .= z 0 5 U s z 3 0 0 CII#OF CARLSBAD - AGEN~BILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council adopt Resolution No. &,7$’& approving the Developmc for Macario Canyon Park. Staff concurs with this recommendatior ITEM EXPLANATION: On February 3, 1981 the City Council approved the contract with Iwanaga Associates to prepare a development plan for Macario Pa: A City appointed task force and staff have completed an extensi process with the consultants. Staff is satisfied that the cont requirements have been completed and recommends adoption and ap the development plan. document. (Refer to Exhibit B, development plan.) An Executive Summary is incorporated in PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On January 18, 1982 the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimc approved the Macario Development Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Projected Development Costs: 15 year program - City Share = $11,000,000 Private Share = - $26,000,000 TOTAL = $37,000,000 (1981 Dollar in Thousands) M/O Expenditures 15 Ye 1986 1992 1996 Tot: _--- 1982 Maintenance 25 249 400 450 4,51 Rec. Operations 10 107 117 150 1,5 Administration 5 53 78 90 9 40 409 595 690 770 Revenues _____ All Fees Sources -0- 163 242 595 336 Net Operation Cost(-)40 (-) 246 (-)3,53 (-1 95 (-)3,3 Note: In addition, it is projected that $514,000 (+-I w generated through Public Facility Fees within Mac These funds may be available for capital construc EXHIBITS: A. Resolution No. &*7Y$ B. Development Plan for Macario Canyon Park. > 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MACARIO CANYON PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad wil a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad California, at 6:OO P.M. on Tuesday, February 9, 1982, to consider adopt of the Development Plan for Macario Canyon Park on property generally IC adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, south and west of El Camino Real, of Palomar Airport Road, and east of the 1-5 Freeway, and more particulz described as shown on the map below. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH : January 27, 1982 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL - ~~~~~~~~~~ pa E3 fp -0 CASE bid0. Le#-__- A P p L 1 c A N T c Ity- gf c I __ ----A* AXLA LIL LUL~LL or famenne KelLey P.O. Box 1065 Paul & Magdalena E 4.308/ Lorna Laguna Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92008 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Encinitas, CA 920 0 P.O. Box 488 James & Karen Allen 4928 Lorn Lam Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Jack & Sheila Bertram 4934 Loma Laguna Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Pete & Katherine Avila 4926 Lonaa Laguna DL. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ja~xes & Smc?.ra.Hawks 4932 Lorn2 Laguna Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 'Ih- & Geraldine McRae 4924 Lorn2 Lagma Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Richard & Linda Neeclels 4930 bm Laguna Dr. Calsbad, CA 92008 Dennis & Meredith Hartley 4922 Ixrma Laguna Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 I:a.rltas co. Frank & Elva Fehr c/o Paul Ecke Will G Jeam? Suttle P.O. Box 488 4982 Via &ria Encinitas, CA 92024 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Huntington Beach Co. Howard & Ida Kirgis Wilfrid & Caroline S c/o Chevron USA 215 Brookmod Rd. 4918 Lorna Laguna. Dr. Woodside, CA 94062 Carlsbad, (2% 92008 P.O. Box 7611 San Francisco, Ca Carlsbad B-LE bess Center San Diego, CA. 92111 Enrigue EX Patricia Arregui 4914 hma Laguna Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Horst G. & Sylviane ; San Marcos, CA 9206' A & M Kelley M EX L Sippel c/o The Koll C~my Vander Linden P.O. Box 463 7330 Engimer Rd. 1130 Elm Tree Lane Carlsbad, (24 92008 Japatd Corporation P.O. Box 849 San Diego, CA 92112 John & Mla Murray ' Dave & Rose Laski Carlsbad, CA 92008 Palmr Business Park 17890 Skypark Blvd. 4912 Loma -Laguna Dr. 2351 Spruce St. Iwine, CA Carlsbad, CA 92008 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIEU’G EIR 80-9 (Macario Canyon Park) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad wil hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Car California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, February 9, 1982, to consider cert cation of Environmental Impact Report 80-9 (Macario Canyon Park Plan) or property generally located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, south i west of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport Road, and east of the I Freeway and more particularly described as shown on the map below. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH : January 27, 1982 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL L - *-..a ’7 +%I % p rd .PA P k(TJ <?, L- A i/ ;r Lt lid ”% I c A 5 E Gd 0. I $ APk?~EE@AN%T@E.y-_g.F 02?J.;ksa$ c 0 MEMORANDUM TO : Karen Stevens, Deputy City Clerk FROM : Marsha Backlund, Administrative Assistant w DATE : January 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Carl: will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Eln Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, February $ 1982 to consider recommending adoption of the Development Plan fc M,acario Canyon Park on property generally located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, south and west of El Camino Real, north of 1-5 Freeway and more particularly described as shown on the map below. MRB : kap [&w &$,v LT-L-)? ,&4 7 f&b42?2 . AT b- ;/$p @$M 1 Lq% j q?w&Lwflf 'd b/ . ___ - - 'c.it-:.,L i:_:.-._ b 1 I 3' ~L'ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIW that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:OO p.m. on Wednesday, January 13, 1982, to consider recomnding certification of Environmental Impact Report 80-9 (Macario Canyon Park Plan) on property generally located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Laqoon, south aqd west of El Camino Real., north of Palomar Airprt Road, and east of the 1-5 Freeway as shown on the map below. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordiallf invited to attend the public hearing. Planning Department at 438-5591. CASE FILG: EIR 80-9 (Nacario Canyon Park) AppLicm : CITY OF CAXLSBAD PUBLISH : January 2, 1982 CITY OF CAR'LSBAD PLANNIE COPIPIISSION and mre particularly described If you have any questkons please call the LlLLILI -2- &..-,-a *.-I-- 4908 W~E Lzgxtm 3rive P.0, Box 1065 - P.0, Box 488 9w elshad; CA 92008 *: Carlsbadp GA 92008 Enunitas, CA I __ ~ I Jarws and Karen Ell! 1 4928 Lwna Laguna Drr Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 1 I* 1 I ' Jack and Sheila Bertram 1 I PeteandKatheYbe; I 4926 Loma Laguna Dr , 4934 ~oma Laguna Drive ; Carlsbad, CA 92008 I Carlsbad, CA 92008 ! I .. I , Thms and Geraldin 4924 ~cxna Laguna Dr i Jams and Sandra Hawks 1 4932 I;ama Laguna Drive 1 Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 carlsbad, CA 92008 I I 1- -- .. . i Richard axad Lkda Edels I Dank and Meredit% 4930 lam Uguna Drive 4922 Lam Laguna Dy f Carlsbad, CA 9200E 1 carlhd, CA 92008 I I - __ - - . ._.__ __. -__-- -- -. - - - __ - - - - .* carltas co. Frank and Elva Feb Will and Jeanne Sui Carlkbad, CA 92001 c/o Paul Ecke , P.0, Box 488 1 4982 Via Maria I 1 Esl~initas, CA 92024 . -- _. - -- A -- Fwq+Aiqton =a& CCqaiy Howard and Ida Kirgis Wilfred and Carolil i 215 Brookwood Road 4918 I.ma Laguna D: Carlsbad, CA 9200 P.0, 13ox 7611 Sm- Francisco, cI1 c/u caevr@n USA SW& hiside, CA { 5 __ 3 \ s h.1 :<&!Lev Iiorst G, & Syl~a :I & L SI-,-Pel c/o The Koii mIT;z.Ry TJander Lidex 2.0. Bax 463 7330 mgineer Road 1-130 ~k-n TEE? me - "7ris&x2, c?i 92OC3 Sa ilkgo, CA 92111 San tvkxcos, CA 92 ! Eslrique and Patric Gapatul Corp, I P.0, Box 849 4914 Lana Laguna D San Diego, Cq 92112 Carlsbad, CA 9200 I ralsbzd Busizess Center - I \ ._____^A _. -- , ' Palmar Business Park ' I John and Twila blur t 17890 Sk-*ark Blvcl, , 4912 Loma Laguna 1 ' mille, 01 Carlsbad, CA 920C David cand Rose Lac 2353. Spruce Streel Carlsbad, &X 9201 L- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 37 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 w RESOLUTION NO. 6786 A RESOLUTION GF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MRCARIO CANYON PARK. WHEREAS, the City Council requested that a park develo study occur fop certain property, to wit: Macario Canyon Park, on property generally located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, south and west of El Camino Real and north of 1-5 freeway, WHEREAS, approval for such study is necessary by the C Council and; WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 9th day of Febrt 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by lab consider adoption of said park development plan; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con: all testimony and arguments, if any of all persons desiring heard, said Council considered all factors relating to the p( development plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Cou a as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correct. B. That based on the evidence presented at the publi hearing, the City Council recommends approval of Macario Car Park Development plan based on the following findings: 1) The project is consistent with the city's General since the proposed study for this area is consis' with general plan policies requiring the use of specific plans for properties influenced by Palor Airport. .e 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 26 27 28 e w 2) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is ade- quate in size and shape t.0 accommodate a park as proposed. facility policies and ordinances since: a) Actual development will not occur unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the project. 3) The project is consistent with all city public 4) The proposed project is compatible with the surroi future land uses since surrounding properties are nated for industrial or open space use in the Genc Plan. 5) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 80-9 ?der and discussed the significant project impact incli the minor loss of estuarian habitat and the loss ( of the coastal sage habitat from the site. These impacts that cannot be reduced to a level of insij cance and which therefore require a statement of ( riding consideration. The findings to support su( statement are as follows: a) The development plan for the study area propo’ preservation of all wetland areas. b) Wildlife harassment would only be temporary u the species become accustomed to the noise pa associated with human ac2ivit.y. c) The boardwalk (a mitigation incorporated in t is the least environmental damaging alternati permits lagoon access. d) The significant stands of coastal sage which I several rare and endangered species will be p served. e) Most of the chaparral. including the chaparral adjacent to the lagoon which serve as a buff€ the sensitive estuarian habitat will be pres€ f) The riparian habitat will be enhanced and ex1 g) The areas being preserved and enhanced all h; higher habitat value than the coastal sage he The park will be landscaped with a mix of nat and exotic species which will increase the IC habitat diversitiss. h) 1. 6) That all other impacts associated with the Macari Canyon Park development plan will be reduced to a level of insignificance by incorporation of the m gation measures recommended in EIR 80-9 (Macario Canyon Park) which will be certified by City Coun on February 9, 1982. adjourned PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, at d regular meeting o City Council of the City of Carisbad, California, held on th day of Feb-TY , 1982, by the following vote AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: kne Council Menhers Packard, Casler, hear, Lewis and Kukk EONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor- I I I I 17. :$- 9 I I AS I RUSSELL Y !WANAGA A.S.L.I I ERNEST M. SEIDEL A.5.L.A IWANAGA ASSOCItbTES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1200 QUAIL STREET * NO. 165 * NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660. (714) 752-7614 1450 DESCANSO AVENUE . SAN MARCOS, CA 92069. (794) 744-8790 December 30, 1981 City of Carlsbad Mr. David Bradstreet Director of Parks and Recreation 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Bradstreet: It is our pleasure to submit the Development Plan for Macario Canyon Park. viable long term direction for public and private rec- reational use of the site. It has been a challenging pleasure to prepare this study. We would like to acknowledge the guidance of the Planning Department and the Task Force together with the Parks and Recreation Department whose interest and expertise were integral to the completion of this plan. We wish the City of Carlsbad much luck in this ambitious goal and look forward to a continued working relatiocshiF The Development plan represents a I Sincerely, enclosure MEMBER - AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARC!-IlTECTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DECEMBER 198 1 1200 Quail Street. Suite 165, Newport Beach, California Telephone 71 4/752 76 14 CONSULTANTS: ECONQMCS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DANIEUAN ASSOCIATES . I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF CARLSBAD City Officers: Mayor ...........................Ronald C. Packard Vice-Mayor ...................... Mary Casler City Manager ..................... Frank Aleshire Ass't City Manager .............. William C. Baldwin Ass't City Manager Ass't City Manager .............. Frank Mannen Ronald A. Beckman .............. I City Council Ronald C. Packard Mary Casler Girard W. Anear Claude A. Lewis Ann J. Kulchin Pl anni ng Commi ssi on Mary Marcus , Chairperson Vernon J. Farrow, Jr. Jerry Romboti s E.H. Jose, Jr. Clarence H. Schlehuber Johnathan D. Friestedt Stephen L ' Huereux Parks and Recreation CommissionjProject Task Force Laurie Nelson Boone Shi r 1 ey Da hl, qui st Barbara Donovan Jeanne B. McFadden John S. Murk Dennis McKee Scott Wright I I I Parks and Recreation Department David L. Bradstreet, Director of Parks and Recreation Robert E. Wilkinson, Park Planner Douglas J. Duncanson, Park Superintendent Lynn Chase, Recreation Superintendent P1 anni ng Department James C. Hagaman, Planning Director Thomas Hageman, Pri nci pal Planner Charles Grimm, Associate Planner Gary Wayne, Assistant Planner I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTENT OF STUDY I 11- SITE DESCRIPTION Ill- STE PUNNING DOCUMENT A. SITE ISSUES IV- SITE ANALYSIS A. SLOPES B. GEOLOGY C. WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION D. SOILS E. HYDROLOGY V- CITY DESIRES VI* CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES A. CONSTRAINTS B. OPPORTUNITIES I Wl. LAND USE FEASIBIW I VIU- GENERAL PI&INING ASSUMPTIONS & GUIDELWES IX. PROPOSED DESIGN PROGRAM I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I x- DEVELQPMENT PLAN A. GENERAL LAND USE 21 B. ACTIVITY AREAS 21 C. PRIVATELY DEVELOPED FACILITIES 22 D. PHASING PROGRAM 27 31 E. F. PROGRAM EFFORT COSTS 32 H. REVENUE POTENTIALS FROM PRIVATELY DEVELOPED FACILITIES 4; 41 I. FUND SOURCES 4t J. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVESTMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS G. INTITAL PUBLIC/PRIVATE INVESTMENT PROGRAM 4c 15 YEAR ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND REVENUES K. ESTIMATED USE/VISITATION 4; PLANS o TOTAL STUDY AREA o CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES o LAND USE FEASIBILITY o ACTIVITY AREAS o DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ld If 2 21 TABLES o INVESTMENT PROGRAM o DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM EFFORT 3' 31 o ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS DIVISION 5 o MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS, AND ADMINISTRATION 5 OF RESPONSIBILITY CONCEPT COSTS AND REVENUES CONCEPT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIQE SUMMARY INTENT OF STUDY Purpose The city requested that a study be conducted to determine the best possible recreational land use for approximately 502 acres of land in the center of the city. This study is the first specific study of the total 502 acres of private and public owned land for a city wide park. Study Area The assigned study area includes the following parcels of land: . Macario Canyon - 288 acres, approximately . HUB (leased S.D.G.&E. property) - 92 acres, approximately . Kelly property - 50 acres, approximately . S.D.G.&E. property - 72 acres, approximately Site Description The site is undeveloped with gentle to steep sloping terrain ranging from sea level to an approximate elevation of 235 feet. The study area includes environmentally sensitive lagoon shore, wetlands, and canyon lands. The site can be described as having three areas of experience - the flat open wetland area, the gentle to steep slopes and restricted linear beach along Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Macario Canyon with ravine: plateaus, ridge7 ine and canyon floor. These three distinctly differenl environments provide opportunities and constraints which are to be explored in this study. INTERAGENCY INTEREST AND COOPERATION A number of existing documents and/or agency policies affect the study area: I Documents . Carlsbad General Plan . Carlsbad Local Coastal Program . Agua Hedionda Specific Plan . Parks and Recreation Element, 1975 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Agencies . Coastal Commission . . Department of Fish & Game San Diego Gas & Electric I These documents and agencies establ ished constraints and opportunities for the planning of the study area. Major issues that are to be dealt with include preservation of wildlife and vegetation, and compatibility of proposed land uses with each other and with existing conditions which are to be sustained. Major guidelines include developing recreation oriented land uses, which support on-going natural systems - wetlands, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, riparian areas - recognizing the limitations created by major man-made elements, i .e. utility easements and agricultural land and natural physical site constraints - i.e. slopes, soils, hydrology. DESIGN PROCESS The design process to propose the best recreation land use for the study area included a site analysis, identification of recreation activities and an evaluation of land uses which would be most feasible for the site. The site analysis/inventory included inventory of the sites physical conditions including slopes, geology, soils, hydrology, wild1 ife, vegetation and archeology and other site characteristics including airport noise, utilities, view points and access. information was analyzed and synthesized into a map of constraints and opportunities for the entire 502 acre study area. This plan served as the base from which the land use plan was established. Recreation activities were identified through the following processes, record of initial city desi res, ci ti Zen survey , and recommendations from the consultant team based on past experience. generated a shopping list of activities from which a defined design program was established through process of weighing each use according to its physical and economic feasibility within the study area. The final design program includes the following recreation activities to be established by public (PU) and/or private (PR) investment. This These sources . Athletic Center (PR) . Mu1 ti -Use P1 ayf i el ds (PU) . Artisans Village (PR) . Interpretive Center (PU/PR) . Restaurant/Conference Center (PR) . Restaurant (PR) . Botanical Garden (PU/PR) . Park Service Yard (PU) . Commercial Convenience Center (PR) . Group Picnic Areas (PU) . Hike-In Picnic/Scout Camp (PU/PR) . Boat Launch and Rental (PR) . Circulation Systems (PU) . Roads and Parking . Trails - passive/active pedestrian and equestrian. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEVELOPMENT PLAN The development plan is a synthesis of a1 ternate 1 and-use diagrams exploring how the design program elements could best be located to maximize physical site conditions. A final presentation development plan was developed at 400 scale deliniating the complete park plan identifying all of the elements of the design program. The development plan defines three distinct land use areas in which the design program elements previously listed occur: . I 1. Lagoon and Beach - for boating, limited beach activity and access along the south shore of the lagoon. 2. Natural and Agricultural Preserves - cultivated crop land on S.D.G.&E. property and natural preserves including the wet1 and and archeological sites, for nature and historical study through control1 ed circulation and observation areas. Canyon - Macario Canyon for active and passive recreation provided by both pub1 ic and privately supported facil ittes. The phasing recommended for the implementation of the development plan is based on a fifteen year program. For the first five years land would be used for non-intensive recreation activities - nature study, and cross country running and boating - low key investment type uses establishing site identity. For the remaining ten years the phasing program would respond to demand from recreational services providing for intensive land uses requiring major public and private investment. 1st Year - Land acquisition and leases, establish access points, site planning. 2nd Year - Establish rough access roads, initial interpretive facility, boat launch, sign trails and important site features, initiate tree planting program (perimeter, uti1 ity buffer). facility, initial parking, initial water lines, continue tree planting, prepare construction documents for roads and bui 1 ding pads. 3. The phasing program sequence foll ows: 3rd Year - Expand interpretive facility, initial park administration 4th Year - Initial playfields and picnic, initial utility spine. 5th Year - Continue utilities, initial controlled entry points, restrooms , pave roads, compl ete pl ayf i el ds . 6th Year - Add picnic facilities, initial athletic center. 7th Year - Rehabilitate development to date, complete entry po’int, continue utility spine, planting, initial site lighting, initial parks service yard. garden and building. 8th Year - Expand Athletic Center, spine, picnic, initial botanical I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 9th Year - Expand beach access and boating,pave access road, planting, playfield lighting, initial view restaurant, grade conference center and Artisans Village. botanical building, initial phase of conference center and Artisans Village. conference center, Artisans Village, restaurant, boat facility, lagoon view point and improvements. boat facility, restaurant, continue rehabilitation program of restrooms, picnic areas, trails and planting. 13th Year - Third phase of Artisans Village, boating facility, continue rehabilitation and planting program. 14th Year - Final phase of Artisans Village, continue rehabilitation and planting programs. 15th Year - Rehabilitation of roads, trails and landscape. 10th Year - Continue planting, expand parks service yard, complete 11th Year - Grade conference center housing, complete phase one of 12th Year - Second phase of conference center, Artisans Village, ECONOMICS The development plan mixes public and private investments to create a unique recreation facility for Carlsbad. Tne development plan phasing/implementation program is based on a gradual long-term build out. The recreation opportunities of this development plan are to be provided through a combined economic investment of both public and private funds. Cost components for the first five years without inflation are summarized below with a detailed table of investments program and distribution of program I effort in the report: . . Capital improvements - $2,513,000 . Acquisition and leases - $2,015,000 Maintenance operation and administration - $1,255,000 The public/private investment program for the full 15 year development period is summarized in three five year increments as follows with detailed tables of costs and revenues in the report. 1st five years $ 5,278,000 $ 215,000 $ 5,493,000 I 3rd five years $ 1,845,000 17,505,000 $1 9,350,000 $11,662,000 $ 26,280,000 $37,942,000 City Private Total 2nd five years $ 4,539,000 5,560,000 $1 3,099,000 31 % 69% 100% I I I I I I I I I I The revenue potential is primarily based on the benefits of privately devel oped faci 1 i ties in the park with secondary revenues generated from private donation and user fees from organized recreation activities. The primary potential revenues for private facilities include: . Ground rent contracts . Public facilities fees . Possessory interest real estate tax . Percentage of sales tax, property tax, and hotel guest tax The secondary revenues generated from donation and user fees would be sought to defray operations costs. Donations would be encouraged from organizations that would benefit from the proposed facilities and related programs provided by the park (i .e. interpretive center - nature/hi story; sensitive habitats - wildlife, vegetation, archeology, botanical gardens and scout facilities). recreation facilities (i.e. athletic fields, group picnic, botanical garden , interpretive center/museum) and for organized recreational activities (i .e. entry fees to major competitions, tournaments, company events, and nature study and botanical courses , wal ks) . In summary the estimated revenue, excluding parks and recreation department fees after complete build-out of the park are: User fees would be charged to users of public . Minimum annual land rents - $233,046/year . . Real estate taxes - $37,489/year . Hotel room taxes - $84,315/year Total Annual Revenues - $449,723 Public Facilities Fee (cumulative) - $517,100 Sales tax receipts - $94,873/year I I The development plan proposes land uses which respect the study area's sensitive environments and environmental conditions, land uses that are both recreationally and economically beneficial to the city. These public/private land uses will create a unique recreation experience center that provides for the residents of the City of Carlsbad, and reaches beyond to surrounding cities. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l"ENT0FSTBlDY The intent of this Report is to determine the best possible recreational land use for the Macario Canyon property and related areas including the S.D,G.&E. and Kelly properties, totaling approximately 502 acres. The city nas envisioned the site as a Special Resource/Community Park. To propose recreational land uses, consideration will be given to environmen site factors which affect the project area and to governing issues and policies established by a number of jurisdictions. These physical site factors, political jurisdictions with current city desires , are the foundation for constraints and opportunities of the site that will be examined to establish the best uses to meet public needs, and to be environmental ly sensitive to site and surroundings. Privately owned land within the study area, S.d.G.&E, and Kelly properties, will not be subject to the uses proposed in this stu-dy unless the city obtains ownership of these lands or the proposed uses are acceptable to the land owners. I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I1 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed park area consists of approximately 502 undeveloped acres, south and east of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. park area consists of five parcels of land with ownership and sizes At present, the proposed I as follows: * . Macario - 288 acres - Ko71 Company * . HUB Park - 92 acres - leased from S.D.G.&E. by City of Carlsbad * . S.D.G.&E. - 40 acres - S.D.G.&E. * . S.D.G.&E. - 32 acres - S.D.G.&E. * . Wetlands - 50 acres - Kelly These lands are privately owned. purposes only and are subject to city purchase or owner agreement for proposed uses to occur. The city is presently negotiating for the 1 ease/acquisi ti on of some of these properties. This study wi 11 assume that the project includes all the above areas. The park land lies partially in the City of Carlsbad and in the county of San Diego and all 502 acres are within the coastal zone as established by the California State Coastal Commission. Macario Canyon Park is located approximately 30 miles north of the City of San Diego and within I mile of the coastline. The site is primarily undeveloped, with gentle to steep sloping terrain ranging from sea level to an approximate elevation of 235 feet. A major portion of the site is presently designated by the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan (LCP) as Planned Agriculture (agriculture and low density residential uses) - Other portions of land covered under the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan identifies the area south of the lagoon as Open Space and the area northeast of the lagoon as a wild life preserve area. Land to the south of the park site is currently used for agriculture. Lagoon extends along a portion of the site's northerly boundary. To the east of the site lies land to be developed as industrial; to the southeast the Palornar Airport. North of Macario is undeveloped portions of land designated by the LCP as residential low to high densi Forty (40) acres of S.D.G.&E. property is west of Macario separating The proposed land uses are for study Agua Hediondl I the park from Interstate Highway 5. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P I Natural vegetation on the site consists of native grasses and stands of coas sage and chaparral. temperatures reaching a high of 97 degrees and winter lows dropping to 40 an 30 degrees. The annual rainfall averages 12 inches a year, primarily betwee November and May: coastal area is fairly humid, varying from 77% in summer to 68% in winter. is occassionally experienced in the later afternoon and evenings of winter months. Adjacent land, specifically Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Palomar Airport, have imposed major constraints and/or environmental impact considerations on the Macario site. disturbance can be permitted if it's healthy ecosystem is to be sustained. The Lagoon, because of year-round tidal flushing and the minimal amount of contaminating chemicals, is one of the cleanest water bodies of its type in San Diego county. The ecosystem supports a wide variety of marine and ter- restial life, and is a valuable wildlife habitat. being used for water skiing, fishing, sailing and other water-related sport: Palomar Airport generates noise and air pollution which currently disturbs t otherwise quiet, protected canyon site. The climate of the area is Mediterranean, with summer the driest month is July (less than 0.04 inches). The In the summer, overcast conditions are frequent in the morning hour Agua Hedionda Lagoon is a sensitive habitat where only minima The Lagoon is presently L CAMlNO REAL PACIFIC 0 INTERSTATE 5 -0- I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 111 SITE PLANNING DOCUMENT A number of existing documents and/or agency policies affect the Macario area. These include: The Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, Department of Fish and Game and the existing Parks and Recreation Element 7975. Together, the policies established in and by these documents and agencies determined the ground rules and conditions that were considerations in land planning the Macario area. 1 A;.snElssuEs The Carl sbad Local Coastal Program advocates pub1 ic recreation in the coastal zone. Careful planning and managemerit are necessary to protect the character and natural assets of the site while developing educational and recreational facilities. Special consideration must be given to the compatibility of proposed recreation land uses with the areas sensitive ecosystems. The wildlife and vegetation of Macario is of significance in retaining the existing character of tne site. dangered species, exists throughout the site with primary habitats located in the wetlands and inland coastal sagescrub and chaparral. consideration must be given to land improvement practices that will minimize any adverse impact on both wildlife and vegetation. The Local Coastal Program identifies the wetlands as an environmentally sensitive habitat that is critical to the nesting of endangered birds and other wildlife. on the Southern California coast. Measures may be appropriate to pre- vent the further degradation of this resource area. Currently, lack of fresh water input is resulting in salt build-up in the soil that is destroying vegetation, forcing wildlife to move to more desirable habitats. Wildlife, that includes some en- Full It is one of the few remaining estuarine environments 5 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * New development may accelerate the erosion of land and sedimentation problc in the Lagoon. The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program has established guidelii to protect the waterways and lagoons and land improvement practices that w' mitigate adverse impact shall be exercised. I The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan and Carlsbad Local Coastal Program both en- dorse the extension of the Cannon Road alignment across the mouth of Macari Canyon east, up Agua Hedionda Creek to El Camino Real. This road will proc access to Macario Canyon. Additional access to Macario from the southeast and provisions for parking will be required. The Local Coastal Program identifies existing drainage ways as important to the Lagoon ecosystem and consideration must be given to retaining these drainage ways. I I I I I IV SITE ANALYSIS A complete site resource inventory was conducted to evaluate the site's potential for accommodating recreation uses. The inventory included the foll owing physical items , some are further addressed in the Envi ronmental I Impact Report (E.I.R.): Slope conditions Geology Wildlife (E.I.R.) Hydrology (E. I .R. ) Vegetation (E. I. R. ) I Soi 1 I I No water surface is included within the 502 acre space. A. SLOPES Gradient of slopes will be a factor in any construction of the site. Local Coastal Program recommends that structural development not be permitted on slopes 20% or greater. indicates the limitation imposed by the topography. Gradient 502-Acre Study Area 0 - 5% 16% Wetlands 6 - 24% 25% i- I I I I I I I I I 7 The An analysis of the site slope gradie I Percent of Total 11% Floodplain 43% Gentle to Moderate Slopes 30% Moderate to Steep Slopes I B. GEOLOGY The project site is in the coastal portion of the peninsular range province of California. age volcanics and metamorphics , and Tertiary age sedimentary rocks (La Jolla Group) which are susceptible to erosion and slumping, and by sediments of Quaternary age. identified by the LCP. in the canyon and ravine areas. The area is underlain by bedrock of Jurassic Four landslide-prone areas have been Alluvium, clay sand and sandy clay, are present I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No major faults cross the site. According to seismic report (Envicom 1974*) active faulting at the site either in published reports or the results of the engineering geologic investigations of the site. Neither fault rupture nor liquefication appear to be a problem of the site." "There is no evidence to indicate, or suggest the presence of C. WILDLIFWVEGETATION The wildlife that inhabits Macario and the surrounding area is diverse and complex, ranging from a higher order of mammals to the lower order of phytoplankton and other minute organisms. The vegetation consists of seven plant associations. These i tems are discussed simultaneously in a biological assessment inventory and analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report. I D. sons Soil data contained herein has been extracted from the San Diego Soil Survey (1973), compiled by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. collected includes the local soils mapped for the study area and an assessment of these soils. The characteristics determined most essential in the planning process for this area are permeability, erodibility, and engineering properties, Permeability - qualities of a soil that enable water or air to move The dati through it. This directly relates to quantity of run-off and suitability of soil to support introduced plant mater Erodability - water erosion is a critical issue since the entire site drains directly into the Lagoon. * Envicon. Preliminary Evaluation of Geologic, Soils and Seismic Conditions Japatul Site, San Diego County, California. Sherman Oaks, November, 1974. 8 1 I 1 I B 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 9 Engineering - The shrink-swell behavior of the soil effects the stability of buildings and roads and is important in determining appropriate construction practices. Soils within the study area are characterized by moderate to very slow permeability, moderate to severe erodibility, and low to high shrink/ swell behavior. E. HYDROLOGY The Macario area is a part of the Agua Hedionda drainage basin. The basin is 28 square miles (17,900 acres) and has an average slope of 35 feet per mile and is located within the Carlsbad 210 square mile hydrologic unit. The major drainage within the study area is Macario Canyon which contains a central stream course, and several smaller tributaries that is a significant contribution of water and sediment to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Major changes to the flow of this drainage could create adverse impacts in the wetland and tidal mud flat area. Further discussion of hydrology occurs in the hydrologic inventory of 1 I the Environmental Impact Report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Y CiTY DESIRES The city envisions developing Macario Canyon into a cultural , recreational , and governmental center park for the entire city connecting to other facili via open space roads and trails. Based on this concept, the city has compiled a list of needs and desires tk outline specific facilities and activities that may be contained in the Par This list is a composite of input from city departments and officials: . Amphi theatre . Golf Course . Archery . Lawn Bowling . Botanical Garden . Ponds/Lakes/Reclaimed Water . Central Library . Shooting Range e Cultural Arts Center . Wild Animal Sanctuary . City Hall . Mari na/Beach access . Police Station . Parks Service Center . Gymnasium . Parki ng/Roads . Play Courts . Passive picnic/park . Performing Arts Theatre . Passive sitting . Equestrian Center . Trail Systems . Recreation Center . Fire Station . Swimming Pool I . Playfields . Y.M.C.A. Facility . Play apparatus I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VI CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES In this area that is characterized by rolling hills with broad, curving canyons opening into a wetland and mudflat area, there are a number of physical constraints ana opportunities. k CoNSTRAtNTs The major constraints include landslide areas, steep slopes, major utility easements, airport and freeway noise, agriculture (existing and class I1 soil) , biologically sensitive areas, and archealogical sites. I . Landslide areas are characterized by unstable soil and geology that can be left untouched or engineered to accommodate improvemen A major limitation is the cost of engineering required to acnieve a stable site. . Steep slopes are aefinea in the LCP as slopes 20% and greater, development is discouraged in these areas by the LCP. Major easements for overhead utility lines traverse the site. land under these lines must be limited to short term uses; the utility towers have nigh visual impact and are potential safety nazards. . The Major buildings are not permitted within these easements . The area is impacted by noise on the extreme west portion by the freeway and on the far east portion by the airport and along the utility easement through S.D.G.X. property and at the west and south portions of Macario Canyon by high voltage power lines. of the site to certain types of land use that do require low noise levels. Iridoor or outdoor auditoriums and concert facilitie could experience undue stress. Such noise levels could significantly limit parts 11 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 II 1 I I I I 12 . Agricul ture presents 1 imi tati ons. agriculture snall be protected from uncontrolled intrusion and snall be buffered from incompatible uses. All land suitable for agriculture and that has a past history of agricultural production are protected by Coastal Zone policies. The biological ly sensi tive nabi tats of wet1 ands , drai nways , lagoon and areas of endangered plant species, only present limitations if in an area desirable for development. The E.I.R. addresses these areas in the biological assessment of the sites. According to the LCP . . Archaelogical sites present possible limitations on access and land use. These areas can be studied if access or use is found to be necessary, otherwise they will remain undisturted. The E.I.R. addresses these areas. 8. OPPO#TUN~S The opportunities i ncl ude park access, ocean breezes, biological ly sensitive areas, beaches and lagoon, hydrology (riparian areas and drain- ways), topography, vista points, coastal sage-scrub and chaparral. I . Park access opportunities exist off of the extension of Cannon Road from east and west and off of College Road along the south- east project boundary, and along the boundary through the proposed industrial development to the southeast. The ocean breezes bring fresh air into the canyon the year-round, Biologically sensitive areas (wetlands, areas of endangered plant species) provide an opportunity to create an educational recreatic . . I experience. . The Lagoon and the south beaches present a potential for water- orientea recreation. for lagoon and beach access. Arrangements should be made with s. U.G.&E. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . The riparian areas can be enhanced for educational recreation study. These areas provide rich habitats - an area with main species for wild life and plant material viewing. . Vista points are abundant on the site and offer inland and I coastal views . . The native coastal sage-scrub and chaparral offer site stabi- 1 izati on and 1 ow maintenance background for the site in addi ti on to a variety of wild life habitat and educational recreation experiences. . The topography of the site offers separation (horizontal and vertical) of different site uses adding to the park experience for the entire site can not be viewed from a single vantage poin I The summation of constraints and opportunities designates the major site limitations and advantages which will be used to establish a map showing the land that is feasible for development. I 13 w b in I - .- ?6 F -- -- de 1. --....-----i_ ---- c-_ -. - --_- - 0- -.n v) mwoz PO zmo+l .cm b # 9) om20 Ysgrn 01% Zcnm-l mcmn 0' % zo, 4pL. rnogu, ~OCU bo s z-*- CI) -Im* x03 "42 4FmC Cm \ %$*= r uv) @ 3 0 r3 o=o~ 506 m 8 > $'E6 tn I( 0 8 8 <w -3, '0 0 2 * v) p-m OW I- .=r - 0 2.z 0 q-4 ke .z x oa$0=1@ 2 B r313 dWW7J z -2 - - # - -- - NNh)h)h)hJh)N.r+d.Jdd d..LII -wm*~N~o~~~mul~~lu~ IC 3s 35* 0 ..n 02 'dzn s g40 G~sxx*m40 g OOO~+O~ 8 69 !E!Z s AEB nu, ,,= =I LX!Z~~EnZ+<xnm+= = Z+ZZZ( nZ2 B ,I ~ p .. == - - @ *BZ OS-( ##!E :p EieB I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I VI1 LAND USE FEASIBILITY To develop the Land-use Feasibility Map, site inventory plans were used to determine the areas of land with the least number of non-mitigatable natural and man-made constraints. Upon identification of these areas and the review of coastal zone policies that govern them, areas were rated fo recreational development from highly feasible to feasible and infeasible. The hiqhly feasible land for recreational development is the major canyon floor and portions of gentle slopes that extend from the canyon floor up into the secondary canyons. be minimum in these areas. A development constraint will be the potentii flood conditions that sometimes occur. Buildings will not be located on the canyon floor. recreation uses (i .e. mu1 ti-use athletic fields) with parking, transitiot ing up to slightly higher safer elevations where limited structural devel opment wi 11 occur. The feasible land for recreational development lies primarily on the south and west facing slopes within the canyon. of the canyon floor and do not exceed 20% in grade, however, some vegetation and wild life will be effected. potential , that mitigating measures can effectively control. is feasible for structural development. The portion of feasible land, presently under agricultural use in the S.D.G.&E. - HUB areas, must remain agriculture due to existing coastal program policies. The infeasible land for recreational development includes those areas with sl opes greater than 20% in grade, biological ly sensitive areas, or areas of geologic hazards. Some of this land may be utilized for passive trails and picnic areas. Impact to vegetation and wild life will The canyon floor will be limited to open space These slopes are clear Some slopes do have erosion This land I I 15 I II I I B I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 2 I X- DEVELOPMENT PLAN Macario will have an influence over an area beyond it's 502 acres. sphere of influence will include Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Cannon Road from Interstate 5 to El Camino Real, and the southeast park entry road from Macario Canyon to Co1le.ge Road. The physical site conditions, linear configuration, hilly topography, adjacent water, and governmental agencies' conditions, together, have cause to be established three major land use areas: A. GENERAL LAND USE It's I 1. Lagoon and beach - for boating and limited beach activities (South shore Agua Hedionda Lagoon) , with access through SDG&E property. Natural and Agricultural Preserve - agricultural preserve cul tivat natural preserves (undeveloped areas) wet1 ands/wi Id1 i fe, archeol og sites for nature study, and circulation. (SDG&E property and wet- 1 ands ) The Canyon for active and passive recreation provided by both the commercial and public sectors, and nature study. 2. 3. I B. ACTfVlTYAREAS Specifically, the development plan for Macario Canyon Park provides for the following major activity areas: 1. Athletic Center - Gymnasium, indoor/outdoor aquatic facility and outdoor court (basketball, tennis) facilities. Multi-Use Playfields - Organized and unorganized field sports - football, soccer and basebal l/softball (leagues). 2. 3. Artisans Village - Studios, shops, outdoor exhibit and meeting facilities, coffee house. 1 I I I’ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. Interpretive Center/Park Administration Building - Indoor meeting space, museum, outdoor meeting spaces, controlled trail system, convenience/commercial, park administration offices. Restaurant - View location at highest point of site, indoor and 01 door di ni ng . Conference Center - Restaurant/banquet facilities, meeting halls, overnight visi tor accommodations. 5. I 6. 7. Botanical Center - Green & lath house, meeting facility, outdoor garden - trails, exhibit areas, exotic and native vegetation. 8. Picnic Area - Areas for individual and group picnicking. 9. Hike-In Picnic and Scout Camp Area - Group reserved area. Park Service Yard - Buildings and paved areas for storage and ser park equipment. Native Areas - Undisturbed by park development, hiking and equest 10. 11. I trai 1 s . 12. Canyon Drainway - Improved or new drainways, preserving and en- hancing existing riparian areas or establishing new riparian area: 13. Boat Facility - Small non-motorized boat use, launch and rental office with restrooms and tackle shop/fast food concession. C. PRIVATELY DEVELOPED FACUTlES DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. Athletic Club Facility 8.5 Acre site. . Main structure -- 32,000 square feet 8 racquetball courts (800 square feet per court) exercise and weight lifting rooms . . . multipurpose gymnasium space I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I . lockers and showers 1 a snack bar . . . 2 outdoor basketball courts -- 70,000 square feet . 12 tennis courts -- 86,400 square feet 25 meter pool (enclosed) -- minimum of 3,500 square feet Parking for 250 cars at 400 square feet per space -- 100,000 square feet. 2. View Restaurant (major facility) -- 2.75 acre site ’ . e . Artisans Village (several component structures) -- 6 acre site . 20 artisans units at 400 square feet -- 8,000 square feet . 4 teaching classrooms at 600-800 square feet -- 2,800 square f . 3 attached bungalow shops at 1,200 square feet -- 3,600 square . 1 art supplies store at 2,000 square feet . 1 coffee house at 2,500 square feet . 1 ramada/shade structure for lectures and display at 1,800 squ e 1 sculpture display garden at 2,000 square feet . Parking for minimum of 120-150 cars -- 60,000 square feet Interpretive Center - Museum, meeting rooms, park administration offices, convenience food -- assume 1.5 acres joint use of Artisa Village and playfield parking. . Main structure 14,000 square feet Outdoor view deck with food and drink service -- 5,000 square Parking for 330 cars -- 132,000 square feet I 3. 4. 1st phase -- 2,000 square feet plus 800 square feet of ramada (shade structure) 2nd phase -- add 4,200 square feet (additional meeting space, convenience food, park administration offices) 3rd phase -- build museum space of 3,000 square feet Total structure -- 9,200 square feet plus 800 square feet rami shade structure Parking for a minimum of 700 cars/buses D . . . I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 5. Conference Center (several component structures) -- 17 acre site . Meeting rooms and support space -- 12,000 square feet . Food services and restaurant, including banquet space -- 28,50 square feet Guest rooms: minimum of 100 units at 500 square feet per room support space -- 50,000 square feet square feet Parking for 325 cars -- 130,000 square feet . . 1 outdoor deck space for meetings, assembly, events at 1,200 . 1 natural area assembly at 1,500 square feet o 6. Convenience Commercial Store at Southeast Park Entry -- 1 acre si . Store structure -- 1,500 square feet . Parking for 20 cars -- 8,000 square feet 7. Botanic Center -- 6 acre site . Plant sales, offices, and meeting room structure -- 3,000 squa feet Green/lath house for shading plant stock and displays -- 5,OOC square feet Planted tree, shrub, native species, hillside, trails and demonstration area -- 130,000 square feet . . Parking for 100 cars . 8. Boat Facility -- 3 acre site - tentative . Office and restroom -- 1,200 square feet . Fishing tackle, bait, and food/drink store -- 800 square feet . Fenced cage for rental storage, rental boat repairs -- 5,000 5 feet Paved boat launch pad with vehicle and trailer turning areas - 15,000 square feet Boat beaching strand -- 200 linear feet Dock facility, 10 feet wide by 100 feet long, with a 50-foot L ''T" end Buoys in line with tie-ups for 30 small rental craft . . . . -2 - - # - -- - NNh)h)h)hJh)N.r+d.Jdd d..LII -wm*~N~o~~~mul~~lu~ IC 3s 35* 0 ..n 02 'dzn s g40 G~sxx*m40 g OOO~+O~ 8 69 !E!Z s AEB nu, ,,= =I LX!Z~~EnZ+<xnm+= = Z+ZZZ( nZ2 B ,I ~ p .. == - - @ *BZ OS-( ##!E :p EieB 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I - II 1 I 1 I 1 D. PHASING PROGRAM A general phasing program is suggested which emphasizes gradual controlle opening of the large park area for nature observation, for Agua Hedionda Lagoon access for small non-motorized craft, and for running/jogging-type athletic activities during the initial five years. others to build-out are expressed in the capital improvements cost concei matrix and in the overall program cost matrix. The gradual opening of the park land resources is consistent with the city ' s pay-as-you-go approach to it' s parks devel opment program, and a1 s recognizes the several project approval hurdles which must be crossed be fore intensive development can take place. The phasing program will directly respond to the increasing residential population demand for recreational services. The general phasing is proposed as follows: 1982 These ideas and 1 - Completion of acquisition of lands and lease negotiations. Installa1 of access point gates and non-liability signs to protect the city ag liability. 1 Plan/design access roads and the interpretive building. 1983 City to construct rough surface access roads to interpretive buildin site and to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Initial access will probably oca' from College Road through private property to be negotiated. Build small interpretive building for operation by nature societies. Buil non-motorized small craft launch area on Lagoon. Establish and sigr wetlands and canyon lands hiking and interpretive trails. Establist and sign Lagoon-shore hi king trail. country track course. garden area and mass tree planting to reduce visual impact of S.D.G power 1 i nes . Establ ish competitive cross Introduce tree species in future botanical 27 I I I I 1 I I - I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1984 - Build second phase of interpretive building with permenant park administration offices. Build rough surface parking areas for hikers at park access points. Install water line for fire fighting. and improve rough access roads. buffering and settings for future development. Contract definitive park development plan and engineering drawing for first phase paved roads, uti1 ities, and commercial recreational facility pad. Maintai Plant additional tree groves to creat 1985 Install initial facilities near major land features and access roads. Grade and prepare formal stabilized access roads (to be paved later) immediate use. Construct sewer, water, electrical, and telephone uti spine. Build initial playing fields (provide portable restrooms) con tree planting. 1986 - Complete utility spine corridor. Build controlled entry stations and restrooms. Rehabi 1 i tate the hi king trai 1 s. Pave formal access roads Prepare pad for commercial recreation facility (athletic center). Bu additional playing fields providing a permenant facility. Rehabilita cross country course. 1987 - Install additional picnic facilities. Private developer/operator bu- combined athletics center (tenni s, racquetball , gymnasium, swimming) 1988 - Rehabilitate interpretive building, Lagoon access road, Lagoon launcl Install formal park entry point signs and gates. Extend water servii spine for additional fire fighting protection. I 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rehabilitate cross country course. playfields. Rehabilitate and install lighting. Construct park service yard. Continue planting program, expand 19d9 - Expand commerci a1 recreational faci 1 i ty . next facility site. Expand picnic facilities. Continue S.D.G.&E. leases. Rehabi 1 i tate , if necessary, cross country course. development. Expand botanical garden and build initial botanical meeting hi 1 aing. Extend uti 1 i ty corridor to Continue 1 andscape 1990 Continue S.D.G.&E. leases. Enhance Lagoon beach launch facility. Rehabi 1 i tate Lagoon, Wetland and canyon hi king trai 1 s , extend uti 1 i ty corridor to next facility site. Pave access roads. Continue land- scape devel opemnt. developer/operator Luilas view restaurant. Expand botanical gardens. Grade pads for the conference center, restaurant and Artisans Vi 1 lage. Further pl ayfi el d development and 1 i ghti ng . Private 1991 Continue S.D.G.M. leases. Continue landscape development program. Expand park services yard. complete building facilities. conference center/restaurant and Artisans Village. Further botanical garden developpent and Private developer/operator builds I I 1992 Prepare pad for conference center housing. builds first phase of conference center, housing, Artisans Village Center, i~~ijor restaurant, canae and sail club, and lagoon view point access road, shade structure and concession. Private developer/operator I I I 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Replace landscape materials as necessary. on park perimeter where necessary. Commence landscape screens . 1993 - Private developer/operator builds second phase of conference center/ housing, Artisans Village Center, canoe and sail club, and major restaurant. Rehabilitate paved park roads, restrooms, picnic areas, hiking/jogging and equestrian trails. and replacement of 1 andscape materials as necessary. Continue planting park perimett 1994 - Private developer/operator builds third phase of Artisans Village Cenl and canoe and sail club, and expandslrehabilitates athletic center. Interpretive center is expanded adding a museum. Rehabilitate playins fields, continue rehabilitation of restrooms, hiking/jogging and equestrian trails. of landscape materials as necessary. Continue planting park perimeter and replacement 1995 - Private developer/operator builds fourth phase of Artisans Village Cer Continue rehabil itation of restrooms and picnic modules. planting park perimeter landscape and replacement of landscape materia as necessary. Continue 1996 - Rehabilitate park paved roads, jogging/hiking and equestrian trails. Continue replacement of 1 andscape material s as necessary. I 30 1 D I E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT INVESTMENTS COST ASSUMPTlONS 1. S.D.G.&E. leases assumed at cost of $1,000 per year and will rise by an additional $1,000 per year through the tenth year. 2. The project costs are very raw estimates without exact qualificz and are expressed as potential capital improvement project leve' of funding in 1981 dollars. 3. A slow and deliberate phasing of capital projects proceeds durir the first five years, leading to a major private investment in z combination athletic facility in the sixth year which equals prc jected city investment to that time. Access roads remain temporary surfaces until the fifth year wher the privately developed public recreational facility is built. Primary emphasis in the first five years, besides preparation of the private investment "pad", is placed upon development of running/jogging-type athletics and nature observation trails. Major park facilities design does not commence until the third program year. Landscape change in the canyon lands is proposed in modest increments as mass tree planting and as hillside stabilization efforts. Permanent athletic fields are proposed in the fourth program yea once an initial recreation administration building is built (for supervision and emergency services ) , with restrooms. The first five-year program concentrates on opening the park for public access uses not for investment intensive uses. Intensive uses are proposed to be built and operated by private operators. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a 31 I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 10. Utility lines cost projections have been based upon constructior from the property line except for sewer line which uses city's capital improvement project budget estimate and cost of develop- initial off-site access road from College Road. F. PROGRAM EFFORTS COSTS Macario Canyon Park is presumed to be the major new park development program in the City of Carlsbad during the next decade; it will be achiev on a carefully phased basis -- as city and private resources are availabl . Macario Canyon Park system revenues will come from: lease revenues paid to the city by the privately developed and operated recreational facilities; development donations (cash or in-kind) made by local organizations -- to both capital projects and ongoing maintenance, operations and administrative costs; collection of modest user fees for specialized facilities within the park itself -- the publicly developed and city-operated facilities (not the privately built and operated facilities which also provide revenue). Only modest amounts of federal and state grant funds are expected to be available in future years -- and are not projected to be significan resources which the development program should rely upon. . . No bond funding is proposed at this time; it may prove useful later in securing a lower construction and long-term debt for the commercial recreation facilities. . Maintenance of the entire study area, in ownership and under lease, approximately 502 acres of land surface, is conceptually projected at $838/acre/year. concentrating on protection and conservation, rather than an intensive maintenance effort based on accelerated facilities development and landscape change. This is based on an extensive maintenance effort 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I 33 Maintenance costs could double after the first five years, but should then be partially reimbursed by regular user fees and by limited inco from the privately built recreational facilities. . A full-time staff is proposed for the park in ordev to adequately pro tect the resources and to interpret the natural settings for visitors as shown on the Distribution of Program Effort Chart, page 39. Funding and fund sources for operation, administration and maintenanc of the proposed park improvement are addressed in the attached tables . Basic costs are developed for each activity to build out of Macario development (these costs are based on current construction costs with- ’ out an inflation factor) and through the first five years of operations (these costs include a 12% per year inflationary increment). Cost components for the first five years, without inflation are: I . Acquisition and leases - $2,015,000 . Capital Improvements - $2,513,000 . Maintenance, operations and administration - $1,255,000 Based *on Macario Canyon Investment Program Description Sheets which follow. I I I I I Is I= E my ?- I I =nom I- Is E 4 e Q n v) I- i- co m VQ wcou >.COT- In- x? .xcoJ+ Qr-I- urn 0 QO >- 00 z 6 < 5zsg em.< o U v El cc 4 0 r # aJ LEOMM rnO00~0 M 0 0 o 0000Lnc 5.rOI-cu cooLnm* * cu M h coooocvc aJl- 0, r- P cum*- & ).I ins 0 IaJcv a m OOLnC - co oocvc m- cu LM d 000 aco - coo0 cum- a m- c < x 000 m 00 zg mm NLnh a cv rnooorn Ln LnLnrnmcf d co - 0-rn NO cu coo cv - .) 1 m aJ S n U I I hU *r -c a ca C, muv) Q m+ r 3saJ 3L-a v) m 07 0 -r -r - v) os= L -- r= LPC, n a, = Lv)5 S aJIc .I-- Y v) .r =I L Lv tnm Y Y v - uv) UaJ c- c L *r *r aJ L ULV-PV 5aJ v) 5 C, U U v- OaJ wns L 5 aaJu5= CI - v) 4.s 0 s 5 8 a aJv) n-r Q 03a.S co a Lm L aJ 0 3 L 22 uc, Lv) + LaJLLaJU I- co aJ a2.r UL5M a5 s OC, -U v) L *F q 2 -.I < I- a u I w €2 8 > v)c s wu 25 m-sz v aJaJ.FI-7 n--n a~ 5 aJ v aJ*rL aJu?-?*rS E+ LL5 eaoaJ a3C,c, 9.v) €22 aJ v) 5 a *r E ;f 73 -r e a .P *r aJ u *r CS PUGQ 3v) uc, C,.r_t 0 a Lru 0 c, u a dv) ma 00 aJ-UL u 5 5 rd+ aJ c, m nv) L 5 -P raJ mr- v) *r- aJ 2 u*l- au mu P*F c 6) c v) v) aJ ac, E3 e s s SL sa x=- st QuaJ >-.rO)L -7 L La E 2 0 0 05 aL an .,-a, LV) -7c o a s e 5 0 0 OE ?c, UYW mu cv) L c, .r *r LI 3 3 3ma.r aou ccmmm .u C, LC, V 4uaJaJ *l--5m5 U <1c1 Odmm Z=~JJ 3 ,- a 3: a I I i I u n 4 t- - alu *. aJ n E aJ va c us a n aaJ 0 +-, v) v) ru L -r c, S +-,In +-, c e(- 00 aJ mv) P *? a FLI L L3 m m vc 0 v)w L as as mm 0 o s .? I- P .r c, a v) t- S.rL 0) sal .,-+a c, -c 0v)P CL0 t- AwLam L 13 u cu mo v) -7s -0 .. mvu ha 0 w PO sa 0 t- <L at- ? 0 vu JL LL z c *r 5 e: P nu d Eo e2 sg maYS t-w .r . . U Y U cz < 0 Ig I I I I m S -U7 .r m NS Y 2.4 -f- L F 42 a a L E m -a a n n U n 3: -0 L a .r a a L c aaa+ v) mu a a uoxx a. as a ZP c5 L na n 7aa-V LLS x VL awms aa a-cssv) *r ma m Usma m Lv) c,m ~~ama7an ccz +Jo *rW7L -am cz N l-c sv7-7 xJJauU-rLLLL ln- 3.r UGQ)>c, v) 'rUasaJI- aJnmLcimJ LOU v) amrma, c,- acz umoawu J QtaJ S v) \ CT Gc,uav)aJav)L osn >au.-aaJa~v)~~aaJ3uUsc,.~ LUmm-rwaYuGG v)s V'? av- a 0 L a no aJ c, u a *r \ a a m a 3 a LL+>CL~<E ~a)+a~mxv)~~~uo~u mLm F 3aL U Ouua'l-maa LLL aUSC3QSSSSUUO< uc,s:maooo u -7 .r LoooaccL v) m a.r >%%% .- sc, aJ a, 0 0 or- a aJc, a v)WF h3Y.r pu sLummmGc,M In> 0 sra a LGWWW a*- 0 0 E a a a aJ x x a a L aJl-I--r a a a a a unv~~~~~~wwczno~~n>nznnn u '8 a 'a-s.Fa S%tu aJa)SL x- *rLv, a*- vav).rm a .r a "Z$",*EL -c,r ascz *ml-aaamcF2LLF 2,a SF L av-*.r 0 UcnSOJL ai- L?v, v) ou a aJ v) s mLa DISTRIBUTION 2 h N \ h I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1- I I I I I I I SZ a VZLL ow > aLL 5 "5 2s a ea ~n za 4 wo I-%? Ea -N nn oe on ALL U0IoI-D > am WZQIOIN no--a -1 0) xccrc- azaa o <am a n-- mw zc OLL om ou >I- z oc sn =E 2s z u2 -+- <e 0- d "e LL :5 I OF PROGRAM EFFORT -I A 2 x +d f Y- A Y wc,2 mcII :: mu2 ON me- mmu v)U -N u s.- WLaJ A P L E'- a4v ULaJ acII P urn Y cg 5 QI!O'V)rm 000 us 2/21: -cu- v)aJ h> maJ CY - h XL Y- c.. ahw- ooov) (urn z rusu NIoIoh 1 e.-JaJ w OULP x VI 2 - 5: ___ -- - v) 4 LU v)uaooo 00000 v)QNv)O -CVmrnu3 as NIo0v)O r--mv)v) 7-w- 0 ea N a z x Lh 0. ES P-FN aJL v) a u- *- u e- al 3 .I- u 4 L n- a nu 3 *aJ L .r a2 E n~ c.. 1 - - -- - -. - - wm-rmm rnL ~m-mu3 ~mev)ro ~m-rm~o '-* .c---- --I--- -7-7- vm ma aacoaa cncncncncn coacoaa lncncnQIrn aaaaa cnarcncnm aaaaa cncnmcncn -7-7- U dQ Io - a- cg % Io N a cn m - v) 0 0 In v) In ta UJ v) h b a- - m P v) OL LL4 au aJ Q Ln 0 h N m :u> Io m nk- a N 07 0 zom - N 3v LA In c, w e- WU d w-m In c m 7 0 - 0 rg - N 240 h m - N - as 50 aJ- 0 In 0- -Ov eo m We N wc m- L aJL -m am .. u h Z-U mu c mif5 22 n~ c z rn m- u zm <e 0 em OZ z;Q c.. nv) LE L ua z 0- 09 mul c..w I-z, VU =m-- ma un c3-N 3u P o.x CCO e-* mu (uv) - CON 9 aJY- w -0 + 2 g e- aJ =st; 2% em e :2 2% c- aa i sz ac g$ m .. s .r N m r+ c e 38 N \ h I h h aJ-9- us.- 0 0 c 44v m 03 h *La em cna :: 1 UTION OF PROGRAM Ls- 0 00 WLQ .-- em aJan II I LLVI 1 I II I I I 1 I I I I I a4V LD -0 Y VI 5% 00 a OLD N UE c VIaJ %?> ma CT A * a hV*.r mh E cusv a- \ U.I-JQ c w ovun ZL 9- 22 - VI 3 0 cn m 4 c3 LV 0 000 r arc m 000 E3 w-4- c r& uo p: 3 p:LL uu QU CILL w a ow 5- cz RE ne u wlw VI +pcT LR aJ ZCI 4 V- wo I-bp *I-u meu3LDm -*Pa --m-- n-aJ N-O- 3 .C LL -., 3U zogzn n> nu cc WZrnOIN n3c-a . -1 Q, x+-+,- 3 p:=a 0 XaJ -LC) mo umm cz LV- ee -0 Rnr VIW m-I .--N cz oc 0-1 E Zl- OLL om ou CI 5-n E2 22 m U zn ca u4 4L Nmem'0 0- i v4 a3aaaOo -+ LL VIaJ mmmmm CTZ *I-> c-c-c ut- 5, =e c 4W ,z U 22 mLD om -h NN h OI m LLm 7 CILL a2 zw5- c1kI-a h zo m m LL2 VI w *.r >L W- 0, -I m - .-- av 0 m -- gg :: H EFFORT 0 N u3 N LD '0- 0 m -3- m a m '0, LD m N LD - m m \ m *I-- c - h .;r m-7 m h .-- N u3 m N-- h m Q, N N 7-7 m aJ m e c - 11- N m N c VI u cu ow e. 5( 2 5: 1 1 I = n v) u- VI .C '3 + 0 c) cuo UGOmL c 0'- LR 3 0 4.ruu 0 z Tu m VI- cz -n aJmL.-m c v) uaraJcu CI s s L P.r..- -I- zo ..-vo~n 4- v) .-.I .r mw urn ul St t v)n .---a me + V w ca 2 ,": 5Icc uu d < Eg g urn to .. .,g 39 m I I I I I I G. INITWL PUBUC/PRNATE INVESTMENT PROGRAM 7. Fiscal Years 1982-1986 . Private i nvestments Interpretive building $ 100,000 Trails and markers 90,000 25,000 Trai 1 s rehabi 1 i tati on $ 215,000* . Public investments Land acquisition and leases 2,01 5,000~ I Capital improvements 3,263 , OOO* I Total 5,493,0002 2. Fiscal Years 1987-1991 . Private investments 1 I I I I I I I I Interpretive building rehabilitation $ 25,000 Trai 1 s rehabi 1 i tati on 35 , 000 Athletic center and expansion 5,500 , 000 View res taurant 3 , 000 , 000 $8 , 560 , OOOf I . Public investments Capital improvements 4 , 539, OOO? Total $13,099,000~ 3. Fiscal Years 1992-1996 . Private investments Business conference center Conference center housing Arti sans Vi 11 age Conference center restaurant Interpretive center adds museum space Athletic center expansion and Sehab. 3 , 500 , 000 5 , 000 , 000 7,750,000 5 , 000 , 000 300 , 000 1,370,000 I 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Boat facility in lagoon $ 585,000 $9 7,505 , 0002 I Capital improvements $ 1,845,000~ . Public investments Total $1 9,350,000+ I Recap of 15-year development program concepts a City Private Total 1st 5 years $ 5,298,000 $ 215,000 $ 5,493,000~ 2nd 5 years 4,539,000 8,560,000 13 , 099 ,OOO* 3rd 5 years 1,845,000 17,505,000 19 , 350 , OOOf $11 ,662,000 $26,280,000 $37 , 942,000 31 % 69% 100% I 41 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I i I I I I 1 H. REVENUE POTENTIALS FROM PRIVATELY DEVELOPED FAClUTfES Basic Concepts 1. Ground rent contracts establish minimum lease incomes which are convertible to a percent of operating gross revenues once the operating gross formula returns exceed minimum rent proceeds. 2. All private developments pay the one-time public facilities fee at I 2% of improvements. 3. All private developments pay possessory interest real estate taxes, based upon the value of the improvements. mill ion in private investments have been defined. of Macario Park into the City , the City might expect to receive 14.5% of new property taxes collected on the private improvements. The City can provide to Macario Canyon Park operations the value of the sales taxes, property taxes and hotel guest taxes which the faci 1 i ty operators pay. Some $25.8 to $26.28 After annexations 4. 5. Carlsbad will receive 1% of all taxable sales within Macario Park, after full annexation into the City. Some $9,487,300 in annual taxable sales has been forcasted for the six major facilities defined bel ow. Primary Facilities Analyses 1. Athletic Center (8.5 acres, cumulative improvement value $6.87 millio . Land rent minimum of $.2O/sq. ft. = $74,05Z/year . Gross revenues @ $1.75 million/yr. = $17,50O/year sales tax . Real estate taxes to Carlsbad @ $14.5% - $9,962/year . Public facilities fee = $137,400 cumulatively 42 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 2. View Restaurant (2.75 acres, cumulative improvement value of $3.0 mi e . Land rent minimum (3 $.20/sq. ft. = $23,958/year Gross revenues @ $1.75 rnillion/year = $17,50O/year sales tax (land rent could convert to 2% of gross, yielding $35,00O/year) Real estate taxes = $4,35O/year Public facilities fee = $60,000 one time . . 3. Artisans Village (6-acre site, cumulative improvement value of $1.75 . Land rent minimum (3 $.lO/sq. ft. = $26,136/year . Gross revenue (retail only) could yield $7,90O/year sales tax a . Conference Center (17-acre site , cumul ati ve improvement val ue of $13.5 million) I Real estate taxes = $2,536/year Public facilities fee = $35,000 one time 4. . . Gross revenues (retail sales tax) of $4,795,300 = $47,953/year sal . Hotel room tax (70% occupancy '3 $%/night) = $84,315/year . Real estate taxes = $19,575/year . Land rent @ $.lO/sq. ft. = $74,052/year Public facilities fee = $270,000 cumulatively 5. Separate Convenience Commercial Store (1-acre site, improvement value of $150,000) . Land rent @ $.2O/sq. ft. = $8,712/year . . Real estate taxes = $218/year . Sales tax 8 $1OO/sq. ft./year gross = $1,500/year Public facilities fee = $3,000 43 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 6. Boating Facility (3-acre site, improvement value of $585,000) . . . . Land rent @ $.20/sq. ft. = $26,136/year Sales tax = $2,500 - $3,000/year Real estate taxes = $848/year Public facilities fee = $11,700 one time I Other Macario Canyon Park facilities, such as the Interpretive Center and the Botanical Gardens, are unlikely to yield significant revenues and have not been 1 i sted herein. RECAP OF ESTIMATED REVENUE (after full build-out) . Minimum annual land rents = $233,046/year . Sales tax receipts = $94,873/year . Real estate taxes = $37,489/year . . Hotel room taxes = $84,315/year Total annual revenues = $449,723 Public facilities fee (cumulative) = $517,100 . 1. FUND SOURCES It is recommended that Carlsbad consider establishment of an enterprise account through which a17 municipal revenues generated by and in the park ca be reinvested in both development and maintenance. This will require stead- fast City Council policy determination. types of revenues , col 1 ected within the park, be credited to park devel opmen operation, and maintenance. . Sales tax . Visitor bed tax . . Land lease revenues . Concessionaire contract income It is proposed that the following Possessory interest real property tax 44 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I . Gifts, donation, bequests . Facilities rents and reservation fees . . State and federal grants . . . Public facilities fees from private developers within the park Entry fee for major competitions and tournaments Private corporation facility and/or event sponsorships In kind services and goods donations J, 15 YEAR ESTIMATE OF COSTS AND REVENUES The two tables which follow demonstrate the flows of public and private investments in Macario Canyon Park. They have been created from close analysis of the concept plan which has been developed for the park which purposefully features a gradual phased long-term build-out. The development scheme mixes public and private investments to create a unique City/region park -- with careful regard for the fragile environmental resources of the canyons, wetlands and lagoon. Both tables are computed in 1981 value dollars. conservative concerning the level of funding and donated effort which can be expected from private organizations in Carlsbad. Table I, Acquisition and Development Investments Division of Responsibility Concept, illustrates the gradual 15-year capital improvement program and demonstrates the substantial capture of private investment to build and operate recreational facilities, restaurants and a conference center. The total City investment of $11.7 million is matched by $26.3 million in privat investments. Each City dollar generates $2.20 in private development value. On-going park access and facilities costs by the City during the 15-year tim period have been included in the estimates -- as a true reflection of real future City costs. Both tables are highly I 45 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I It is possible to rearrange the recommended capital development program to reduce front-end City investments in non-revenue-producing facilities and maximize earlier capture of private recreation facility investments. That would bring on earlier revenue streams than are shown in Table II. City would still need to bear substantial on- and off-site costs (access, utilities, pads) in order to induce private investment. Table 11, Maintenance, Operations and Administration Costs and Revenues Concept, displays the revenue assumptions which have been proposed in the Macario Canyon Park Oevel opment Pl an. I There are five "yields" : 1. Private donations of operational funds or in-kind services -- primarily in the start-up years. Revenues earned from the privately developed pub1 ic recreation and visitor facilities, including land lease income, possessory interest property taxes, sales taxes, and hotel guest taxes. 3. Public Facilities Fee payments by the private investors: these 2. have not been credited to Macario Canyon Park costs. System Revenues - Potential modest user fees charged to users of the public recreational facilities (athletic fields, group picnic areas, botanical garden, museum, etc.). Fees collected for recreation operations by the Parks Department for organized recreational activities offered within the park -- according to the current City policy at least 60 percent of recreatio operations will be self-sustaining within five years. 4. 5. 1 The revenue concepts have purposefully included very low yields from the initial long-term land leases as inducements to the investors to build and operate the public recreation and visitor facilities for profit. 46 1 I I I I I I I I I I The minimum land rents would then convert to a percentage of business gross revenues at an early point, but still at a level designed to encourage both profit and high quality recreation operations and visitor services 1 performance. Table I1 indicates a long-term nature of Macario Canyon Park revenue generat Table I1 shows the concept that eventual revenue generation would reduce Citq annual maintenance and operations exposure to $150,000 to $200,000 per year. This Economic Study did not build in a requirement that the City receive a return or any eventual pay-off of its sunk acquisition and public improvements investments. That would be a further alternative investigation For comparative purposes, please note that: 1. Macario Canyon Park acquisition and development (pub1 ic costs) as proposed herein at $11.7 million would be equal to roughly one-fourth of the proposed commitment of $40.7 million to all parks in Carlsbad from Public Facilities Fee revenues. Average Macario Canyon Park net operational costs ($225,000) over the 15-year projection period would be equal to roughly one-fifth of the current Department of Parks and Recreation 2. I annual operating budget. I K. ESTIMATED USE/VlSITATlON Average Macario Canyon Use Conference Center @ 70% capaci ty I I I 1 I 70 room nights x 1.5 persons/room = 105 over night guests 350 - 500 restaurant and banquet guests/day 250 - 350 conference attendeedday 47 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Combination uses for facility* = 5005 visitors/day roughly the same on weekends * Same guest/conference attendee will use overnight room, restaurant and conference meeting rooms. Artisans Village 20 resident artists/day 100 - 150 students/day + 80/night 100 - 150 art store customers Coffee house turnover @ 500/day combination use by same persot 500/day. Interpretive Buil ding/Museum Interpretive C1 asses 60/day School children visits 4 buses/day = 120 children Museum vi si tors 50/day Park office vi si tors 70/day combination uses = 200/day, 350/day on weekend I Botanical Garden 40 - 75/day - regular attendees 20 - 30 guild members up to 100/special event * Includes school children and other organized groups. Weekday 100/day* Weekend 200/day View Restaurant 350 - 500 guests/day (479 average guests x $10/meal) Weekend 450 - 600 guests/day I 4% I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I P1 aying Fie1 ds 3 Ball diamonds x 2 games/day x 18 children = 108 children 2 Basketball courts x 5 games/day x 10 children = 100 children 200/day (f i el d and court games combined). Weekend day/night use - 40Q/day +300 Spectators I Picnic Areas 16 facil ities x 3/party x l/day x 6 tables x 70% use = 200/day Weekend use x 4/party x 2 uses/day x 90% = 691/day Boating Facil ity 30 rental craft x 2 (used twice daily) x 2 persons = 120 users 30 launches of private boats x 2 persons = 60 users Shore fishing/dock fishing = 75 users 255/day 400/weekend use day Athl etic Center Racquetball 8 Courts x 6 Games x 2 People = 96 Tennis 12 Courts x 6 Games x 2 People = 144 Swimming 250/day Gym 200/day Allow for combination use = 450/day I Weekend use = 900/day 49 I I I I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I' I I Trail users @ 80 - 120/day 1 200 - 300/weekend day Drive thru/"look see'' passive auto visit (no destination) 9 no stopping @ 200/day x 2 person/car = 400/day 600/weekend day Potential Average Park Users Weekday 3,330 - 3,50O/day + I Weekend Day 5,866 - 7,00O/day f 50 > . Y I. .* . P 0. 1L u 0. n.i Y .Y aa. c- t gm =z ). -LI - Y g{ i ;< 5; 3 ;; .I 0 -* P, c n $1 -c 22 n ue. YY m-u I e CY. u GO 9. a - COLd .VI td 9, J -a e': as e- J . -r oc Y -m I -8- 0 05 LC n. - Ey 2; - Xm Za uu 00 uy 4 22 2" te 2: t 222 b. 00 io" P- UP 2," 2% zs C YYC C 0 c).- I I - -us sz bS 4 vs zz :: "r 2 CL. -. - L.). YEO Y >a. c u-u L.u . -. u *-Q- - 2zg 5 0 ... u --I-! Y .. - I U 0 2 8 52 B e " n I 1 \, ’ t I i I 1 i i i I I I I I