Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-07; City Council; 8472; SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY STUDYSENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY STUDY Commission: 1. That the Harding Community Center site be the location fc permanent senior citizen facility. That the existing structures be demolished and a new 12,l square foot building be constructed with room for expans to be used exclusively by senior citizens. That the alley on the east side of the existing building: vacated and the property to the north be purchased in or( provide additional space for the new building and parkinc 2. 3. Item Explanation: at the Harding Community Center with the following changes: 1. Existing buildings be demolished and a new 12,000 square (2) two story facility be constructed for exclusive use 1: Seniors. That there be room for future expansion. That the alley to the east be vacated and the property tc north be purchased to allow for building expansion and ad tional parking. 2. 3. m JY74 1) Agenda Bill No. Page Two Analysis Discussion The demolishing and rebuilding of a new facility to be used the Seniors on the Harding Community Center site has merit. However, to be used exclusively by the Seniors creates a dis- placement problem for recreation staff, programs, classes, registration, storage, and the various community groups that use the existing facility. Staff is presently studying alternatives to resolve the disp. ment problem of relocating staff and programs to other facil: but there is no resolution at this time. Funding Alternatives: If the City Council is willing to commit Redevelopment or Ger Fund monies or a combination of both in the amount necessary service the acquisition and service debt, the City Attorney E Finance Director has advised staff that there are a number oJ readily available to finance such a public project as a senic citizens center in the Redevelopment area. Fiscal Impact: The approximate costs to develop Harding as a senior citizen: center are: Demolition $ 50,000 Design, Engineering, and 168,000 Construction at $70 per square 840,000 90,000 Parking Landscaping 50,000 Land Acquisition 260,000 $1,458,000 Contingency @ 15% 218,700 Estimated Total $1,676,700 Inspection Fees @ 20% foot at 12,000 square feet Advance monies will also be necessary to retain an architect do a site plan and design the facility. It is estimated the will be $20,000. Funds for an architectural study are availa in the Parks and Recreation CIP Advanced. Dark Planning and Recreation Facility Design. The maintenance/operation and thc costs for the senior citizen center will be approximately $12( per year. In addition, the City could lose up to $90,000 per year in re7 that is collected from classes and rentals at Harding Communi1 Center. This figure could be lower if some of the activities relocated. 0 m Agenda Bill No. p?f7& Page Three Exhibits: 1. Senior Citizen Site Study 0 December 19, 1985 TO: DAVID BRADSTREET, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: Sue Schultz Spickard, Senior Citizens Coordinator SENIOR CITIZENS SITE STUDY BACKGROUND On September 3, 1985, the City Council directed staff to investigate various City or privately owned sites throuqhout Carlsbad for the potential developmeni of a permanent Senior Citizens Facility, and to provide fundina alternatives. RECOMMENDED ACTION Location The Senior Citizen Commission recommends the following : 1. That Harding Community Center be completely demolished and a new, 12,000 square foot facility with room for exmnsion be constructed for excLusive use by the Senior Citizens. 2. That the alley on the east side of Harding be vacated to allow for expansion o 3. That the City purchase the property to the north of Harding (Dr. 3acob's) j order to provide additional space for facility construction and parking. Funding If the City Council is willing to commit Redevelopment or Generl Fund monies 01 a combination of both in the amount necessary to service the acquisition and construction debt, the City Attorney and Finance Director has advised staff tha there are a nuder of ways readily available to finance such a public project a a senior center facility in the Redevelopment area. ANALYSIS /DXSCUSSION The Carlsbad Senior Citizens Association (CSCA) has provided senior programs since 1975. Last %ne, the City established a Senior Citizen Division under th auspices of the Parks and Recreation Department. A Senior Citizen Coordinator was hired to coordinate the various proqrams and activities offered by the City. In addition, the City also established a Senior Citizen Commission in Auqust, 1985. The purpose of the Commission is to advise the City Council on the special needs and concerns of Senior Citizens, including the creation, operational maintenance, and control of Senior Citizen programs, activities, ani facilities. m m In August of 1985, the CSCA went through a major reorganization and elected a new Board of Directors. CSCA has made the construction of a Senior Center, for exclusive use by seniors, to be one of their priorities and have expressed thei. concerns to the City Council. On September 3, 1985, City Council directed staff to study potential sites for Senior Citizen Center and explore potential funding. A Site Committee was appointed by the Commission and the CSCA to review various sites throughout the City. The Committee was comprised of: - Hiram Hoskin Senior Citizen Commission - Dr. John Mitchell Senior Citizen Commission - Dr. David Castner Carlsbad Senior Citizens Assocation - Hugh Vickery Carlsbad Senior Citizens Assocation - Sue Schultz Spickard Senior Citizens Coordinator The purpose of the Committee was to assist staff in responding to the City Council directive of identifying sites and alternative financing. The Committc began by reviewing and investigating surrounding cities and their senior programs, as well as contacting other cities of similar size. This was done tc determine what size facility Carlsbad needs for their elderly population. The criteria used by the Committee for determining the location and type of the facility is as follows: 1. Construct a quality facility. 2. 3. 4. 5. Accessability to freeway, bus routes, major arterials. 6. Site should be available for immediate construction. 7. Demographics considerations. 8. Financing alternatives. The Site Committee explored both City-owned land and private property in their analysis. The Committee toured the various sites to determine their feasibility. The potential locations examined in the the four quadrants throughout the City wer as follows. (For more details, refer to Attachment A): A. Northwest Quadrant - P.I.L. Dist 1 The ideal facility should be at least three (3) acres. A building of at least 12,000 square feet with an ability to expand and wil the possibility of a two (2) story structure. Adequate parking with a minimum of 120 spaces. Many sites were not explored because of their inadequate size. 1. Parisi Property - End of Grand Avenue - 2.79 acres 2. Harding Community Center - .81 acres 3. Triangle Storaqe - State Street - .67 acres 4. City Yard - Oak Street - 1.4 acres 5. Avis Property - Cannon and El Camino Real - 7 - 9 acres 6. Pine Elementary School - 10.6 acres 7. City Block in Redevelopment Area -2 - 0 0 B. Northeast Quadrant - P.I.L. Dist 2 1. Tamarack Avenue and South East corner of El Camino Real (Robertson) - 2. Calavera Hills Community Park 168 acres C. Southwest Quadrant - P.I.L. Dist 3 1. 2. Cannon Lake Park - 6 acres D. Southeast Quadrant - P.I.L. Dist 4 Macario Canyon Park - 288 acres 1. There were no sites reviewed by the Committee in this quadrant. Based on a thorough analysis of previous mentioned criteria, Harding Street Community Center is recommended to be the permanent Senior Citizen facilities for the City of Carlsbad. The Commission further recommends that the site at Harding Community Center be completely demolished and a new 12,000 square foot facility with room for expansion be constructed for exclusive use by the Senior Citizens. They furthc recommended that the alley on the east side of Harding be vacated to allow for expansion and that the City purchase the property north of the Center to provic additional space for facility construction and parking. The Commission suggested that in order to utilize the Harding site, the following should be completed: 1. Demolish the existing structure. 2. Construct a new 12,000 sauare foot facility with the ability to expand. 3. Vacate the alley property. 4. Add more parking. 5. Purchase the land directly north of Harding (Dr. 3acob's property) or other land that is adjacent to the site. It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to request RFP's for Architectural Services to review the feasibility of constructing a permanent Senior Citizen Center at Harding Community Center and further direct staff to explore the possibility of purchasing the property north of Harding. FISCAL IMPACT Based on calculations from the 1985 Dodge Construction Systems Costs and discussions with Mr. Ron Paige, Parks Consultant with R.S.I., the average cost for a senior citizens facility is $70 per square foot. This figure is for the capital construction of a senior citizens facility only. __I -3- m m Development Costs - Senior Citizen Facility Demoli t ion $ 50,000 Design, Eng. Inspection Fees @ 20% 168,000 Construction at $70 square foot at 12,000 square feet 840,000 Parking 90,000 Land scapi nq 50,000 Land Acquisition 260,000 $ 1,458,000 Contingency @) 15% 218,700 1,676,700 ---I__ ~ --I_ ESTIMATED TOTAL Advance monies will also be necessary to retain an architect to do a site plan and desiqn the facility. for an architecture study are available in the Parks and Recreation CIP for advanced park planning and recreation facility design. The maintenancefoperation and staff costs for the Senior Citizen Center will be approximately $1 20,000 per year. It is estimated that the costs will be $20,000. Func - FUNDING ALTEFNATIVES The following funding sources were explored by staff and the Committee (refer t Attachment K) : 1. Foundations 2. Fund-Raising Project 3. Federal and State Grants 4. Block Grant 5. Redevelopment Funds 6. CSCA Building Fund 7. Mello Roos Bond Act 8. Revenue Sharina 9. Public Facilities Fee IO. Park-In-Lieu Fees -4 - m 0 ATTT ACHMENTS A. Potential Senior Center Locations 8. Senior Citizen Physical Lay-out Recommendations C. North County Senior Centers D. Other Cities Comparison E. F. Excerpts from Redevelopment Law G. Redevelopment Area map H. I. 1983 Facility Site Study 3. Site Committee Report K. Funding Alternatives L. Matrix - Senior Citizen Sites M. Facts About Harding Letter from Stradling , Yocca, Carlson and Rauth regarding Redevelopment 1985 Dodge Construction Systems Costs Data -5- 0 0 POTENTIAL SENIOR CENTER LOCATIONS 1. NORTHWEST QUADRANT - P.I.L. Dist 1 A. PARIS1 PROPERTY - End of Grand Avenue - 2.79 acres PRQS: - In Redevel.opment area - Parcel size is adequate - - Access to public transportation Close proximity to current senior population CONS: - Must be purchased (approximate cost - $1,575 million) - Close to Oceanside €3. HARDING COMMUNITY CENTER - .81 acres PROS: - Currently the focal point for Seniors - In the Redevelopment area - Access to public transportation - Owned by the City - Financing availability CONS: - Parcel is small* - Parking is inadequate - Major renovation/demolition/construction would be necessary * Property north to Jack-In-The-Box available for purchasc approximate cost s260,OOO. 00. - Displacement of Recreation staff and programs. C. TRIANGLE STORAGE - State Street - .67 acres PROS: - Good location for current Senior population - In Redevelopment area - Financing availability CONS: - Parcel too small - Parking severely inadequate - - City would have to purchase Major renovation/demolition/construction would be necessary D. AVIS PROPERTY - Cannon & El Camino Real - 7 - 9 acres PROS: - Donated land - Parcel is large enough (3 - 4 acres which can be developed) CONS: - Access problems - - City may not be able to develop Property contingent upon various City actions Attachment A -6- 0 m E. CITY YAW) - Oak Street - 1.4 acres PROS: - In Redevelopment area CONS: - Proximity to train tracks - Parcel is small - - Undesirable location City would have to purchase the parcel F. BLOCK IN REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROS: - In Redevelopqent area - Potentially large parcel - Close proximity to current senior population COE4S: - City would have to Durchase - Residents would be displaced - Extremely political decision - Land not easily/quickly attainable G. PINE SCHOOL - 10.6 acres PROS: - Close proximity to current senior population - In Redevelopment area - Large parcel CONS: - City would have to purchase - Not currently for sale 2. NORTHWEST QUADRANT - P.I.L. DIST 2 A. TAMARACK AVENUE AND SOlJTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL PROS: - Ideal location - Good access - Large parcel CONS: - City would have to purchase - Planned for commercial use - Not in demoqraphic area 8. CALAVERA HILLS COMMUNITY PARK - 18 acres PROS: - City owns - Large parcel CONS: - Somewhat inaccessible to current senior population - Plan for development already approved -7- 3 0 0 3. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT - P.1.L. DIST 3 A. MACARIO CANYON - Approximately 280 acres PROS: - City owned property - Centrally located - Parcel size is large - Ideal/beautiful site CONS: - Not in Redevelopment area - Development is in the distant future - Master plan for development of this site may be modified 6. CANNON LAKE - 6 acres, approximately 4 of which can be built upon PROS: - Owned by the City - Access to public transportation - Could start immediately CONS: - Not in Redevelopment area - Close proximity to train tracks - Too close to water 4. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT - P.I.L. DIST 4 A. None OTHER SITE LOCATIONS PURSUED 1. SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. 3ames Stark of the Carlsbad Unified School District expressed that the District had no available property for a Senior Center and he did not foresee any becoming available in the near future. The availability of Pir School was mentioned and Mr. Stark did not see it as a possibility at this time . 2. KELLY PROPERTY Mr. Allen Kelly, Sr. was contacted as to the availability of land. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not have any property available to donate or for purchase for a Senior Center facility. 3. COURTNEY ENTERPRISES Mr. 3im Courtney of Courtney Enterprises has proposed building a Senior Center to the specifications set by the City and then leasing the Center back to the City to utilize as their Senior Center. in favor of this proposal. Site Committee was not -8- 0 m SENIOR CENTER PHYSICAL LAY-OUT RECOMMENDATIONS Facility should include: - Lobby with couches, chairs and tables - Reception/front office/clerical area - Ample storage - Ample parking - Vacant office/room available for volunteer services (taxes, legal assistance, counseling and etc.). extra services without disrupting regular staff functions. - Kitchen - preparation or serving kitchen to be determined - Ample restroom facilities - Office space - as dictated by the direction of the programs - Meeting rooms for qeneral use, dining and meeting - possibly with ti ability to he divided - Rooms for exclusive use by special groups (qame roan with pool tabh and etc., crafts room with sink and storrge, etc.) - Library/quiet room - lounae with fireplace - Built in P.A. system - Air conditioning/heating - - Large maintenance closet - Locked display cases - Conference Room A room which provides privacy fol Wiring for potentially high voltage equipment (1.e. steam tables, ref rigerator) Other suggestions : - Lap pool - Shuffleboard court - Horse shoe pit - Large Multi-purpose Auditorium - Automatic front doors (sliding) - Gift shop Attach me nt -9- m m NORTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTERS ENCINITAS - HELEN WOODWARD CENTER 890-5 Balour Encinitas, CA 92024 5,400 square feet $600,000 for building and equipment ESCONDIDO 30SLYN SENIOR CENTER 3.195 acres POPULATION: 74,27( 724 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 19,749 square feet Original building: $821,415 cost with additions Original building cost: $311,000 OCEANSIDE SEN10 R CENTER POPULATION: 87,142 455 Country Club Lane Oceanside, CA 92054 9,000 square feet $927,214 cost 4,000 square feet addition proposed at this time. SAN MARCOS 30SLYN SENIOR CENTER POPULATION: 19,94C m’l Richmar Avenue San Marcos, CA 92069 6,000 square feet 2,950 square feet addition proposed at this time. VISTA NUTRITION CENTER POPULATION: 41,945 150 Escondido Avenue Vista, CA 92083 9,000 square feet New center being proposed at this time. VISTA SENIOR CENTER 222 3ef ferson Vista, CA 92083 4,000 square feet CARLSBAD POPULATION: 40,486 7,843 square feet in 1974 *Population statistics are from 1984 projections based on the 1980 Federal Census. At t ach me nt -10- 0 0 OTHER CITIES COYPARISON CYPRESS ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION: 42,34t City operates Senior Program. Seniors have their own facility on vacated schc property. They utilize classrooms separate from their buildinq for classes ar the game room (pool tables and etc.). Senior Proqram is under the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Cypress. LA MIRADA LOS ANGELES COUNTY POPULATION: 41,048 Seniors do not have a facility for their exclusive use. They utilize a multipurpose room and four classrooms of a vacated school building. City operates the program. SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS ORISPO COUNTY POPULATION: 36,420 No senior program is offered through the City. SANTEE SAN DIEGO COUNTY POPULATION: 59,787 City has two sites through which Senior programs are offered. One site is for the noon day lunch only, and the other is a shared facility where other agenci are located (i.e. Mental Health). Rograms/Services are primarily offered through the various agencies located in this shared facility. SAN RAFAEL MARIN COUNTY POPULATION: 44,700 City provides a building for the exclusive use by seniors Monday throuqh Frida from 9:OO A.M. until 3:OO P.M. City also provides 1 1/2 paid staff for the program. BUENA PARK ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION: 64,952 City operates the senior program. Sneiors have a new facility which was built for their exclusive use. Included in the orograms offered through the City is an adult Day Care Center, also located in the facility. 18,000 square feet facility. CI *Population statistics are from 1984 projections based on the 1980 Federal Census At t ac h me nt 0 -1 1- 0 0 STBADLISG, Yocca, CAELSON- (?c RAUTH A P R 3 F E 5 Si 0 Y A C COR PO RAT104N ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 NEW-RT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1600 FR.TZ R. STRA3LING WE'IA C. 5:OhE NlCX C. YCCCA RA~OALL J. 5nZRUAN WILLIAM R. RAUTH Ill WASK J. HUE83CH JCHh E c. CRAIG CARLSON ORLICE FEUCHTER K. C. SCHAAF KRK r. MACOONAOO POST OFFICE SOX 7880 R CnAnO C. GOODMAN KARfU A. ELLIS. T vOHN J. HJFiPHY ELIZAULTH C. GREEN NEWWRT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92be0.6401 THOMAS P. CLARK, d~. (71- TELEPHONE (714) 640-703s PEG1 A. GF~OIJ~OHATEF? BEN A. FRYOMAN DAVID F?. MCENLN PAUL L. GALE hElLA R. eCSIYSTEIN RWOOCPH C. SHEPARD RoeERr J. KANL u. O. reLaor NAhCY RADER W>iITEHEAO BRUCE C. STUART LEWIS G. FELOMAU COUGLAS F. HIGHAH PS8CRT J. WHALEN CONACD J. HAFIUAU JOHY J. SWIGARY, JR. TOhY L. LGwL CHRISTOPWER J. RILPATRICK SYLVIA 0. CAUTSCH M*RM W. OVVO~SIN E. KURT YEAGCR "CLAan u. LI~L~SOH PETER ROI3ERT J. E. TENNYSON RICH LAWRENCE FPYEST W. SLATTE 8. C3HH 111 September 16, 1985 *riLwCiED COCUUI'* Or m.R Q147iliCT OWLY Or RE&-E[vr &*a THOMAS A. PISTONE SCOTT E. McCONNELL AhN D. CATRON - SEP2,:'1$$5 Mr. Martin Orenyak Director of Zuilding & Planning 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Flarty: ,. At the request of Tom Clark, I would like to respond to your question as to whether a rehevelopmenk agency may constrtlct a publicly owned senior citizens center. You have asked whether such a senior citizens center, if constructed by an agency, must be located within a projec:t area or whether it may be located outside a project area and you have also asked whether such a senior citizens center may~be funded with tax increment revenues or whether it must be funded with other types of rconeys available to the agency. ~ The state's Community Redevelopment Law (codified at California Health and Safety guidelines as to whena redevelopment agency may construct a publicly-owned improvement, irrespective of whether such improvenent is located inside or outside of a project &rea and also irrespective of whether tax increment revenues or other revenues are used to finance such a project. . Code Sections 33000 et 3.) (the "Law") provides specific Section 33445 of the Law provides general authorization for an agency to expend moneys for the construction of a public improvement. The Section provides, in part, as follows: ". , .an-agency may, with the consenE -legislative body,-- pay all- or part 'of the value of the.land for and the cost of the installation and construction-of any building, facility, .structurep- or other improvement which is pub3.icly owned either within-or without the project area, if the legislative body-determines both of the following: -12- ATTACHMENT 0 0 Nr. Martin Orenyak Septexber 16, 1985 Page Two 1. structures, or other -improvenenks,are of benefit to _the project area or-the- irnrnediate-neighborhood in Ghich the project<,is located, -regardless of .. whether* the -improvement is within another,project area, *or in .the case of a project area -in which substantially all of the land is publicly owned that--the improvement is of benefit .to an adjacent project-area of the agency. T h a t: a: t he _. bu i Id i n cj s , 2. That no other reasonable means of .financing such buildings, facilities,-structures, or other improvements, .are .available to the community. . . .-- __ Those determinations by the agency and the local legislative body shall be final and conclusive. For redevelopment plans -and amendments to those plans which add territory to a project, adopted-after October 1, 19761 acquisition of property and installation or construction of each facility shall be provided for in the redevelopment plan.'- ~-A-redevelopment agency-shall- not pay.for the normal-maintenance Structures, or other improvements which are owned by the *cominunity.- Normal maintenance or operations do not include the construction, expansion, addition to,- or reconstruction of, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements owned by the community otherwise undertaken pursuant to this section." (emphasis added) ,or operations,. of -buildings, facilities, Thus, the law provides that before a redevelopment agency may spend moneysf either tax increment revenues or other funds, .for the construction of a public improvement, the legislative body of the city must make certain findings that - (i) the proposed public improvement 'is'a benefit: to the subject, ,project -- area-.and that .(ii) no _other- reasonable means for *funding -such an--improvement .exists. Most importantly, such a public improvement must be specifically identified within the .subject redevelopment plan before an agency may spend any money for its construction. / -13- - c 7 _I' > 0 0 Mr. Martin Orenyak September 16, 1985 Page Three We understand that the redevelopment plan in question does contain certain provisions for the construction of public buildings in general, but does not contain a specific reference to a sehior citizens center. An argument can be made that the senior citizens center would be included under such a general authorization €or public buildings. It is doubtful whether this argument will hold up in face of a challenge since Section 33445 does specifically provide that "each facility shall be provided for in the redevelopment plan". Thus, it is our conclusion that in order-for the City's redevelopment agency to ficance the subject senior citizens center,- the. agency -must first-initiate an-amendment-to its redevelopment plan to specifically provide for-such senior-citizens project. This would require the agency to comply with the formal plan amendment procedures and may also require environmental and fiscal review under the Law. <-An agency may construct- public improvements which are located outside-,of a project area. -However, the further such an improvement is located from a project area, the more. difficult it is for a legislative body to make the requisite finding that the subject improvement is of benefit to the project are$- o the immediate neighborhood-in which the project .:is located, The Law does contain a special provision for the expenditure of tax increment revenues by a redevelopment agency revenues for the construction of a public facility. ' Pursuant to Section 33679 of the Law, the legislative body of the City ..must hold a public hearing regarding such use of tax increment -revenues. Notice of the time and place of such a hearing must be published in the local newspaper for at least two successive weeks prior to the hearing and a special report must be prepared and made available to the public, This Section 33679 hearing is usually held in conjunction with the action required by the legislative body pursuant to Section 33445. . and would apply in the event an agency spends tax increment Please feel free to call me with any comments or questions you may have regarding this issue. Very truly yours, STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON 6 RAUTH &&+k Ed/s Jdb < Sylvia D. Lautsch, Esq. -14- cc: vincent F. Biondo, Jr. 7 829 p/2 41 0/0 0 %?- a .. :-) I ,\ / CALIFOWNHA HEALTH AND SAFETY COLpE- Division U, P%iriv<I; _- im~i:i;--- 1 DisfrZmted by CRA ASSOCIA THON p;w' d- ,Ti !/ i I /"' 1 bjPJJy lq-j :i (3 h. i .< \, -. ' 'ri" 2- 7- -w 1' - \ - -15- 1 COMPILED BY: Stale of Calljornia ATTACHMEN' Department of Noitsing K Community Development Revised April 1981 f' *! . 0 0 !/ i' Article 2. Redevelopment 33020. "Redevelopment" means the p-] anni ng, devel oprnent ~ n _sign,-ance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any com??%?k-i of all or part of a survey area, and the provision of such residential, cial, industrial, public, or other structures or spaces as may be appro{ necessary in the interest of the general welfare, includinq recrekt- other facilities incidental or appurtenant to them. j ,/%- 33021. Redevelopment includes: -(a) (b) The alteration, improvement, modernization, reconstructic habilitation, or any combination of these, of existing structures in a p Provision for open space types of use, such as streets an public grounds and space around buildings, and public or private buildin structures and improvements, and improvements of public or private recre areas and other public grounds. The replanning or redesign or original development of und areas to which either of the following conditions exist. (7) The areas are stagnant or improperly utilized becaust fective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to si; shape, accessibility, or usefulness, or for other causes. (2) The areas require replanning and la'nd assembly for rc tion or development in the interest of the general welfare because of wic scattered ownership, tax delinquency,"or other reasons. (3) The areas require land assembly for the purpose of ti. development of a "new community" wi.thin the meaning of the Federal New Communities Act of 1968. Rc (c) 33022. Redevelopment does not exclude the continuance of existing b or uses whose demolition and rebuilding or change of use are not deemed e to the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the area. Article 3. Declaration of State Policy - Blighted Areas It is found and declared that there exist in many communitie! blighted areas which constitute either physical, social, or economic liab requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and genera' fare of the people of such communities and of the state. A blighted area is one which is characterized by one or more of thcsc tions set forth in Sections 33031 or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lac proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a ser physical, social, or economic burden on the community which cannot reason; expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. 33031, A blighted area is characterized by the existence of buildin5 structuresy used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial other purposes, or any combination of such uses, which are unfit or unsafe cupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of di 33030. 1 i 1 i / i i I I ji -16- 1 I j I 0 0 33443. Property acquired by an agency for rehabilitation and resal be of-for resale within one year after completion or rehabilitation annual report shall be published by the agency in a newspaper of general tion published in the community listing any rehabilitated property held agency in excess of such one year per'iod, stating the reasons such prope mains unsold and indicating plans for its disposition. In-undertaking rehabilitation of structures pursuant to thi every redevelopment agency shall, on or before February 15 of each year, ing with February 15, 1963, render a report to the Legislature setting f detail the activities of the agency involving rehabilitation, including, limited to, each of the following: V'' * 1 33444. (a) (b) (c} Disposition of rehabilitated units. Expenditure of pub1 ic funds.' Number and kinds of units rehabilitated. 33445. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 33440, an agency the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the value of the and the cost of the installation and?cmkr&j;n of any building, facil Istructm or other improvement which is publicly owned either within or the project area, if the legislative body determines: (1) that such bui facilities, structures, or other improvements are of benefit to the or the imediate neighborhood in which the project is located, rpqariilgs whether ______---- such improvmen.~_fs-wi~hin --- another project area, or in the case ject area in which substantially-a11 of the land is publicly'owned that provement is of benefit to an adjacent project area of the agency, and ( no other reasonable means of financina VLCh bildings, facilities, struc 'other improvements, are avail able to the _conirnunity. S-u~h-determha?Am . -a ency-and the local leqislative body shall be fingl and conclusive, Fo 'bent plans, and amendments to suchm%meE-itory to a p adopted after October 1, 1976, acquisition of property and installation struction of each facility shall be provided for in the redevelopment pl When the value of such land or the cost of the installation and con of such building, facility, structure, or other improvements, or both, h or will be, paid or provided for initially by the community or other pub poration, the agency may enter into a contract with the community or 0th corporation, under which it agrees to reimburse the community or other p corporation for all or part of the value of such land or all or part of of such buiding, facility, structure, or other improvement, or both, by payments over a period of years- The obligation of the agency under such contract shall constitute a edness of the agency for the purpose of carrying out the redevelopment p for such project arez, which,indebtedness may be made payable out of tax in such project area and allocated to the agency under subdivision (b) o 33670, or out of any other available funds- In a case where such land has been or will be acquired by, or the c the installation and construction of such building, facility, structure improvement has been paid by, a parking authority, joint powers entity, public corporation to provide a building, facility, structure, or other rnent which has been or will be leased to the community, such contract ma with, and suck reimbursement may be made payable to, the community. With respect to the financing,' acquisition, or construction of a tr tion, collection, and distribution system and related peripheral parking ties, in a county with a population of four million (4,000,000) persons 'Z ; I i -17- i .. i i ... ATTACHMENT, G I, ~ :i I! ! !I ,I '-18- ! !I: ti ; 1 !'. '1 i. , .. .'. !I '! -- -1 BUILDING TYPE: STATE POL!CE BUILDING (18,000.24,OOO SF) , LOWAVERAGE AY ERAG E HlGH AYERA BUILDING SYSTEM fISF %TOT $/SF To TOT $!SF Yo FOUNDATIONS 408 5 .O 4.44 5.0 4.68 FLOORS ON GRADE 1.63 2.0 1.78 2.0 2.29 SUPERSTRUCTURE 13 85 17.0 14.92 16 8 15.85 3.26 40 3.55 4.0 3 82 EXTERIOR WALLS 12 22 15 0 13.14 14 8 14.04 PARTlTlONS 5 70 7.0 6 22 7.0 7.45 WALL FlNlSHES 408 5.0 4 44 50 4.68 FLOOR FINISHES 3 26 4.0 3 46 39 3.?3 CEILING FINISHES 2 45 30 2 67 3.0 2.77 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0 00 00 0.0 0.0 SPECIALTIES . 326 40 3 46 39 363 FIXED EQUIPMENT 6 52 80 7.90 89 8 31 PLUMBING 408 50 4.44 50 468 ELECTRICAL 9 78 12 0 10.57 11 9 11 17 GROSS BUILDING COST $81.50 105% saa.io 100% $95.50 FLOOR FItvlSHES 266 7.1 3 04 69 4 22 CElLlhG FINISHES 1.54 4.1 171 39 I92 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0 00 00 00 00 SPECIALTIES 3 41 9.1 3 78 86 4 22 FIXED EQUIPMENT 2 25 60 2 60 5.9 3.15 PLUMRING ELECTRICAL GROSS BUILDING COST S33.50 300% $44.00 POO% $53.40 BUILDiNG TYPE: COMPUTER 8UIL5tNG (20,000-25,000 SF) FOUNDATIONS 3 80 61 4.31 58 4.79 FLOORS ON GRADE 3 17 51 4 39 59 . 559 SUPERSYRUCYURE 9 46 15 2 11.01 148 r 11.18 ROOFING 1.25 20 1.49 20 1M) * EXTERIOR WALLS - 5.53 12 1 8 I1 10 9 8 78 PARTITIONS 3 17 51 4 39 59 4 79 WALL FINISHES 2 68 43 . 298 40 3 19 FLOOR FiNISHES’ 187 30 2 23 30 2 40 ’ CEILING FINISHES 125 20 1.49 20 160 CONVEYING SYSTEMS . 00 00 00 00 00 SPECIALTIES 2 05 33 2 23 30 2 40 FIXED EOUIPMEMT 1.87 30 2.98 40 3 19 9 46 15 2 11 63 15 9 12 77 PLUMBING . 2.05 33 2 23 30 2 40 19 8 15 17 ELECTRICAL 12 64 I i - - - - 203- 1473 - GROSS BUILOING COST 662.25 100% $74.40 100% $78 85 t \ -1 9 ---- -__ . J ----_ _. , AVERAGE BUILDING COS ,x BtJlLDfNG TYPE: HEALTH CENTERS (10,b00-50,000 SF) LOW AVERAGE AVERAGE HIGH AVERAGE j3uILDING SYSTEM %TOT $/SF %TOT $\SF % TOT FOUNDATIONS 1.28 23 142 2.1 2.48 32 FLOORS ON GRADE 1 56 28 1.75 26 1.94 2.5 SUPERSTRUCTURE 5.12 9.2 5 ai 86 8.53 11.0 1.50 2.7 1.75 2.6 1 .E6 2.4 EXTERIOR WALLS 7.29 13 1 8.78 13 0 10 71 13 8 PARTITIONS 5 29 95 600 89 6 52 84 WALL FINISHES 1.83 33 4 39 65 4.58 5.9 FLOOR FINISHES , 2.1 1 38 2 57 38 2.71 35 CEILING FINISHES 1.78 32 3 24 48 3 26 . 42 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 OC SPECIALTIES 128 2.3 1.35 20 2.64 3’ 6 62 11.9 7.29 10.8 7.68 9< 8.23 14.8 9.18 13.6 9 78 12 f PLUMBING 6.06 10 9 7.22 10.7 7.68 9s 9: ELECTRICAL 5.67 102 __ 6.75 10.0 7.22 GROSS BUILDING COST $55.62 103% aS67.50 100% $77.60 100% BUILDING TYPE: NU RSladG HOMES (15,000-50,000 SF) FOUNDATIONS I .89 4.3 3.14 5.5 3.21 4 FLOORS ON GRADE 3.30 7.5 3.53 6.2 3.65 5 SUPERSTRUCTURE 9.68 22.0 9.80 17.2 11.30 15 ROOFING 1.85 4.2 1.94 3.4 1.93 2 EXTERIOR WALLS 4.00 .- 9.1 6.27 11.0 8.15 11 PARTITIONS 5.95 13.5 638 11.2 7.86 11 WALL FINISHES 1.63 3.7 1.77 3.1 5.08 7 FLOOR FINISHES 1 .89 4.3 2.39 4.2 3 21 4 CEILING FINiSHES 1.58 3.6 1 .?I 3.0 3.30 4 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 0 SPECIALTIES FIXED EQUIPMENT - - - - - PLUMSING 4.00 9.1 5.93 10 4 7.58 11 I - - - - 6.58 - 11.0 _I ELECTPICAL 4.14 9.4 6 27 GROSS BUlLDlEIG COST i FOUNDATIONS ROORS ON GRADE SUPERSTRUCTURE 10.19 23.7 11.98 21.4 . 15.93 i ROOFING 1.33 3.1 1.62 - 29 1.74 EXTERIOR WALLS 2.58 * 6.0 4.31 7.7 4.59 PARTITIONS 5.25 12.2 683 12.2 6.76 4 WALL FINISHES - 2.71 63 4.37 7.8 4.95 FLOOR FINISHES ‘ 1.72 4.0 2.24 4.0 2.29 SPECIALTIES 0.26 0.6 0.34 0.6 0.50 FIXED EQUIPMENT 1.25 2.9 2 91 5.2 2.91 3.05 7.1 3.81 6.8 3.66 PLUMBING 4.13 9.6 4.93 8.8 4.84 * 5.64 ELECTRICAL 4.99 11.6 5.77 GROSS BUlLDlNG COST i CElLiNG FINISHES 1.37 3.2 1.62 -2.9 2.85 CONVEYING SYST/EMS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 - - - - - 10.3 - t I I I -20- - ~~ - c FACILITY SITE LOCATION STUDY 3 3 / Short Range - Move S.C.A. from Magee Park to the north wing of the centc with the Parks & Recreation Department. Relocate Research/Analysi s Gro~ Housing to other areas. Long Range - S.C.A. will take over all the facilities at Harding Comuni Center after the construction of the Safety Center and the timly reloca of Parks ti Recreation staff and programs, ITEM EXPLAIIATION: The I4ayor appointed a cornittee to explore potential sites that would pr an area.1arge enough for an approximatelx 10,000 square foot building on to five acres of land. i .I building at Harding Cornunity Center and jointly utilize the comunity c 3 3 i I' 1 i i 1 3 i .3 j 4 1. ,Hardl"ng Cornunity Center ., 8. Stage Coach Park 4 2. Wagee Park 9. Larwin Open Space 0 3. Chase Field * IO. Leo Carrillo i 4. City Yard 11. Macario Park ! 6. Cannon Lake Park 13. U.P.S. Building a 7. Calavera Hills Park 14. Alga Norte Park i i J The following sites were reviewed: 2 - U 5. Pine School 12. Chamber Bui 7 ding n u I) All the sites except for Harding Cornunity Center were eliminated due to: 4 - Not 'large enough - No access - Outside of desired service area 3 J * 3. -CUI 34 ii3 - ?d 8 - Harding Cornunity Center has 8,000 square feet of building space and pote for expansion. S.C.A. in the n~t-th Carlsbad area. The S.C,A.'s current facilities in bla Park do not have sufficient programing space. STAFF ANALYSIS: 2 If Research//Malysis Group and Housing are relocated from the north wing the center building at Warding Cornunity Center, the S.C.A. could then be 8 i= e, from Magee to the Harding Center. The S.C.A. can jointly utilize the fac 4 with the Parks & Recreation Departrent on an interim basis. 2 e, z 3 0 This site seem to fit the immediate and future needs of u - 1C.J ATTACHMENT ! L 6 'e, 0 .e PAGE 2 of AB # 75Vq ResearchlAnalysis Group has the potential to be relocated to several areal while the Housing group must stay in the downtown zone. 1 I I 1 RELOCATION ALTERNATIVES: ! 1. Research/Analysis Group to Ilagee House 2. Research/Analysis to modular trailers 3. Housing to downtown rental 4. ResearchlAnalysis Group and Housing joint rental in 5. / i downtown area Research/Analysis and Housing to Chamber building FISCAL IMPACT: Short Term: Cost - - Move Research/Analysis Group to Magee - Move Research/Analysi s Group to modul ar Frai 1 er $500 $50 to 60,000 $1,000-1,500/mo. * - Move Housing to downtown rental $500 -1,00O/m0. * - Research/Analysis Group & Housing joint rental - Research/Analysis Group & Housing to Chamber - Loss of Harding Cornunity Center revenue from - S.C,A. rehabilitation of Harding Cornunity Center NC NC - Move S.C.A. to Harding Community Center $500 $1 5,000/yr. classes and rentals I kitchen 1 * Housing Department rental may be subsidized by HUB. I ! i Long Term: - Relocate Parks & Recreation staff & programs unknown t* - Potential loss of revenue from classes and S32,000/yr. i rental s at Harding Communi t.y Center j ! i 9 i revenue may be recovered. i i / i ** Some classes may be relocated to other sites and some I 7 1 i 1 I i -22- @I @j # SITE COYNITTEE REPORT . The Senior Citizens Site Committee, consisting of Dr. Mitchell and myself from this Commission, and 3r. Castner7and Dr. Haman from the Senior Citizens Association met several times and toured possible locations. This Committee considered a dozen sites. In addition, members visited senior centers in this area, especially Escondido. Mr. Vickery From the outset the members of this Committee were in general agreement on goals. These goals or guidelines we 1. We wanted a first class senior center, one that the people of Carlsbad would be proud of for years to come. 2, We r uired an area of at least 3 acres. 3. We wanted a center of 12,000 square feet to BE 1 start with, capable of being expanded to l9,OOO square feet Such a center snould be constructed with future needs in mi 4. \qe stressed adequate parking - ,i I _.. 0 5. Such a center should be accessible. 6. The site should be available forkonstruction within a few months, not years. 7. We wished to avoid risking a vote on an ex- penditure of a rni+linn QF mo.r under Froposit on 3‘ k,,, ;&. b.”) (r 1 ’Lc -7J & &J%, .r. 407 %I, ..Ll*,L We also met with several City coyncil rnelnbqrs 7-Y- I and with Chris Solomon, Marty Orenyak and Dave Brad&&&$ arid were informed of the legal opinion of City Attorney 2iondo. At tachmer -23- r+ I)/ a, I As a result of these guidelines, we eliminated some sites as too small. Other sites, such as ivlacario Canyon, were elebinated because their anticipated development ai access were not within our time frarxe. Still other sites were rejected because, from information obtained from tnl City, thk Qnly feasible way to go was with Redevelopment funds, and these sites were not in the Redevelopment are As a result of our efforts, the necessity of being 4 in a Redevelopment area to get Redevelopment funds, and the views of the City, the Site Committee is recornmendinl the present location on Harding St. with the following provisions: The existing structures would be demolished, the alley vacated, the property immediately to the north up to Jack In The Box- would be acquired and leveled, th, an adquate facility could be erected on this site, and adequate parking provided. [ To utilitze this site would require the erection o a two story building, with elevators, and a parking faci Since the City already owns most of the land, and the re maining property is presently available for purchase, th time involved would be minimal. Also, tnis would elimina the enormous expense of acquiring so much land from prir own e r s . City staff will arrange for city funds to hire an architect to make preliEinary plans. This Commission sho designate one or two members to work with the architect. It has been a pleasure-$o work with the represent tives of the Association. We are grateful for the cooper and advice of city council members and staff, ,- r \ -24- d m a) I ,/ Ye are especially grateful to Sue Spickard for her un- . tiring efforts in getting information and setting up rile et ings. Zespectfully submitted, The Site Committee, by ,' L, ~ L -LC * L( , 14 !4',:4./ Hiram H, I-loskin. Commi sione r :"" , -25- 0 0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES 1. Foundations Investigation of private foundations has to this point not located a sing1 foundation which would fund a Senior Center Facility in its entirety. Thc utilization of funding by foundations would require applying to a variety foundations which have expressed an interest in fundinq buildings. All th various grant awards will need to be combined until the total amount necessary had been collected. 2. Fund Raising Project Staff has been in contact with Supervisors Eckert 's office regarding the availability of funding for a Senior Center Facility. At this time, the Supervisor's staff has discussed the possibility of Community Fund Rasing Projects. These monies are raised through fund rasing activities throuah the direction of the Supervisor's office. 3. Federal and State Grants The fundinq that is allocated from the Roberti Z. Berg Grant Program could be used for the Senior Center. 4. Block Grant Block Grant monies are a possibility for partial funding of a Senior Cente In recent years, Block Grant monies have been decreasing, and Carlsbad now receives approximately $200,000. Under most circumstances, these monies a1 to be spent within one year of the award. 5. Redevelopment Funds Utilization of Redevelopment funding would depend upon the location of the senior center. However, it has been interpreted that a senior center coulc be built out of the designated Redevelopment area if the "improvement is of benefit to the project area or the immediate neiqhborhood in hich the project is located". The City would have to amend its redevelopment plan t finance a senior center throuqh this fundinq. Further study arwl legal interpretation would have to take place should the proposed facility be built out of the redevelopment area and this funding should be desired to b utilized. Redevelopment fundinq would be the ideal source of partial funding for a project of this nature. 6. CSCA Building Fund The Carlsbad Senior Citizens Association has a building fund which has in excess of $10,000. facility . This money would go toward the expense of building a At t achme nt K -26- 0 0 7. Capital Imp,rovement Program There is potential for a senior center to be funded through the Capital Improvement Proqram should the City Council determine it is a project it would want to fund in this manner. This fundinq could be raised through Public Facility Fees, Park-in-Lieu Fees, General Fund or other available City monies. 8. Mello Fbos Bond Act Provides for the building of public facilities through a Bond initiative. This would require a two-thirds approval from the voters. 9. Revenue Sharinq Carlsbad currently receives approximately $500,000 each year through this funding source. In the past, City Council has authorized Revenue Sharing monies to be utilized for Capital Improvement Projects. However, at this time, it is uncertain as to whether or not Revenue Sharing monies will be available after Octoher, 1986. -27- y_ SITE: CITY YARD AVIS PROPERTY PINE SCHOOL CITY BLOCK ROBERTSON PROPE RTY CALAVERA HILLS PARK .(x MACAFUO CANYON /x CANNON LAKE 7- xxx XXX6 xxx x4 0 xxxx xxx7 0 x x x4 x x x4 X6 xxxxx e 0 December 16, 1985 TO: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR FROM: Marsha Payne, Administrative Assistant FACTS ABOUT HARDING The following staff and programs will have to be displaced if Harding is demolished and rebuilt as a Senior Center. 1. A. (2) supervisors 6. C. Part-time - (2) recreation specialists and (4) recreation leaders D. (1) custodian ( 1 ) receptionist /cashier 2. Reqistration The entire registration center would have to be relocated. Last year, 8,21 transactions took place. This included class registration, facility rentals, refunds, etc. 3. Storage Area There is approximately 1,420 square feet of storage area in the Center. 4. Rental/Community Groups/Non-Profit Organizations A. Frequent Use 1. Newcomers Square Dance 2. AA (2 groups) 3. Church groups (2) 4. ARC 5. Little League 6. Bobby Sox 7. Carlsbad Soccer 8. Pop Varner 9. C&M IO. Mira Costa Colleqe classes (4) 11. Coastal Singles Group B. Occasional Use 1. Carlsbad Girls Club 2. Carlsbad BPW 3. Rotary Club 4. City Departments Attachment M -29- 0 0 B. Occasional Use (Continued) 5. Carlsbad Unified School District 6. Girl Scouts 8. Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club 9. Homeowners associations 7. Boy scouts IO. Private parties 11. Wedding receptions 12. C.A.R.A. 13. Headstart 14. Miscellaneous 5. Parks and Recreation Classes A. Kendo B. Karate C. Theater Arts D. Break Dancing E. Women's Personal Safety and Awareness F. Aerobic Dance G. Belly Dance H. Calligraphy (Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced) I. Discocise 3. Kids Painting In Summer K. Tap Dancing L. Basic Computers M. Ballet (Pre-Ballet, Youth, Adult) N. More Life Fitness 0. Pr e-Gymn as t ics P. Gymnastics Q. Beginning Bridge R. Kindergym S. Social Dance T. Modeling U. Teen Dances V. Special Events W. Daytrippers Potluck X. Pre-Schoolers Y. Water Color Z. Miscellaneous 6. Attendance For Fiscal Year 1984-85, there were 82,283 participants that utilized the facilities at Harding Community Center. 7. Revenue The City collected $20,140 in revenue for the rental of Harding. estimated that between $60,000 - $70,000 is collected each year from classe that are held at Hardinq. It is MP:ds -30- b. 7 -a v L- January 6, 1986 To whom it may concern: The Carlsbad City Council in its desire to finally meet the needs of the senior citizens is going to exclude the youth to achieve this parti- cular goal. This is a big mistake. The recreational facilities for the childern and teens of Carlsbad are woefully inadequate to say the least. The City of Carlsbad in its over-development frenzy the past ten years neglected to set aside land for parks and recrea- tional areas for - all its citizens, and the childern are paying the price. Since Harding Street is the only facility availble for childern, please allow them to continue to use the building until another facility is made availble (or built) for their needs and use. I do not belive it is unreasonable for the childern’s acti- vities to take place during the times that the seniors, who are of course the priority, are not using the building. Sincerely, x)dtc Dori Alvarez pR””p