Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-18; Parks & Recreation Commission; 592-9; Park Mitigation fee for industrial developmentPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AB# fsqa-^ MTG. £ DEPT. )flftfcl^ PvR TITLE: I>ADV A/fiTTf ATtriM inru' irrtor /viviv. ivu i ivrA 1 1 v/i 'i r J^IL r \_/iv INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (ACTION) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider previous action regarding park mitigation fee, take appropriate action and direct staff accordingly. ITEM EXPLANATION; At the request of the Commission Chairperson, recent action regarding a presentation on the adoption of Zone 13 of the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) at the May 6, 1992 Planning Commission has been placed on tonights agenda. Staff will give a presentation relative to the adopted Zone 5 (LFMP) park mitigation fee. In addition, staff will update the Commission on the adoption of Zone 16 (LFMP) and the current processing for Zone 13 (LMFP), all of which propose industrial development, at lease in part, for the overall development of each zone. Attached (Exhibit 1) is the adopted agenda bill for Zone 5, which initially implemented a park mitigation fee for industrial development. Essentially, the Council action was to adopt a resolution authorizing the collection of a local facilities management fee for park facilities ($.400 per square feet), and directed staff to enter into negotiations with developers in Zone 5 for the up front construction of recreational facilities. Upon successful negotiations for construction of a facility, the collected fee could then be returned to the developers. Also, attached (Exhibit 2) is the Executive Summary and Special Conditions for Zone 16, and the Planning Commission and City Council resolution which adopted the zone plan for Zone 16. Please note special condition A under Parks, "A growth management fee of $.40<z per square foot of non-residential development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance, to be used for park facilities serving Zone 16." Exhibit 3, provides information relating to the proposed Zone 13 plan (LFMP). Of particular interest regarding recent Planning Commission discussion is a statement under Park Facilities, Facility Planning and Adequacy Analysis (page #65 of Exhibit 3) which states: / "The Carltas Company, the major property owner within Zone 13, would like to reserve the option to independently make available recreational facilities for the employees of Zone 13, in lieu of a park fee. Because the Carltas Company is preparing the Master Plan for the majority of the area south of Cannon Road, it has the ability to implement such a program. If the City and the Carltas Company mutually determine that such a program is feasible and in the best interest of the City, the provisions of such a program can be implemented through the Master Plan. If the details of such a program are not acceptable to either the City or Carltas, a fee program similar to Zone 5's will be employed." PAGE 2, AB #_ Relative to this proposal made by the Carltas Company, it is important to realize that the intent of the Parks and Recreation recommendation to Council for the original implementation of a park mitigation fee for industrial development was: "It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Commission that the developers' proposal to construct the facilities up front would serve as an alternative to assessing a fee. Therefore, at the successful conclusion of the negotiations, collected fees would be refunded to appropriate parties. However, if an agreement cannot be reached by the City and Zone 5 developers, these fees shall remain permanent." Prior to the implementation or development of any proposed recreational facility to offset the mitigation fee, a complete agreement for development, maintenance and operation, and use will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. Staff will give a verbal presentation and be available to address any question of the Commission. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Agenda Bill #9122-#1, Minutes and Council discussion. 2. Executive Summary, Special Conditions, Planning Commission Res. #3247, City Council Resolution #92-94, Zone 16 3. Executive Summary, Special Conditions, Planning Commission Res. #3244, Zone 13 CITY OF CAHi_SBAD — AGENDA BILL 5 U .H 4-1 4-1 S3 =3•H 411-1 I-J O CJ 30 <U <U >-> <j_ o en 03 0)4-1 C 4-1en o 3 •ft C "O 4-1 -f-t4i o s 4-1 3 CJ 1-4 U OJ 4J 0) U Crt CO •H C ^-o ou en •O 4-1 •C 4-1 C CO C 4) • >-. 6 -H U-J Oo oin o. ON 3 iH•H• u uO O C2 U-i 3 _ O U _oi C 4-1o -1-1•a N 3 4) 4J M-l 4)a. o cjo c-a to SBnj U T3 •H o a U -H U C 01 03 3 >O 4) Co -a -H 00 I CN I O oo ARtf ^ISS^I MTft 11 724/87 DEPT P6R TJILB ZONE 5 - PARK FEES oppf Hrrcp , CITY ATl£f^S CITY MGR<SpL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. ?^° 7 • authorizing the collection of a local facilities management fee for park facilities in the area defined as local facility management zone 5. Direct staff to enter negotiations with the developers in Zone 5 for the up front construction of recreational facilities on City and/or County owned land. ITEM EXPLANATION; On August 4, 1987, the City Council adopted the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5. In addition^. Council directed staff to return the issue of a local facilities management fee for recreation facilities to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further study. At the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting a sub- committee, consisting of Barbara Donovan and James Popovich, was appointed to study the fee in depth. Mr. Mark Hughes was selected by the developers in zone 5 to represent their concerns. Exhibit 1 details the sub-committee's findings and recommenda- 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 held a special meeting on this matter. After discussion and input from several members of the public, the Commission endorsed the sub- committee's report. The Parka and Recreation Commission voted (6-0) to advise the City Council as follows: 1) authorize a park development fee of 40 cents per square foot on all development permits in Zone 5 pursuant to Section 21.90.050 of the Growth Management Program, and 2) direct staff to negotiate with the developers in zone 5 to construct the recreational facilities.up front. The final agreement to be brought back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for advisement to the City Council. It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Commission that the developers' proposal to construct the facilities up front wouldEXHIBIT 1 Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. serve as an alternative to assessing a fee. Therefore, at the successful conclusion of the negotiations, collected fees would be refunded to the appropriate parties. However, if an agreement cannot be reached by the City and Zone 5 developers, these fees shall remain permanent. FISCAL IMPACT; The proposed fee would raise approximately $7,200,000 through buildout of zone 5. The fiscal impact of the developers' alternative proposal cannot be assessed at this time. *-r EXHIBITS ; 1. Parks and Recreation Sub-Committee Report on Zone 5 Park Fees, October 1987. 2. Resolution No. ^3^f , authorizing the collection of a local facilities management fee for park facilities in the area defined as local facility management zone 5. . Resolution No. 9307 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE FOR PARK FACILITIES IN THE AREA DEFINED AS LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. 5 6 „ WHEREAS, Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code authorizes the establishment of a local facilities8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 25 26 27 28 management fee to pay for improvements or facilities identified in a local facilities management plan which are related to new development in a zone and are not otherwise financed by any other fee, charge or tax on development, or are not installed by a developer as a condition of a building or development permit; and WHEREAS, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 identified a need for park facilities which relate to new development in the zone and are not otherwise financed or being provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council on August 4,1987 adopted Resolution No. 9188 which approved the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 and directed staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to specifically assess the * need for park facilities and to determine how to best provide these facilities; and //// , WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed a sub-committee charged to review the need for park facilities 2 in Zone 5 with the assistance of input from the developers . within Zone 5; and e WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission sub- - committee through the use of two independent surveys and input from the developers in Local Facility Management Zone 5 confirmed the demand and need for recreation facilities and, further determined that these facilities were not being provided; and -, WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a 12 special meeting on November 2, 1987 to review and consider the ., sub-committees report and the Commission voted to recommend ... that the City Council adopt a Local Facilities Management Fee 15 in the amount of 40 cents per square foot on all new development within the Local Facility Management Zone 5. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 20 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. „, 2. Effective this date, a Local Facilities Management Fee 22 shall be collected upon all new development within the Local 23 Facility Management Zone 5 as shown on Exhibit "1" which is _. made a part hereof 25 "" 26 //// 27 28 5V 3. The amount of the fee to be collected shall be based on a rate of 40 cents per square foot to be assessed on all development permits issued in Local Facility Management . Zone 5.4 4. That all developers within the boundaries of the Local _ __ ,„ J.O lo , _ J.O IS 19 20 24 Facility Management Zone 5 who have been issued development permits and have signed the AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES FOR a FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTHo MANAGEMENT SYSTEM shall be required to pay this fee within thirty (30) days of receipt of the City's invoice in accordance with said agreement. 5. The Local Facilities Management Fee shall be collected as described in Section 21.90.050 (e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 6. The Local Facilities Management Fee shall be reviewed annually and adjusted accordingly to* ensure that sufficient funds are being collected to provide for the recreational facilities in Zone 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 24th day of November. 1987 by th« following vote, to wit: pp *** AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson 23 NOES: None /f< ABSENT: None 25 CLAUDE A.' LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST:26 27 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 28'! (SEAL) ,-j^ -> O O EXHIBIT "1" ZONE 5 City Ol Cv<*«M 7 ^ i JANUARY 1 9 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN trqij \_* - 2 - EXHIBIT V City of Carlsbad California PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT ON LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 5 - PARK FEES Sub-Committee Members: Commissioner Donovan Commissioner Popovich Zone 6 Developers1 Representative: Mr, Mark Hughes October 1987 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2 IV. ZONE VERSUS CITYWIDE APPLICATION 5 V. FACILITIES 6 VI. FEE 7 VII. GOLF COURSE 3 APPENDIX: A. Growth Management Zone Map with Zone 5 Highlighted A-l 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 61 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sub-committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee") 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: HEEDS ASSESSMENT 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 racquetbalI/handball courts (lighted) These facilities could be placed on one site, or several sites throughout the industrial corridor. It would require between 3 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. 62 II. 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 3,000 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 "Committee") 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. III. 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD PARK USE SURVEY The City of Carlsbad la conducting this survey to determine and provide lor tha recreational na«da of tha industrial population In Carlsbad. Pleeae complata and ratum this postage-paid card by September 18th. 1. Ooaa your arnployar currantly offar any on-slta raeraatlonal facJUttea/programa? 1. Yas(spacify) ', 2. No 2. On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally utlllza City of Carlsbad park faellltlaa/raeraatlon programs? 1. Nona 3. 5 to 8 5. 13 to 18 2. 1to4 4. 9 to 12 6. I7ormora 3. What raeraatlonal faellltlas would you Ilka developed to maat your naads? 1. Ball Pi«ids 2. Fitness Cantar 3. Golf Course 4. Gymnasium 5. Picnic Araaa 6. Running Tracks 7. Swimming Pool 8. Tannis Courts 9. Other (specify) 10. None 4. Are you a Carlsbad resident? 1. Yea 2. No Thank you! SANOAG 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 €hat 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 SANOAG 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 "City" 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. Using the survey results, it is projected that at buildout a minimum of 25,000 .non-residents will be employed in Zone 5 o* 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 playgolf. A/RL determined that "...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." However,:the Executive Summary goes on to conclude: "Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 might include a jogging track and/or "par course11 (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 1936-37, 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 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 arc not being assessed. With regard to the General Plan, ths developers do not feel the word "encourage1* equates to assessing a fee. The Planning Director's response was that the General Plan consists of broad policy statements rather than specific action plans. By 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. ' V. FACILITIES Based on the results of tha 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 square foot fitness center 1 swimming pool* 3 ball fields (lighted) 3 full-size basketball courts (lighted) 6 tennis courts (lighted) 4 outdoor racquetbalI/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 $5.3 - 8.9 million, depending on the acreage required. 8 acres 15 acres Acquisition $ 2.8 Development 1.0 Fitness Center & Pool 2.0 Total in million* $ 5.8 (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. VI. FEZ 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 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. 3. Developers and City cooperate in establishing a Mello- Roos District to front the cost of developing the recreational facilities and Faraday in the immediate future. 4. Include in the Mello-Roos District other Zone 5 designated improvement requirements (e.g., circulation) to insure the continued development of ,the commercial/industrial land in the Zone. (Which is the source of repayment of the Mello-Roos.) 5. City staff and developers to cooperate in developing a comprehensive plan and time table for approval by the city Council. The details of this alternative need to be negotiated. Commissioners Donovan and 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 financingissues 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 CityCouncil 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, 13-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 Hughe* 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. 3 APPENDIX 7MJ w ZONE 5 X/ / ' \ JANUARY 1937 L 1CAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN A-1 ~ SANDAG SURVEY — The following survey was conducted by SANDAG on behalf of e 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. Pleas* complete and return this postage-paid card by September 18, 1987. Ql: 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 No 451 52.3 62.6 Rec/Fit/Weights 249 28.9 34.5 Aerobics 57 6.6 7.9 Sports 90 10.4 12.5 Other 16 1.9 2.2 363 100.0 119.7 Q2: On a monthly basis, how many days do you personally utilize 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 -- 12 A-2 Q3: what recreational facilities would you like developed to meet your needs? Number of persons responding (cases) - 714. Number of responses - 1611, due to multiple answers. 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 % of Resp 9.4 14.3 10.2 7.7 16.3 7.5 12.2 10.3 6.3 5.6 100.0 % Of Cases 21.3 32.4 23.0 17.4 36.8 16.9 27.6 23.2 14.3 12.7 225.6 Q4: Are you a Carlsbad resident? Cases Yes No Percent 38.1 61.9 100.0 A-3 RECREATIONAL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AMONG ZONE 5 EMPLOYEES PREPARED FOR "ZONE 5 GROUP" SEPTEMBER 1987 Skylight PI.M. Suit. 180 . 46SS Ruffnw StrMt • San Otogo, California 92111 • (619)268-4800 Analysis/Research Liniteri BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF STUDY The City of Carlsbad is proposing a fee to Zone 5 developers 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 regarding their recreational behavior 2. To determine which near work activities are of most interest to employees 3. To determine the importance of and satisfaction with miscellaneous services and amenities in the area 4. To determine current levels of satisfaction among Carlsbad resident employees concerning recreational facilities and programs in Zone 5 5. To provide a demographic profile of Zone 5 employees. A-5 AiWysis/Research LL-nitsd STUDY METHODOLOGY The study reported herein was conducted during the week of Seotember 7, 1987, with Zone 5 employees in the City of Carlsbad. Four hundred self- administered questionnaires were distributed to employees randomly drawn from various commercial areas in Zone 5. A total of 204 completed Questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 51 percent. All distribution and handling of questionnaires were conducted by trained interviewers from Analysis/Research Limited. Prior to data collection, extensive discussions were held with the client regarding the questionnaire so that all relevant topic areas and information needed would be fully covered in the survey. A pretest was then conducted to maximize the efficiency of the survey and validity of responses. The margin of error for the study is plus or minus 6.5 percentaae points at a confidence level of 95 percent. A-S k Analysis/Research Limited EXECUTIVE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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 swimming (57%)r biking- (47%) 7 and jogging/running (37%). It is perceived that these recreational activities tend to be activities that are most frequently performed (often "alonefbutside of any single recreational --facility. 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 work, 15% stated that they would like swimming facilities, 12% desired tennis courts, and 10% said they would like to have a physical fitness center.v It was determined through this study that most people who work in the Zone 5 Area participate in recreational activities in their spare timer 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 swimming was a * recreational activity in which they participated. A total of 12.7% said that they preferred to swim near their place of work. A total of 12.7% stated that they would be very/somewhat likely to swim near work if such swimming facilities were available, while 12.7% said that they would swim often/sometimes near work if facilities were available for them to do so. ^ 77 A-7 Analvsis, ^search Lijnited In regards to*biking: 47'. 1% of the 204 people*survey«3 bike; only^J^i ^ explained that they prefer to bike near their place of work; only 3,9% stated that they would be very/somewhat likely to bike near worte if facilities were available; and 3.4% said they would bike often/sometimes near their place of work if biking facilities were available. In terms of jogging/running: : 36.8% of the 204 respondents said that they run or jog; 11.3% said they preferred to run or log near their place of work; 11.3% explained they would be very/sanewhat likely to run or log near work if facilities were available; 9.8%' stated they would run or joq near work often/sometimes if facilities were available. Of the 204 people surveyed, 32.4% stated that they play tennis-. However, only.4.9% of the 204 respondents stated that they preferred to play tennis near. or- at their place of work. Only 4.9% of the 204 respondents explained that they would be very/somewhat likely to play tennis near their place of work if facilities were available. Andr only 4.4% said that they would play tennis often/sometimes near their place of work if facilities were available. In regards to golf r 25.5% of the 204 people surveyed said they played; 4.4% stated that they preferred to play golf near work; 4.4% said they would be very/somewhat likely to play golf near work if facilities were available; and -. 3.9% explained thty would play golf often/sometimes near work if facilities- - were available. Such findings indicate that many of the people who work in the Zone 5 Area would be unlikely to use recreational facilities located near their work place. A-8 Analysis/Research Limited It was also determined that an overwheljninq percentaae of the employees of Zone 5josually participate in their preferred recreational activities "after work" and. "on weekends.51 Such a participation pattern would most likely involve activities performed away from a "near work" recreational facility;- The survey revealed that afco - one-third of the companies for which Zone 5 employees work provide organized recreational activities. However, half (49%) of the Zone 5 employees whose companies provide organized recreational activities do not participate in these organized activities. When asked in which company sponsored recreational activity they would like to participatef 43% of the Zone 5 employees said "none."* Facilities conducive to the employee base of Zone 5 miqht include a jooainq track and/or "par courses" (i.e., the jogging track with exercise/work out 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 accomodate 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 racouetball 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, weiaht training, and aerobic dance or exercise. • A-9 OJESTION i Please cheek the followtrn recreational activities in %*mcn you participate in, your spare time: Tennis ( ) Golf ( ) Swiflimna ( ) Biking ( ) Joaqinq/Runmnq ( ) Baseball ( ) Softball ( ) Basketball ( ) Racquetball ( ) Other (SPECIFY) ( > , , CUF.STION 2 Por each activity yrxi participate in, *oul4 you rather plav/Ho it n*ar home or near vorfc: MFAR HOif NFAR WORK < ) ( » f 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . ( ) ( ) r . ( ) ( j • ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) QUESTION 3 Fbr each activity you participate in, how often <to you usually play/do: OFTO SOMETIMES SfXDOM NEVER (1 ( ) ( ) { ) ( > ( ) ( ) ( ) ' > ( > ( > ( ) < > ( ) ( ) ( ) f » ( ) ( ) { ) < ) ' ) ( ) ( ) < ' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( > ( > f ) . ( J < > ( ) ( ) ( ) < I ( > ( ) C ) NCNK ( ) 00 TO CXIESTICN 7 (NEXT PA<Z) Fbr each activity you participate in. during what time of the day <to you usually play/do: BEFORE LUNCH AFTER WEEK iCX.f- WORK TIMK WORK FM3S OAVS T((W I ) ( ) r ) < ) ( i < > r > < i ( . i r ) QUESTION S For each of tn» activities answered "near work* in Q.2, please answer now likelv you woul<f"Ee to participate in those activities if facilities for the* were available: VniY 3DM041AT HOHCHHAT VERY LIKELY LIKELY (MUKELY UMUXKLY ( I r > QUESTION 6 For each of the activities answered •very or e-'anuhat likely* jn Q.5, please ansner how often you tculd r« to participate in those activities near wnrk in your spare tune: OFTEN SCMO1MS SELDOM NEVER < )(I f i_n 0 A-10 7. 8. Does your company have organized recreational activities? Yes ( } PLEASE ANSWER Q.8 & Q.9 AND SKIP No ( ) PLEASE GO TO Q.10 (IF YES) What are they? 9. Which company organized recreational activities do you participate in? 10. In which company sponsored recreational activities would you like to participate, if they were available? 11 12. Did the company or area where you previously worked have any organized recreational activities? Yes ( ) PLEASE CONTINUE WITH Q.12 No { ) PLEASE 00 TO Q.14 Never Worked ( ) PLEASE 00 TO Q.14 (IF YES) What are they? 13. Which company organized recreational activities did you participate in? 8 A-11 14. How adequate are the current recreational facilities and proarans in the area around where you work? Very Adeouate ( )-t Somewhat Adeouate ( )-2 Somewhat Inadequate , ( )-3 Very Inadeouate ( )-4 15. What additional recreational facilities and programs, if any, would you like to have near to where vou work? 16. How important are the following services to you in vour area? VERY SOMEWHAT NOT VERY NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT Fast food restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 Family type restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4- Upscale adult type restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 Child care facilities ( M ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 Religious institutions ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 Autonotive service stations ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 17. How satisfied are you with the following services in vour area? VERY SOMEWHAT NOT VERY NOT AT ALL NO SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED OPINION Fast food restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( ')-4 ( )-5 Family type restaurants ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 ( J-5 Upscale adult type restaurants ( )-l ( )-2 ( )-3 ( M ( )-S Child care facilities ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 ( )-5 Reliqious institutions ( )-1 ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )~4 < >"5 Automotive service _ stations ( )-l ( )-2 ( )-3 ( )-4 '- J'D A-12 And finally, we have a few Questions for classsification purposes. 18. In what city or conmunity do you live? 19. How long have you live there? Less than 1 year ( )-1 1 - 4 years ( }-2 5-9 years ( )-3 10 - 14 years ( )-4 15 years or more ( )-5 20. What is the ZIP code where you live? 21. Below are some age categories. Please check the one that includes your age. Under 18 ( )-1 18-25 ( )-2 26-35 ( )-3 36-45 ( )-4 46-55 ( }-5 56-65 ( )-6 Over 65 ( )-7 22. What is your occupation? 23. Are you employed full time or part time? Full time ( )-1 Part time ( )-2 PLEASE MUTE TOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER CN FRONT PAGE THANK TOO FOR TOUR TIME AND INFORMATION. '*- - 80 A-13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I98 Ii|M •Jill I ill.5 1 " 1 1*5 3• > o <J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ifl! 17 t , 18 19! 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i 27 28 •TTIJ.'ANCE MO. a g n p A-N ORDINANCE CF THE CITY COCN'CIL CF THE CI^Y /-- CAPLS3AD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 CF T«F~" CAPLSBAO "UN'ICIP^L CODE BY THE ADPITICN CF CHAPTEP 21.90 ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEJ'F"- PROGRAM FOP THE CITY The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, Cal does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 21 is amended by the add Chapter 21.90 to read as follows: "Chapter 21.90 Growth Management - ->*-> Sections: 21.90.010 21.90.020 21.90.030 21.90.031 21.90.032 21.90.033 21.90.040 2l.9Q.Q50 Purnose and intent. Definitions. General prohibition, exceptions. Tolling of time for consideration of applications submitted before the effective date of this chapter. Tolling of expiration of previously issued development permits. Extensions of prior approvals prohibited. Compliance with this chapter recuired. Establishment of local facilities management 21.90.060 21.90.070 21.90.080 21.90.090 21.90.100 21.90.110 21.90.120 21.90.125 21.90.130 21.90.140 21.90.150 21.90.160 21.90.170 21.90.180 21.90.190 Special provisions for building permits issued during temporary moratorium. Finding of health, safety and welfare necessary for the fees imposed by sections 21.90.050 and 21.90.060. Performance standard. Citywide facilities and improvements clan. Local facilities management zones. Contents of local facility management plans Facilities management plan preoartion. Facilities management plan processing. Implementation of facilities and improvements recuirements. Obligation to pay fees or install improvements required by any other law. Implementing guidelines. Exclusions. Council actions, fees, notice. Expiration of chapter. Severability. 84 A-14 21.90.050 Establishment of local facilities manaceirerit | fee. '"'"~~— (a) A local facilities management fee is hereby established to pay for improvements or facilities'identified in c local facilities management plan which are related to new development within the zone and are not otherwise financed by any 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 off the facilities or improvements identified in the citywide facilities and improvements plan attributed to develooment 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 the 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 trhis code or City Council policy. (c) The amount of the fee for a local facilities 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. (e) The fee established by this section shall be levied at the tin* of issuance of a building permit. oo > >'•• A-15 -sSeptember 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 leas* 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 $8,000,000 in todays economy. With the remaining industrial development in Zone 5 through buildout, an assessed fee of .42$ 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. . . 86 A-16 Zone 5 Sub Committee • September 18, 1987 Page Two Should th« county lease or development of a golf complex on the Macario property fail to materialize, the following alternativeswould be recommended. -tves Alternative I - up front or incremental development of a central!*-*15 acre recreation complex within Zone 5. • •'••'•zea Alternative II - up front or incremental development of three (3) five acre recreation .complexes statigically located throughoutZone 5. The cost to develop either of the above alternatives is estimated .between $7,822,500 and $8,000,000. The annual maintenance and operation cost associated with these alternatives is estimated at $9,000/Ac/Yr or $130,000 per year. All cost estimates are determined in 1987 dollars and have not determined inflationary cost should incremental development occur. Should either of these alternatives be instituted, staff recommends the maintenance and operation costs be absorbed by the industrial developers. OB) pa .. 81 A-I7 November 30, 1987 TO: FILE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEES FOR PARKS IN ZONE 5 The purpose of this brief memo is to summarize the public hearing held on November 24, 1987 concerning the Local Facilities Management Fee for parks in Zone 5. Following the staff presentation the City Council asked several questions and then allowed public testimony. The following people spoke at the public hearing: 1. Paul Schwartz, representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and their economic enhancement council. His points were that they wanted to ensure the impact fees would be studied so as not to offset the marketability of property within the Zone 5 area. He also stressed, the fee should be interim and that the City Council should direct staff to negotiate with the developers to provide the facilities upfront. 2. Jim Scott, representing the Carlsbad Golf Association, gave a presentation on why it was important to include a golf course facility as part of the Zone 5 fee. He made the suggestion to add 5 cents per square foot to the fee to be dedicated for the sole purpose of building a golf course. 3. Jack Schumacher, Vice-president of the Carlsbad Golf Association and Lake Shore Gardens, spoke in favor of a golf course. 4^. Mario Monroy, asked a specific question dealing with what would happen with our residential standards and Macario Canyon Park if we allowed a facility to be built there that would be used by the industrial employees. 5. Ton Worth, representative of the Business Industry, said that he was concerned that the fee was too high. He recognized that there was a demand. He felt that some of the facilities were already being provided on,site and, therefore, this fee was not necessary. * 6. Jim Shaw, a real estate person, discussed how he felt the fee was too high and that fee was driving business out of Carlsbad. 7. Mark Hughes, representative appointed by the Industrial Developers to make recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission Subcommittee spoke in favor of the Council adopting both recommendations of the staff report. He also felt that it should be an interim fee. 8. Ron Rouse, Legal Counsel for several developers within the Zone 5 property corridor, made several legal arguments and concerns regarding the adoption of the Local Facilities Management Fee and concluded by indicating that he felt the Council should allow staff to negotiate for some more rational approach to providing recreation facilities in Zone 5. (City Attorney responded to Mr. Rouse and indicated that his comments were not valid and that the City felt that the items that were presented to the Council met all the requirements for implementing a fee.) 9. Mike Dunnigan, Koll Company, felt the City Council should give some preference to some type of in lieu program where developers could provide certian facilities in lieu of paying a fee. 10. Dennis Meehan, congratulated everyone on an excellent job - indicated it's not the developers who are the golden goose but the City. This concluded all of the public testimony. The Council asked several questions and ultimately made their recommendations. Ann Kulchin 1) We need a larger gymnasium facility; 2) We need to put the Faraday connection to Cannon in as well as the Cannon connection to 1-5; 3) A fitness center was important; 4) We should look at the feasibility of building a golf course and also specifically addressed Jim Smith's recomendation that an additional 5 cents per square foot be added to the fee and be earmarked for. the construction of the golf course. ' Eric Larson 1) He felt the fee should be interim provided that an agreement could be reached with the developers to provide facilities. 2) We should be selfish of Macario and ensure that if we allow development to occur in Macario to service our industrial demand it in no way offsets our residential standard or in any way jeporadizes the availability of acreage to meet these residential standards. 3) We should look at developing industrial park standards to be utilized. 4) We should address the facilities needed as a result of impacts of Zone 5 and not citywide demands. The facilities we build should be to meet those needs. John Mamaux 1) The Council should determine how any funds are spent. 2) The feasibility of a golf course should be looked at. 3) A Stagecoach type facility with a clubhouse and a gym etc., should be built, (I believe he meant fitness center should all be attached as part of the golf course clubhouse). 4) We should consider Hello Roos financing. 5) Should consider some type of a construction agreement. 6) He wanted to ensure that there were no hidden fees. He wanted to make sure that the upfront development did not in any way reduce the quality of development that would be put in. 7) He was reluctant to utilize Macario Canyon, however, if we did, we needed to ensure that our residential standard was not in anyway infringed upon. 8) He said we should look at the peak flow cost of providing facilities. That is whether or not the facilities, that are requested or that are going to be built, can handle the peak flow activity within the Zone 5 area. Mark Pettine t 1) He stated clearly that he felt the nexus could and had been made between the need for facilities and the demand created within Zone 5. 2) He supported both recommendations ofstaff. 3) He had the same concern regarding Macario Canyon and ensuring that we did not jeopardize our residential standard to meet an industrial need. He didn't feel that it should be split in any way between residential and industrial. Mayor Lewis 1) Overall he felt fairness was a key issue. 2) He felt that workers needed to be considered not only using facilities on their lunch hour but before and after work and on weekends. He said to take in the total picture. 3) He indicated his desire to have a larger facility built probably with an indoor gymnasium for basketball. 4) He felt that t onnection of Faraday to Cannon and Cannon to 1-5 w oth extremely important if we built a Macario Canyo: 5) He felt thac we .juld research the feasibility of a golf course and if the needs justify it, then recommend it; if not, don't. Following all of this discussion and input, a motion was made to adopt the staff recommendations as presented along with the items the Council said should be considered during negotiations. The motion was seconded and approved 5-0. 1 think what we need to do is summarize all of our notes into a cohesive package, and provide it to the City Manager. The memorandum should indicate that we told the Council the City Manager would oe establishing the negotiating team to work with the Zone 5 property owners and that we should also recommend preparing a report back to the City Council within 2 to 3 weeks. This report should indicate who is on the negotiating team, what the points that we felt the Council raised to ensure that those items are indeed what they want to be discussed during the negotiations. arb 4 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this document is to provide a plan for supplying the public facilities that will be needed to accomodate development within the Zone 16 area of the City of Carlsbad, in accordance with the City's Growth Management Program. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan of 1986. Exhibit 1 on page 4 indicates where Zone 16 is located within the City. Development Assumptions The first step in developing such a plan is to estimate the amount of development that will be allowed in the zone. The types of land uses assumed for the zone are those shown in the Carlsbad General Plan. Exhibit 7 ,on Page 22, shows the location of the General Plan land uses within the zone. Zone 16 is entirely zoned planned industrial and open space as shown on Exhibit 8, on Page 23. There are no residential land uses proposed within the zone, so no residential density analysis has been included in this zone plan. For determining the nonresidential development potential, it is assumed that building coverage would be 30% of the net developable acreage. This method yields an ultimate nonresidential development estimate of approximately 3,615,916 square feet. This is only an estimate or assumption for facility planning purposes. Actual nonresidential development may vary. To determine the developable acreage, the following constrained lands were deducted: Major Power Line Easements Future Right-of-way of Circulation Element Roads Railroad Right-of-way Slopes Greater than 40% Riparian Woodland Wetlands Floodways Permanent Bodies of Water Other Environmental Features Future School Sites f' The Plan includes phasing schedules which indicate the estimated non-residential square footage development projections for each year from 1991 to 2014. The property owners are not required to adhere to this phasing, and it is intended for facility planning purposes only. The phasing schedules (Exhibits 11 through 13) also include the projections for other zones with adopted Local Facilities Management Plans. The schedules are used to determine approximate threshold years for constructing or 1 EXHIBIT 2 "V„• " upgrading various public facilities to maintain compliance with the Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. The threshold years arrived at in this way are only projections for facility planning purposes. The actual thresholds must be monitored as development takes place in this zone. Facilities may be needed sooner or later than the threshold years shown in this plan, depending upon the actual timing of development. The development, phasing and buildout years referred to in this document are used for facility planning purposes only. The actual timing of development will depend upon many outside factors. This zone plan assumes development phasing starts at the south and proceeds north with regard to the provision of public facilities. Zone 16 Requirements for Public Facilities The development assumptions outlined above are used to estimate the demand for public facilities generated by development in Zone 16 based on the eleven adopted Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. The following table (Exhibit 2 on page 5) shows the current status of each facility with respect to the Performance Standard, given the existing amount of development in the zone. Because there is currently no developed land in Zone 16 the public facility demands are presently minimal. Of the eleven Performance Standards, five are currently being met (Wastewater, Parks, Drainage, Fire and Open Space). The City Administrative, Library and School Performance Standards are not impacted by development in Zone 16 as they are residentially based. There are no existing Sewer or Water facilities serving Zone 16. Circulation facilities currently do not meet the adopted Performance Standard. In order to assure compliance with the Performance Standards as development occurs in the zone, the Plan contains specific conditions of approval which are listed in Exhibit 3, on Page 6. Exhibit 4, on Page 8, contains the General Conditions which are applicable to all zones of the City. Exhibit 5 ,on Page 10, contains Special Conditions for Zone 16. The Special Conditions state each facility that must be provided, whether it must be financed or constructed, and when it must be provided. The following is a list of the public facilities required to serve development in Zone 16. This chart shows whether the facility would otherwise be provided as a condition of approval of a development project, whether a special funding mechanism is needed, or whether the facility is funded by the Citywide Community Facilities District. 101 City Of Oceanside City Of Vista City Of San Marcos / S.D.CO. 102 No Scale • LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 1 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN City Administrative Facilities - Combination of Public Facilities Fees (PFF) and Citywide Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD). Library - Combination of Public Facilities Fees and Citywide Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Wastewater Treatment Capacity - Funding provided by sewer connection fees. Park Facilities - Standard Public Facilities Fee is required. A special growth management park fee of 40C per square foot of non-residential development is required.' Drainage Facilities - Condition of approval of development project. Circulation Facilities - Combination of condition of approval of development projects and Mello-Roos CFD. Fire Facilities - Standard public facilities fee is required. Open Space - No special funding required. Schools - No specific funding required. Sewer - Condition of approval of development project and/or Sewer Benefit Area Fees. Water - Condition of approval of development project. Financing for Facilities Section 21.90.110(3) of the Municipal Code requires that Local Facilities Management Plans contain a discussion of various methods of funding the facilities and improvements identified in the plan. This plan for Zone 16 provides an estimated cost for each facility and one or more possible methods of funding. General Condition No. 10 states that annexation to, and participation in, the Citywide CFD is necessary in order to find that development within the zone is consistent with the Public Facilties Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. All Facilities not funded via the CFD will be provided as part of normal development requirements. / 103 EXHIBIT 5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 16 LFMP 89-16 The following Special Conditions apply specifically to development in Zone 16 and must be complied with in addition to the General Conditions for Zone 16. These conditions are also listed separately under the analysis discussion of each facility. CITY ADMINISTRATION No special conditions are necessary at this time. LIBRARY No special conditions are necessary at this time. WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY No special conditions are necessary. However, the following action shall be pursued jointly by each sewer district to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity through the year 2000: A. Monitor Encina Treatment plant flows on a monthly basis to determine actual flow rates and to have an early warning of capacity problems. PARKS A. A growth management park fee of $.40 per square foot of non-residential development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance, to be used for park facilities serving Zone 16. DRAINAGE A. All future development in Zone 16 will be required to construct any future storm drain facilities identified in the current Drainage Master Plan and revised Drainage Master Plan as determined by the City Engineer. Any facilities necessary to accommodate future development must be guaranteed prior to the recordation of any final map, issuance of a grading permit or building permit, for any development requiring future storm drain facilities in Zone 16. * B. Individual lot development plans will be required to address the removal of urban pollutants from drainage waters consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. This will be pursuant to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order, No. 90-42, which may be in effect at the time of project approval. 10 101 PARK FACILITIES-—Y I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD Three acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period. H. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not the performance standard is being met and if the demand for Zone 16 is consistent with the overall city wide analysis of parks. Zone 16 is located within Park District 2 as shown on Exhibit 22, on Page 51. Exhibit 23, on Page 52, shows the location of existing and proposed park facilities within the northeast quadrant. Zone 16 does not include any residential uses, but is instead composed exclusively of non-residential uses. The Growth Management Program does not identify a parks performance standard for non-residential uses. Currently, non- residential uses are required to pay public facilities fees. A percentage of all public facilities fees collected are allocated for the construction and improvements to city parks. Non-residential uses, however, are not required to pay park-in-lieu fees. At full buildout of Zone 16, there will be approximately 3,615,916 feet of non-residential building area. This structural square footage corresponds to a potential average workday population within the Zone of at least 6,647 people. (This figure is based on the Zone 5 criteria of one employee for every 544 square feet of building.) With the adoption of Zone 5, the City of Carlsbad adopted a special growth management fee schedule of 40 cents per square foot of building area to be used for park facilities within Zone 5, primarily for the benefit of the employees of the Zone. Since Zone 16 is bounded on two sides by Zone 5, it would appear logical to incorporate Zone 16 into the park facilities of Zone 5. As in Zone 5, growth management park fees shall be required to be paid for all non- residential development within Zone 16. This fee shall be established at a rate of $.40 per square foot of non-residential building area. Implementation of this fee will-result in the potential allocation of approximately $1,446,366 for the purchase of park facilities. 50 105 Legend 7 Quadrant Boundary City Quadrant Park District Northwest Northeast Soutwest Southeast 1 2 3 4 106 No Scale • PARK DISTRICTS EXHIBIT 22 LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN 51 ZO\E 7 / 0<-v« Larwin Park Hope Elementary 7V..J" ?J 14 . !! 14 Calavera Hills Park Legend Existing Community Park Future Community Park Existing Special Use Area Q Future Special Use Area Note: All locations are approximate. 1':4000* \ L. 15 Safety Center Ballfields 1 ZONE 16 I . ____ __ . — li 18 107 PARK LOCATIONS • NORTHEAST QUADRANT - PARK DIST. 2 EXHIBIT 23 T>« njw*ma LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN 52. The purpose of the fee is to fund recreational facilities located within the industrial ( , corridor of the City of Carlsbad. The use to which the fee will be put is the purchase "'""' and improvement of 8 to 15 acres on one or more sites within the industrial corridor that may include but is not limited to the following improvements; fitness center, swimming pool, lighted ball fields, lighted tennis courts, and lighted outdoor racquetball/handball courts. The determination of the reasonable relationship between the fee use and the industrial development on which the fee is imposed is based upon needs assessments surveys carried out by the San Diego Association of Governments for the City of Carlsbad and Analysis/Research Limited working for the development community as reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission Sub-Committee on Park Fees for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5 (see Appendix A-4 (A) for the Planning Director's memo dated July 30, 1987 regarding Zone 5 and (B) for the Park's Agenda Bill 9122-1 dated November 24, 1987). The same needs assessment surveys combined with the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan recognition via policy statements specifically encouraging industrial development to provide recreational facilities for their day use population, provides the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the industrial corridor upon which it is imposed. The determination of the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed is a product of the equitable relationship between the estimated cost of the facility and the fees collected at building permit issuance from Zones 5, 13 and 16. m. MITIGATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ZONE 16 A. A growth management park fee of $.40 per square foot of non-residential development will be collected at the time of building permit issuance, to be used for park facilities serving Zone 16. 53 108 IV. FINANCING Non-residential development will be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee of 3.5 percent of building permit valuation. This fee is collected at the time building permits are issued. Larwin Park is the only park facility to be scheduled for construction within a five year period in Park District 2. The 1990-91 CIP schedules Larwin Park construction in 1991- 92 for $2,790,000. Since, this is within the five year increment specified in the adopted performance standard, the park can be used to meet the adopted performance standard. The City estimates this expenditure would allow approximately 22.3 acres of park to be constructed. The Citywide Mello-Roos District, together with City-PFF fees, will fund the 25-acre park, Veterans Memorial Park. Veterans Memorial Park is scheduled for construction in 2009 for $7,000,000. Exhibit 24, on Page 55, shows a facility financing matrix for this facility. This matrix summarizes the individual facility to be financed, its estimated cost and timing of construction, the existing budgeted CIP monies available for the facility and the future funding options. 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 16 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EXISTING TERMINUS OF FARADAY AVENUE, SOUTH OF SQUIRES DAM, WEST OF THE CITY OF VISTA, AND NORTH OF THE EXISTING TERMINUS OF EL FUERTE. APPLICANT: PAUL TCHANG CASE NO: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 16 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards for public facilities, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9808 requiring the processing of a Local Facilities Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 and 9829 implementing Proposition E approved on November 4, 1986 by the citizens of Carlsbad, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of February, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16. t NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 16, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 is consistent with the Land Use Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained in Carlsbad's General Plan. 2) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 is consistent with Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), as amended by Ordinance No. 8110 and Ordinance No. 9829 and with the adopted 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan. 3) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 and the conditions contained therein will promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards. 4) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 will control the timing and locations of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements. 5) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 will ensure public facilities and services are available in conformance with the adopted performance standards prior to development occurring. Condition 1) Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 16 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 16, dated February 19, 1992, incorporated herein by reference. PC RESO NO. 3247 -2- 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall. None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOTZMIbLER PLANNING DIRECTOR VSYw. TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RESO NO. 3247 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 92-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 16. WHEREAS, a Local Facilities Management Plan has been prepared for Local Facilities Management Zone 16 in accordance with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 19, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as required by law to consider said plan and at the conclusion of the hearing adopted Resolution No. 3247 making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt a plan; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on January 31, 1992, indicating that the Local Facilities Management Plan is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council at their meeting of April 7. 1992 held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all testimony and arguments of anyone desiring i to be heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. f 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3247 also constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. 3. That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 16 dated February 19, 1992, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved. Any development occurring within the boundaries of Zone 16 shall comply with all the terms and conditions of said plan. - 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of April , 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, and Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Stanton CCAUDE A s, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City ClWk (SEAL) 2. 114 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (£&£* 2-OK16 The purpose of this document is to provide a plan for supplying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate development within the Zone 13 area of the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Exhibit 1 on page 2. The plan has been prepared in accordance with the City's Growth Management Program, as outlined in Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan of 1986.1 Development Assumptions The first step in developing such a plan is to estimate the amount of development, both residential and nonresidential, that will be allowed in the zone. All development within Zone 13 will be nonresidential. The types of land uses assumed for the zone are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. These land use assumptions are discussed and their location is shown in the introduction chapter of this plan. To estimate the amount of development that could occur within Zone 13, a density yield factor is applied to all vacant, developable land. Developable acreage is determined by deducting the following constrained lands from the gross acreage of the zone: Major (>_ 69 kv) power-line easements Future Right-of-way for Circulation Element Roads Railroad Right-of-way Slopes Greater Than 40% Riparian Woodland Wetlands Floodways Permanent Bodies of Water Other Environmental Features For nonresidential development, it is typically assumed that building coverage would be 30% of the net developable acreage. This method yields an ultimate nonresidential development estimate of 7,079,589 square feet. Given the large amount of unconstrained acreage in Zone 13 and the limitations of the surrounding circulation network, a lower overall building coverage ranging between 13.5 to 30% was used for Zone 1^3. This lower coverage results in 3,229,700 square feet. Again, this is only an estimate or assumption for facility planning purposes. Actual nonresidential development may vary. 1 The 1986 CFIP was adopted by City Council on 9-23-86 (CC Resolution No. 8797). 1 EXHIBIT 3 City of Oceanside G e» , Management Zone 13 City of Vista City of San Marcos City of Encinitas Development Design • ,OMIOumo,,mo,Services i~mr Hofman PlanningA • i o c I a t • i Note: All locations are approximate lib- Location Map Local Facilities Management Plan Carlsbad CA • Zone 13 Exhibit The plan includes phasing schedules which indicate the property owners' proposed amount of development for each year from 1991 to 2014. The property owners are not required to adhere to this phasing, and it is intended for facility planning purposes only. The phasing schedules, (Exhibits 13 -17), also include the projections for other zones with adopted Local Facilities Management Plans. The schedules are used to determine approximate threshold years for constructing or upgrading various public facilities to maintain compliance with the Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. The threshold years arrived at in this way are only projections for facility planning purposes. The actual thresholds must be monitored as development takes place in this zone. Facilities may be needed sooner or later than the threshold years shown in this plan, depending upon the actual timing of development. Zone 13 Requirements for Public Facilities The development assumptions outlined above are used to estimate the demand for public facilities generated by development in Zone 13 based on the eleven adopted Performance Standards in the Growth Management Program. Exhibit 2 on page 17 shows the current status of each facility with respect to the Performance Standard, given the existing amount of development in the zone. Because there is currently a limited amount of developed land in Zone 13 the public facility demands are presently minimal and all eleven Performance Standards are currently being met. Exhibit 3 on page 6 provides a summary of public facilities adequacy through build out for Zone 13. In order to assure compliance with the Performance Standards as development occurs in the zone, the Plan contains specific conditions of approval which are listed in the following exhibits. Exhibit 4 on page 7 contains the General Conditions which are applicable to all zones of the City. Exhibit 5 on page 9 contains Special Conditions for Zone 13. The Special Conditions state each facility which must be provided, whether it must be financed or constructed, and when it must be provided. The following list indicates the public facilities required to serve the nonresidential development in Zone 13. This chart shows whether the facility would otherwise be provided as a condition of approval of a development project or whether a special funding mechanism is needed. iiv EXHIBITS Special Conditions For Zone 13 LFMP 91-13 The following Special Conditions apply specifically to development in Zone 13 and must be complied with in addition to the General Conditions for Zone 13. These conditions are also listed separately under the analysis discussion of each facility. City Administrative Facilities No special conditions. Library No special conditions. Wastewater Treatment Capacity The following actions shall be pursued jointly by each sewer district to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity until the year 2000: A. Monitor Encina treatment plant flows on a monthly basis to determine actual flow rates and to have an early warning of capacity problems. Parks <j, The recommendation is that a park fee of 40 cents per square foot on non- residential development be established for Zone 13.. This fee would be collected at the time of building permit issuance and would be used to construct *V recreational facilities within Zone 13. Should the City and the Carltas Company, or its successor, mutually determine that it is feasible and in the best interest of the City to have the Developer(s) of Zone 13 privately provide the recreational facilities for the employees of Zone 13, ,,(/ then upon the financial guarantee of those facilities, all Zone 13 park fees Qv collected to date shall be disbursed to the provider of the recreational facilities and no additional Zone 13 park fees shall be collected. Drainage A. All future development in Zone 13 will be required to construct any future Zone 13 storm drain facilities identified in the current Drainage Master Plan and revised Drainage Master Plan as determined by the City Engineer. Any facilities necessary to accommodate future development must be guaranteed prior to the PARK FACILITIES I. PERFORMANCE STANDARD Three acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District must be scheduled for construction within a five year period. H. FACILITY PLANNING AND ADEQUACY ANALYSIS Zone 13 is located within Park District 1 as shown on Exhibit 28 page 66. However, Zone 13 is composed exclusively of non-residential uses. The Growth Management Program does not identify a parks performance standard for non-residential uses. Currently, non-residential uses are required to pay Public Facilities Fees. A percentage of all Public Facilities Fees collected are allocated for the construction and improvements of City parks. In addition, residential development pays a Park-In-Lieu fee to pay for the acquisition of City park land. Nonresidential development is not required to pay Park-In-Lieu fees. The issue of recreational facilities for non-residential zones was addressed by the City with the adoption of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan. Because of the large concentration of employees in Zone 5 (over 40,000 at build out) and their use of City parks, the City felt it appropriate to provide recreational facilities within Zone 5. In order to pay for these park facilities, the City adopted a fee of 40 cents per square foot of nonresidential development within Zone 5. At build out of Zone 13, there will be approximately 3,230,000 square feet of non-residential development. If a ratio of one employee per 544 square feet is used, the buildout square footage corresponds to a potential workday population of 5,937 employees. In order to serve the needs of future employees, recreational facilities should be provided within Zone 13. Similar to Zone 5, a fee per square foot of non-residential development could be collected at time of building permit issuance. These fees would be earmarked for the acquisition and construction of recreational amenities within Zone 13. If a fee of 40 cents per square foot, comparable to Zone 5, is adopted in Zone 13, the projected development in Zone 13 would generate approximately $1.3 million through build out. The Carltas Company, the major property owner within Zone 13, would like to reserve the option to independently make available recreational facilities for the employees of Zone 13, in lieu of a park fee. Because the Carltas Company is preparing the Master Plan for the majority of the area south of Cannon Road, it has the ability to implement such a program. If the City and the Carltas Company mutually determine that such a program is feasible and in the best interest of the City, the provisions of such a program can be implemented through the Master Plan. If the details of such a program are not acceptable to either the City or Carltas, a fee program similar to Zone 5's will be employed. .. iia City of Oceanside o r^ §/* », ' \ 3 \t> City of Encinitas Legend 3 I District Designation District Boundary Development A ,- mtloumc. -•Services ;=j-"- o««»«»- =* "«*Note: All locations are approximate IALICANT RO COSTA. OLIVENHAIN City ofEncinitas \ \\ \ ELFUERTE City of SanMarcos <?/ 120 Park Districts Hofman Planning A i i o c I a t • i Local Facilities Management Plan Carlsbad CA • Zone 13 onttad CA «?00i m. MITIGATIONrrx—' The recommendation is that a park fee of 40 cents per square foot on non-residential development be established for Zone 13. This fee would be collected at the time of building permit issuance and would be used to construct recreational facilities within Zone 13. Should the City and the Carltas Company, or its successor, mutually determine that it is feasible and in the best interest of the City to have the Developer(s) of Zone 13 privately provide the recreational facilities for the employees of Zone 13, then upon the financial guarantee of those facilities, all Zone 13 park fees collected to date shall be disbursed to the provider of the recreational facilities and no additional Zone 13 park fees shall be collected. IV. FINANCING Non-residential development will be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee of 3.5 percent of building permit valuation. This fee shall be paid at building permit issuance and a portion of the fee shall contribute to the construction and improvement of City parks. In addition, a park fee of 40 cents per square foot shall be collected at building permit issuance to provide for recreational amenities within Zone 13, or the Carltas Company or its successor(s) shall privately provide for the recreational facilities in lieu of this fee per the above mitigation discussion. 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3245 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 13 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, AND WEST OF MACARIO CANYON. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 13 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8797 adopting the 1986 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards for public facilities, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9808 requiring the processing of a Local Facilities Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8110 and 9829 implementing Proposition E approved on November 4, 1986 by the citizens of Carlsbad, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of May, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 122 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 1 recommends APPROVAL of Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 13, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition:2 _ Findings:o 4 1) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 is consistent with the Land Use Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained in 5 Carlsbad's General Plan. 2) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 is consistent with Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), as amended by Ordinance No. 8110 and Ordinance No. 9829 and with the adopted 1986 Citywide 8 Facilities and Improvement Plan. 9 3) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 and the conditions contained therein will promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that 10 public facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards. 12 4) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 will control the timing and locations of growth by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements. 5) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 will ensure public facilities and 15 services are available in conformance with the adopted performance standards prior to development occurring. 16 Condition17 . a 1) Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 13 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13, dated May 6, 1992, 19 incorporated herein by reference. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PC RESO NO. 3245 -2-27 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble, Welshons, Hall & Savary. None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3245 TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION -3- 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3244 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, EAST OF INTERSTATE 5, AND WEST OF MACARIO CANYON. APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of May, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated May 2, 1991, and "PH", dated April 19, 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 will not cause any significant environmental impacts. The plan is a public facilities planning document that implements the existing General Plan. The plan makes generalized projections as to the demand for and supply of public facilities, and outlines the provision of adequate public facilities concurrent with estimated demands. The plan recognizes that CEQA review will be required prior to mitigation of any public or private project that is generally discussed in the plan. A Negative Declaration has been issued on May 2, 1991 and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 6, 1992. .2i3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of May, 1992, by the 2 following vote, to wit:3 AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall. 5 NOES: None. 6 ABSENT: None. 8 ABSTAIN: None. 9 10 .- TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12 ATTEST: 13 14 /Mu^elAWtMAAfiM^L- 15 MICHAEL J. HOLZMILtER PLANNING DIRECTOR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RESO NO. 3244 -2- 28 126 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, West of Macario Canyon, East of Paseo Del Norte and North of Palomar Airport Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 which guarantees the adequacy of public facilities concurrent with devleopment to adopted performance standards. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Brian Hunter in the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4468. DATED: MAY 2, 1991 MICHAEL J. HO CASE NO: LFMP 13 Planning Director APPLICANT: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES PUBLISH DATE: MAY 2, 1991 BH:vd 127 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT -L THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of . water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? . 11. Alter a significant axcheological, * paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2-128 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT > - THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? ^. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterbome, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenk vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES YES (sig) (insig)NO JL_ »nrSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13 is a facilities planning document. The intent of the plan is establish parameters and thresholds that assure public facilities are available when needed as determined by the City's adopted performance standards. The land uses analyzed are taken from the adopted General Plan. Locations and costs of facility improvements are estimates for information purposes only. It is recognized that CEQA review for these public facilities estimates in general does not satisfy CEQA requirements for the specific project. The zone 13 Local Facilities Management Plan requires complete CEQA review prior to initialization of any public or private project discussed in the Local Facilities Management Plan. -6- -i o i \loU ^DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) " On the basis of this initial evaluation: _X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature bate1 Planning Direct LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM f IF APPLICABLE}