HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-24; City Council; 9122-1; ZONE 5 - PARK FEESc
YrJ' 4
.rl U
- '3.' I. .* -
4 -rl u cd w
*rl (d 54
a, 32 *rl
uu dd -rl Q) Ub ou Ma, Y a,
OZ uu
WWn worn @a, u cu m03 .rl G a c) *d Q)UE u3 Oka, sua, Llrnrrl vi 6 v a0 urn au CUFI cdda, OE -bE hWO ou
a 34
-LlU 006
am u
ma
-d
ZWZ
z as
d g$ aN3
uwa,
OFI
(d k5
4 a0
3?
w a .A
a2
I
rl
a,
aou
am@
a,&
-rl 0 u udu card
Oar6
h
I e c\I
rl
.. z 0 F 0 a
Z g 0
s
Cty)OF CARLSBAD - AGENWBILL
I,
AB#.--"/ TITLE: DEPT
CITY MTG. 11 /24/87
CITY DEPT. PER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 7307 , authorizing the collection c local facilities management- fee for park facilities in the i
defined as local facility management zone 5.
Direct staff to enter negotiations with the developers in Zor
ZONE 5 - PARK FEES
for the up front construction of recreational facilities on ( and/or County owned land.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 4, 1987, the City Council adopted the Local Facilil Management Plan for Zone 5. In addition, Council directed SI to return the issue of a local facilities management fee recreation facilities to the Parks and Recreation Commission
further study.
At the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting a I committee, consisting of Barbara Donovan and James Popovich,
appointed to study the fee in depth. Mr. Mark Hughes selected by the developers in zone 5 to represent their concei
Exhibit 1 details the sub-committee's findings and recornme1
tions on the following issues:
Needs Assessment Zone vs. Citywide Application Facilities Fee Developers' Alternative Proposal
On November 2, 1987, the Parks and Recreation Commission he1 special meeting on this matter. After discussion and input j
several members of the public, the Commission endorsed the s committee's report.
The Parks and Recreation Commission voted (6-0) to advise City Council as follows:
1) authorize a park development fee of 40 cents per square f on all development permits in Zone 5 pursuant to Sect
21.90.050 of the Growth Management Program, and
2) direct staff to negotiate with the developers in zone 5 construct the recreational facilities up front. The fj agreement to be brought back to the Parks and Recreat Commission for advisement to the City Council.
\
It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Commission that
developers' proposal to construct the facilities up front wc
t .;- I 0 m
8 I. I
-, + -.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 91 a2 -*/
serve as an alternative to assessing a fee. Therefore, at successful conclusion of the negotiations, collected fees wo be refunded to the appropriate parties. However, if an agreem cannot be reached by the City and Zone 5 developers, these f
shall remain permanent.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed fee would raise approximately $7,200,000 thro
buildout of zone 5. The fiscal impact of the develope alternative proposal cannot be assessed at this time.
EXHIBITS :
1. Parks and Recreation Sub-committee Report on Zone 5 P Fees, October 1987.
2, Resolution No. 7307 I authorizing the collection 0:
local facilities management fee for park facilities in
area defined as local facility management zone 5.
r-
c
Cit.y ct Cmlsbad
Cali iornia
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT
ON
LQCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
ZONE 5 - PARK FEES
Sub-committee Members:
Commissioner Donovan
Commissioner Po povi c h
Zone 5 Developers’ Representative:
Mr, Mark Hughes
October 7987
TABU OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ 1
11. BACKGROUND ............................... 2
111. NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................... 2
IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION ......... 5
VI. FEE ...................................... 7
VII. GOLF COURSE .............................. 8
APPENDIX :
A. Growth Management Zone Map with Zone 5 Highlighted ..................... A-1
B. SANDAG Survey ............................ A-2
C. Analysis/Research Limited Survey ......... A-4
D. Section 21.90.050 of the Growth
Management Ordinance ................... A-14
E. Letter from David Bradstreet to the Zone 5 Sub-committee regarding the
development of a Golf Course ........... A-16
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sub-committee (hereinafter referred to as tlCommitteelt) has studied each of the four issues which the City Council directed staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The committee's conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
NEEDS ASSESSWENT From current use information and the results of two, independent
surveys, the Committee concluded that a recreational demand, which the City should address, does exist in Zone 5.
ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION Based on the concentration of employees in Zone 5 and the ability to locate facilities in close proximity to this concentration, the Committee recommends that the proposed fee be applied at the zone level.
FACILITIES The Committee recommends that the following active recreational
facilities be developed:
7,500-10,000 square foot fitness center
1 swimming pool
3 ball fields (lighted)
3 full-size basketball courts (lighted)
6 tennis courts (lighted)
4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted)
These facilities could be placed on one site, or several sites throughout the industrial corridor. It would require between 8 and 15 acres to accommodate these facilities at a total cost of between $5.8 and 8.9 million.
FEE Based on the above program the Committee recommends that a fee of
40 cents per square foot be assessed on all building permits in Zone 5 pursuant to Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Management
Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE The Committee is aware of the drawbacks of assessing and collecting a development fee to pay for the timely construction of recreational facilities. The developers have proposed an alternative whereby they would design and build the facilities up front on City (Macario Canyon) and/or County owned land. The Committee believes that such an alternative has potential benefits, to both the City and the developers, and recommends that the City explore this option.
11. BACKGROUND
'Zone 5 contains no residential development. The Growth Management Performance Standard for Parks, which only addresses residential demand, does not apply in this zone. However, staff felt a recreational demand was being generated by the non- residential employees in Zone 5 which was not being satisfied by the employers and is impacting City park facilities designed to meet residential demand. Currently there are 8,000 employees in Zone 5; at buildout there will be a minimum of 40,000. Staff felt the situation would get progressively worse without City intervention. Therefore, in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5, a development fee to pay for active recreational facilities to meet non-residential demand was introduced.
At the June and July Parks and Recreation Commission meetings this fee was discussed. On August 4, 1987 a recommendation of 50 cents per square foot was presented to the City Council. After considerable public input and Council discussion, Council supported the concept of a park fee but asked that several issues be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, namely:
Needs assessment Citywide versus zone application Facilities to be developed Amount of fee to be assessed
At the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting a sub- committee (hereinafter referred to as qlCommitteeqt) was formed to study these issues. Commissioners Donovan and Popovich were
appointed to the Committee. Mr. Mark Hughes, Director of Marketing for Centre Development was invited to represent the
developers of Zone 5. David Bradstreet, Keith Beverly, Michael
Holzmiller, Philip Carter and Grace Manues provided staff
support.
The following report details the conclusions of the Committee.
111. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
To quantify the current, non-residential, recreational demand in Zone 5, the City asked SANDAG to conduct a survey. The four- question postcard on page 3 was drafted by City staff and
reviewed by SANDAG.
2
CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY
The City of Carlsbad is conducting this survey to dekrmine and provlde for the recreational needs of the industrial population In Carlsbad. Please complete
and return this postage-paid card by September 18th.
1. Does your employer currently offer any on-slte recreational facllities/programs?
1. Yes (specify)
2. No
Carlsbad park faciiities/recreatlon programs?
1. None 3. 5to8 5. 13tO 16
2. 1 to 4 4. 9to12 6. 17ormore
1. Ball Fields 5. Picnic Areas 9. Other (specify)
2. Fitness Center 6. Running Tracks
3. Golf Course 7. Swimming Pool 10. None
4. Gymnasium 8. Tennis Courts
1. Yes 2. No
2. On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally utlllte Clty of
3. What recreational facilities would you Ilke developed to meet your needs?
4. Are you a Carlsbad resident?
Thank you!
SANDAG composed a list of randomly selected employers in Zone 5. Keith Beverly received permission from each of the employers to distribute the surveys to their employees. A total of 3,425
surveys were hand delivered by SANDAG. 735 surveys were returned for a response rate of 21.5%. It is SANDAG's experience that a response rate of 17% provides a statistically significant sample. Therefore, staff feels the above results accurately reflect the recreational need of the employee base in Zone 5.
Data from the 1980 Census also affirms the reliability of the survey. Specifically, the 1980 Census estimated that 63% of the jobs in Carlsbad were held by non-residents which is similar to the response of the SANDAG Survey.
Some results from the SANDAG Survey:
-- 50% of all respondents use City park facilities -- 62% of all respondents were not residents of Carlsbad -- 63% responded that their employers do not provide
on-site recreational facilities
Commissioner Donovan was concerned that the wording of the introduction and reference to the IICityIl of Carlsbad in the SANDAG Survey may have biased the response to question 3 regarding facilities. However, as other information (e.g., the A/RL Survey, current use statistics and an informal survey of her own) was available, she felt comfortable supporting the recommendation of the Committee.
3
Using the survey results, it is projected that at buildout a minimum of 25,000 non-residents will be employed in Zone 5, of which half will use City park facilities.
In addition to the SANDAG survey, the developers commissioned a survey through Analysis/Research Limited (A/RL) . (A copy of the
survey is provided in the Appendix.) A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, of which 204 were returned for a response rate of 51%. The results of the two surveys were similar. A/RL reported similar percentages to the residency
question and the question regarding employer provided facilities.
In both surveys, approximately one-fourth responded they play
golf.
A/RL determined that If. ..most people who work in Zone 5 participate in recreational activities in their spare time, and that most ,of these people prefer to engage in their recreational activities near their home.Il However, the Executive Summary goes on to conclude:
IIFacilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 might include a jogging track and/or "par coursell (i.e.
jogging track with exercise/workout stations along the path). Such a track should be able to be lengthened or expanded as the park area grows.
Combination tennis/basketball courts would accommodate a significant percentage of the Zone 5 employees.
Cycling paths through the complex might also be considered, as well as outdoor walled racquet courts (for racquetball and handball).
Study findings warrant consideration of an indoor
exercise center to be used by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after work. Such a facility might include areas for exercise machines, weight training, and aerobic dance or exercise.*#
In addition to these surveys, an analysis of all adult sports teams which competed in City leagues during fiscal year 1986-87, indicated that 16.7% were sponsored by Carlsbad industry. Of the
total adult participation of 3,355, 69% were not Carlsbad residents and 560 participants were from industrial sponsored teams.
Park facility use by industry, primarily for company picnics, from July 1, 1987 through September 13, 1987 netted 1,466 participants and 56 hours of facility use. The recent opening of Stagecoach Park gymnasium has also attracted industrial employees during the noon hour for recreation play. An eleven-day survey period from August 21 through September 4, 1987 (excluding
4
I_
.-
_I
weekends) netted 46 participants logging 276 hours of use.
These statistics are evidence of the recreational demand generated by the influx of employees in Zone 5.
IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION
The need for recreational facilities in the industrial corridor is based on the concentration of industrial land use in this one location. At buildout, it will generate a workday population of at least 40,000 employees. This situation does not apply to commercial and office land uses which are dispersed in much smaller areas throughout the city. It would be difficult to establish the relationship requiring commercial and office uses, especially in the most northerly and southerly parts of the City, to fund a recreational park in the industrial corridor which is located in the center of the City.
Also, when the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
was updated in 1982, it recognized the concentration of industrial land use and the resultant concentration of employees. It contains policy statements specifically encouraging industrial developments to provide recreational facilities for their day use population. The Element does not contain any similar policy statements relating to commercial or office. The most defensible justification for requiring new development standards or exacting fees is where it is supported specifically by policy statements in the General Plan.
As it is the intent of this report to reflect the opinions of all participants, it should be noted that the developers are not in total agreement with the decision of the Committee.
The developers understand the practical aspect of assessing the fee on a zone level. However, they disagree with the equity of such a fee. They argue that employees of commercial development throughout the City also impact the City recreational program, but simply because these employees are not as concentrated, the developments are not being assessed.
With regard to the General Plan, the developers do not feel the word "encourage" equates to assessing a fee. The Planning Director's response was that the General Plan consists of broad BY policy statements rather than specific action plans. assessing a fee, or by negotiating with developers for the construction of recreational facilities, the City can be assured that the recreational needs of the employees in the industrial corridor will be met.
5
V. FACILITIES
Based on the results of the SANDAG Survey, the A/RL Survey and current facility use information, the Committee recommends that the following active recreational facilities be developed:
7,500-10,000 sqare foot fitness center
1 swimming pool
3 ball fields (lighted)
3 full-size basketball courts (lighted)
6 tennis courts (lighted)
4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted)
These facilities could be placed on one site, or several sites located throughout the industrial corridor. Staff estimates that it will require between 8 and 15 acres to accommodate these facilities. Mark Hughes suggested an acquisition cost of $8 per
square foot, or approximately $350,000 per acre. Staff estimates the cost of developing the facilities at $115,000 per acre, plus
$2,000,000 for development of the fitness center and swimming pool. Therefore, the total cost of the recommended program would be $5.8 - 8.9 million, depending on the acreage required.
Acquisition Development Fitness Center t Pool
Total in millions
8 acres 15 acres
$ 2.8 $ 5.2
1.0 1.7
2.0 2.0
$ 5.8 $ 8.9
(Does not include maintenance and operation expenses.)
In addition to the above active recreational facilities, the Committee recommends that developers continue to provide passive recreational facilities (e.g. picnic areas, par courses, open space). Such areas are typically a condition of approval. By placing such facilities on-site they will best serve the employees.
* Mark Hughes' initial understanding was that the swimming pool would be a 3-lane lap pool adjacent to the fitness center. At a subsequent meeting, the Commissioners indicated that their intent was a swim complex with a 25 to 50 meter pool. Mark Hughes feels that such a complex is above and beyond what is required to meet the demand generated by the employees in Zone 5.
6
VI. FEE
Staff estimates that the program detailed in Section V above, will cost between $5.8 and $8.9 million. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 estimates that there is 18,000,000 square feet remaining to which this fee could be applied. Therefore, a fee of between 32 cents and 49 cents per square foot would be required.
Mark Hughes estimated that the above facilities could be placed on 10.25 acres and be developed at a cost of $2 million (which includes the cost of a lap pool and not a swim complex). His estimates yielded a fee of 30.9 cents per square foot. To allow for inflation, he suggested that a fee of 35 cents per square foot be imposed.
The Commissioners considered all estimates and compromised on a
fee of 40 cents per square foot. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Committee that a fee of 40 cents per square foot be assessed on all building permits in Zone 5 pursuant to Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Management Ordinance.
As an alternative to assessing a fee, the developers of Zone 5 have proposed the following:
1. Allow the development community of Zone 5 to desisn and - - .I d build fi 'es up front on City --(KziE&o Canyon) and/or County ow=% -7
3.
4.
5.
The
I 2. If the facilities are located in Macario Canyon, have the developers build the extension of Faraday through to the future Cannon Road to access Macario Canyon with mburse the cost of
Roos District to front the cost of developing the recreational facilities and Faraday in the immediate future.
Include in the Mello-Roos District other Zone 5 designated improvement requirements (e.g., circulation) to insure the continued development of the commercial/industrial land in the Zone. (Which is the source of repayment of the Mello-Roos.)
City staff and developers to cooperate in developing a comprehensive plan and time table for approval by the city Council.
details of this alternative need to be negotiated. - Commissioners Donovan Popovich had many concerns and
questions, as did the developers. One concern was the expense of
maintaining and operating these facilities. At this time, the City budget has little room to operate additional facilities. There are basically three alternatives to fund the ongoing expense of these facilities; (1) require the developers to pay
for the M&O, (2) find the money in the City budget, or (3)
include that expense in the Mello-Roos District. Such financing
issues need to be resolved.
In order to reach a final agreement, both the City and the
developers of Zone 5 must benefit. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Committee that the Parks and Recreation Commission advise the City Council to direct staff to enter into negotiations with the developers on their proposed alternative. The final agreement will be brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and subsequently to the City Council for approval.
If the City Council approves the final agreement then collected
fees will be refunded to the appropriate parties. If an agreement is not reached between the City and the developers of
Zone 5 then the fee shall remain permanent. The Committee recommends that the fee be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that sufficient funds are being collected to pay for the facilities detailed in Section V.
VII. GOLF COURSE
It should be noted that in the course of these discussions the issue of having the developers of Zone 5 construct a golf course on the County property next to the Public Safety Center has been raised.
A public, 18-hole, championship golf course would be a tremendous
asset to Carlsbad. It would enhance the City's overall recreational program. It would satisfy a need in the community. Through privitization, the facility would pay for its maintenance and operation expense and not be a drain on City revenues. For these reasons, the Commissioners on the Committee consider the golf course to be an attractive amenity.
Mark Hughes has repeatedly stated that the developers of Zone 5 are not willing to construct a golf course. A golf course would
not satisfy the recreational demands of the employees in the industrial corridor. Also, they feel a golf course would provide citywide benefit and as such should be funded by a citywide fee.
8
APPENDIX
zo
I
NE 5 JANUARY 1987
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
A- 1
-- SANDAG SURWY --
The following survey was conducted by SANDAG on behalf of the
City of Carlsbad. A total of 3,425 surveys were distributed to randomly selected business in Zone 5. 735 surveys were returned
for a response rate of 21.5%. It is SANDAG's experience that a
response rate of 17% provides a statistically significant sample.
Data from other sources (e.g., 1980 Census) also affirms the
reliability of the survey.
CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY
The City of Carlsbad is conducting this survey to determine and
provide for the recreational needs of the industrial population
in Carlsbad. Please complete and return this postage-paid card
by September 18, 1987.
Q1:
Q2
Does your employer currently offer any on-site recreational
facilities/programs?
Number of persons responding (cases) = 721. Number of responses = 863, due to multiple answers.
% of % of
Responses Resp Cases
62.6 No 451 52.3 Rec/Fit/Weights 249 28.9 34.5
Aerobics 57 6.6 7.9
Sports 90 10.4 12.5
Other 16 1.9 2.2
863 100.0 119.7
On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally uAlize
City of Carlsbad park facilities/recreation programs?
Cases Percent
0 357 49.2
1 to 4 224 30.9
5 to 8 82 11.3
9 to 12 29 4.0
13 to 16 17 2.2
17 or more 16 2.2
725 100.0
A- 2
43: What recreational facilities would you like developed to
meet your needs?
Number of persons responding (cases) = 714.
Number of responses =-1611,-due
Ballfields
Fitness Center Golf Course
Gymnasium
Picnic Area
Track
Swimming Pool
Tennis
Other
None
Responses
152
231
164 124
263 121
197
166
102
91
1,611
44: Are you a Carlsbad resident?
Yes
No
Cases
280
455
735
A- 3
to multiple answers.
% of % of
Resp Cases
9.4
14.3 10.2
7.7
16.3
7.5
12.2
10.3
6.3
5.6
100.0
Percent
38.1
61.9
100.0
21.3
32.4 23.0
17.4
36.8
16.9
27.6
23.2
14.3
12.7
225.6
RECREATIONAL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
AMONG ZONE 5 EMPrnrnES
Skylight Plaza, Suite 180 4655 Ruffner Street San Diego, California 921 11 (619) 268-4800
A- 4
Analysis/Research Limited
BACKGFOUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
The City of Carlsbad is propsinq a fee to Zone 5 developrs for the
purpose of providing recreational and park facilities for primary use by
employees in the area. The main purpose of this study is to determine the
recreational needs of Zone 5 employees. Specific objectives of this study
include :
1. To profile Zone 5 employees reqarding their recreational behavior
2. To determine which near mrk activities are of most interest to
employees
3. To determine the hprtance of and satisfaction with miscellaneous
services and amenities in the area
To determine current levels of satisfaction mnq Carlshad resident employees concernins recreational facilities and proqrams in Zone 5
4.
5. To provide a demographic profile of Zone 5 employees.
A- 5
Anal ys is /Research L im i t.ed
The study reprted herein was conducted durinq the week of SeDtember 7,
1987, with Zone 5 employees in the City of Carlsbad.
administered questionnaires were distributed to employees randomly drawn fran
various commercial areas in Zone 5.
were returned, representing a response rate of 51 percent.
and handling of questionnaires were conducted by trained interviewers from
Analysis/Research Limited.
Four hundred self-
A total of 204 mpleted cniestionnaires
MI. distribution
Prior to data collection, extensive discussions Ere held with the client
rqardinq the questionnaire so that all relevant topic areas and information
needed muld be fully covered in the survey.
maximize the efficiency of the survey and validity of respmses.
A pretest was then conducted to
The margin of error for the study is plus or minus 6.5 percentaqe pints
at a confidence level of 95 percent.
A- 6 -
Analysis/Research Limited
EXECUTIVE FINDINGS AND WXXMWZNDATIONS
The Executive Findings and Reconanendations will address the objectives of -
the study as previously mentioned, i.e. the assessment of the needs of
recreational facilities for people employed in the Zone 5 Area.
I
- Recreational activities most mentioned as the activities of choice of the
employees of Zone 5 were swimning (57%) biking (47%) 3 and jogqinq/runninq (37%).
It is perceived that these recreational activities tend to be activities that
are mst frequently performed (often'aloneroutside of any simle recreat_io_nal
-
--
- facil iv.
-
While nearly half of the people surveyed did not know which recreational
- facilities and programs they muld like to have near to their place of wrk,
15% stated that' they*muld like swirrrning facilities, 12% desired tennis courts,,
and 10% said they would like to have a physical fitness center:..
It was determined through this study that most people who wrk in the Zone 5
Area participate in recreational activities in their spare the, and that most
of these people prefer to engage in their recreational activities near their home.
A total of 56.9% of the 204 respondents stated that swimninq was a.1
recreational activity in which they participated.
they preferred to swim near their place of work.
they wuld be very/mewhat likely to swim near mrk if such swimninq facilities
were available, while 12.7% said that they wuld swim often/sometimes near mrk
if facilities were available for them to do so.
A total of 12.7% said that
A total of 12.7% stated that
A- 7
Analysis/Research Limited
In regards ts bikinq: 47.1% of the 204 people,surveyed bike; only*%
explained that they prefer to bike near their place of wrk;
that they muld be very/somewhat likely to bike near mrk if facilities =re
available;
wxk if bikinq facilities were available.
only 3,9% statd
and 3.4% said they wuld bike often/somethes near their place of
In terms of jogging/running: 36.8% of the 204 respndents said that they
11 -3% said they preferred to run or ioq near their place of mrk; run or jog;
11.3% explained
facilities were
o€ten/sanetimes
Of the 204
they wuld be very/sunewhat likely to run or ioq near wrk if
available;
if facilities were available.
9.8% stated they muld run or jog near mrk
people surveyed, 32.4% stated that they play tennir. Wwver,
only,4.9% of the 204 respondents stated that they preferred to play tennis near-
ox- at their place of wrk. Only 4.9% of the 204 respondents explained that they
would be very/samewhat likely to play tennis near their place of mrk if
facilities were available.
often/sometimes near their place of wrk if facilities were available.
And, only 4.4% said that they mu113 play tennis
In rqards to golf: 25.5% of the 204 people surveyed said they play$;
4.4% stated that they preferred to play golf near mrk;
very/somewhat likely to play golf near wrk if facilities were available:
3.9% explained they mld play cplf often/scmetines near wrk if facilities. *
were available-.
4.4% said they wuld be
and 3r
Such findings indicate that many of the people who wrk in the 7ane 5 &ea
wld be unlikely to use recreational facilities located near their &rk place:
4,-
. A-8
Analysis/Research Limited
I
It was also determined that an overwhelminq percentaue of the employees of
Zone 5 usually pazticipate in their preferred recreational activities "a$ter
worl$' 4:;'on weekends."
activities performed away fran a "near wrk" recreational facility?
.I -Ad,& db..a- I.
Such a participation pattern muld most likelv involve
..e,,, -
The survey revealed that about one-third of the companies for which Zone 5
I
employees wrk provide organized recreational activities. However, half (49%)
of the Zone 5 employees whose ccmpanies provide organized recreational activities
do not participate in these organized activities.
sponsored recreational activity they muld like to participate, 43% of the
Zone 5 employees said "mne."+
When asked in which mpany
Facilities conducive to the enployee base of Zone 5 miqht include a ioquinq
track and/or "par courses" (i-e., the jogginq track with exercise/mrk out
stations along the path).
expanded as the park area
Such a track should be able to be lenqthend or
grows.
Combination tennis/basketball oourts wuld accomodate a significant
percentage of the Zone 5 employees.
Cycling paths through the canplex miqht also be considered, as well as
oiitdoor walled racquet courts (for racauetball and handball).
Study findings warrant consideration of an indoor exercise center to be
used by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after wrk.
facility might include areas for exercise machines, weiqht traininq, and
aercbic dance or exercise. .
Such a
A- 9
UJEsrrm 1
'lease check the followino wxeational activities in thich you prticipte in, our spare time:
Tenn 1 s
col f
Swimninq
Biking
Jax im/Runni nq
Baseball
Softball
Basketball
Racquetball
Other (SPEIFY)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
For each activity pi
participate in, wuld
you rather play/& it
war t-uw or near wrk:
WAR HmE ---
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f)
0
0
NFAR m
0
0
0
0
0
(1'
0
0
0
0
0
CUETrIcN 3
mr each activity you participate
in, how often do ycu usually
play/*:
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CUESTION 4
mr each activity you participate in,
durinq vhat time of the day do yoti usually play/do:
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 f) 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 00 0
-
QOmm 5
For each of the activities ansuered "near
uork" in 9.2. please ansuer h-w liker
you wuld be to participate in those
activities if facilities for th were available :
WRY SOPIWIAT SCMEWIIAT VERY LIKELY LIKELY INLIKELY WIKELY --
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 '( 1 0 -
A-10
GUEYt'IoN 6
For each of the activities answered "very or smewkat likely" in 0.5.
please answer hov often you uxlld he
to participate in thwe activities
near wrk in your spare time:
0 f) 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 00
0 0 00
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7. bes your company have organized recreational activities?
Yes ( ) PLEASE ANSWER Q.8 & Q. 9 NvT, SKiP ?G '1. 17
No ( ) PLEASE (33 ?o Q.10
8. (IF YES) What are they?
9. which mpany organized recreational activities do you participte in?
10. In which company sponsored recreational activities muld you like to
participate, if they were available?
11.- Did the company or area where you previously mrkd have any orqanized
recreational activities?
Yes ( ) PLEASE CONTINUE WITH 0.12
No ( ) PLEASE OD ?o Q.14
Never mrked ( ) PLFASE To Q.14
12. (IF YES) What are they?
13. Which company organized recreational activities did you participate in?
A-11
14. How adequate are the current recreational facilities and prwrams in the area around where you mrk?
Very Memate ( 1-1
Somewhat Meauate
Somewhat Inadequate
1-2
( 1-3
Very Inadmate ( 1-4
15. What additional recreational facilities and proarams, if any, wuld you
like to have near to where you wrk?
16. How imprtant are the following services to you in your area?
VERY SOMEWHAT NOTVERY NOTATALL
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT 1mmm IMPORTANT
Fast focd restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Family type restaurants 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Upscale adult type
restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Child care facilities ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Religious institutions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Automotive service
stations ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
17, How satisfied are you with the followinq services in your area?
VERY SOMEWHAT NOTVERY WATALL No SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED OPINION
Fast food restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
Family type restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
Upscale adult type
res tau rants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
Child care facilities ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
Reliqious institutions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
Automotive service
stat ions ( 1-1 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 ( 1-5
A-12
And finally, we have a few questions for classsification purpses.
18.
19.
In what city or munity do you live?
How long have you live there?
Less than 1 year ( )-1
1 - 4 years ( 1-2
5 - 9 years ( 1-3
10 - 14 years ( 1-4
15 years or mre ( )-5
20.
21.
What is the ZIP code where you live?
Below are some aqe cateqories.
your age.
Please check the one that includes
Under 18 ( 1-1
26 - 35 ( 1-3
36 - 45 ( 1-4
46 - 55 ( 1-5
22. What is your occupation?
23. Are you employed full time or part time?
Part time ( 1-2
PLEASE WRITE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER CN Fw3NT PAGE
"K YDU FOR YOUR TIME AM) INFORMATION.
A-13
I
4
9
10
15
1
1 AN ORDINAVCY c)F TF-E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CF
CAPLSBAD, CALIPOFM1.4 AP~EPIn1P:G TITLE 21 QF TWE:
CAPLSPAD PUNICIPAL CODE PV THE AEP'CTION CF
CPAPTEF 21.90 ESTABLISHING A GROWTF! MANAGEPE'.'T
PROGRAM FOP THE CITY
I
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
I does ordain as follows:
I SECTION 1: That Title 21 is amended by the addition of
Chapter 21.90 to read as follows:
"Chapter 21.90
Growth Manaaerent
Sect ions :
I I
1
1
n
21.90.010
21.90.020
21.90.030
21.90.03 1
Purpose and intent.
Definitions. General prohibition, exceptions. Tolling of time for consideration of
applications submitted before the effective
date of this chapter. Tollinq of expiration of previou'sly issued development permits. Extensions of prior approvals prohibited. ComDliance with this chapter reauired.
f&e* Special provisions for buildinq pennits issued during tevporary moratorium.
Finding of health, safety and welfare necessary for the fees imposed by sections
21.90.050 and 21.90.060. Perforrance standard. Citywide facilities and imrovements plan. Local facilities management zones. Contents of local facility management plans. Facilities management Dlan DreDartion. Facilities manaaement plan processino.
Implementation of facilities and irnprovements reauirements. Obligation to Day fees or install
improvements reauired by any other law. Implementing guidelines.
Exclusions .
Council actions, fees, notice. Expiration of chapter. Severability.
abl'sh
13 121
21 .90.032
21.90.033
21.90.040
21.90.050
17 21.90.060
18 I/ 21.90.070 R jl
19 :I
I1
20 ti II n 21 //
21.90.080
21 . 90.090
21.90.100
21.90.110
21.90.120
21 . 90.125
21.90.130
ii
22 I/
23 il R 24 Ii 21.90.140
21 .go. 150
21.90.160
21.90.170
21.90.180
21.90.190
L
21.90.050 Establishment of local facilities manaaerrent
fee. (a) A local facilities managenent fee is hereby
established to pay for improvements or facilities identified in local facilities management plan which are related to new development within the zone and are not otherwise financed by an' other fee, charge or tax on development, or are not installed by
a developer as a condition of a building permit or development permit. .The fee may also be used to pay for that portion of the facilities or improvements identified in the citywide facilities
and improvements plan attributed to development within 'the local zone which are not financed by other means. The facilities management fee shall be paid before the issuance of a building
permit. The amount of the fee shall be determined based upon th estimated cost of the facility or improvement designated as necessary to accommodate additional development within the applicable local facilities management zone plus the estimated cost of facilities and improvements identified in the citywide facilities and improvement plan attributable to the local zone.
The fee shall be fairly apportioned among the new development.
(b) The fee required by this section is in addition to any other means of financing facilities or improvements
identified by a local facilities management plan or any other tax, fee, charge or improvement requirement which may be imposed on'the development of property under the provisions of state law
this code or City Council policy.
management zone shall be set by City Council resolution after a
public hearing, published notice of which shall be given .
according to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.060(2) and Government Code Section 54992.
(d) As a condition of any building or development permit application submitted after the effective date of this chapter the applicant shall agree to pay the fee established by this section at the time a building permit is issued.
at the time of issuance of a building permit.
-
(c) The amount of the fee for a local facilities
(e) The fee established by this section shall be leviec
A-15
September 18, 1987
TO : ZONE 5 SUB COMMITTEE
FROM: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
ZONE 5
In an effort to provide the community with well balanced, comprehensive park facilities and recreation programs, staff has been involved in an extensive park and recreation development program. As part of this development program it has been established that there is a need"to expand upon or create additional park and recreation facilities that are currently not provided for i.e., golf course complex.
After review and analysis of the industrial population influx created primarily from Zone 5 (40,000-70,000 at buildout), it has been determined that this population will have an impact upon current and future planned recreation facilities. This impact may be absorbed in the Citys existing and planned facilities only if industry participates in the City's over all recreation facilities development program. In addition to PFF fees, staff is recommending the implementation of a separate fee to facilitate additional recreational development.
Staff further recommends that the development fee be applied towards the construction of a golf course complex. A golf complex would not only provide a well balanced park and recreation program to the community, but would also eliminate maintenance/operation and lease cost. By operating the complex under a privitization concept, user fees would offset maintenance cost by 100% and possibly provide additional revenue to further expand recreation facilities. It is suggested that resident and non-resident fees be established and that the industrial employeees living outside the city be charged a resident fee. Negotiations are currently underway with the county to lease 150+ acres in the industrial zone 5 area. A preliminary evaluatTon of this property indicates suitability for the development of a golf course complex. A recent feasibility study has determined that a golf course complex could be developed within Macario Canyon should negotiations with the county fail.
The Golf Complex Development cost has been estimated at $8,000,000
in todays economy. With the remaining industrial development in
Zone 5 through buildout, an assessed fee of .42C per square foot would facilitate construction. An inflationary factor for construction at a later date may substantially increase the develop- ment cost and thereby increase any assessed fee for facilities.
An alternative to this inflationary factor is that the industrial '
developers opt for up front construction of a golf complex built to City Standards. If the development cost should be less than the estimated $8,000,000 then the fees will be lowered accordingly.
A-16
Zone 5 Sub Committee September 18, 1987 Page Two
Should the county lease or development of a golf complex on the Macario property fail to materialize, the following alternatives
would be recommended.
Alternative I - up front or incremental development of a centralized
15 acre recreation complex within Zone 5.
Alternative I1 - up front or incremental development of three five acre recreation ,complexes statigically located throughout
Zone 5.
(3)
The cost to develop either of the above alternatives is estimated ,between $7,822,500 and $8,000,000. operation cost associated with these alternatives is estimated at $9,00O/Ac/Yr or $130,000 per year. determined in 1987 dollars and have not determined inflationary cost should incremental development occur. alternatives be instituted, staff recommends the maintenance and
operation costs be absorbed by the industrial developers.
The annual maintenance and
All cost estimates are
Should either of these
DB:pa
A-17
.- 4;.
I /.I I.
, i, -.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3.2
13
14
15
16
3.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) e
Resolution No. 9307
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARL:
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF A LOCAL FACIL MANAGEMENT FEE FOR PARK FACILITIES IN THE AREA DEFINI LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Muni
Code authorizes the establishment of a local faCi!
management fee to pay for improvements or faci!
identified in a local facilities management plan whic
related to new development in a zone and are not othc
financed by any other fee, charge or tax on developmen
are not installed by a developer as a condition of a bui
or development permit; and
WHEREAS, the Local Facilities Management Plan for 2
identified a need for park facilities which relate ti
development in the zone and are not otherwise financ
being provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on August 4,1987 ad
Resolution No. 9188 which approved the Local Facil
Management Plan for Zone 5 and directed staff to work wit
Parks and Recreation Commission to specifically asses5
need for park facilities and to determine how to best pr
these facilities; and
////
////
I
.- 1 (.I + ., . ,.
C' .
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
e 0
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission appoi
subcommittee charged to review the need for park faci
in Zone 5 with the assistance of input from the deve
within Zone 5; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission
committee through the use of two independent surveys and
from the developers in Local Facility Management ZI
confirmed the demand and need for recreation facilities
further determined that these facilities were not
provided; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission h
special meeting on November 2, 1987 to review and considc
sub-committees report and the Commission voted to recc
that the City Council adopt a Local Facilities Managemer
in the amount of 40 cents per square foot on al:
development within the Local Facility Management Zone 5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counc
the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. Effective this date, a Local Facilities Managemen
shall be collected upon all new development within the
Facility Management Zone 5 as shown on Exhibit "1" whi
made a part hereof.
////
////
'\ 4 1. .'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0 0
3. The amount of the fee to be collected shall be bas
a rate of 40 cents per square foot to be assessed o
development permits issued in Local Facility Managemc
Zone 5.
4. That all developers within the boundaries of the
Facility Management Zone 5 who have been issued develc
permits and have signed the AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES
FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE C
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM shall be required to pay this fee k
thirty (30) days of receipt of the City's invoic
accordance with said agreement.
5. The Local Facilities Management Fee shall be coll
as described in Section 21.90.050 (e) of the Cai
Municipal Code.
6. The Local Facilities Management Fee shall be rev
annually and adjusted accordingly to ensure that suffi
funds are being collected to provide for the recreat
facilities in Zone 5.
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 24th day of November,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None 1 y &G j!@[ 4-7
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayo ATTEST:
I ALE* dTg&*klerk
*\' e 0
L, .. EXHIBIT "1
C =
e
/
/
-
L - -
ZONE 5 JAI 7
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
-2-
EX1 - f. I* e e
City of Carlsbad
Caii fornia
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT
ON
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAh
ZONE 5 - PARK FEES
Sub-Committee Members:
Commissioner Donovan
Comm i ss i mer Po povi c h
Zone 5 Dewlopers' Representatiw:
Mr, Mark Hughes
October 798 7
. . * I. e 0 ..'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................ 1
I1 . BACKGROUND ............................... 2
I11 . NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................... 2
IV . ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION ......... 5
V . FACILITIES ............................... 6
VI . FEE ...................................... 7
VI1 . GOLF COURSE .............................. 8
APPENDIX :
A . Growth Management Zone Map with
Zone 5 Highlighted ..................... A-1
B . SANDAG Survey ............................ A-2
C . Analysis/Research Limited Survey ......... A-4
D . Section 21.90.050 of the Growth
Management Ordinance ................... A-14
E . Letter from David Bradstreet to the Zone 5 Sub-committee regarding the
development of a Golf Course ........... A-16
0 0 **
.'I ..
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sub-committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee1') studied each of the four issues which the City Council dire( staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Committee's conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
NEEDS ASSESSmNT From current use information and the results of two, indepen( surveys, the Committee concluded that a recreational dem which the City should address, does exist in Zone 5.
ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION Based on the concentration of employees in Zone 5 and the abi to locate facilities in close proximity to this concentrat the Committee recommends that the proposed fee be applied at zone level,
FACILITIES The Committee recommends that the following active recreati facilities be developed:
7,500-10,000 square foot fitness center
1 swimming pool
3 ball fields (lighted)
3 full-size basketball courts (lighted)
6 tennis courts (lighted)
4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted)
These facilities could be placed on one site, or several s throughout the industrial corridor. It would require betwec
and 15 acres to accommodate these facilities at a total cos1
between $5.8 and 8.9 million.
FEE Based on the above program the Committee recommends that a fec
40 cents per square foot be assessed on all building permits Zone 5 pursuant to Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Manage] Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE The Committee is aware of the drawbacks of assessing collecting a development fee to pay for the timely construc' of recreational facilities. The developers have proposed alternative whereby they would design and build the facilitie! front on City (Macario Canyon) and/or County owned land. Committee believes that such an alternative has poten- benefits, to both the City and the developers, and recommc that the City explore this option.
W m
11. BACKGROUND
Zone 5 contains no residential development, The Gro Management Performance Standard for Parks, which only addres residential demand, does not apply in this zone. However, st felt a recreational demand was being generated by the n residential employees in Zone 5 which was not being satisfied the employers and is impacting City park facilities designed meet residential demand. Currently there are 8,000 employees
Zone 5; at buildout there will be a minimum of 40,000. St: felt the situation would get progressively worse without C:
intervention. Therefore, in the Local Facilities Management P:
for Zone 5, a development fee to pay for active recreatior
facilities to meet non-residential demand was introduced.
At the June and July Parks and Recreation Commission meetii this fee was discussed. On August 4, 1987 a recommendation of
cents per square foot was presented to the City Council. Aft considerable public input and Council discussion, Counc supported the concept of a park fee but asked that several issl be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation commission, namely:
Needs assessment Citywide versus zone application
Facilities to be developed Amount of fee to be assessed
At the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting a su committee (hereinafter referred to as llCommitteell) was formed study 'these issues. Commissioners Donovan and Popovich we
appointed to the Committee. Mr. Mark Hughes, Director Marketing for Centre Development was invited to represent t developers of Zone 5. David Bradstreet, Keith Beverly, Micha Holzmiller, Philip Carter and Grace Manues provided sta
support.
The following report details the conclusions of the Committee.
111. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
TO quantify the current, non-residential, recreational demand j
Zone 5, the City asked SANDAG to conduct a survey. The four question postcard on page 3 was drafted by City staff ar reviewed by SANDAG.
2
e e .' CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY
The City of Garlsbad I8 conductlng this survey to detsrmlna and prou\detor the recreational needs of the Industrial population in Carlrbad. Please complete
and return this postage-paid card by September 18th.
1. Does your employer currently offer any on-site recreational
facllities/programs?
1 Yes (specify)
2 No
Carlsbad park facllltles/recreatlon programs?
1. None 3 stoa 5 13to 16
2. 1 to 4 4 9to12 6 17 or more
1 Ball Fields 5 Picnic Areas 9 Other (specify)
2 Fitness Center 6 Running Tracks
3 Golf Course 7 Swimming Pool IO None
4 Gymnasium 8 Tennis Courts
1 Yes 2 No
2. On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally utilize City of
3. What recreational facilities would you llke developed to meet your needs?
4. Are you a Carlsbad resident?
Thank you!
SANDAG composed a list of randomly selected employers in Zonc Keith Beverly received permission from each of the employer: distribute the surveys to their employees. A total of 3 surveys were hand delivered by SANDAG. 735 surveys were retu for a response rate of 21.5%. It is SANDAG's experience thi response rate of 17% provides a statistically significant Sam: Therefore, staff feels the above results accurately reflect recreational need of the employee base in Zone 5.
Data from the 1980 Census also affirms the reliability of
jobs in Carlsbad were held by non-residents which is simila.
the response of the SANDAG Survey.
Some results from the SANDAG Survey:
survey. Specifically, the 1980 Census estimated that 63% of
-- 50% of all respondents use City park facilities -- 62% of all respondents were not residents of Carlsbad -- 63% responded that their employers do not provide on-site recreational facilities
Commissioner Donovan was concerned that the wording of introduction and reference to the llCity" of Carlsbad in
SANDAG Survey may have biased the response to questio regarding facilities. However, as other information (e.g.,
A/RL Survey, current use statistics and an informal survey of
own) was available, she felt comfortable supporting recommendation of the Committee,
3
0 0
Using the survey results, it is projected that at buildou, minimum Of 25,000 non-residents will be employed in Zone 5, which half will use City park facilities.
In addition to the SANDAG survey, the developers commissione
survey through Analysis/Research Limited
survey is provided in the Appendix.) A total of questionnaires were distributed, of which 204 were returned fc response rate of 51%. The results of the two surveys w
similar. A/RL reported similar percentages to the reside
question and the question regarding employer provided faciliti In both surveys, approximately one-fourth responded they p
A/RL determined that ll...most people who work in Zone participate in recreational activities in their spare time, l
that most of these people prefer to engage in their recreatiol
activities near their home." However, the Executive Summary g(
(A/RL) . (A copy of
golf.
on to conclude:
"Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 might include a jogging track and/or "par course" (i.e.
jogging track with exercise/workout stations along the path). Such a track should be able to be lengthened or expanded as the park area grows.
Combination tennis/basketball courts would accommodate a significant percentage of the Zone 5 employees.
Cycling paths through the complex might also be considered, as well as outdoor walled racquet courts
(for racquetball and handball).
Study findings warrant consideration of an indoor exercise center to be used by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after work. Such a facility
might include areas for exercise machines, weight training, and aerobic dance or exercise."
In addition to these surveys, an analysis of all adult spor. teams which competed in City leagues during fiscal year 1986-8' indicated that 16.7% were sponsored by Carlsbad industry. Of tl
total adult participation of 3,355, 69% were not Carlsbi
residents and 560 participants were from industrial sponsor4 teams.
Park facility use by industry, primarily for company picnic: from July 1, 1987 through September 13, 1987 netted 1,4t participants and 56 hours of facility use. The recent opening c
Stagecoach Park gymnasium has also attracted industrial employee during the noon hour for recreation play. An eleven-day surve
period from August 21 through September 4, 1987 (excludin
4
m e " e,
b , * I.
weekends) netted 46 participants logging 276 hours of use.
These statistics are evidence of the recreational de generated by the influx of employees in Zone 5.
IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION
The need for recreational facilities in the industrial corr is based on the concentration of industrial land use in this location. At buildout, it will generate a workday papulatia at least 40,000 employees. This situation does not applj commercial and office land uses which are dispersed in smaller areas throughout the city. It would be difficult
establish the relationship requiring commercial and office u especially in the most northerly and southerly parts of the C to fund a recreational park in the industrial corridor whic located in the center of the City.
Also, when the Parks and Recreation Element of the General was updated in 1982, it recognized the concentration industrial land use and the resultant concentration of employ It contains policy statements specifically encouraging indust developments to provide recreational facilities for their day population. The Element does not contain any similar PO statements relating to commercial or office. The most defens justification for requiring new development standards or exac fees is where it is supported specifically by policy statem in the General Plan.
As it is the intent of this report to reflect the opinions of participants, it should be noted that the developers are no. total agreement with the decision of the Committee.
The developers understand the practical aspect of assessing fee on a zone level. However, they disagree with the equit: such a fee. They argue that employees of commercial develop throughout the City also impact the City recreational prog but simply because these employees are not as concentrated, developments are not being assessed.
With regard to the General Plan, the developers do not feel
word I1encourage" equates to assessing a fee. The Plan Director's response was that the General Plan consists of b policy statements rather than specific action plans.
assessing a fee, or by negotiating with developers for construction of recreational facilities, the City can be ass that the recreational needs of the employees in the indust corridor will be met.
5
0 e
V. FACILITIES
Based on the results of the SANDAG Survey, the A/RL Survey a current facility use information, the Committee recommends tk
the following active recreational facilities be developed:
7,500-10,000 square foot fitness center
1 swimming pool*
3 ball fields (lighted)
3 full-size basketball courts (lighted)
6 tennis courts (lighted)
4 outdoor racquetball/handball courts (lighted)
These facilities could be placed on one site, or several sit
located throughout the industrial corridor. Staff estimates tk
it will require between 8 and 15 acres to accommodate the facilities. Mark Hughes suggested an acquisition cost of $8 F square foot, or approximately $350,000 per acre. Staff estirnat
the cost of developing the facilities at $115,000 per acre, pl
$2,OOo,OOO for development of the fitness center and swimmi pool. Therefore, the total cost of the recommended program wou
be $5.8 - 8.9 million, depending on the acreage required.
8 acres 15 acres
Acquisition $ 2.8 $ 5.2
Development 1.0 1.7
2.0 2.0 Fitness Center & Pool
Total in millions $ 5.8 $ 8.9
(Does not include maintenance and operation expenses.)
In addition to the above active recreational facilities, tl
Committee recommends that developers continue to provide passiy recreational facilities (e.g. picnic areas, par courses, opt space). Such areas are typically a condition of approval. 1 placing such facilities on-site they will best serve tl
employees.
* Mark Hughes' initial understanding was that the swimming poc would be a 3-lane lap pool adjacent to the fitness center. At
subsequent meeting, the Commissioners indicated that their intei was a swim complex with a 25 to 50 meter pool. Mark Hughes fee:
that such a complex is above and beyond what is required to met
the demand generated by the employees in Zone 5.
6
I +< ’) e e
VI. FEE
Staff estimates that the proyram detailed in Section V ai
will cost between $5,8 and $8,9 million, The Local Facil!
Management Plan for Zone 5 estimates that there is 18,00( square feet remaining to which this fee could be appl
Therefore, a fee of between 32 cents and 49 cents per square would be required.
Mark Hughes estimated that the above facilities could be pl on 10.25 acres and be developed at a cost of $2 million (o
includes the cost of a lap pool and not a swim complex). estimates yielded a fee of 30.9 cents per square foot. To E
for inflation, he suggested that a fee of 35 cents per sc
foot be imposed.
The Commissioners considered all estimates and compromised
fee of 40 cents per square foot. Therefore, it is recommendation of the Committee that a fee of 40 cents per sg foot be assessed on all building permits in Zone 5 pursuant t Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Management Ordinance,
As an alternative to assessing a fee, the developers of zo
have proposed the following:
1. Allow the development community of Zone 5 to design and
build the designated facilities up front on City (Macario Canyon) and/or County owned land.
2. If the facilities are located in Macario Canyon, have the developers build the extension of Faraday through to the future Cannon Road to access Macario Canyon with the City entering an agreement to reimburse the cost of
Faraday through designated PFF funds.
Developers and City cooperate in establishing a Mello- Roos District to front the cost of developing the recreational facilities and Faraday in the immediate
4. Include in the Mello-Roos District other Zone 5 designated improvement requirements (e.g., circulation) to insure the continued development of the commercial/industrial land in the Zone. (Which is the source of repayment of the Mello-Roos.)
City staff and developers to cooperate in developing a comprehensive plan and time table for approval by the
city Council.
3.
future,
5.
The details of this alternative need to be negotiat
Commissioners Donovan and Popovich had many concerns
7
w w
questions, as did the developers. maintaining and operating these facilities. At this time, t
City budget has little room to operate additional facilitie There are basically three alternatives to fund the ongoi expense of these facilities; (1) require the developers to p for the M&O, (2) find the money in the City budget, or (
include that expense in the Mello-Roos District. Such financi
issues need to be resolved.
In order to reach a final agreement, both the City and t
developers of Zone 5 must benefit. Therefore, it is t recommendation of the Committee that the Parks and Recreati Commission advise the City Council to direct staff to enter in negotiations with the developers on their proposed alternativ The final agreement will be brought before the Parks a Recreation Commission for review and subsequently to the Ci. Council for approval.
If the City Council approves the final agreement then collect fees will be refunded to the appropriate parties. agreement is not reached between the City and the developers
Zone 5 then the fee shall remain permanent. The Committ recommends that the fee be reviewed on an annual basis to ensu that sufficient funds are being collected to pay for t facilities detailed in Section V.
One concern was the expense
If
VII. GOLF COURSE
It should be noted that in the course of these discussions t issue of having the developers of Zone 5 construct a golf cour on the County property next to the Public Safety Center has be
raised.
A public, 18-hole, championship golf course would be a tremendo
asset to Carlsbad. It would enhance the City's overa recreational program. It would satisfy a need in the communit:
Through privitization, the facility would pay for its maintenan1 and operation expense and not be a drain on City revenues. Fc
these reasons, the Commissioners on the Committee consider t golf course to be an attractive amenity,
Mark Hughes has repeatedly stated that the developers of Zone are not willing to construct a golf course. A golf course wou
not satisfy the recreational demands of the employees in t industrial corridor. Also, they feel a golf course would provil
citywide benefit and as such should be funded by a citywide fee
8
: ,- . , I ; e e
,. - '. +'
APPENDIX
- e,
.*'
I Garin
7' F
7 ZONE 5 JANU
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
A- 1
0 0
-- SANDAG SURVEY --
The following survey was conducted by SANDAG on behalf of City of Carlsbad. A total of 3,425 surveys were distributed randomly selected business in Zone 5. 735 surveys were retur for a response rate of 21.5%. It is SANDAG's experience thal response rate of 17% provides a statistically significant samp
Data from other sources (e.g., 1980 Census) also affirms *
reliability of the survey.
CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY
The City of Carlsbad is conducting this survey to determine ( provide for the recreational needs of the industrial populat
in Carlsbad. Please complete and return this postage-paid Ci
by September 18, 1987.
Q1: Does your employer currently offer any on-site recreatior facilities/programs?
Number of persons responding (cases) = 721. Number of responses = 863, due to multiple answers.
% of % of
Responses Resp Cases
No 451 52.3 62.6 Rec/Fit/Weights 249 28.9 34.5
Aerobics 57 6.6 7.9 Sports
Other 16 1.9 2.2
90 10.4 12.5
863 100.0 119.7
Q2: On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally utili
City of Carlsbad park facilities/recreation programs?
Cases Percent
0 357 49.2
1 to 4 224 30.9
5 to 8 82 11.3
9 to 12 29 4.0
13 to 16 17 2.2
17 or more 16 2.2
725 100.0
A- 2
0 0 -c
.*
43: What recreational facilities would you like developed tc
meet your needs?
Number of persons responding (cases) = 714.
Number of responses = 1611, due to multiple answers.
% of % of
Responses Resp Cases
152 9.4 21.3 Ballfields
231 14.3 32.4 Fitness Center
Golf Course
Gymnasium 124 7.7 17.4
Picnic Area 263 16.3 36.8
Track 121 7.5 16.9
swimming Pool 197 12.2 27.6
166 10.3 23.2 Tennis
Other 102 6.3 14.3 91 5.6 12.7 None
1,611 100.0 225.6
164 10.2 23.0
44: Are you a Carlsbad resident?
Cases Percent
Yes 280 38.1
No 455 61.9
735 100.0
A- 3
W /d W
ANALXSXS E-R- =MI
RECREATIONAL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
AMm ZONE 5 mmYEEs
PREPARED FOR
"ZONE 5 GROW"
SEPTEMBER 1987
Skylight Plaza, Suite 180 4655 Ruffner Street San Diego, California 921 11 (619) 268-480
A- 4
e Ana,_ * sis/Research Limited
' *. <
L
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ,St"DY
The City of Carlsbad is propsinq a fee to Zone 5 developrs for the
purpose of providing recreational and park facilities for primary USE! by
employees in the area.
recreational needs of Zone 5 employees.
include :
The main purpse of this study is to determine the
Specific objectives of this study
1. To profile Zone 5 employees reqarding their recreational behavior
2. To determine which near mrk activities are of mst interest to
employees
To determine the imprtance of and satisfaction with miscellaneous
services and amenities in the area
3.
4. To determine current levels of satisfaction amonq Carlshad resident
employees concernins recreational facilities and proqrams in Zone t
To provide a demographic profile of Zone 5 employees. 5.
,
5
2
A- 5
W hmic/Resrarch Limit erg
STUDY mommi
The study reported herein was conducted durinq the week of Swtemkr ;
1987, with Zone 5 employees in the City of Carlsbad.
administered questionnaires were distributed to employees randomly drawn fr
various commercial areas in Zone 5. A total of 204 mpleteil cniestionnaire
were returned, representinq a response rate of 51 percent. All distrihutio
and handling of auestionnaires were conducted by trained intewiewers from
Four hundred self-
Analysis/Research Limited.
Prior to data collection, extensive discussions *re held with the cli
reqardinq the questionnaire so that all relevant topic areas and informatioi
needed muM be fully covered in the survey. A pretest was then conducted i
maximize the efficiency of the survey and validity of resconses.
The marqin of ermr for the study is plus or minus 6.5 percentaqe pini
at a confidence level of 95 percent.
i
A- 6
14c
0 Analysis/Research e Limited
EXECUTIVE FINJIINGS AND RECOMM"I>ATIONS
The Executive Findinqs and Recommendations will address the objectives of
the study as previously mentioned, i.e. the assessment of the needs of
recreational facilities for people employed in the Zone 5 kea.
Recreational activities mst mentioned as the activities of choice of the
employees of Zone 5 were miming (57%), bikinq (47%); and jcgqing/runninq (37%)
It is perceived that these recreational activities tend to be activities that
are mst frequently performed (often 'alone)'outside of any sinsle recreatioFa1
I f acil ity.
While nearly half of the people surveyed did not know which recreational
facilities and programs they would like to have near to their place of mrk,
15% stated that they Wuld like swimninq facilities, 12% desired tennis courts,
and 10% said they would like to have a physical fitness center,.
It was determined through this study that most people who mrk in the Zone I
Area participate in recreational activities in their spare time, and that mst
of these people prefer to engage in their recreational activities near their homt
A total of 56.9% of the 204 respondents stated that swhinq was a -
recreational activity in which they participated.
they preferred to swim near their place of mrk.
they kr~uld be very/samewhat likely to swim near mrk if such swimninq facilities
were available, while 12.7% said that they wuld swim often/sometimes near wrk
if facilities were available for them to do so.
A total of 12.7% said that
A total of 12.7% stated that
A- 7
0 Analvsis/earch Limited
In regards tQbbikk: 47.1% of the 204 people-surveyed bike; onLyF3,9%,
explained that they prefer to bike near their place of mrk;
that they muld be very/somewhat likely to bike near mrk if facilities =re
available;
mrk if biking facilities =re available.
only 3-93 stated
and 3.4% said they muld bike often/somethes near their place of
In terms of jogging/running: 36.8% of the 204 respondents said that tky
run or jog;
11.3% explained they would be very/mewhat likely to run or ioq near mrk if
facilities were available;
often/scmetimes if facilities were available.
11.3% said they preferred to run or jog near their place of wrk;
9.8% stated they muld run or jog near mrk
Of the 204 people surveyed, 32.4% state3 that they play tennis. However,
onlya4.9% of the 204 respndents stated that they preferred to play tennis near-
or at their place of wrk. My 4.9% of the 204 respondents explained that they
would be very/somewhat likely to play tennis near their place of mrk if
facilities were available.
often/methes near their place of mrk if facilities were available.
And, only 4.4% said that they muld play tennis
In regards to golf: 25.5% o€ the 204 people surveyed said they playqd;
4.4% stated that they preferred to play golf near work; 4.4% said they muld he
very/somewhat likely to play golf near work if facilities were available; and c
3.9% explained they wuld play golf often/sometimes near mrk if facilities -
were available.
Such findings indicate that many of the people who wrk in the ?!ne 5 Area
wid be unlikely to use recreational facilities located near their wrk place.
4, -
A- E!
- _- -...
e Analysis P esearch Limited * I/
.I
J.
.1
It was also determined that an overwhelminq percentaqe of the employees of
Zone 5 usually participate in their preferred recreational activities "after
work" and,,"on weekends."
activities performed away from a "near mrk" recreational facility;-
. .-.. Ad ' .d
Such a participation pattern muld most likelv involve
-tt
The survey revealed that abc. one-third of the companies for which Zone 5
employees wrk provide organized recreational activities.
of the Zone 5 employees whose mpanies provide orqanized recreational activities
do not participate in these organized activities.
sponsored recreational activity they muld like to participate, 43% of the
Zone 5 employees said "mne."*
However, half (49%)
When asked in which company
Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 misht inclwe a imsinq
track and/or "par courses" (i.e., the iwghq track with exercise/mrk out
stations along the path). Such a track should be able to be lenqthened or
expanded as the park area qrows.
Canbination tennisrnsketball murts wuld accamodate a significant
percentage of the Zone 5 employees.
Cycling paths through the ccmplex miqht also be considered, as well as
outdoor walled racquet courts (for racauetball and handball).
Studv findings warrant consideration of an indoor exercise center to be
used by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after wrk.
facility might include areas for exercise machines, weiqht traininq, and
aerobic dance or exercise. .
Such a
A- 9
- t
cursrim 2 CUESTICN 3 -___ CIJESrION 1
Please check the follouina
recreational activities in prticipte in. wul? in, bu often I% pu usually
which yw participate in, you rather pl~v/& it play/&: your spare tiw: war hcme or near wrk:
For each activity pi Fbr each activity yo0 participate
PJFARl4O-E NFJWKRK c SQIElTMFS Sm "ER -- - --_
0 0 0 0 0 0
Go1 f 0 (I 0 f) 0 0 0
Swim inq II 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bikinq 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jminq/Rimninq ( ) f) 0 0 0 0 0
1 ('1 Tenn 1 s
Baseball 0 0 0
(1 0 0 I Softba11 BJsketba 11 0 0 0 I h-tball
I
1) 0 0
other (SPECIFY)
1 1) 0 0
0 0 0 ---_-
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 (1
>
CuFSrIoN 4 c;uEsT?oN 5 CUF..WIW 6
For each of ttvt activities ansere3 "near For each of the activities
FOr each activity you pacticipate in, wrk" in, 0.2, please an~uer kr liker "very or s-awubt likely" : durinq what time of the day do you you could be to participate in tbse please answer bw often ycn usually pIay/dor activities if Pacilities for th were to participate in those act
available : , rear wrk in y~ur space tir
LIKELY LIKELY UNLIKELY WLIKELY OFEN XWFXIMES SEIcc*(
BEFORE LLNCH AFTER mEK tK7I.I- VACA- VERY %&TIAT KPiWIAT WRY -- WK TIME WORK RJOS DAYS TION -----__- __
0 (1 0 00 1) 0 0 fl 0, 0 0 0
0 0 0 I10 0 f) 0 0 0 0 0 f)
0 0 0 00 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 1) 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f)
0 0 0 00 01 0 0 0 0 r) 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 '( ) 0 0 0 f)
s 0 0 >,
<,
*.'
I
7. Coes your mpany have orqanized recreational activities?
Yes ( ) PLEASE ANSWER Q.8 & 0.9 A?!jr) S--;T .I. I J rl<-
No ( I PLEFSE Go 'ID Q.10
8. (IF YES) What are they?
9. Which company orqanized recreational activities do you participate in
10. In which company sponsored recreational activities would you like to
participate, if they were available?
11.- Did the company or area where you previously wxkd have any orqanizec
recreational activities?
Yes ( ) PLEASE CONTINUE WITH 9.72
No ( ) PLEASE Q3 TO Q.14
Never Worked ( ) PLFXE 03 TO 0.14
12. (IF YES) What are they?
13. Which campany orqanized recreational activities did you participate ir
-
A-1 1
e
14. How adequate are the current recreational facilities and programs in the area around where you mrk?
Wry Admate ( 1-1
Somewhat Meauate I )-2
Somewhat Inadequate ( 1-3
Very Inadmate ( 1-4
15. What additional recreational facilities and prmrams, if any, muld yc
like to have near to where you mrk?
,
16. How imprtant are the followins services to you in your area?
VERY SOMEWH?IT NOTVERY NOT ATALL
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
Fast food restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Family typ restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Child care facilities ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4
Reliuious institutions ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4
stations ( )-I I 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4
Upscale adult type
Automotive service
17. How satisfied are you with the followinq services in your area?
VERY soME[.?HAT N3T VERY MX AT AL& N
SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED OPI
Fast food restaurants ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 (
Family type restaurants ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 (
restaurants ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 (
Child care facilities ( )-1 ( 1-2 ( 1-3 ( 1-4 (
Reliqious institutions ( 1-1 ( 1-2 ( )-3 ( 1-4 (
Automotive service stations ( 1-1 ( 1-2 I 1-3 ( )-4 (
Upscale adult type
A-12
0 0 . y..
I* ,<
.*
And finally, we have a few guestions for classsification purpses.
In what city or munity 60 you live?
How lonq have you live there?
18.
19.
Less than 1 year ( )-1
1 - 4 years ( 1-2
5 - 9 years ( )-3
10 - 14 years ( 1-4
15 years or mre ( )-5
What is the ZIP me where you live?
Below are some aqe cateqories.
your age.
20.
21. Please check the one that includes
Under 18 ( 1-1
18 - 25 ( 1-2
26 - 35 ( 1-3
36 - 45 ( 1-4
46 - 55 ( 1-5
56 - 65 ( 1-6
Over 65 ( 1-7
22. What is your occupation?
23. Are you employed full time or part time?
Full time ( 1-1
Part time ( )-2
PLEASE WRITE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ON FEirxJT PAGE
THANK YOU FDR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION.
A-13
1
21 I AN ORDIYANCC C)F TFIk CITY COLTXCIL OF TFiE CITY CF
CAFLSBAD, cxrFnmm AMEYDIX TITLE 21 PF TFTE
C.~FLSFAD MvxrcIwL CODE PV TUE A.DPIT~~N CF
SECTION 1: That Title 21 is amended bv the addi
I
12 I
I : m 13
l1 I I, 6
28
21.90.010 Purpose and intent.
2 1.90.0 20
21.90.030 General prohibition, exceptions. 21.90.031 Tolling of time for consideration of
Sections:
Def in i t ions .
applications submitted before the eff
28 1 Q A-14
e 0 f. .' **
2L9OeO50 Establishrent of local facilities manacepen
fee.
A local facilities managerent fee is hereby
established to pay for improvements or facilities identified in
local facilities management plan which are related to new development within the zone and are not otherwise financed by a
other fee, charge or tax on development, or are not installed t
a developer as a condition of a building permit or development permit. .The fee may also be used to pay for that portion of th facilities or improvements identified in the citywide facilitie
and improvements plan attributed to develoment within 'the loca
zone which are not financed by other means. The facilities management fee shall be paid before the issuance of a building
permit. The amount of the fee shall be determined based upon t
estimated cost of the facility or improvement designated as
necessary to accommodate additional development within the
applicable local facilities management zone plus the estimated
facilities and improvement plan attributable to the local zone.
The fee shall be fairly apportioned among the new development.
(b) The fee required by this section is in addition t
any other means of financing facilities or improvements identified by a local facilities management plan or any other tax, fee, charge or improvement reauirement which may be impose on'the development of property under the provisions of state la
this code or City Council policy.
management zone shall be set by City Council resolution after a
public hearing, published notice of which shall be given
according to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.060(2) and
Government Code Section 54992.
permit application submitted after the effective date of this
chapter the applicant shall agree to pay the fee established by
(e) The fee established by this section shall be levi
- (a)
cost of facilities and improvements identified in the citywide
(c) The amount of the fee for a local facilities
(d) As a condition of any building or development
this section at the time a building permit 1s issued,
at the time of issuance of a building permit.
A-1 5
September 18, 1981 W e
TO : ZONE 5 SUB COMMITTEE
FROM: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
ZONE 5
In an effort to provide the community with well balanced,
has been involved in an extensive park and recreation developml
program. As part of this development program it has been esta
that there is a need"to expand upon or create additional park recreation facilities that are currently not provided for 1.e.
course complex.
After review and analysis of the industrial population influx 1
primarily from Zone 5 (40,000-70,000 at buildout), it has been
determined that this population will have an impact upon curre and future planned recreation facilities. This impact may be 1
in the Citys existing and planned facilities only if industry
participates in the City's over all recreation facilities deve
program. In addition to PFF fees, staff is recommending the
implementation of a separate fee to facilitate additional
recreational development.
comprehensive park facilities and recreation programs I staff
Staff further recommends that the development fee be applied tc
the construction of a golf course complex. A golf complex wou
not only provide a well balanced park and recreation program ti community, but would also eliminate maintenance/operation and
cost. By operating the complex under a privitization concept,
fees would offset maintenance cost by 100% and possibly providc
additional revenue to further expand recreation facilities. I
suggested that resident and non-resident fees be established ai that the industrial employeees living outside the city be charc
a resident fee. Negotiations are currently underway with the
county to lease 150+ acres in the industrial zone 5 area. A
preliminary evaluation of this property indicates suitability the development of a golf course complex. A recent feasibilit:
study has determined that a golf course complex could be develc
within Macario Canyon should negotiations with the county fail
The Golf Complex Development cost has been estimated at $8,000,
Zone 5 through buildout, an assessed fee of .42C per square foo
would facilitate construction. construction at a later date may substantially increase the dev
ment cost and thereby increase any assessed fee for facilities.
An alternative to this inflationary factor is that the industri
developers opt for up front construction of a golf complex buil
to City Standards. If the development cost should be less than the estimated $8,000,000 then the fees will be lowered accordin
in todays economy. With the remaining industrial development i
An inflationary factor for
A-16
0 e c 1.
, .- .’
.* Zone 5 Sub Committee
September 18, 1987
Page Two
Should the county lease or development of a golf complex on the Macarlo property fail to materialize, the following alternative
would be recommended.
Alternative I - up front or incremental development of a centra
15 acre recreation complex within Zone 5.
Alternative I1 - up front or incremental development of three (
five acre recreation ,complexes statigically located throughout Zone 5.
The cost to develop either of the above alternatives is estimat
,between $7,822,500 and $8,000,000. The annual maintenance and operation cost associated with these alternatives is estimated
determined in 1987 dollars and have not determined inflationary
cost should incremental development occur. Should either of th
alternatives be instituted, staff recommends the maintenance an
operation costs be absorbed by the industrial developers.
DB : pa
$9,00O/Ac/Yr or $130,000 per year. All cost estimates are
A-17
:; , .> (zli6l3*D 0 a -. r-
OLF 6 ASSOCIATION
PRESENTATION
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ZONE 5 - PARK FEES
Our Association has been represented at most of the sub- committee meetings set up to consider and recommend action
on park fees for zone 5. We have used our allocated two
minutes at the end of each two hour session to urge the
committee to seriously consider the importance of golf as
a 'need' for the employees working in the zone five area.
A recent survey conducted by Analysis/Research Ltd. to de-
termine the assessment of recreational facilities for
people employed in zone 5 concluded that the top four
choices of recreational activity were swimming, (57%),
biking (47%), jogging/running (37%) and golf (25%).
(one out of four play golf). The survey also stated that
if facilities were available near their work they would
"often/sometimes swim (12.7%), run or jog (9.8%), tennis
(4.4%), bike (3.4%) and golf (3.9%)". The survey also de-
termined "an overwhelming percentage of the employeees of
activities after work and on week ends."
If 'need' has been based on 'where and when' an employeee
engages in the activity of his choice and an overwhelming
number of emplggees conduct their activity after work or
on weekends, which apparently is the case, then golf is a
very popular activity and the 'finding' can be made that golf
is a 'need' to be included with other recommended recreational activities.
American Golf Inc. states in their latest issue of "Fore"
"The game of golf is growing in popularity at a very rapid
pace. Current estimates are that there are 17.5 million
golfers in the United States and projections for the year
2000, 25-30 million golfers. Thats almost double for 13 yrs.
Market Facts 1nc.stated in their journal, "at only a 3%
growth rate in population, 8000 additional gof courses will
have to be built in the United States to maintain current
availability which is 58 courses for 100,000 golfers."
The 1986 Carlsbad Golf Feasibility Study indicates that ap-
proximately 21,000 golfers will live within the primary and
secondary areas by 1990 which will have a definite impact on
a Carlsbad municipal golf course. Golf will be an increasing-
ly important amenity for workers in zone 5 and in particular
at buildout of the zone 5 area.
0
zone 5 usually participate in their preferred recreational
0
CARLSBAD GOLF ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 4507, CARLSBAD, CA 92008
* _. - Y' -, , , ,\
PAGE @ ZONE 5 - PARK FEES
Our Association recommends that future construction of
the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course be partially support-
ed with an additional .05$ per sq. ft. of neu construction
in zone 5. In the event that the developers-aitern-
ative plan is acceptable to our City, a fund equal to the
proposed .n5$ per sq. ft. shall be collected up front and
held in reserve by the City for future golf course con-
shall also be subject to annual review and adjustment to en-
sure sufficient funds are collected to provide for adequate recreational facilities in zone 5.
We appreciate the projected financial dilemma which our
City may experience in the future and our members are
concerned that funding for a municipal golf course is not
high on the priority list and will present another challenge
to Carlsbad and its voters. The proposed local management
fee for recreational facilities in zone 5 includes an oppor-
tunity to initiate action on a public golf course that
should have been planned many years ago.
We believe a finding can be made to support the 'need'
for golf facilities in zone 5. We have discussed this mat-
ter with our members and feel that our proposal should be
given serious consideration before final action is taken.
a
struction expenditures. The additional .05$ per sq. ft.
0
0
0 Analysis/Research Limited e _. c*
* ,,e \I ' -,
I
0
EXECUI'IVE FINDINGS AND RECOMMNENDATIONS
The Executive Findings and Recommendations will address the objectives of
the study as previously mentioned, i.e. the assessment of the needs of
recreational facilities for people employed in the Zone 5 Area.
Recreational activities most mentioned as the activities of choice of the
employees of Zone 5 were swimning (ST%), bikinq (47%): and jogqinq/runninq (37%).
It is perceived that these recreational activities tend to be activities that
are mst frequently performed (often5doneJToutside of any sinsle recreational
c faciliw.
While nearly half of the people surveyed did not know which recreational
facilities and programs they muld like to have near to their place of mrk,
15% stated that'they muld like swimning facilities, 12% desired tennis courts.
and_.lO% ". said they wuld like to have a physical fitness center,-->
It was determined through this study that most people who wrk in tk Zone 5
Area participate in recreational activities in their spare time, and that mst
of these pple prefer to engage in their recreational activities near their i-aw
A cotai of 56.5% of the 204 respondents stated that swirrnninq was a
recreational activity in which they participated.
they preferred to swim near their place of wrk.
they muld be very/samewhat likely to swim near wxk if such swimninq facilities
were available, while 12.7% said that they wuld swim often/metimes near mrk
if facilities were available for them to do so.
A total of 12.7% said that
Atotal of 12.7% stated that
0
3
* Analysis/ ?a arch Limited
-. I' .- . x>,> -
;'
In regards to&iki.nq: 47.1% of. thrt-204.ppleasurveyd bike; dy&AIL e
explained that they prefer to bike near their place of mrk;
that they muld be very/mewhat likely. to bike near mrh if facilities were
available;
mrk if biking facilities were available.
only,3-9% stat& -
. -_ - and 3.4% said, they muld bike often/metimes near their place of
,In terms of jcgging/running-: 36.8% of the 204 respndents said that they
11.3% said they preferred to run or jog near their place of,FiOrk; run or jog;
11 -3% explained they would be very/mewhat likely to run or jcq near wrk if
facilities were available;
o€ten/sametimes if facilities-were available.
9.8%' stated they mdd" run'-o~ j&. near wrk
I
Of the 204 people surveyed, 32.4% stated, that they play tennis?. Howver, a only,4,9% of the 204 respondents stated that they preferred to play tennis ne-
Ckily 4.9% of the 204 respndents explained that they ocpcahthek place of mrk.
wuld be very/somewhat likely to play tennis near their place of mrk if
facilities were available.
often/sometimes near their place of mrk if facilities were available.
And, only 4.4% said that they would play tennis
In regards to golf: 25.5% of the 204 people surveyed said they play+;
4.4% stated that they preferred to play golf near wrk;
very/mewhat .. -_ . - likely to play golf near wrk if facilities were available;
4.43-said tky muld De
ami. ;
3.9% explained they ad play golf often/sometimes near wrk if facilities--*
were available:
Such findings indicate that many of the people who wrk in the 7nne 5 Af5a
would be. unlikely to use recreational- faciIFties located'' near their- &rk place,
*-I,-.,, - 7%
- ---e I4 ~ __ --- - e
4
0 Analysis/Research Limited * *\%. a*z " e
.L
It was also determined that an overwhelminq percentase of the employees of e
.Zone 5 usuaUyI-participzite in their. preferred-.recreatin& activities- "after
swn weekends2 Such a participation pattern muld most likelv involve
-U-.A-- -4
activities performed away from a "near wrk" recreational facility-;
The survey revealed that- hut me-third OF the mpnies for whic -
emgoyees - work provide organized recreational activities- Ebwver, half (49%)
of the Zone 5 employees +se campanies prwide organized recreational activities
do not participate in these organized activities.
sponsored recreational activity they muld like to participate. 43%-of ther
Zone 5 "enipSo+es'-said 9nne , w*
When asked in which company
Facilities conducive to the enployee base of Zone 5 miqht include a icqsinq
track and/or "par courses" (i-e., the joqghq track with exercise/mrk out
*stations along the path), Such a track should be able to be lenqthend or
expanded as the park area grows,
Combination tennis/basketball courts wuld accomodate a significant
prcentage of the Zone 5 employees,
Cycling paths through the -lex miqht also be considered, as ell as
outdoor walled racquet courts (for ramuetball and handball) .
Study findings warrant consideration of-an indoor exercise center to be
usd-by Zone 5 employees during regular business hours and after mrk,
facility might include areas for exercise machines. weisht traininq, and
aerobic dance or exercise. :
Such a -- -
e
5
--. .., b 0 0 Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circ
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, an
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription (ist 01
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intc
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one ya
preceding the date of publication of th'
hereinafter referred to; and that the n
which the annexed is a printed copy, hi
published in each regular and entire issut
newspaper and not in any supplement th
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligenceof a general charac
NOTICE 01'' ment withinZone5intheamountof
PUBLIC HEAR8.~~~ 40cents per square foot. All People who signed an agreement to pay fu-
NOTlCE ISHEREBY (,iIVEN that ture fees as determined in the local
bad will, hold a publie hearjng at pay this fee within 30 days follow-
the CouRcil Chambers, 1200 Elm ing the receipt of an official City
Avenue, Carlsbad. Cali l'ornia, at 6 invoice' p.m. on Tuesday. November 24, Those persons wishing to speak 1987, to cons,der appro.,gal of a L~. on this proposal are cordially invit-
Cal Facilities M~~~~~~ ent F~~ for ed to attend the public hearing. If
parkfacilities jnzone5,on property YOU have aw questions please call
of Carlsbad at the intcmection of ment at 4342824.
the City Council OftheCl ty ofcaris- plan for 'One 5 wi11 be required to
the fol /owi ng dates, to-wit:
generally located withili the center
the City's four quadran1:s. The zone is bounded approximatfely by 1-5 on the west, and approx imately the City's eastern boundary on the east and is bisected east to west by Palo- mar Airport Road and north to south by El Camino Re al, and more specifically shown .'3n the map below. the public hearing.
The fee under con:';ideration is Case File: LOCAL FACILITIES allowed by Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and will be imposed upon all new develop-
the Parks dr Re'xeation Depart-
Ifyou challenge the Local Facili- ties Management Plan for Zone 5 in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in writ- ten correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to
... N.ouernb..er. 13.. ..............
.................................
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 5 .................................
Applicant CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
.................................
.................................
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
correct. Executed at C
d , Clerk of rt202- L ,
.I w 0 .'
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPI CARLSBAD, CALJFORNJA 92008 (619) 43(
Office of the City Clerk Mitg uf MnrlBbnb
November 12, 1987
Dividend Development Corp.
Attn: Janet A. Klein, Assistant V.P.
3600 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Re: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
There will be a public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council at thei
meeting of November 24, 1987 concerning establishment of fees.
Council will consider the establishment of a Local Facilities Managemen
Fee for park facilities in Zone 5. Zone 5 is property generally locate
within the center of Carlsbad at the intersection of the City's four
quadrants. The fee is proposed at 40 cents per square foot, and would
imposed on all new development within Zone 5.
The data required by Section 54992 of the Government Code is available
the City Manager's Office and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Council meetings begin at 6:OO p.m.
d 4.- /&ZJ- LEE RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
LR: ar
Enclosure (copy of legal notice being published)
-. a _.. . W e
\k .. c-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY CIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, 1987, to con-
sider approval of a Local Facilities Management Fee for park facilities
in Zone 5 on property generally located within the center of Carlsbad at
the intersection of the City's four quadrants.
approximately by 1-5 on the west, and approximately the City's eastern
boundary on the east and is bisected east to west by Palomar Airport
Road and north to south by El Camino Real, and more specifically shown
on the map below.
The fee under consideration is allowed by Section 21.90.050 of the Carls-
bad Municipal Code and will be imposed upon all new development within
Zone 5 in the amount of 40 cents per square foot. All people who signed
an agreement to pay future fees as determined in the local plan for Zone 5
will be required to pay this fee within 30 days following the receipt of an
official City invoice.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to
attend the public hearing.
Parks E Recreation Department at 434-2824.
If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
The zone is bounded
If you have any questions please call the
CASE FILE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 5
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 13, 1987
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
- . -, a. W 0 c .**I r --
Go-
ZE 9
7 ZONE 5 JAN1
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
- -.. I .. w 0 ~. -
m .I c I .* Y .
November 10, 1987
TO: Research and Analysis Group Att: Grace Manues
FROM : City Attorney
ZONE 5 PARK FEES
Thank you for your memorandum of November 9, 1987 regarding t
adoption of Zone 5 Park Fees which, if approved by the City
Section 21.90.050. That section allows a fee to be imposed f improvements or public facilities identified in the local pla not otherwise financed by any other fee and provided the need for the new fee is created by the development occurring in thc zone. The fee shall be set by the City Council by resolution
after a public hearing. The notice of the public hearing sha: be published at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City at least ten days prior to the
hearing. (Government Code Section 6061). The notice of the meeting must include a general explanation of the subject
matter to be considered and a statement that the data require(
supporting the imposition of the fee is available to the public. Notice of the hearing shall also be mailed at least fourteen days prior to the meeting to any interested party whc
has filed a written request with the City for mailed notice 0: any meeting at which a new or increased fee or service charge
is discussed. You should check with the City Clerk and the Department of Planning and Building Services to determine
whether or not they have received any such requests. These
requests are valid for one year from the date on which they a:
filed. At least ten days prior to the hearing, you must make
available to the public data supporting the proposed fee. (Government Code Section 54992(a)).
On September 21, 1987, the governor signed AB 1600 (1987 Stat2 Chapter 927) which becomes operative on January 1, 1989 settir
forth state regulation of the adoption of local fees for
development projects. Among other things, it requires the Cit
to identify the purpose of a new fee, identify the use to whic
the fee is to be put including identifying the public facilities to be developed, determine a reasonable relationshi
between the use of the fee and the type of development and a
reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project for which the fee
is imposed. This new law does not affect the proposed Zone 5 park fees provided they are adopted prior to January 1, 1989.
Council, will be adopted pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code
I have attached a complete text of the bill for your review.
w W *<-. -
-e- I ' r - ... * ,
-4 4
-2-
Should you have any questions regarding it, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
(A( *
RONALD R. BALL
Assistant City Attorney
rmh attachment
c: City Clerk /
City Manager
Department of Planning and Building Services
ntenance are not available mental Response, Cornpen- 'ed (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601, et the Hazardous Substance inup Fund.
authorized to adopt ad annually review a specified capitd facilities
plan. The bill would become operative January 1,1989. (2) me California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
104 agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, inchding the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $soo,~ statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs
exceed %soo,ooO. ni~ bill would declare that there are no costs in this act requiring reimbursement, but would recognize that IOC~ agencies and school di&i& may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement
for these costs.
The people of the State of California do enact as fOflOWs.'
SECTION 1. Chapter 5 (Commencing with Section m) is
added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:
i- ,?ITE IT - DON’T SAY .-!
Date September 21 1930
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney 0 Reply Wanted To
From Jim Elliott, Finance Director UNO Reply Necessary
The changes you requested with regard to the notarization of this document
have been made.
Please review, approve and sign and return to me.
Thank you.
4
AIGNER FORM NO. 55032 PRINTED IN