HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-02; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMINUTES
MEETING OF:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Center
PARKS & RECREATION
(SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING)
November 2, 1987
5:00 p.m.
Public Safetv and Service COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Donovan called the meeting to order at
5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Donovan, Castner, Lawson,
Popovich and Welshons, Dahlqui-st.
Staff Present:
David Bradstreet, Director, Parks & Recreation
Keith Beverly, Management Analyst
PUBLIC OPEN FORUM:
There were no requests to speak on a non-agenda
i tern.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
The Agenda was approved as presented.
APPOINT SCRIBE:
Commi ssioner Lawson was appointed Scribe for this
meeti ng.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
David Bradstre«t gave a staff report updating
the Commi ssioftfxMk th« Local Facilities Management
Plan Zone 5 — :~
He stated that du« to a buildup of facilities and
population of the industrial area it is felt that
recreational facilities should be developed. One
of the goals of the staff is to implement
guidelines for industrial participation in
providing the recreational facilities. This can be
done by incorporating into the city's overall
planning of the local Facility Management Plan for
Zone 5.
In preparing the Zone 5 Plan the staff proposes
that an industrial fee be levied that would provide
for the active recreational amenities that would
meet the existing and future industrial population
demand, which is estimated at 40,000 population at
build-out. The local facility management fee for
parks and recreation facilities was introduced,
discussed and supported by fhe Parks & Recreation
Commission at their June and July meetings and was
also discussed at the public hearing of the
Planning Commission meeting on July 1, 1987.
MINUTES
Page 2
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
On August k, 1987 a recommendation of fifty (50)
cents per square foot was presented to the City
Council for the specific purpose of building a
multi-use sports complex to meet the industrial
population's recreation demand in Zone 5.
After public input and council discussion, the
council supported the fee concept and directed the
Parks & Recreation Commission to further review for
council final determination of the following:
1. Needs Assessment
2. City Wide Fee vs. Zone Application
3. Facilities to be developed.
4. Fee Recommendation
Bradstreet indicated that at the August Parks &
Recreation meeting, Chairperson Donovan requested
that the Park's Site Facility Planning Committee
meet with staff and Zone 5 representatives to
investigate and return to the Commission a
recommendation regarding the council's concerns.
Counci1 persons Barbara Donovan and Jim Popovich are
members as well as Mark Hughes, Director of
Marketing for Center's Development who is the Zone
5 developers' representative. Also included was
city staff, Mike Hozmiller, Planning Director, Phil
Carter, Senior Management Analyst, representing
planning and Orvce Manues, working out of the City
Manager's offfjji.. Keith Beverly and David
Bradstreet regf*«enting the Parks & Recreation
Department w«r»- staff liaisons for the committee.
The committee met over the last two months to
analyze, discuss and make recommendations as
outlined by the council and the Parks & Recreation
Commission. Observers who were in attendance were
allowed to make comments at the meetings.
Bradstreet presented the committee's findings and
recommendations as outlined in the report which was
presented to the commission:
Needs Assessment - based on current use analysis,
the results of two independent surveys, one by the
city and one by the Zone 5 developers and
recreation industrial trends throughout California,
the committee concluded that there is a recreation
demand in Zone 5 that the city should address.
Zone 5 versus the City Wide Fee - based on the
i ndustrial populat ion impact Tn Zone 5, the ability
to locate facilities in close proximity to the
employees' concentration and because the parks and
recreation element does contain policy statements
to specifically encourage industrial development to
provide recreation facilities, the committee
recommends that the proposed fee be applied at a
zone level.
MINUTES
r
Page 3
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
F3ci1i11es - based on the two surveys and current
facility use information, the committee recommends
the following active recreation facilities to be
considered: a 7500 to 10,000 square foot fitness
center, swimming pool. Also included, 3 ball
fields, 3 full-size basketball courts, 6 tennis
courts and k outdoor racquetbal1/handba11 courts,
all should be lighted. The facilities could be
placed on one large site or several smaller sites
throughout the industrial corridor. The amount of
land required for these proposed ameniti'es will
range from 8 to 15 acres and the cost has been
estimated to range from $5.8 to $8.9 million. The
acquisition cost of $350,000 per acre with the
development cost of $115,000 per acre, the fitness
center and swimming pool being separated out and
the incorporation of $2 million in development cost
concluded a total cost between $5.8 to $8.9
million. This cost does not reflect maintenance
and operation cost.
Bradstreet stated that a golf course complex has
been discussed by the committee and it was felt
that an 18-hole championship golf course would
contribute to a well-rounded comprehensive
recreation program, however the developer
representative has repeatedly indicated that Zone 5
developers are not willing to construct a golf
course in the industrial corridor because it does
not satisfy the recreational demands of their
employees.
As Bradstreet stated earlier, the cost of the
facilities hag: b*en estimated between $5.8 and $8.9
million. Ba*|iKj4H» the remaining square feet of
building spac4j£$H-ch Is 18 million, a division of
the developMMplriMt Into the 18 million square
feet gives a rang* of thirty two (32) cents to
forty nine (49) cents per square foot.
Bradstreet indicated that the suggested facilities,
as estimated by the industrial representative,
could be placed in only ten (10) and a quarter
acres with a cost ranging from $5.5 to $6.3
million. The representative's estimate reflects
only a lap-pool concept. The square footage fee
calculates at thirty point nine (30.9) cents per
square foot but to allow for an inflation impact,
it is suggested that a thirty five (35) cent fee be
imposed. The committee considered the staffs' and
the developer's estimate and compromised on a fee
of forty (40) cents per square foot. The feeling
was that the higher fee should include a larger
pool complex.
The developers of Zone 5 proposed an alternative
that the committee felt had some merit in that the
facilities were provided upfront, much faster than
the city could with the incremental fee concept.
MINUTES
Page
wNovember 2, 1987 V&\COMMISSIONERS \»\
The alternative is as follows:
1. Allow the development community of Zone 5
to design and build the designated
facilities upfront on city's Macario
Canyon land or on county leased land.
2. If the facilities are located in Macario
Canyon, have the developers build the
extension of Faraday through to the
future Cannon Road which would be west to
access Macario Canyon with the city
entering into an agreement to reimburse
the cost of Faraday through the
designated PFF funds.
3. The developers and the city cooperate in
establishing a Mello Roos District to
front the cost of developing the
recreation facilities and Faraday in the
immediate future.
k. Include in the Mello Roos District other
Zone 5 designated improvements and
requirements such as circulation to
insure the continued development of the
commercial industrial land in the zone.
5. The city staff and developers cooperate
in developing a comprehensive plan and
timetable for approval by the city
counci 1 .
The committMramls that the details of these
alternatives JHMfld be negotiated. There were many
concerns and prob1«BS that still have to be
resolved especially maintenance and operation.
In summary, the committee feels that a Need
Assessment should be implemented and as far as the
fee for City Wide versus Zone, it is recommended
that the fee should be applied at the zone level.
The facilities fee is forty (40) cent per square
foot. The developer's alternative is to negotiate
with the developers for the upfront construction of
the facilities and then return for council
approval .
The committee's recommendation is that the Parks &
Recreation Commission advise the City Council to
direct staff to enter into negotiations with the
industrial developer regarding their upfront
facilities development proposal on the city leased
or owned land.
The proposal analysis and or agreement will be
brought back to the Parks 4 Recreation Commission
for final approval.
^o
^
— -
MINUTES
Page 5
r November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
In the meantime, it is recommended that the City
imposed the forty (40) cents fee until negotiations
are complete. If the Parks & Recreation and City
Council approves the upfront development
alternative, the collected fees would be refunded.
If agreement can not be reached, then the forty
(40) cent fee shall remain permanent until reviewed
on an annual basis to insure that sufficient funds
are being collected to pay the identified parks and
recreation facilities. The committee also
recommends that the developers continue to provide
passive recreation facilities as a condition of
approval of their respective projects such as
picnic areas and open spaces.
Bradstreet concludes the committee report by
identifying the committee members and staff for any
queries.
COMMISSION OPEN FORUM:
Commissioner Caster queried David Bradstreet as to
considering the adjacent industrial areas at this
time. Bradstreet indicated that the committee
wanted to expound upon it and it was a concern and
was discussed by committee members. Bradstreet
then turn the query over to Phil Carter for reply.
Phil Carter indicated that the growth management
allows for the establishment of fees in growth
management zonea based on the preparation of the
local f aci 1
The ordi nanc«0H&tes in Section 2990-050 the zone
fee can be esfSvHahed provided that a local plan
has been implemented and assessment of facility or
service needed that is not already provided. So a
plan has been prepared in Zone 5 and has determined
that there is no need at this time for collecting
monies from anywhere else. There is no way to
establish these facilities other than the
implementation of a local facilities management
fee.
He indicated that there are other zones that have
industrial land but they will be assessed one at a
time as far as their needs demand.
Commissioner Castner noted that with the
implementation of this there would be future
reimbursement. Carter agreed.
Bradstreet indicated that there is really no
knowledge at this time what the plan is. Carter
stated that there is a legal basis to establish the
zone fee for Zone 5 but there is no legal structure
for the other zones and this time.
Castner ask if there was discussion for any
potential zones to have fees.
MINUTES
Page 6
November 2, 1987
\:
COMMISSIONERS
Carter states that in Zones 16 and 17 there is some
industrial land that the committee will look at as
the plan will be revised. There is some concern
that there are other areas of the city that are
similar to Zone 5 and when the time comes to
consider fees for these zones, the legal basis is
there.
Castner ask since these zones are similar was there
any investigation as to what quantity of user or
number of contributors toward the overall program
on how it would effect Zone 5. How many
contributors are there?
Castner states that the relative contributors in
the other zones are small dge to the industrial
build up as yet.
Commissioner Welshons asks for a definition of
Mel 1o Roos.
Phil Carter indicates that the Mello Roos District
is a way to finance capital improvements. It is a
way to set up a system to tax the land and have the
ability to issue bonds to collect upfront monies
and the taxes on the land pays off the debt service
of the bond; it is a bonding measure. Phil Carter
states that the developers have to get city
approval in order to get a Mello Roos. Bradstreet
agrees and states that the City Council passed a
policy earlier which explains the procedures of on
Mello Roos District to be developed but the process
is still beins worked on. The developers have to
petition the 4*t£v to 9e* approval to set up a
district and talk city will then implement the
district.
Commissioner Welshons requests a definition of a
"lap pool" and what size of pool is in the
proposal, and the fitness center and courts.
Bradstreet explains that a lap-pool is a 3-4 lanes
of 25 to 50 meters. He states that the committee
determined a 25 meter to a 25 yard to a 25 yard to
a 50 meter. Commissioner Donovan replied that
there is no concrete estimate of the size of the
lap-pool, the committee has not determined as yet
what kind of pool it should be at this time.
Commissioner Dahlquist requests clarification on
the formula that was used,to determine what size
the facilities are in regard to who will be using
them, such as Carlsbad residents, non-residents.
Donovan replied that the surveys that were done by
the development community and the city were used
and a unscientific pole done by her was taken into
consideration. Surveys indicate that these were
the desired needs of the population involved. She
indicates that the surveys are included in the
report.
MINUTES
r
Page 7
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Lawson requires clarification as to
whether there is conflict with the ballpark
analysis of last year to determine the needs of the
population in regard to the number of ballparks
determine in the proposal. Was this including
resi dents?
Donovan answers that the number of ballparks and
courts were based on the survey and the thought of
the desires of the employees when the population
had reached 40,000 in the industrial Zone 5. No,
the survey did not include resident use.
Commissioner Weishons notes that the developers'
survey indicates that swimming, biking, jogging and
running were the preferred activities and there is
no provision for other activities in the area.
Donovan indicates that the in the developers'
report the noted activities stood out. The report
reflects the employees desires and things such as
picnic areas, par courses and jogging trails would
be required under conditional approvals.
Commissioner Dahlquist indicates that in the report
the passive portion is already built in. The land
is being requested from the developers and the
alternative is Macario. The commission is going to
recommend that the city explore the option, Macario
is being considered as an option only.
Donovan indicates that Macario is the alternative
if land cannot. bv obtain within the Zone 5 area.
Bradstreet irrijPglztes that the forty (fcO) cent fee
includes acqu^pffc'fon of land on their property for
placing one lai"g* site or several smaller sites and
development. The developers' counter proposal is
that they put the facilities that are suggested on
city owned property and there would be a savings
for them due to the fact that no developer owned
land will be used. The committee recommends that
the fee be implemented at this time and determine
if the proper negotiations would be beneficial.
Donovan states that if development was to start
tomorrow for example, the fee would not then be
requi red.
Lawson queried as to the investigation of the
available sites in Zone S.
Mark Hughes indicates that there are some developed
and undeveloped pieces of property in Zone 5.
Carter states that the developer would have to
develop other pieces of land that are adjacent to
the industrial sites and facilities for park areas.
Lawson then assumes that the acquisition costs are
taking into account by Mr. Hughes' comments and
what the true land values would be.
MINUTES
Page 8
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
It is indicated that Mark Hughes did go out and
determined that the fair market value for the land
is $8 a square foot.
Lawson queries as to what is the recommendation of
the golf course.
Donovan indicates that the developers absolutely do
not want a golf course. There was discussion as to
having the Zone 5 developers, build the .course
which is predicated on the fact that the course
would be on Palomar Airport and El Camino Raal
which is owned by the county and that the city
would like to lease from the county. The city
would be able to have recreation facilities built
in the canyon upfront and take the money that was
set aside from Macario Canyon and pay for the golf
course. It was affirmed at one meeting that the
development community does not want to participate
in a golf course because they feel it would not
benefit the Zone 5 workers.
Lawson then asks whether or not the development
community wants this to be a related issue.
The committee accepts the non-participation of the
developers in a golf course project.
PUBLIC OPEN FORUM:
Mark Hughes, Zone 5 representative indicates that
the devel oper»,,b«t 1«ve that private enterprise, in
its' evol utforfjjijpuld address the desires of
recreational SSpflities. The concept of a fee and
the approprl^jjBpMs of a fee is something the
developers ha^wiHf f foul ty in accepting. The
positions have already be stated on this with the
staff's difference in opinion in regard to fee
structure versus some form of private enterprise.
The compromise process is one the development
community is in constantly in relation to the
public sector. He states that the goal of the
developers in Zone 5 is to satisfy the identified
concerns of the Parks & Recreation Department but
at the same time to secure the future of their
investments in the city by guaranteeing
marketability and therefore the economic future and
stability of the zone by commercial/industrial
development. There is a definite marriage that has
to take place between the economic future of that
corridor, which represents a significant portion of
the future fees and funds necessary to run the
infra-structure of the City -of Carlsbad. The
proposed developer compromise is not a definite
"this is it" or nothing suggestion. They wish to
pursue a compromise position which has the
flexibility to react the greater good of the
citizens of the City of Carlsbad while at the same
time benefit\ing the development of our lands and
meeting the needs of the employees in our zone.
MINUTES
r
Page 9
November 2, 1987
^
3\TL\2>
COMMISSIONERS
They are witling to recognize an interim fee, to
pursue the Hello Roos financing, to lend their
development expertise and planning and well as
their resources in order to pursue a compromise
position, and to entertain any reasonable set of
alternatives which addresses the needs and
economics in the fulfillment of the identified zone
requirements. In the process of the compromise,
they take issue with some of the qualifications of
what the Needs Assessment is to be but recognize
that there really is not a standard by which to
determine what facilities are needed for 40,000
people and that there will be 40,000 people
utilizing the facilities. The staff and committee
are therefore overdrawn in their conclusions using
the survey. The developers' real goal is a pact
between the city and the developers which provides
the city with all the public facilities mandated by
the Zone 5 Plan including circulation elements and
other things which will allow and guarantee the
continuity of the developments in the industrial
corridor which is so vital to the economic well-
being of the city and the future of the individual
developments. To achieve that goal the developer
requests that the commission recommend to the City
Council that they direct the city staff to work
with the developers to formulate an acceptable
alternative to the proposed interim fee structure,
which the developers believe falls short of
achieving the win-win position which could be
reached through the negotiation process.
Commissioner Lawson requests of Mark Hughes to
expand on the statement that private enterprise
would be able to resolve this issue in long run.
Mark Hughes started that generally speaking that in
the private sector a demand becomes evident for a
good, service or recreational amenity and the
private sector generally then responds to the
demand. A major private sector did look at the
opportunity of providing child care facilities and
restaurants, etc., but in looking at Zone 5 the
organization felt it was too green. For example,
the ballfield at the Safety Center, the three that
are proposed and the one that already exist, there
should be saturation in the use of the ballfield
that is out there at this time. Hughes feels that
there is no saturation. Private enterprise
provides for amenities as a marketing advantage in
drawing in additional monies.
Robert Rowes, Legal Council for Zone 5 property
owners in the Zone 5 area states that he has been
asked to address and review a number of legal
issues they are associated with in regard to the
impact fee. He points out that there are state
laws that determine that specific notice has to be
given to everyone who is going to be effected and
hear a specific factual basis for the nexus or
relationship between the impact and the adaption of
the scope of the development entitlements.
Page 10
MINUTES
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
It seems that most recently that the United States
Supreme Court decision Melvin vs. California
Coastal Commission. He doesn't believe that the
Zone 5 issue has been given the same treatment as
the City of Carlsbad's traffic impact or the south
Carlsbad traffic impact fees. With respect to the
authority for imposing a new standard for the local
facility zone and this relates to the issue of City
Wide versus Zone Wide, the growth management system
mandates in Section 21.90.110 (b) & (e)-that each
of the local zone plans be in conformity with the
city wide facility plan, so in looking to the city
wide facility plan there is no requirement, no
provision for parks and recreation in connection
with commercial, industrial, retail, office or any
other kind. There's nothing unique about the type
of employment base that is being provided or they
hope that will be provided in the future in the
Zone 5 compared with the employment base that
exists in Carlsbad Village, the shopping center
area, the commercial, industrial and retail sectors
along either side of 1-5, in the La Costa area and
future areas of the city. The perceived impact is
employees. Employees that work in the Zone 5 or
will work in the future are no different in terms
of their record than the employees in every other
business concern in this city, therefore there is
an unfair discriminatory impact. The developers
would also like to remind the commission that the
commercial industrial sector already contributes
very heavily to the Parks & Recreation component in
this city. The existing 3 1/2% public facility's
fee is historical, the records show the city spends
approximately 4O-41% of that public fee for
recreational ^pgrams. The property owners and
future users vf Zone 5 obviously figure their total
facilities feeT'of which 40-41% is already going to
the city's revenues and coffers is being used for
development of new recreational amenities and
program and maintenance of those programs as well.
Additionally, these projects are already provided
with a lunch area, open space areas, jogging
trails, par courses and other kinds of active and
passive recreational amenities as part of the
parks themselves let alone to what Mark refers to
as "a better mousetrap". There is a legitimate
demand and need and the private sector will provide
that in the future. In that regard, Rowes
believes the general plan actually suggests in the
commercial industrial areas to provide for in a
sense, the opportunity for private recreational
facilities to come in and meet that recreational
component as a whole is distinguished by taking
proper revenues out of the crity-wide recreational
programs to be spent in that zone. The proposal
violates public policies as expressed in the
subdivision Map Act Section 66477 and Governmental
Code Section 65961, it is suggesting that parks and
recreation elements and park in lieu of fee program
is not to be applied to commercial industrial
development.
MINUTES
r
Page 1 1
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Welshons queried as to what type of
recreational developments currently exists.
It was answered that there are par courses and
outdoor opened space areas, no definite answer as
to the number. As far as employee recreational
facilities provided by the private sector, Hughes
Aircraft has a fitness center, volleyball, etc.
Trammel Crows came into the Carlsbad Research
Center and put in a lap pool as part of the
amenities for their development. The Olympic Resort
as a private sector has tennis courts and
recreational right in the heart of Zone 5. There
is a organized par course on the property just
south of Palomar Airport Rd. which is at the
beginning of the Palomar Oaks project.
There is a major recreational park in the Koll
Complex that is within their structured plans that
will be developed in the future. A reservoir basin
that will be used functionally and will be further
developed to have jogging trails surrounding it, it
will be completed along with Phase III and IV and
will be completed in the middle of April.
Additionally, all of the developments in the area
are required to provide sidewalks, etc. and really
that is how the developers facilitate putting
jogging trails and cycling paths through the park.
There is really not many options opened, other
than to have dedicated large park facilities which
are in planning with the reservoir.
Commissioner Donovan comments that her unscientific
but personal »»frv«y was done by riding around the
various industiM»1 area during her lunch hour. She
stopped and queried persons on their desires; they
indicated that they would like to have benches and
jogging paths. Open lots were being used for
frisbee games due to the openness. She feels the
desires are not grandiose due to the time element
i.e., 1unch hour.
Commissioner Welshons notes that although there are
jogging paths and cycling paths there are no
facilities for showers.
Commissioner Donovan intones that since there are
no more questions could Mr. Rowes allow Mark Hughes
the floor.
Commissioner Dalhquist would like further
clarification in the legal ramifications.
It was noted that Mr. Rowes has good arguments, but
the City Council does not agree with the legal
counsel's determination of what the growth
management program does allow and does not allow,
the issues have been brought up before.
MINUTES
Page 12
November 2 , 1987 COMMISSIONERS C<P>
Commissioner Popovich suggests that the city's
legal counsel should review the Mr. Rowes'
comments.
Commissioner Donovan notes, as per Phil Carter's
comments, that the city attorney has reviewed the
comments.
Phil Carter determined that Mr. Rowes suggestions
have been perused as well as other property owners
comments. He states that Mr. Rowes is correct in
stating that a local facility's management fee
can't be established without the proper noticing,
the public has the ability to come before a public
hearing with the City Council and make their appeal
and have their input before a fee would be
implemented.
Mr. Bonford, Project Manager of the Kol1 Company
for the Carlsbad Research Center agrees that the
jogging trails, cycling lanes, etc. are a part of
the recommendation.
Commissioner Castner points out that the committee
has done a good job in establishing a need for
recreation in that area. He feels the legal issue
has been addressed. He also feels that there is no
question that 40,000 people in the area will
impact the city's recreation facilities. He feels
what must be done is that the commission must
recommend to the council that a fee be established
as soon as possible so that monies can be
collected. It will take a definite amount of time
to determine wftat the needs will be in the future.
There is a cht&fl to develop Macario Canyon. It is
noted that if «!>• chance is passed up at this time,
it is not likely that Macario Canyon will be
developed. If the developers and the city
cooperates with each other, it will be beneficial.
He feels the developers can saved 15 acres of
valuable land and the city gets a recreation
complex that is shared with the industrial zone's
40,000 people and with additional development in
that area the cost of the facilities could be
shared. Castner is in favor of the Mello Roos
Assessment District, he feels that the access
roads should be built. Castner states that the
access road should be built correctly, if the
developers don't want to give up 15 acres of their
land, then the 7,500 to 10,000 square foot fitness
center and a small swimming pool should be built.
A gym that is equal to the one in Stagecoach Park,
ballfields, a swimming pool and lighted basketball
courts, tennis courts, racqu'etball, etc. He feels
that golf course is related, if city land is used.
25% of the people in the survey stated that they
play golf. There is a huge demand for a golf
course in the city. He feels that if Macario
Canyon is not developed quickly, many
opportunities will be missed.
MINUTES
r
Page 13
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
It was noted by Commissioner Lawson that there has
been lot of discussion and consistent comment, it
is also noted that there is general agreement that
the users of the facilities will have limited time
so the facilities have to be with within close
proximity to the users.
There is no additional time to be spent on
traveling to the recreation facilities.
The question of whether or not the fee is being
considered and as an in lieu type and whether it
couid be and is there a basis to implement it.
Phil Carter agrees that these points are to be
noted and that it should be taken into
consideration that the commission should not
discourage the developers from providing these
facilities above and beyond what they are already
required to do.
Commissioner Lawson would like the commission to
recognize the fact that it is very important that
there will be some flexibility in the standards.
Commissioner Donovan asks how long would it take to
get to the Zone 5 area from Macario Canyon.
It is noted that it takes 5 minutes. Faraday will
be made into a two lane road with a bike path on
each side of the road. Going from that cul-de-sac
on down through the park and connecting through
Cannon Rd.
Commissioner Lfnrson points out that the zone has
yet to come eMIR*-'to build out, parking is an
1"ssue' lijf
Commissioner Castn«r refers to Commissioner
Lawson's statement on the issue of parking. He
feels that the developers should be encouraged to
have a fitness program but the commission should
first see what funds they have to work with.
Commissioner Donovan states that the city council
and commission will wants to give the developer
incentive to do more in providing the facilities
and doing more with the facilities as the city does
not have the facilities itself to provide
maintenance, etc. due to the number of the people
who will be using the facilities in the future.
Commissioner Dalhquist notes that <»0,000 people
will be in at build out time,'what is the year of
build out?
MINUTES
Page 14
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
It must be noted that the square footage is not
just determined for employees only,
warehousing/storing should be taken into
consideration. The year is 2013 to 2020.
Commissioner Castner moves that the commission
adopt the recommendations to develop Macario Canyon
and to put into that a gym the size of that in
Stagecoach Park, at least a 50 meter swimming pool,
3 ballfields, 3 full-sire basketball courts, all of
which are lighted, lighted tennis courts, outdoor
racquetbal 1 /handbal 1 courts and that this be
developed with a forty five (45) cent per square
foot assessment to be reviewed annually and that
the Mello Roos Assessment District be established
to put in the roads to complete Faraday Road and
take it in on through either to Cannon or Kelly,
that in the future, adjacent areas be considered
in contributing to this area and to the cost and
when the fee is reviewed annually, that it should
be raised or lowered according to the cost and that
the $7 million that is in the 1997 CIP be moved up
7 years and the golf course be developed either in
Macario Canyon or the county land if that is
aval 1 abl e .
Commissioner Welshons ask that the motion be broken
down .
Commissioners Castner and Donovan points out that
the motion only needs to be second or it will die
from lack of support.
Commissioner Donovan asks if the fee that was
initial fortyv|jM>) cent is being raised to forty
five (45) centlr by Commissioner Castner.
Commissioner Castner agrees and states that the
reason for his raising of the fee is that the year
2030 is a long time from now.
Commissioner Popovich moves that the fee be
established at forty (40) cents per square foot to
be reviewed annually. Commissioner Welshons
second .
Commissioner Lawson wants to know if all the fees
are set up under a review basis.
Carter states that PIL and PFF are on an annual
basis.
Commissioner Donovan repeats the motion of the
forty (40) cent fee be established to be reviewed
annually with the inflation mechanisms. Pass 6-0.
Commissioner Lawson makes a motion that the forty
(40) cent fee be established in lieu basis which
would provide the opportunity for staff to consider
alternatives to the specific amount of the fee, to
established alternatives for such facilities.
~
_
MINUTES
f
Page 15
November 2 COMMISSIONERS
Incentives should be given to the developers should
they, within their projects provide exceptional
facilities, that they are relieved in some fashion
from the specific forty (40) cents, it is for staff
to be able to determine this.
Commissioner Lawson further determines whether or
not the developer can dedicate the land instead of
paying the initial fee and that the committee, or
does the staff have the authority to exempt the
developer from that fee, so that the developer has
the opportunity to present to the City Council an
exemption from the fee by providing the facilities
above and beyond the norm.
Commissioner Welshons wants more clarification as
to whether or not the public will be allowed to use
the facilities.
Commissioner Castner indicates that standards will
have to be set up. He feels that build up of
Macario Canyon will be avoided.
Bradstreet indicates that build up of Macario
Canyon was and is already anticipated. But now the
build up is accelerated due to the project at hand.
Lawson feels that any fees will delay build up.
Commissioner Donovan indicates that there is a
motion on the table. She states that the discussion
should be kept to what the commission wants to do.
Commissioner tel*hons thinks that even though
facilities aRJptuflt they would need to be public
in some way, Jiatpv or form.
Bradstreet indicates that as Phil Carter stated
staff would have to work with the developer in that
case. That the commission cannot force the
developers to make the amenities public for their
own benefit. Incentives can be given to the
developers if they want to provide additional
public amenities but that would have to worked out.
Commissioner Donovan indicates that Commissioner
Lawson has a motion on the floor which is to
structure the fee on an in lieu basis. The motion
was 4-2 against.
Commissioner Lawson needs clarification as to what
was the reason to oppose the motion.
Commissioner Donovan indicates that she felt that
it was too complicated and it would be to complex.
MINUTES
Page 16
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Popovich feels that the subject is
drawn out and complicated. After all the meetings
that have been held the general conclusion is that
either developer would build the complex on their
land or the commission would go to Macario Canyon.
The commission did think that Macario Canyon was
the ideal location to put this project and in the
meantime the forty (40) cent fee in effect,
continue to collect the money until such time this
project was built in Macario Canyon and .when
finished, reimburse the developer if they built the
project upfront. He states that it getting to
complicated.
Commissioner Popovich makes a motion that the
commission recommends to the City Council that a
forty (40) cent fee be put in effect immediately;
then that the commission determines whether or not
the facilities that have been discussed will either
be built by the developer or built by the city.
If the city builds it, then the forty (40) cent fee
will be collected and if the developer builds it
then the monies will be reimbursed for the time
between now and the project's completion. Also the
motion to negotiate with the developers of Zone 5
to construct the recreational facilities.
Commissioner Welshons second.
Phil Carter repeats the second motion of the
commission is to ask the City Council to direct
staff to go back and work with the developers of
Zone 5 and to took at the possibility of them
developing th^facll ities. He needs clarification.
Clarification given. Commissioner Donovan requests
clarification as to what parameters of the
negotiation are to be put on the staff and
developers. She requests that Commissioner
Popovich repeat his motion.
Commissioner Popovich motions that commission
recommends to City Council to direct staff to
negotiate with the developers of Zone 5 to
construct the recreational facilities and that they
negotiations that are arrived at by the staff and
developers be brought back to the Parks &
Recreation Department for approval .
Commissioner Welshons seconds with the motion with
the understanding that the commission will advise
to the City Council.
Commissioner Donovan calls for the vote. The motion
was unanimously approved.
MINUTES
r
Page 17
November 2, 1987 COMMISSIONERS
There was some discussion by the council members as
to whether or not the proposal will be brought back
to the Parks & Recreation Department.
Also verification of the forty (40) cent fee was
needed as it was not understood whether or not it
was included in the motion.
Bradstreet reads from his staff report that the
proposal will be brought back after analysis to
the Parks & Recreation Commission and the City
Council for final approval. In the meantime, it is
recommend that the forty (40) cent fee be imposed.
If the City Council and Commission approves the
upfront development alternative then the collected
fees will be refunded. If there is no agreement,
the fee shall remain and be reviewed on an annual
basis to insure that there is sufficient funds
thera for development thru build out.
SCRIBE REPORT
Commissioner Donovan requests Commissioner lawson
read from his report. He reads that there was a
motion made that the staff recommendation of a
forty (40) cent fee with an annual basis. Pass 6-0.
An in lieu fee basis proposal failed 2-4. It was
indicated that it would add to much confusion to
the negotiations of this fee structure. Motion to
negotiate with developers of Zone 5 to construct
recreational facilities and negotiations be brought
sack to Parks *, R«creationCommission for review and
advisement to ,-Cg<ncil . Pass 6-0.
Commissioner VRffhons requests that to be included
in Commission*P^t«wson's report that the commission
was just following th« recommendation of the staff.
Because the staff report implies that the forty
(40) cent fee would be reimbursed. The staff
report expounds much more on the fee. Commissioner
welshons wants it stated "after much discussion and
deliberation, the above motions were made to pass
These followed staff recommendations and sub-
committee recommendations, for further or more
detailed explanation see the attached."
Commissioner Castner recommends that the Council
order the CIP to be reworked. The $7 million for
Macario Canyon be moved forward as far as possible
in order the for the golf course to be built.
Commissioner Lawson seconds.
Commissioner Dalhquist needs' clarification on the
motion.
Commissioner Castner also indicates if the county
land be used if at all possible. It is indicated
through the survey that a golf course is desired.
MINUTES
Page 18
November 2, 1987 'COMMISSIONERS
David Bradstreet indicates that the Finance
director should be invited to the next commission
meeting to outline the CIP the public facility fee
and the pluses and minuses of relocating projects
that have been approved by the City Council last
Tuesday .
He indicates that none of the projects are
finalized and can be relocated but the projects for
this year have been set. It can be analyzed and
found out through the Finance Director of what
funds can be used and the final cost.
Commissioner Donovan asks of Commissioner Castner
if his recommendation can be tabled until the
Finance Director's input can be analyzed at the
next meeting. Commissioner' Popovich indicates that
the recommendation is within the staff report.
There is room in Macario Canyon for a golf course.
Commissioner Donovan indicates that this is not a
major item in this meeting. Commissioner Popovich
indicates that since it concerns Macario Canyon it
should be addressed. Because it is city land it
needs to be addressed. Commissioner Castner agrees
to delay the motion.
Commissioner Lawson states as a direction to staff
that when reviewing and negotiating with developers
on sites that distance and convenience to the
workers be strongly considered.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper »ot|j||||>;the Meeting of November 2, 1987,
was adjournHBp^
Respectfully submitted,
Angela Cole
Minutes Clerk
—