The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-04-07; City Council; 11625; NORTHWEST QUADRANT PARK ENHANCEMENT STUDYr- i ,. CITY- 31~ CARLSBAD - AGEND~~LL r @ t 1 -r 1 a, s u u 0 -a WaJ 0: ; WC a,. *rl k TI a0 u a, urd a0 m 08aJO u 2 ;a? s*.rl:: g +J:g: "R"2 ; 52.4 2222 a ?Ti aJ aJ.rl;z 24; 2 4J c.2: "Zuo c, Ll q g2.m yco !4w 2 Nl-d rda'i c -4 rd 60 0.4 mu am aJW E!; 2 &2-@ y2c uo ad rdv du O 00 .dm * a, alcn aJ !4 mu:';: Ll+J@ u4: $ : *-a& dzy 22'UpI .rl O4 c, ffl 5.c 2; hl ze 2: 2; .. .~ z 0 5 a $ z 3 0 0 1 AB#- I TITLE: IDEPT. t I MTG.-Y- 7- 92 NORTHWEST QUADRANT PARK DEPT. p$fi I ENHANCEMENT STUDY I CITY A' CITY M L I I ~~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 A. If the Council is interested in pursuing a concept of expanding the development of parks in the Northwest Quadrant beyond the existing Capital Improvement Program and Growth Management standards, then your action would be to direct staff to: 1. Meet with the Northwest Quadrant citizens to review the possibilities of creating a Community Facility District (CFD) to fund the additional park enhancements. 2. Meet with the Northwest Quadrant citizens to analyze project options and return with a recommendation for a balanced park development program utilizing financing from Park in Lieu, Public Facilities Fees, various grant programs, Community Facilities District, and limited support from the General Capital Construction Fund. 3, Investigate and report on the availability of future grant opportunities for Northwest Quadrant park projects. , B. If Council finds that the existing park development program as identified in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is adequate or meets the public needs and the Growth Management Standards in the Northwest Quadrant, then your action would be to direct staff to: 1. Refine the existing program to identify to the extent possible sites to be acquired and developed as a part of the annual Capital Improvement Program process. ~ ITEM EXPLANATION: I During the August 6, 1991, Council meeting, staff presented the Magnolia Acquisition/Development report. After discussion and comments, the Council directed staff to report back with the following information: 1. Specific information on the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) in the northwest quadrant for park enhancement. This report is to include various amounts of funding which could be generated a1 various levels of assessment over various time frames. 2. Prepare a scoping assessment for an enhancement pian that woulc include Hosp Grove, the entire south shore of Buena Vista Lagoor including the Duck Feeding Facility extending westerly to Maxton Browr Park, Maxton Brown Extension, and Maxton Brown Expansion, endinc at the Pacific Ocean. rnur L, nt> -2 vvv' * 0 .- 3. Staff was also directed to create a list of other potential enhancement projects for the northwest quadrant to include acquisition/development costs as well as maintenance and operation impacts for all the suggested study areas. DISCUSSION In response to Council direction, staff has prepared the Hosp Grove/Buena Vista Lagoon Study which has outlined a conglomerate of individual projects associated with Hosp Grove, the south shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon, and the Maxton Brown Extension and Expansion areas (Exhibit 11). The report will outline the proposed development concepts and the individual project acquisition/development costs. Staff has also prepared a Project Summary (Exhibit I) outlining each of the proposed projects represented in this study and those projects outlined in the Northwesl Quadrant Park Enhancement Report of August 28, 1990, all of which to date are unfunded. Additionally, the project summary provides a listing of all northwest quadrant park development projects currently identified in the Capital improvement Program (CIP) Budget. Finally, the summary lists the maintenance and operation costs for all projects, the development schedule, their estimated costs and thc sources of funding. Relative to the acquisition and development of the Magnolia site, Council directed thai the City, at this time, should keep all options open including unilateral acquisition anc development of the entire 13.9 acre site as well as joint possibilities for acquisition anc development of the site with the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD). Pursuant to Council's direction regarding the Magnolia site, staff contacted the CUSC to inform them of the City's intent to investigate the formation of a Communitb Facilities District (CFD) for recreational facility enhancement in the northwest quadrant In response to this information, the District has indicated that they will continue tc work on a report for the School Board dealing with a unilateral acquisition anc development of 5+: acres of the Magnolia site, utilizing the Landscape and Lightinc Act as a financing means. The District further indicated that a joint venture for the 52 acre parcel with the City may not work as the District requires exclusive use of the area for their Junior and Senior High School open space physical education needs The Financial Management Director has prepared a report (Exhibit 3) outlining thc process and alternative boundaries for which a Community Facilities District (CFD: within the northwest quadrant could be established. In essence, the report outline: four alternative assessment rates ranging from ten dollars ($10) to one-hundrec dollars ($100) annually per residential unit and from one cent ($0.01) to twelve cent: ($0.12) annually per square foot for non-residential units that could provide a fundins capacity of 1.4 to 14.5 million from the existing tax base. rnuc 3, Nt) iF I1 @ -3 0 Tax Per Non-Residential Unit Residental Unit Per Square Foot Revenue Generated $1 0 + .01 $50 + .05 $1 00 + .05 $I 00 t .I 2 $ 1,400,000 $ 6,800,000 $1 1,600,000 $1 4,500,000 Because it may be difficult to establish a CFD due to the 2/3 vote requirement, Council may wish to consider future grant opportunities for additional park enhancement projects in the Northwest Quadrant. Staff will give an in depth presentation regarding the Hosp Grove/Buena Vista Lagoon Study, a review of all projects and costs identified in the matrix and will detail the information provided related to the formation of a CFD for the northwest quadrant. FISCAL IMPACT AND EXAMPLES OF PROJECT OPTIONS: Staff has prepared four (4) examples including cost estimates and funding alternatives for consideration. s Continuation of Existina Development Proqram Maintain status quo and continue the Northwest Quadrant Park and Facility Development Program as outlined in the adopted 91 -92 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This option will require direction from Council to identify seven (7) acres of parkland that may include a future community center/gymnasium facility. This proposal meets the Growth Management performance requirement and funding mechanisms have been secured as identified in the adopted C.I.P. This option could also be expanded to include the Hosp/Buena Vista Lagoon development enhancement utilizing possible grant programs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Approved Projects (CIP) Parkland Acquisition (7 ac)* Parkland Development (7 ac)* Community Center/Gymnasium* Cannon Lake Development (6.7 ac) Maxton Brown Park Improvement Hosp Grove Improvements (5.5 ac) Veterans Memorial Park Development Park Restoration/Acquisition Whale Walk Fence Replacement Fundinq PIL PFF PFF PFF State Grant CFD PIL CDBG-GCC GCC Estimates $2,380,000 875,000 3,000,000 900,000 30,000 172,000 3,500,000 3,600,000 155,000 TOTAL $1 4,642,000 *No specific site has been determined for these noted projects at this time. rnut LT, nt, u I I LC 77# 0 Option II: CIP and 8-28-90 Study Would include the combination of Option I (adopted 92 CIP projects) and those projects considered in the 8-28-90 Northwest Quadrant report. This option will exceed the Growth Management performance requirements, HQwever, funding for those projects not currently identified in the C.I.P. will require additional financing alternatives. Funding Estimates A. CIP Projects Yes $1 4,642,000 5. 8-28-90 Northwest Study 1. Magnolia acquisition & development None 16,000,000 2. Parkland acquisition (AHL) Northshore PIL -o-* 3. Parkland development (AHL) Northshore None 1,375,000 TOTAL Approved funding sources 32,017,000 -1 4,642,000 Deficit Possible CFD @ $1 00 + .I 2 Deficit *To be dedicated by developers. < 17,375,000. > -1 4,500,000 ~$2,875,000. > Option 111: CIP 8-28-90 and 7-16-91 Studies Includes the park enhancement projects outlined in the approved CIP; the 8-28-90 and 7-16-91 studies. This option will exceed the Growth Management performance requirements. Currently there is insufficient financing for all the projects and therefore financing alernatives need to be identified. r#bt 5, A~J K 1 I cc -a 0 A. CIP Projects Funding Estimates Yes $1 4,642,000 B. 8-28-90 Study projects None 17,375,000 C. 7-16-91 Study projects (Hosp Grove/Buena Vista Lagoon Study) 1. Hosp/Buena Vista Lagoon HG-I to HG-4 None $3,040,000 2. Sidewalk/Boardwalk Linkage None 1,350,000 3. Maxton Brown Extension Expansion MB-1 None 5,500,000 4. Maxton Brown Extension MB-2 None 800,000 5. Maxton Brown Park Improvements MB-3 None 200,000 6. Consultant Studies None 400,000 TOTAL Approved identified budget funds 43,307,000 -1 4,642,000 Deficit Possible CFD @ $1 00 + .I2 ~28,665,000. > -1 4,500,000 Deficit <$I 4,165,000. > Option IV: Combination of Proiects Under this option, staff recommends that a combination of projects be considered including specific projects in the adopted CIP and selected projects from the Northwest Quadrant Studies. This proposal may eliminate the need to acquire and develop seven (7) acres of additional park land, the community center/gymnasium, the acquisition and development of the Magnolia parcel and the development of the Northshore Agua Hedionda Lagoon site. These suggested changes would require an amendment to the adopted Parks and Recreation Element. By deleting some of the requested projects and supplementing the minimum CFD generated funds or future grant opportunities, this proposal may be a viable alternative for park enhancement in the Northwest Quadrant. This alternative will exceed the Growth Management performance requirement. rnut D, nt> K I I [Id I "tc". (I, * \ Funding Estimates Cannon Lake development 6.7 ac PFF $400,000 Maxton Brown GCC 30,000 Hosp Grove improvement 5.5 ac State Grant 1 72 , 000 Veterans Memorial Park CFD 3,500,000 Whale Walk fence replacement GCC 155,000 Hosp Grove/Buena Vista Lagoon None 11,290,000 Study TOTAL Approved funding sources 15,892,000 -1 4,642,000 Deficit CFD @ $10 + .01 <$1,250,000. > -1,400,000 Surplus $1 50,000 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION IMPACTS: The maintenance and operation impacts vary from project to project ranging from $1 2,000 to as high as $300,000 per year using 1992 cost figures. For a more detailed analysis, please refer to the Project Summary (Exhibit I). EXHIBITS: 1. Northwest Quadrant Summary Matrix, November 7, 1991 3. Memo to Parks and Recreation Director from Financial Manager, October 21, 1991 2. Hosp Grove/Buena Vista Lagoon Study Area Report, October 1991. & >. a 0 u a I- W u w e ix 0 u 2r( E E m 3 u) w 0 al 2 a E I G $ 5 m m C v) 5 z * LL L e seg 80002 aaaQ "0 a.gs52 ... aaa Q @ -s% kL L L %-%% x ",x,X,x roln 0 O*NN 5 2% 0- z 0, 0" 0, 0, 0, = g 0" 0" 020 0, 222 0 mO,m m (-.J,,r r h 333 333333 mum uumuuu hh> hh>hhh ~u)cnu)u)u) mmcn 000 mm(nm0)m moa cococo (VolcV C- 00 a0 E rrrrrr 5 cnQ,cuQ,Q,Q,~tncuQ, 0 u)(D(D(D(Dw 000000~000 z 1"" .."\\\ rrrrrr aaaaaazaaa 0 ,8g8rmt;o, W =o+r ""CC CCC wgv?z~,~gg \\\\\\ \\\ bbbbbb cococo 7' -4 2 e n z 8 8 0, 0 Q, 1 %\ b. a a n qi5, 3 nu 5 -uu-L&wdO;g cn Ju~~ rnaeA0 0 go Q. 3 02; a 2 0 I- 8RE-Z-% mboo*b mcoo~m F iij( OOUJ m,w-r n z i? 000000 000 W 000000 000 n zc!J 5 mrln 3 z E n 2 0 0 0" I- 0'0 040 0, omv O*b 0" g z"zzzzzz 000000 umoooo n z 3 U 2 (-.J- * *- l- v) b* v)v) ru (3 F- .-I w 000000 0" c3, v, 03 04 u z-zzs v) > cui m v) ** .I 0 Lu nq c1 z LL naanmC- l- h 0 wp m ?- a CG alaz c u 2ECE GCG E -v)E zm 2 Ga 0 .o a 2 C u) aga e E c "2 09, - > E E OY)C> mw2 2 g E" 7 :y; €?EX ; a, $ .gEal>m, ZI au n.ZS &.j .p .p g m 0, k €€=fa) $E+ m $g E, 5Src.- -5 . 0 2kCalL.E -amcorn ggg .- Q t esz ga~m, k W -J v) I- C- SI=, i kEhQg$ Q al y OOQQQO 0 mKj.om"0 ztz an2crrE> 25% EE c ,g333u, Q +Lccz > LL Cr$0& J Q) On E6L 0 .o_ al a =z .i-Juz u) wwau =.c .ggo~a,aa *=zg E3 =an qn5t.g =2 L~L~ ;a@ q y ooal 2&5Eyv, c 5: 7J CW?SX> a Eu .- U 00 C cu =I gzz $2SkS2 ooo= E: 22 E 2 0 Q :us! zoo mcr p3ccc= !? yg-5;:; g gs 422 Ejzrnmrn, 222E -2f5Erkm aXQ c3-l -l aaouZ1 >a3 GGaj ornjriulri $t?iciddui GccjCs Zi2i xCnZ.zE0 = YYFFVl- rrr 0 e v) Q, 3 !2 ti! a C 0 C f L C U Q 3 .- L 2 a L v) Q, 3 c r z 0 8 ? 0 p? (3 U \ F Q,d e4 il- 'c E a0 i I-z 2n W 5 am ,,, p PZ E J $? & q [Lo 0 $ ow I" $j p PC[: n A0 an z aC[: a +n cf on 0 ca z 0 z PC J LL W 0 4 a 3 z z 0, .- L c F. m m Y OLI 0 EXH I E .\ 0 0 hosp growe / buena vista lagoon study are; ! NORTHWEST QUADRANT ENHANCEMENT 5 EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF CAF DADUQ Ahln RFC.\T < I, 0 0 CONTENTS STUDY AREA MAP REDUCEDPLANOFPROJECTS I. STUDY OVERVIEW 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 0 MB-1 0 MB-2 MB-3 e L-1 0 HG-1 HG-2 0 HG-3 HG-4 Maxton Brown Extension (Expansion) Maxton Brown Extension Maxton Brown (Augmentation) Linkage Duck Feeding Area (Augmentation) Buena Vista Area (Augmentation) Marron/Monroe Area Glen/Plateau Area 111. APPENDIX A (Cost Breakdowns) - MB-7 - MB-2 - MB-3 - L-7 - HG-I - HG-2 - HG-3 - HG-4 Maxton Brown Extension (Expansion) Maxton Brown Extension Maxton Brown (Augmentation) Linkage Duck Feeding Area (Augmentation) Buena Vista Area (Augmentation) MarronlMonroe Area G/en/P/ateau Area 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 E 5 1C I; 7: 7; 71 7! I( 7: 1, i : e 0 STUDY AREA .. 1 0 0 BUENA VISTA LAGOON ,., . i. ., .\ I . .. . . ~ .. I .; . ,- , 5. r .. . - . $., ,, x~ , .1 .....- -- .., ,. .I - - I I :: I iz northwest quadrant park Ghancement study . . .. i- ." . 1. i. .. . -",- I I; ,:' j, . h(Q@)pJ gioTy&? bu@-agJ" y[@@ 1; ; i:' a 0 (oJ(oJn @&-JJdy'.*; .ar@a .--2 bg. """ ~- ~~.. ." . \' ' , i r- .;:, - . "i ! i y ,;. . ." - _~.___._~ "~"A / "" _-~- A7 9LLL"L" ;J/ ' I/ 1 ""_ " -i + 0 e W U d VI z) 0 > w lx b Q 2 - W * 0 0 > 1. STUDY OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION This study explores opportunities for park enhancement in the northwest quadrant of the City. The major areas included in the study are: . Hosp Grove . Duck Feeding Area Maxton Brown Park Maxton Brown Extension South Shore of Buena Vista Lagoon . Maxton Brown Extension (Expansion) CONCEPTS The recreational enhancement proposals set forth in this study are very conceptual ir nature and would require further environmental, planning, engineering, and sutvey/titk work for more in depth feasibility analysis and ultimate project development. FOI example, one of the proposed projects calls for realignment of State Street into a 'IT intersection at Carlsbad Boulevard. Although from a preliminary standpoint this appears feasible; further engineering, circulation studies and the necessary environmental permit: (i.e. impact to wetlands) may ultimately prove to be fatal flaws for the project. Thesr types of "ISSUES" are identified and discussed in each project description that follows Additionally, there may also be some other unforeseen issues that exist. COSTS Costs estimated for each project are also preliminary and based on concepts only. Un costs used are based on previous similar projects in some cases, while other figures arc simply allowances based on staff's past experience. TOTAL COST FOR ALL PROJECTS IN THE HOSP GROVE/BUENA VISTA LAGOON STUDY AREA $1 0,890,000 Costs are broken down on a per project basis in Section II "Project Descriptions." I addition, the basis for the costs is found in Appendix A. NOTE: Costs for environmental mitigation (if required) are not included because they ar unknown at this time. If costs occur, it may be possible to pay for the mitigation out ( the "contingency" percentage that has been added to each project cost. 1 . II. PROJECT DE RlPTlONS Qc e .1 The Study Area basically consists of two "sections" (the "Maxton Brown Section" and the "Hasp Grove Section") connected by a "linkage" ("Linkage Section"). Each "section" is then broken down into specific "areas" or projects. MAXTON BROWN SECTION Proiect Number Proiect Name cost " B-1 Maxton Brown Extension (Expansion) $5,500,000 M B-2 Maxton Brown Extension $800,000 MB-3 Maxton Brown (Augmentation) SUBTOTAL (Maxton Brown Section) $200,000 $6,500,000 LINKAGE SECTION L- 1 Sidewalk/Boardwalk $1,350,000 HOSP GROVE SECTION HG-1 Duck Fe.eding (Augmentation) $470,00C HG-2 HG-3 HG-4 Buena Vista Area (Augmentation) MarrodMonroe Area $1,000,00( $570,00( Glen/Plateau Area SUBTOTAL (Hosp Grove Section) TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $1,000,00( $3,040,00( $1 0,890,00( On the following pages are descriptions of each project starting from the fvlaxton Brow section in the west moving eastward to HOSP Grove. 2: 4 0 @ HOSP GROVE!BUENA VISTA .i LAGOON STUDY AREA PROJECT MB-1 MAXTON BROWN EXTENSION (EXPANSION) MAXTON BROWN SECT/ON LOCATION: West of the AT&SF Railroad tracks, north of the residential area long Mountain View Drive, south of the "inr?er" Buena Vista Lagoon and east of the Pacific Ocean, SIZE: . 2 4.5 acres OWNERSHIP: Privately owned with an "open space easement for recreational purposes" over approximately 1.5 acre of the -+4 acre site. PROPOSED USES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ISSUES: Picnic Tot lots Hardcourts (i.e. basketball, handball, volleyball) Walks, trails, boardwalk Fishing Bird watching Pedestrian overpass (over railraod tracks bridging Maxton Brown Extensior Expansion [MB-1 ] and Maxton Brown Extension [MB-21). 1. ACQUISITION -- Requires acquisition of the site. This land may be available fol City acquisition due to the likelihood that private land uses (i.e. residential commercial) may be undevelopable because of constraints. 2. ACCESS -- Proposed off Carlsbad Boulevard to a parking lot on the "Maxtor Brown Extension" site. Would involve realignment of State Street and other relatec issues. (Refer to discussion under "Maxton Brown Extension - Project MB-2.") A fallback access might be at an existing private dirt driveway that leads frorr Mountain View down to the project site. This involves several problems includin: acquisition of the driveway and access issues off of Mountain View (which is i substandard residential street). 3. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS -- Should not be a problem because it appears to bc located on an old wetland fill and not b wetlands. However, no biologicz reconnaissance has been performed on this site. 4. COST -- The pedestrian overpass requires relatively expensive construction. COSTS: (Refer to Appendix A, page 11 for breakdowns.) $5,500,000 3 ,.. 0 HOSP GROVE/BUENA VISTA -\ LAGOON STUDY AREA PROJECT MB.2 MAXTON BROWN EXTENSION MAXTON BROWN SECTlON LOCATION: A triangular site bordered by Carlsbad Boulevard on the east, the AT&SF Railroad on the west, and Buena Vista Lagoon on the north. SIZE: 1.5 acres OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad (majority) AT&SF Railroad PROPOSED USES: 1. Parking 2. Staging area (for trails system) ISSUES: 1. ACCESS -- Depends on ability to realign State Street into a "T' intersection at Carlsbad Boulevard. This is currently being studied by Municipal Projects and is included in the C.I.P. The "Ti intersection is needed for vehicular access to the proposed parking. Another problem is that the City has deeded a 100-foot buffer on the north portior of the site to the Coastal Conservancy. The deed restricts the use of this buffel to pedestrian trails and wetland mitigation. Vehicular access to the site woulc need to cross this easement and, therefore, the deed restriction would need to bc modified through negotiations with the Coastal Conservancy. 2. LEASE AGREEMENT -- A portion of the parking may encroach on the railroac R.O.W. and, therefore, require a lease agreement. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 12 for breakdowns.) $800,000 4 \ e e HOSP GROVE.'BUENA VlST L4GOON STUDY ARE PROJECT MB-3 MAXTON BROWN PARK MAXTON BROWN SECllON LOCATION: Existing park site northeast of the intersection of State Street and Laguna Drive. SIZE: 1 acre OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad PROPOSED USES: I. New sidewalks to connect to Maxton Brown Extension to the west ant linkages to the east and a boardwalk connection. *2. Picnicking 3. Lagoon observation deck (approximately 1000 square foot wood decl structure on the north side of the existing park to enhance viewin! opportunities toward the lagoon). * Existing uses to remain. ISSUES: None identified. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 13 for breakdowns.) $200,000 5 .I e 9 HOSP GROVElBUENA VISTA LAGOON STUDY AREA .\ PROJECT L-1 STREET SIDEWALKIBOARDWALK LINKAGE SECTION LOCATION: From Maxton Brown Park to the Duck Feeding Area along Laguna Drive, Jefferson Street, and the southern shore of the lagoon. SIZE: 4,000 lineal feet sidewalk (.8 miles) 1,670 lineal feet boardwalk (-3 miles) OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad (sidewalk portion) State of California (boardwalk portion) PROPOSED USES: 1. Walking 2. Bicycling 3. Bird watching 4. Boardwalk (wood walkway along a portion of the lagoon side of Jeffersor 5; Lagoon observation deck (approximately 1000 sq. ft. wood deck structurc Street, where the road shoulder is too narrow for sidewalk) to enhance viewing opportunites toward the lagoon) ISSUES: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL -- Boardwalk portion would require permits from State Fish anc Game. Most of the boardwalk is on upland ground adjacent to Jefferson Stree and should not be a problem to permit. A portion of the boardwalk, near the duck feeding area, would need to be in wetlands because there is not enough uplanc adjacent to Jefferson Street at that location. The wetland portion of the boardwall will require negotiations with Fish and Game. 2. SIDEWALKS -- Would need to be constructed for most of the way along Lagun: Drive and Jefferson Street. Sidewalks along Laguna are currently being proposec by Municipal Projects, but are included in this study because they have yet to bf constructed. 3. COSTS -- The boardwalk portion, especially in the wetlands, would requirt expense construction techniques. 4. PERMISSION -- The portion of the boardwalk located on State property wouk require obtaining permission for this use. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 14 for breakdowns.) $1,350,000 6 0 HOSP GAOVEiBUENA VlST LAGOON STUDY ARE \ PROJECT HG-1 DUCK FEEDING AREA (AUGMENTATION) HOSP GROVE SECTION LOCATION: hkKfl and adjacent to Jefferson Street and west and adjacent to Marron Road. o SIZE: .7 acres and 450 lineal feet of boardwalk OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad State of California PROPOSED USES: "1 . Duck feeding "2. Bird watching "3. Picnicking 5. Lagoon observation deck (wood platform to enhance viewing opportunities toward the lagoon; also serves as a landing area for the pedestrian bridge - - refer to HG-2) *4. Parking * Existing uses to remain and to be augmented (parking to remain unchanged). ISSUES: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL -- Boardwalk section would require permitting through resource agencies. 2. COST -- The boardwalk portion would require expensive construction techniques. 3. PERMISSION -- The boardwalk portion (on State property) will require permission from the State. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 15 for breakdowns.) $470,000 7 .I 0 HOSP GROVEiBUENA VISTA - LAGOON STUDY AREA PROJECT HG-2 BUENA VISTA AREA (AUGMENTATION) HOSP GROVE SECTION LOCATION: Adjacent to and south of Jefferson Street and adjacent to and west of Marron Road. SIZE: 5.5 acres OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad PROPOSED USES: *l. Picnic *2. Tot lot *3. Hiking *4. Staging area (for trail system) *5. Parking 6. Street pedestrian overpass (bridge connecting the Buena Vista area with the Duck Feeding Area) * Included in the current plan to develop this site utilizing approved grant money. m proposal would involve increasing the parking, adding a restroom, and a pedestriar overpass. ISSUES: 1. COST -- The pedestrian overpass requires relatively expensive construction, COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 16 for breakdowns.) $1,000,000 8 e 0 HOSP GROVEiBUENA VISTA LAGOON STUDY AREA PROJECT HG-3 MARRON/MONROE AREA HOSP GROVE SECTION LOCATION: Adjacent to and south of Marron Road and adjacent to and west of Monroe Street. SIZE: 2.5 acres 4,000 lineal feet trails OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad PROPOSED USES: 1. Tot lot 2. Picnic 3. Open play 4. Trails 5. Trail staging area 6. Parking ISSUES: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL -- The site (desiltation basin portion) is currently supportin! wetland type vegetation. This vegetation, however, may disappear in the ne2 future due to recent undergrounding of the previous drainage course. Therefor€ environmental permitting may or may not be required. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 17 for breakdowns.) $570,000 9 0 HOSP GR0VE:BUENA VISTA LAGOON STUDY AREA PROJECT HG-4 GLEN & PLATEAU AREA HOSP GROVE SECTION LOCATION: South of Marron Road, east of Monroe Street, and northwest of Hosp Way SIZE: 6 acres 5,000 lineal feet of trail OWNERSHIP: City of Carlsbad PROPOSED USES: 1. Picnicking 2. Tot lots 3. Trails 4, Trail staging area 5. Parking ISSUES: 1. VEHICULAR ACCESS -- In order for the proposed recreational amenities to bc utilized within Hosp Grove, limited vehicular access and parking is necessary no only for effective public access but for security surveillance as well. Two options for vehicular access and parking within the grove are considered The first is off of Hosp Way at Avenida Magnifica. This road was intended as i secondary access to an apartment complex on Hosp Way. However, currentl) it is closed off. This location could be used as an access point into the Grove. An alternative (or additional) vehicular access point might be off of Monroe Stree directly across the street from the proposed access to the MarrodMonroe Are: 2. NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION -- Existing residents on the boundary of Hos Grove (off of Hosp Way, Grove Avenue, etc.) may oppose development within th grove. COST: (Refer to Appendix A, page 18 for breakdowns.) $1,000,000 10 e 0 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT MB-1: MAXTON BROWN EXTENSION (EXPANSION) ACQUISITION COSTS: 4 acres @ $500,000/acre~ GENERIC PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS: 4 aue5 (dev.) @ $135,00O/acre’ SPECIAL COSTS 1 pedestrian overpass @ $1 ,000,0003/ea. (over railroad tracks connecting MB-1 and MB-2) SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Down) $2,000,000 $540,000 $1,000.000 $3,540,000 $885,000 $4,425,000 $1,106,250 $5.531.250 ($5,500,000) . COST FOOTNOTES 1 Budget number for general park development (Staff). 3 Estimated cost allowance (Staff) Appendix A 11 b 0 COST BREAKDOWN @ < PROJECT MB-2: MAXTON BROWN EXTENSION SPECIAL COSTS: 1 PARKING/STAGING AREA @ $1 50,0002 $1 50,000 STATE ST. REALIGN./SIGNAL @ $300,0003 $300,000 RELOCATE EXISTING ENTRY MONUMENT @$l 0,0003 $1 0,000 PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE TO FUTURE RAIL STATION $50,000 SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL $5 I 0,000 $1 27,500 $637,500 + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Up) COST FOOTNOTES * OS Trail Study (WRT) 3 Estimated cost allowance (Staff) $1 59,375 $796,875 ($800,000) SPECIAL NOTES 1. Existing water tank removal project ("Home Plant") is currently being processed b! Municipal Projects as part of the '90-91 CIP. 2. Lease agreement with AT&SF (if required) not included in costs. Appendix A 12 -7- 0 COST BREAKDOWN 0 PROJECT M8-3: MAXION BROWN PARK SPECIAL COSTS: 1 Observation deck @ $100,000 ea.3 (approximately 1000 sq. ft. wood deck on northern border of existing Maxton Brown Park) $1 00,000 150 lineal feet boardwalk (in upland) @ $200/LF3 $30,000 SUBTOTAL $1 30,000 + 25% ADMIN. $32,500 SUBTOTAL $1 62,500 + 25% CONT. $40,625 TOTAL (Rounded Down) $203.1 25 ($200,000) COST FOOTNOTES 3 Estimated cost allowance (Staff) SPECIAL NOTES 1. Construction of a sidewalk around Maxton Brown Park and Laguna Drive i currently being processed by Municipal Projects under the '90-91 CIP. Sidewal referred to for this study would be connection from the park to the propose Carlsbad Boulevard street crossing. Appendix A 13 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT L-1: SIDEWALK/BOARDWALK LINKAGE SPECIAL COSTS: Jefferson street widening @ $'100,0003 4,000 lineal feet sidewalk @ $15/LF4 $1 00,000 $60,000 1,000 lineal feet boardwalk (in upland) @ $200/LF3 670 lineal feet boardwalk (in wetland) @ $450/LF5 2 Observation decks @ $100,000 ea.3 (approximately 1000 sq. ft. each wood decks along northern side of Jefferson St. east of 1-5) SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Up) COST FOOTNOTES 3 Estimated cost allowance (Staff) Previously constructed similar projects (Staff) 5 Previously constructed similar projects (WRT) 4 $200,000 $301,500 $200,000 $861,500 $21 5,375 $1,076,875 $269,219 $1,346,094_ ($1,350,000) Appendix A 14 c <, 0 0 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT HG-1 I DUCK FEEDING /EXPANSION\ SPECIAL COSTS: 450 lineal feet boardwalk (in wetland) @ $450/LF5 $202,500 1 Observation deck $1 00,000 (wood viewing platform on the west end of Duck Feeding Area) SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL $302,500 $75,625 $378,125 $94,531 $472,656 (Rounded Down) ($470,000) COST FOOTNOTES 5 Previously constructed similar projects (WRT) Appendix A 15 7 0 COST BREAKDOWN 0 ,* PROJECT HG-2: BUENA VISTA AREA (AUGMENTATION1 SPECIAL COST: 1 Restrcm"l c $120,QQQ2 Trail signage @ $10,0002 Additional parking @ $1 8,0002 1 Overpass @ $500,0002 (Connects Buena Vista Area to Duck Feeding area) SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Down) COST FOOTNOTES $1 20,000 $1 0,000 $1 8,000 $500,000 $648,000 $1 62,000 $81 0,000 $202,500 $1,012.500 ($1,000,000) 2 OS Trail Study (WRT) SPECIAL NOTES 1. Initial development of the Hosp Grove Buena Vista Area (5.5 acre) currently being processed. Funding through 1988 State Bond Act grant money ($1 72,000). Appendix A 16 0 COST BREAKDOWN 0 - PROJECT HG-3: MARRON/MONROE AREA GENERIC PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS: 1.5 acres (developed) @ $1 35,00O/acre' 1 acre (natural) @ $50,000/acre' ' " SPECIAL COSTS: 1.5 acres Grove enhancement @ $1 0,000/acre3 4,000 lineal feet trails @ $24/LF2 SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Up) COST FOOTNOTES 1 Budget number for general park development (Staff). 2 OS Trail Study (WRT) 3 Estimated cost allowance (Staff) $202,500 $50,000 $1 5,000 $96,000 $363,500 $90,875 $454,375 $1 13,594 $567,969 ($570,000) Appendix A 17 * COST BREAKDOWN 0 PROJECT HG-4: GLENIPLATEAU AREA GENERIC PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS: 6 acres (natural) @ $50,00O/acre’ SPECIAL COSTS: 1 street access @ $IOO,OOO~ 600 lineal feet interior road @ $50/LF4 Parking (5 50 cars) @ $50,0002 6 acres Grove enhancement @ $10,000/acre3 5,000 lineal feet trails @ $24/LF2 $300,000 $1 00,000 $30,000 $50,000 $60,000 $1 20,000 SUBTOTAL + 25% ADMIN. SUBTOTAL + 25% CONT. TOTAL (Rounded Down) $660,000 $1 65.000 $825,000 $206,250 $1,031,250 ($1,000,000) COST FOOTNOTES 1 Budget number for general park development (Staff). Estimated cost allowance (Staff) Previously constructed similar projects (Staff) 2 OS Trail Study (WRT) 3 4 Appendix A 18 0 \ *ovEDoET 2 2 w October 21, 1991 - TO : PARKS 8t RECREATION. DIRECTOR FROM: Financial Management Director RE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISlRICX - NORTHWEST QUMXUWl" BACKGROUND At the July 16, 1991 Council meeting, the City Council heard a report from the Parks an Recreation Director on the Magnolia Acquisition and Development Study. At this meeting the Council indicated an interest in obtaining more information on the possibilities for par enhancement in the Northwest Quadrant and in alternative ways to finance thes improvements. The staff was directed to return with a report on alternatives for park improvements in t€ Quadrant and on funding alternatives. In particular, the Council was interested in tl possibility of forming a Community Facilities District (CFD) in the Northwest Quadrant support the construction of parks and related improvements needed to meet the residen demands for park facilities. This memo will address the question of creating a Northwest Quadrant CFD and t1 possible fiscal strength of such a district. FORMING A COMMUNLTY FACILlTIFS DI!XRICX The Council is well acquainted with the process of forming a CFD after having spent th years forming the Citywide CFD. The process is basically split into three steps: 0 The Resolution of Intention IROI) - Resolution of Intention establishes 1 Council's intent to form a district and provides the residents of the distr with a description of the district boundaries, the tax formula, and 1 projects to be financed by the CFD. 0 The Public Hearing - Following the ROI, the Council will call a pul hearing at which point all debate about the district will be heard. necessary, the boundaries, formula or list of projects may be amended PI to proceeding with the formation process. EXHIBIT 3 -a --. 0 % 0 The Vote - The creation of a district requires the approval of 2/3 of the registered voters casting ballots in the election. Under the CFD law, this CFD would require a registered voter election rather than a property owner election, as was used tg fQm the Citywide CFD, If the CFD receives voter approval, the CFD may begin issuing bonds to finance acquisition and construction of facilities. The Act also allows a CFD to pay for operating costs related to the facilities constructed. This means, if the voters approve, the annual CFD tax could include an amount designated to support the operation of the park or other improvements financed by the CFD. The formation process would take between six months and one year, depending on the amount of debate over the tax formula and the projects to be funded. NORTHWEST QUADRANT CFD The success of a CFD .in the Northwest Quadrant will depend largely on the tax base available within the boundaries of the CFD and the level of the tax that is ultimately imposed by the district. In creating a CFD, the following relationship generally applies: The larger the tax base and the higher the tax, the greater the ability of the CFD to finance improvements. In the N~rthv~est Quadrant there is a considerabie amout of existing residential and no* residential developm.ent. The map below shows the Local Facilities Management Zones included within the quadrant: 0 "" . c 2 0 0 \. The existing development is largely in Zones 1, 3 and 5. Zone 1 includes the lagt amount of residentid property (10,200 dwelling units) as well as a large amour commercial property (over 2.7 million sq. ft.). Zones 3 and 5 have a considerable amor of non-residential development. Although Zone 5 and13 will provide a large amount of non-residential development in 1 Northwest Quadrant between now and buildout, these zones have been excluded from t analysis. These zones are subject to a $0.40 per sq. ft. park fee which is collected provide recreation facilities serving the non-residential populations in these zones. Be5 these zones could be included in a CFD for park purposes, staff would have to consi how the proposed facilities constructed by the CFD would supplement those facilities tc constructed from the $0.40 per sq. ft. park fee now in place. According to growth management forecasts, the Northwest Quadrant will grow to ab 14,000 residential units at buildout. Non-residential development (excluding Zones 5 13) will provide a tax base of over 7.1 million sq. ft. by buildout as shown in Tab: below: NorthWest Quadrant Community Facilities Dii Table 1 Development Data r Residential Non-Residential Ail Other WW LFM Zone 1 LFM tone 1 1 Zon03a8 Non” TOtJ Quadrant Zone6 Year 96,924 29,800 41 1 322 03 1 993 52.31 3 46,300 45 3 42 1991 NM-: Nm-RW a R sqm Dmr(llng Units Wllng Unb Dwelling Units 1 994 89 378 467 900 63.800 421 332 89 1 995 31,009 69,300 Existing 24,736 57,200 92 3 89 1992 1,855,718 2,738,367 10,578 351 10,227 1996-2000 153,890 396,560 97s 530 44s 2001 -2005 131,400 303,050 445 0 44s 2006-2010 183,100 432.400 44s 0 44s 2010-2015 2,535.215 4,578.980 14,139 1.919 12,220 Buildout 4,725 442,203 260 0 260 I ~.-NortR.~~RoQITinchrd.rdcanmrrciJudlndurrrirluonin Lf”1.3Urd8. ~pmp.crY~~s.nd*3~~~ b.uur~irpr~irubj#toIh.pr~ol~~.~~~~~~~~~~~d~ 2 I* e 0 [f we assume that rhese growth forecasts are acceptably accurate, we can begin to appl various tax formulas to derennine the amount of capital facilities that could be finance by a tax on the properry within the district. Staff has looked at four taxing options; a based on fixed annual taxes per unit for residential property, and per sq. ft. for no1 residential property. Exhibit A shows the detail of how much each alternative would rai! in the years througkbuildout. Table 2 below summarizes the results of these alternative Cost Per Unit or SQ FT Table 2 ' And Amount of Capital Raised Annual Tax \ dption 1 Option2 Optlm 3 Option 4 Per Unit 51 0.00 550.00 $1 00.00 51 00.00 sq Ft $0.01 $0905 30905 $081 2 Capital Raised From Debt (Million Dollars). From - Current $1.4 $6.8 51 1.6 514.5 Tax Base To - Future Tax Base $1.9 59.5 $15.9 520.4 I Annual Cost to Tax Payer Residential User Single Family 10 50 100 100 Each Multl Family Unit 10 50 100 loo NW-R&datia) UM 5,000 Sq R Bldg 50 250 250 600 10,OOO Sq Ft Bldg 100 500 500 1,200 100,000 Sq Ft Bldg 1 loo0 5 loo0 5,900 12,000 I 1 These alternatives assume that the most equatable way of assessing the CFD tax is to a a fixed tax to each dwelling unit or square foot of non-residentid development. Althc other formulas could be proposed, these four options will provide some insight ta strength of the CFD and its ability to raise needed capital. For residential dwelling units, the four options assume a fixed annual tax ranging from per year in option 1 to $100 per year in options 3 and 4. The non-residential formula is based on a fixed amount of tax per square foot of bui area per year. The tax used in option 1 starts at $0.01 per sq. ft. per year, and go1 $0.12 per sq. ft. per year in option 4. There is no rule of.thumb or guide for setting a CFD tax other than a general conce~ the tax burden that is being placed on the property owner. If the property owneis a: tax bill rises too dramatically, the possibility of financial difficulty or degradation ( property value exists. A. \' 0 0 For a residential unit valued I at $100,000, a $10 per year tax is equal to O.O1°!o, a very small rax burden. A tax rate of $100 per year would equal O.lW!, still small but beginning to be noticeable. Tax rates in excess of $100 per year have not been evaluated although they should not be ruled out. If the property value is lower, the proposed tax represents larger percentages of the total tax burden as shown in Figure 1. City of Carlsbad Figure 1 Gomparitive Tax Burden Northwest Quadrant CFD 1.2 Pmrcmnt 01 Homm Valw ................................................................. 0.8 'r- ". ................................................................ m ................ - ~~~~ ~ - Bum 1s Tax $10 pmr W $60 par mar 8100 par mar = $40,000 Honr m $100.000 Homr 1 The tax burden per sq, ft, per month will be of some concern to the non-residenl property owner. A tax rate of $0.01 per year per sq ft equals about .083 cents per s( per month in the rental rate. The tax of 12 cents per sq ft equals a one cent per s( increase in the rental rate. Higher tax rates could be considered if Council wishes proceed with this analysis. I The four options provided here attempt to merge the different taxing considerations for residential and non- residential property to create a projection of the total amount of revenue that could be raised by the district. As Table 2 above shows, option 1 would provide a bonding ability of about $1.4 million today which would grow to about City of Carlsbad Figure 2 Northwest Quadrant CFD Total Debt Capability ~ Mllllan 8 Option 1 option a Option S Optlon 4 $1.9 million by buildout. a tax rate five times that of Option 2, based on applying m RWdonIkl m No~Wontlrl rates until the funding capability of the district reaches $14.5 million today, with and would grow to $9.5 million by buildout. Options 3 and 4 continue to increase thc to $6.8 million immediately, option 1 would provide up , Existing Tax Base is shown in Figure 2. ability to grow to more than $20 by buildout. The relative funding strength of each 01 5 &' 0 CONCLUSION 0 These options show that a CFD would have the ability to finance a considerable amol of park improvements if the tax rates were placed at the $50 to $100 per unit levels. tax picture. rf inchded in the tax formula, non-residential property could provide 33% 38% of the total financing ability of the district by buildout. The key question is whet1 or not the voters of the Northwest Quadrant would support a CFD for park enhancernc purposes. If Council decides to pursue this option, staff will proceed with a more detailed anal] of the CFD boundaries, tax base and alternate taxing formulas. tf a specific list of projt is identified, the CFD can be tailored to meet the funding needs between now and completion of all projects. One consideration in the formation process is that non-residential property owners wc not be able to vote unless they also happened to be registered voters of the district. I Meilo-Roos district law only provides two methods for formation, one requiring registc voter approval, the other requiring land owner approval. The land owner option can c The proposed Northwest Quadrant CFD has several thousand registered voters within boundary thereby eliminating the possibility of holding a land owner election. The Council may want to coqsider the formation of a Northwest Quadrant CFD for purpose of funding park improvements. This CFD could be formed only with the apprl of 2/3 of the registered voters casting ballots in an election on this issue. The question of whether or not to create a CFD may be one the staff should discuss 1 the Northwest Quadrant Parks Committee prior to a Council decision on this matter, The CFD could provide signilicant amounts of funding for park projects if the tax I levied by the district were set at a level high enough to create bonding capacity. Tax I between $SO and $100 per residential unit and $0.5 to $0.12 cents per sq ft of : residential development could provide a bonding capacity of $6.8 to $14.5 million fron existing tax base. 1f Council in interested in proceeding with the formation of a CFD, staff should be dire 1) Hire a financial consultant to assist with the creation of a specific specia fonnula, and to return to Council with a report on the recornel fonnula; 2) Hire bond counsel to assist with the drafting the necessary legal docm also shows that the taxation of non-residential property is an important part of the to be selected if there are less than twelve registered voters in the proposed district bound to: /? related to the creation of the CFD. - - /,J$ Direct aff to prepare a calendar of events for the CFD formation pro( c" JAMES F. 0" ! '\ I il L e * Community Facilities District Alternative Tax Formulas EXHIBIT using hrll quadrant a~ ta ea tor CFD Using full quadrant as tax base !or CFD Fixed Tax pec Owelling Unit or SQ FT Opt 1 F=& ax per welling Unit or sa FT Per Unit Tax - Per Q FTTa - $7 0.00 Per Unit Tax - 50.01 Per Sq mTax - $50.01 b0.U I Tax Revenue By Year (Tax Revenue 8y Year Y9ZU Non- Residenti, Residential YW Total Non- ResMenntW Rssidentlal Existing 105,780 45.941 15 1,721 1991 106,230 46.927 153.157 ,1992 107,150 41.746 154,896 1993 111,260 49,014 160,274 1 994 115.930 50.017 165,947 1995 120,140 50,664 170,804 Existlng 528,900 229.70 1991 531,150 234.63 1992 535,750 238.72 1993 556.300 245.N 1994 579.650 250.0( 1995 600,760 253.31 1996-2000 129.890 56.168 1 86,058 1996- 2000 649,450 280.84 2001-2005 134,340 so$M 194,858 2001 -2005 671.700 ' 302.5t 2006- 201 0 138.730 661673 205.463 2008-2010 693.950 333.3 201 0-261 5 141,390 71 ,142 21 2.532 201 0-201 5 706.950 I 355.7 Debt Supported by Tax Revenue Million S To Maximum hnding AbiMy of CFD (21j10-2015) To MPdmum Funding Ability of CFO @llO-2015) $1.90 Fm Wng Tax Bass (9991-92) - From Wstino Tax Byre Wl-92) - $1 -66 Debt Supported by Tax Revenue I Using lull quadrant as tax base for CFD wad T= per -11ng Unit oI SQ FT , Faad Tax pec Dweil1ng Unit of SQ FT Opt 3 Using full quadrant u tac base for CFD ' I Per Unit Tax - Per Sq FTTax - $1 moo $0.05 I Per Unit Tax - PerSqFTTax- $1 00. so< 1 I Tax Revenue By Year Tax Revenue Sy Year i I YW Nb- Res" YW Residential Total Nac\-FWdentirl Existing 1,051,m 229.704 1,287,504 1992 1,071500 1992 1,071,500 238332 1.31 0,232 Existing 1.057.800 1991 , 1,062300 234,635 1.296.935 1991 1,062.300 1993 l,ll&soo 245,068 1,357,668 1993 1,112,600 199a 1,159.366 2sa.m 1.469.383 1995 1 St ,400 1995 1,201,400 253.31 8 1.64.71 8 1994 1.159.3OO i 55 1 ,: 563.' 572,! 588, 607, 600, 1996-2000 1,298.9CQ 280.841 1,579,741 1 996- 2000 1,298.300 674, 2001 -2005 f,343.400 302588 1,645,988 2006-2010 1,387,300 800 2006-201 o 1,387,900 333,363 1,721,263 2001-2005 , 1,343,400 726, 2010-2015 1.413.900 355,710 1.78.610 2010-201s 1.41 3.900 853 Debt Supported by Tax Revenue Million S To Maximum Funding Ability of CFD (2110-2015) To Maximum funding Ability of CFD (2110-2015) $1 5.90 From Existing Tax Base (1991-92) - ' From Existing Tax Base (1991 -92) - 81 1.60 Debt Supported by Tax Revenue 4 7 * */ \ I I 0 a ~~3’330 DljlDvd ll.”-A -~ r a Q .. i 4015 Isle Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 April 21,1992 TO. Carlsbad City Council RE: Northwest Quadrant Parks Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council: I am unable to attend tonight's Council meeting, but, like many other residents of the Northwest Quadrant, I am closely following the parks issue and have watched the videotape of your April 7th agenda item on the subject. Though I generally favor land acquisition over other parks expenditures, I recogni; that budgets are tight and that you may wish to develop currently owned parkland for public use in the near future. Given these constraints, Alternative 4 seems to offer a reasonable and creative approach. Of course, it's not perfect. Please consider the following comments and suggestions for improvement: 1. The proposed basketball court and parking lot at Monroe & Marron is a bad idea. It will generate traffic and crime problems, serving as a drive-in magnet to an area that should remain quiet and pedestrian-oriented. 2. Some of the 'linkage" elements of the plan, while appealing in concept, offer less "bang for the buck" than more substantive elements. The Laguna Drive sidewalks have no place in a parks budget. The bridges over Monroe and especially over Carlsbad Boulevard would do little to enhance public access to 01 use of the lagoon and forest areas. In contrast, the proposed boardwalks along Jefferson (east of 1-51 and Carlsbad Boulevard (running north to Hill Street) would bt"kemendous enhancements, allowing people to reach popular nature areas safely and easily. 3. I would not give up on the Magnolia property. Even if the School District It might serve as a Community Center site, and at the very least it would provid a public link to school facilities as Laguna Riviera Park does to Kelly School. Despite these reservations and suggestions, I am pleased to see the City pursue the northwest parks issue with vigor. wants to go it alone, we should pursue the purchase of the peripheral land. Yours truly, bL Dan Hammer I- I I I 1 1 I I I i I I I I I 1 I 1 I 2/SIA/AdT6d /p7- c -m m @w+ud/~ ~44-~/296 - BUENA VISTA LAGOON HILL STREET / CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BOARDWALK Preliminary Concept Plan ~~~~ csts T Prepared for BUENA VISTA LAGOON FOUNDATION Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd November 1991 1 1 1 0 1 1 c I t I I I t I m e I I li m __ - HILL STREET / CARLSBAI) BOULEVARD BOARDWALK Preliminary Concept Plan Table of Contents Landscape Inventory Project Description Design Considerations Cost Estimate Approvals and Permits summary References and Acknowledgements " List of Figures Preliminary Concept Plans Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Boardwalk Sections Boardwalk Viewing Pier Boardwalk Elevation Cost Estimate Table Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 SI I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 t R 1 I 1 I I :m m LANDSCAPE INVENTORY The Buena Vista lagoon is a two hundred acre Ecological Reserve located along the northwest boundary of the City of Carlsbad and the southwest boundary of the City of Oceanside. It is tl only fresh water lagoon ecosystem in the coastal chain of wetlands in San Diego County. The Buena Vista Audubon Society Nature Center is located at the northern edge of the lagoon j the City of Oceanside. It offers field trips, monthly lectures and children's tours and program! regarding the natural surroundings and natural history of the lagoon. There are 58 parking spa proposed for the Nature Center, two of these are handicap accessible parking spaces. Currentl there are approximately 16 parking spaces at the Nature Center. Along the lagoon edge the Nature Center has constructed an information kiosk about the wetla and the lagoon and the plant and wildlife species that inhabit the lagoon. The California State Department of Fish and Game has also posted signage at the edge of the lagoon regarding regulations for the reserve. There are informal trails leading northeast around the lagoon edge adjacent to a condominium complex and terminating several hundred yards east. The center h: also included a few concrete picnic tables for sitting along the northern edge of the lagoon. On the southwest side of the lagoon is located Maxton Brown Park in the city of Carlsbad. Ti park is situated along the perimeter of the lagoon up slope approximately 25 feet from the shoreline. It is bordered by Lagoon Road, and the intersection of State Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. Most of the park is located on a gently sloping site with varying grades of approximately four to eight percent. There are meandering concrete paths and turf areas as we a few picnic tables. Between the trees planted along the edges, there are limited views of the lagoon. There is no off-street parking available at the park. Hill Street / Carlsbad Boulevard is a major link between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside. There are two lanes in the north bound direction narrowing to a single lane at the ( of Oceanside boundary. There is a single lane and a left hand turn lane in the south bound direction turning into two lanes as it heads into the main core of Carlsbad. It is an important s( corridor between the two communities. Currently there are no pedestrian improvements on th~ eastern or western edges of the roadway except north of the curb cut at the Nature Center. Th is a painted bike lane. The roadway has an undeveloped shoulder varying in width, adjacent ti lagoon shoreline edge. The edge condition of the lagoon is dominated with plant life, consisting mostly of tules, catta sedges and bulrushes. From a street level it is difficult to view the water of the lagoon except culvert area which is clear , Pedestrians wishing a view of the lagoon and its wildlife, as well fishing pier, often stand at this narrow part of the roadway shoulder. This is a dangerous and uncomfortable observation area because of the speed and close proximity of the vehicles using street. 1 I II I t 1 I 1 E 1 I 1 I I I 8 I 8 1 I .m -m PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proposal is focused on taking a preliminary look at the concept of providing a public use 1 which would be an important north-south link in the regional trail system of the City of Carlsb and the City of Oceanside. Public interest in the site lies in passive recreation including fishin; walking, nature study, education and interpretation of the site's unique ecological habitat. General guidelines that should be considered in the design of the site layout of the boardwalk should include consideration of those areas with: the preferred foundation condition, clearance from flooding, easy access for the reach of the equipment, labor and materials, and the areas that the users will prefer and enjoy the most. Scheme A: This scheme locates the boardwalk parallel to Hill Street / Carlsbad Boulevard. This boardwal would have a strong linear visual quality. The boardwalk would be elevated above the 100 ye flood line, a minimum of four feet above the elevation of Hill Street / Carlsbad Boulevard. Th elevation would allow the boardwalk pedestrian the opportunity to view large portions of the lagoon. However, in this scheme the entire boardwalk would be elevated, blocking views to t lagoon from the roadway. Previously, the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation had discussed thc of locating the boardwalk five feet from the street edge. The boardwalk would be separated fi the road by a five foot wide planting buffer of low growing native plants. This design would similar to the typical pedestrian improvements for the ten foot public right of way adjacent to streets, except the pedestrian sidewalk would be elevated, in the form of a wooden boardwalk structure, above the street level. A preferable alternative, would be to locate the elevated boardwalk as far from the street edge as possible. A minimum of fifteen feet would allow a gr sense of removal from the street and would mitigate the awkwardness of being elevated above adjacent vehicular traffic. Another option would be to lower the boardwalk to the elevation of adjacent roadway, but this would be under the 100 year flood line. Scheme B: Scheme B would locate the boardwalk parallel to the contours of the lagoon shoreline. This is currently the edge of the dense vegetation within the lagoon adjacent to the street. This would provide a naturalistic, meandering pedestrian system around the lagoon edge. This system wc require on site skilled labor to match the boardwalk structure to the existing contours of the sit The boardwalk within this scheme could be elevated above the flood line as in Scheme A, or p at the elevation of the adjacent street, within the floodway. Scheme C: Due to the diversity of the site it would be pleasant to experience the lagoon from various elevations. An overview of the lagoon and the panoramic vistas to the east could be provided the elevation change at Maxdon Brown Park, Viewing platforms along the boardwalk would ; users to sit and rest as well as take advantage of views of the lagoon. A floating deck section I the boardwalk at water level would provide a sense of removal from the roadway and its prom vehicular noise. The floating deck could allow users, as observers, to participate within the n; systems of the lagoon. Scheme C incorporates the idea of a floating deck system wherever op water is available. A floating system could also adjust to the fluctuation of water levels, and b elevated, similar to Schemes A and B. designed to rise with flood conditions. In areas of dense vegetation the boardwalk could be 2 I I E I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 8 4 1 II II II n -0 -m DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The boardwalk design should be the continuation of a path system. Access paths to the board1 should be widened to a minimum of six feet to facilitate easy pedestrian flow and handicapped accessibility. Access ramps will be necessary for elevated portions of the boardwalk. Design consideration should take into account what must pass underneath the elevated boardwalk.(ie., maintenance inspection boats, wildlife, etc.) The conceptual design of the boardwalk substruc should be done at the same time as the design of the boardwalk deck and approaches, The des of the boardwalk will require the assistance of a structural andor civil engineer. Ground for foundations should be tested for soil bearing capacity. A geotechnical engineer sh be consulted regarding the stability of the site for foundations and the need for abutments on slopes. Design for the handicapped user should include provisions for the approach to the elevated boardwalk Landings, platforms, rest areas, handrails and the walking surface should all compl with local and state codes. SDatial Standards Pedestrian Handicapped Two-way Traffic 6””’ min. 5””’ min. Unobstructed Vertical Clearance 8’4’’ preferred 8’-0” preferred 7””’ min. 7””’ min. Lateral Clearance Grades Cross Slope 1 ’-6” preferred 1 ’-6” preferred 1’-0” min. 1””’ min. 5 % preferred 15% max. 5% preferred 8.33 % max. (single run- 30’ max.) 5% or less preferred 1 % or less preferred 6% max. 2% max. Timber structures expand in relatively small amounts. Structures over 100 feet in length will r special expansion bearings. Lightweight vibration from heavy use may move the boardwalk 01 bearings or flooding may float it away. Most timber structures should be held down by bolts ( stainless steel traps. Handrails should be designed on both sides of the boardwalk to extend the entire length of the boardwalk and the length of the approach ramps. The handrails should be designed so they ar easy to grasp and strong enough to support people leaning or sitting on them. The top rail heil should be a minimum of 42 inches. A mid rail as well as a toe board should be included. Decking and surface treatment should be non-slip and should be laid with no less than 1/4” between boards to allow air to circulate around the boards. This air space will minimize deca) 3 1 I I t 1 II 1 5 I I 9 1 I I B I II 1 1 0 -* allow dirt and debris to sift through the decking and facilitate easier maintenance when damage boards will need to be removed and replaced. All decking should be placed heart side down ar screwed to bearers with galvanized screws or nails. Because timber decks wear over time the thickness of the decking material should be more than is required for strength of the system. Generally, if softwood is to be used the thickness should be no less than two inches, hardwoo less than 1 1D’. Short panels of prefabricated wood deck panels would facilitate removal for maintenance. Decking and handrails should be timber structures to blend in with the surroundings. Substruc could be composed of timber which has a maintenance cost which is moderate to high. The lift span of treated sawn timber is 15-20 years. As an alternative, concrete substructures are high the initial cost for construction but are low in cost for the maintenance. For the purposes of easy maintenance main beams should be easily viewed for inspection don their entire length especially at piers and end seats. Handrails and decking should be designed they can be easily removed and replaced. To allow maintenance inspections to be easily performed anchor points for harnesses should b provided. Periodically vegetation and soil should be cleaned from the decking and free air spa maintained around beam ends. All fastenings should be checked and tightened if loose. All timber should be treated with an anti-fungicide. Wood preservative and anti-fungicide sho cleaned every year and coated with an anti-rust primer.[ll be reapplied every 3 years. All painted metal should be repainted every 5 years. Rust should COST ESTIMATE At MacArthur State Park in southern Florida, a similar boardwalk has been implemented over dunes and mangrove wetlands of the site. The elevated wooden boardwalk structure costs for 1,500 linear foot section, eight feet in width was approximately $340.00 per linear foot. This included the wood framing and wood pilings. (Adjusted to California 1991 construction cost! All materials and applications must be approved for use in wetland situations as stipulated by t California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See cost estimate table for total prices per alternative schemes. Note: Price per linear loot is lor an eight loot width and includes wood framing, wood piling and labor. floating dock price per linear loot is based on a prefabricated module, eight loot width, by Gakifoam. SCHEMEA: Elevated wooden boardwalk parallel to street edge. Concrete walk connections to existing pedestrian system @ Maxton Brown SCHBUIEB: Elevated wooden boardwalk at shoreline edge. Boardwalk would require more onsite skilled labor to match contours 01 the bh SCHEMEC. Elevated wocden boardwalk over land areas ramped down to floating boardwalk at Buena Vista water level. Buena Vista Nature Center. Boardwalk could be preassembled in sections 011 site. Concrete walk connection to Maflon Brown Park. 4 1- I I 1 1 I 1 1 8 1 I i 1 I 1 I I 1 I 0. eo APPROVALS AND PERMITS As with any other land use proposal the implementation of a boardwalk system will be subject review from a variety of agencies from whom approvals and permits may be required for the project to proceed. The proposed boardwalk is located adjacent to an area of sensitive wildlife habitat where state i federal listed species occur. The boardwalk proposal will include review by the following agencies: The California Department of Fish and Game The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Coastal Commission The Environmental Protection Agency, The City of Carlsbad, and The City of Oceanside * The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Specifically a Section 404 Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wherever any type of dredge or fill of wetlands is involved. (Areas of wetland which are undc one acre in size and in isolated locations relative to other wetlands may fall under the defmitior a Nationwide Permit and avoid the need for a Section 404 Permit.) Habitat areas of federally 1 endangered species will be subject to Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 7 of the federal act requires all federal agencies to consult with the Service regarding any federal action (e.g., granting a permit to dredge or fill wetlands under section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water (Act) that might affect an endangered species. Those running through state listed endangered species habitat will be subject to Section 10 consultations with California Department Fish and Game. Section 10 (a) was added as an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982. Section 10(a) permits incidental takings if the activity is supported by an approved habitat conservation plan and will not reduce the likelihood of the species survival and recovery. The Coastal Commission will not issue a permit per se, but wi: have review of the proposals to confirm accordance with local Coastal Zone Plan Requiremenl Given that public access is a key concern of the agency, it is unlikely that significant problems regard to a public trails system would originate with the Coastal Commission. Coordination with the above listed agencies will be needed to refine a final alignment. Additio local specific design standards may be required. Early involvement of agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help ensure that the boardwalk system is planned and designed in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with agency requirements. 5 a B 1 8 I 0 R r 1 1 I I 8 I a a E 1 1 0. 0. SUMMARY The implementation of a pedestrian system from Maxdon Brown Park to the Buena Vista Lagc Nature Center would provide a safe pedestrian linkage to a regional system in keeping with thc long range planning objectives for the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside. The board! would provide a recreational access for the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods as we1 increase and enhance public access to viewing the unique ecosystem of Buena Vista Lagoon. In order to achieve the desired scenic experience for both pedestrians and Hill Street vehicles, Scheme C offers the better opportunities. Prefabricated sections of floating decks are availablc less expensive than fixed sections in most cases, making Scheme C the more economical soh Modifications to the straight lines-alignment can be made to the prefabricated pieces to allow j curvilinear boardwalk, following the layout of Schemes A or B. 6 1 n 1 I I I t D 8 I 4 1 1 I 1) I 1 1 1 0. 0. REFERENCES: [ 11 Harris, Charles W. and Dines, Nicholas T. Time-saver Stundurdr For Landscape Architec McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1988. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation Ron W. Wootton, President Buena Vista Lagoon Audubon Society Nature Center California State Department of Fish and Game Earl Lupe City of Carlsbad Mark Steyaert Jr., ASLA, Park Development Coordinator City of Oceanside Coastal Commission U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Elizabeth White, Project ManagerBiologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by: Wallace Roberts & Todd Kathleen Garcia, Project Director 1133 Columbia Street, Suite 205 Mary Hofmockel, Project Landscape Designe San Diego, CA 92101 Victoria Olsen, Project Administrator (619) 696-9303 7 1 I 1 1 1 I I E 1 I I I 1. 1 R I I .I 1 .I .I - 5 i 1 I 1 I I I 4 I 8 I I I 1 ? il I 8 -I m n L 5 w U 3 k- 2x1 ESP $0: ,k OEE pwo 2% 261 g$ j6Z ;sg 4 ;$e 00 2 z g EE 0% '2 a UJU ZW n: ?E ?&=5 & 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I e I I I I 1 I I) I 1 I R L"" c 01 -I W u) L 5 yep ' la It- d-6 a, p" w1 g$ ;i O" >-p 7 ;, 2% :1 zap if 0 552 wi -48 i$f 2i Ezg 2 iI nZ8 ;I /I , *1 s W' i; @ if ZuJ $@$ $$gz 8g$z & &gz rsaz .e:* *nu% wzwo 3 fig wuv> ..* x bw 30 an0 YEW nmw g8L zz5 g3J 005 g% pJ \ LWLT I: 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I) 1 1 I B 0. a. ! E +--""." w LL . +"" NlrJ "o"1 ~ AI LL 1: 1 1 I I 1 I 8 I I I 1: I I 1) I B 1 8 e. 0. A n d w U rn: I I I I I I I I I I I I I R I I) 1 I - Y 0 W 03 CJa 23 $2 SO Lrn a c!J fx .. I 1: I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I I eo I 0 Z w I m 5 U W - a. a Z W 3 5 I Z 4 n v L ? .O-,P 7 NWLO-68 1; ‘‘0-62 .A 1 - I 1 1 I am .9-,E