HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-21; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
5:00 P.M.
April 21, 1986
City Council Chambers
COMMISSIONERS
CALL TO ORDER;
Chairman Wright called the Meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL;
Present - Chairman Wright, Commissioners Conti, Dahlquist,
Morrison and Regan.
Absent - Commissioners Donovan and Popovich.
Staff Present:
Dave Bradstreet, Director of Parks and Recreation
Keith Beverly, AAII
Lynn Chase, Recreation Superintendant
Connie Beardsley, Cultural Arts Coordinator
Vincent Biondo, City Attorney
Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director
PUBLIC OPEN FORUM;
There was no one present for the Open Forum.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES;
The Minutes of the March 17, 1986, Meeting were approved
as amended.
Page 8, 1st paragraph, change the sentence starting "This
snackbar is to be outside of the building" to further read
"and is to be operated by the Carlsbad High school Aquatic
Program."
APPROVAL OF AGENDA;
Chairman Wright announced Item No. 8D would be deleted from
this Agenda and be on the May Agenda.
Commissioner Dahlquist asked for an item to be added to the
Agenda regarding the posting of signs on the right-of-way to
the city beaches.
The Agenda was approved as amended.
APPOINT SCRIBE;
Commissioner Dahlquist was appointed Scribe for this
Meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS;
A. Scribe Report
Chairman Wright called attention to the Scribe Report in the
packet.
Wright
Conti
Dahlquist
Morrison
Regan
Wright
Conti
Dahlquist
Morrison
Regan
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Paeb&IMISSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS; (continued)
B. Brown Act
City Attorney Vincent Biondo stated public business should
be done in the public. There is no reason, at anytime, to
conduct any business of any Commission or Council, whether
appointed or elected, except at a public meeting. There is
no legitimate reason for a closed session. He added if the
Parks and Recreation Commission ever felt the need for a
closed session, confer with him first.
Chairman Wright asked if the need arose for a question to be
addressed by the Commission, he asked whether they could
take a vote or make a recommendation to staff through a
telephone-type survey. Mr. Biondo stated they could not.
They must have a meeting as a group. He stated the Brown
Act applies to this Commission, inasmuch as it is an
advisory body passing on matters of importance to the
community. Those recommendations go to the Council and the
recommendations are a significant factor in the decision-
making process. Therefore, the Commission is required to do
its business in public.
Chairman Wright inquired if an item were going to Council
and the Commission needed to meet, what is the notice
requirement, and Mr. Biondo stated 24 hours. He added staff
knows how to call a special meeting. The City Clerk does
this all the time. There is a standard form and the Agenda
must be published. Also, that meeting would be limited
specifically to those matters listed on that Agenda.
City Attorney Vincent Biondo gave a handout to the
Commission Members updating the Brown Act, and a League of
Cities brochure with questions and answers. He stated if
they had any further questions, to please give him a call.
In answer to query regarding social situations, Mr. Biondo
answered if the Commissioners meet in a social situation,
they must refrain from discussing any Commission business.
C. Growth Management Program
Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director, distributed copies of
the Land Use Program, the Implementation Program of the Land
Use Element Review and the Development and Community
Facilities Management Zones, as well as part of the report
entitled "Information For Development and Community
Facilities Management Program".
Mr. Holzmiller used transparencies and wall charts to
indicate these programs and explained he would give a
summary of the Growth Management Programs approved by City
Council, or considered by City Council, that are being
worked on by staff. He stated this would be an overview of
the programs and he would touch on those that affect the
planning on park facilities.
Mr. Holzmiller stated the twenty-five member Citizens
Committee reviewed the Land Use Element and presented 26
tasks to be completed. At this point, three of those tasks
have been completed, twelve are partially completed, and
eleven are being worked on at the present time.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PaV(^yiM|SSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS; (continued)
Mr. Holzmiller referred to the Land Use Programs report,
showing the 16 items listed. He stated two items were of
interest to the Parks and Recreation Commission, those being
density reductions and Development and Community Facilities
Management Program. He said that based on the reductions
already made in density, the population at buildout has been
reduced by about 20,000 people, to a total of 137,000. He
stated this was important as far as park planning, as there
will be fewer people and smaller figures for planning parks.
The Development and Community Facilities Management Program
attempts to better coordinate the public facilities when
they are needed. It is a refinement of the Public
Facilities Fund Program that the City has implemented. More
planning and decisions will be made on "when" and "how"
public facilities and services are to be provided, before
individual projects are considered in different areas of the
City. This plan is now going through a refinement period.
There was a thirty-day comment period provided, and the
program is in that period at this time. Due to the comments
being made, refinements and changes are being made in that
program.
Mr. Holzmiller stated the City has been divided into three
categories and twenty-five zones. He referred to the
exhibits" on the wall showing the three categories,
urbanized, urbanizing, and future urbanizing. He stated
this was an important part of the program, as priority will
be given to the urbanized areas first. The urbanizing area
will be considered second and the future urbanizing will be
considered last. He also referred to the chart showing the
twenty-five zones of the City. This part of the program
provides for any additional development that occurs in any
zone, including those with discretionary approvals, a
community facilities management program has to be approved
for that zone. All public facilities would be looked at and
a program specifically listing the requirements for the
facilities and services must be approved. The program will
have to determine when the requirement will be made and how
it will be provided. This would allow development to go
forward in that area.
Mr. Holzmiller stated the third major part of the program
was the proposed adequacy standards. This is similar to the
performance standards for each zone and these standards must
be met as far as services and facilities before development
occurs. This will provide a tool to measure the level of
•adequacy of public facilities and services as development
proceeds in each area. All the information will be brought
together at the time of the annual budget and the CIP.
In answer to query, Mr. Holzmiller stated the standards for
the zones would be community-wide standards, and not
different in each zone. As development proceeds in each
zone, the standards will have to be met. He gave examples
of the standards, as far as circulation, and stated density
is another factor that would be looked at In each zone.
Mr. Holzmiller commented the standards for parks is going to
be revised, based on input from Mr. Bradstreet. He stated
the park land requirement would go up to 3 acres per 1,000
residents. The determination would be made whether there
would be a community park or a special use facilities in
that zone.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page
COMMISSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS; (continued)
Mr. Holzmiller explained the five-year period of time in
which to bring facilities and services up to standards was
chosen because the CIP program is a five-year program.
Normally all the different elements are reviewed every five
years.
Mr. Holzmiller stated there are three categories for
providing services. One, services that have to be in place
before even one unit is built, such as sewer, water and
drainage. Next is the grouping of services needed to be
upgraded as development occurs, such as a road needing to be
widened. The third group is the things that depend upon
demand, such as parks and libraries. Those services are not
built in increments, but there has to be a plan to know when
they will be built. The first part of this program is to
require more decisions and commitments to be made first as
to what is needed, when it is needed and how it will be put
in, instead of as development is approved. The second part
of the performance standard is to make certain that
standards are met. If standards are not met, something
needs to be done or development may have to stop in that
area.
Commissioner Dahlqulst inquired how the twenty-five zones
fit into the four quadrants, which is the way the Parks and
Recreation Commission decides the areas where parks are
needed. Mr. Holzmiller stated they tried to get. the
boundaries to comply with the boundaries of the other zones
and quadrants. However, they will be making overlays to
Indicate such things as the four quadrants and how that does
fit in with the twenty-five zones.
Dave Bradstreet stated Parks and Recreation Department has a
plan for each district for one or two community parks under
the current element. He asked how the twenty-five zones
relate to the community parks as designed.
Mike Holzmiller stated the twenty-five zones would need to
each cooperate with the other zones in order to meet the
standards for that particular area of a quadrant.
Mr. Bradstreet stated the element wants fewer parks and
larger parks. With twenty-five zones, this might not fit
into that program. Mr. Holzmiller stated that Council had
approved the outline of the program in concept, and they had
started the public review period. In May, the formal
adoption of the outline will be made and this will be put
into an Ordinance. The Ordinance needs to be in effect
before the moratorium expires 3uly 20, 1986. He said they
are going to make some refinements and some changes. This
question regarding the four quadrants will be considered.
Commissioner Regan Inquired about the Citizen's Initiative
and what effect that might have on Parks and Recreation
plans. Dave Bradstreet stated If the initiative passed, it
would certainly slow down the construction and completion of
any parks.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page 5
COMMISSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS; (continued)
In answer to Commissioner query, Mike Hoizmilier stated it
would be an easy thing to prepare an overlay showing the
four quadrants and how that relates to the twenty-five
zones.
D. Creation of Foundation
Lynn Chase, Recreation Superintendant, stated she had
researched the possibility of a foundation to solicit
donations to support Parks and Recreation. She had
conferred with Connie Beardsley, Cultural Arts Coordinator,
and Ms. Beardsley would continue the report at this time.
Connie Beardsley, Cultural Arts Coordinator, stated the
foundation for the Cultural Arts addresses the arts of
Carlsbad and does not address the Parks and Recreation or
recreation programs. She gave the history of the
establishment of the Cultural Arts Program and the hiring of
the Coordinator. She stated the foundation had already been
established at the time she was hired, since it was
established through the Ordinance.
Lynn Chase stated that inasmuch as there Is a Cultural Arts
Foundation at this time, she felt it was not the proper time
to consider establishing another foundation.
E. Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club Report
Dave Bradstreet gave the report on this item stating the
Boys and Girls Club is almost out of a place to conduct
their programs. At the Commission's last meeting they asked
for help. Staff and Commission Members have explored the
possibility of other, sites for the Boys and Girls Club
programs.
Commissioner Morrison reported they had met with the other
Members and felt the use of the Parks and Recreation
building at Levante might hamper the park's programs. She
stated Commissioner Dahlquist had a recommendation and she
would turn the report over to Commissioner Dahlquist at this
time.
Commissioner Dahlquist stated they could relocate the
building over to the side by the present Parks and
Recreation building. That Is park property and is being
used for a bicycle parking lot at the present time.
Dan Sherlock, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club,
addressed the Commission stating the School District did not
accept Commissioner Dahlquist's suggestion. The Community
Center would be available for a limited number of hours. He
showed a drawing from the architect of the School District
showing the school site, Community Building, parking lot and
location of the school. He stated the intent was to fence
the recreational compound the entire length of the property
with chainlink fencing while building the school. The
School District said there would be heavy equipment nearby,
and they felt It would not be safe to have the Boys and
Girls Club in the area close to the existing park building.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page 6
COMMISSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (continued)
As an option, Mr. Sherlock stated they had been offered the
space on the far southwest corner of the property with
access from Segovia Way. He stated there is only one
drawback, and that is the 400-foot walk to the restrooms.
This plan will be presented to the School Board on Thursday
night and it is hoped it will be approved so they will be
able to set the mobile unit up in that new area. He stated
it would only take one day to do this, so there would be no
time lost from the programs.
In answer to query, Mr. Sherlock stated they were contacting
the developers in the area to find an alternative for their
permanent site, Inasmuch as they have heard nothing from the
Coastal Commission. They do not know at this point whether
or not they will receive permission to do the work that
needs to be done to make that a usable area.
Dave Bradstreet stated Levante is a Special Use Area on
lease until the school is built, and then it will be for
Parks and Recreation use on an after-school basis.
Chairman Wright stated the building at Levante would be used
for both school and Parks and Recreation.
Dave Bradstreet stated that staff had not installed the
amenities into Levante without checking with the School
District. This Commission had approved those amenities at
the. time it was done. There is now a new plan, and it was
not in the original plan to tear out the basketball court.
This is a safety requirement by the State. However, it will
be replaced with a new, more pliable material. Mr.
Bradstreet stated he was concerned about losing the
ballfield, because they were told they would not lose the
ballfield when the school was built. The tot lot will not
be relocated.
In answer to Commission questioning, Mr. Bradstreet
reiterated this property was owned by the Carlsbad Unified
School District and is classified as a Special Use Area.
F. Macario Canyon Park Development Golf Course Feasibility
Study
Mr. Bradstreet stated the Commission had recommended to
Council the revision of the Master Plan be looked at after
the completion of Calavera and Stagecoach Parks. The
Commission did want the theater and the golf course study.
By a 3 to 2 vote, Council approved the Commission's
recommendation to wait until the parks were completed. They
voted to go ahead with the feasibility study on the golf
course. Mr. O'hara was disappointed, as he wanted Council
to give more support to their study for the theater
feasibility, but the Council could not commit the City's
support for the study results for the theater. Some wanted
to tie the theater study in with the golf course study, but
the golf course study had already been approved.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page 7COMMISSIONERS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS; (continued)
Mr. Bradstreet stated he had asked Council to set up a
committee to help the Parks and Recreation Commission to
select a consultant to work on the golf course study and the
Council felt that was the Commission's responsibility. That
committee would be the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr.
Rradstreet stated he wanted to have certain members
appointed by the Chairman to help him interview the six
RFP's that have been submitted. He stated he would need
someone two and a half hours during the day and would like
three Commissioners for this interviewing.
Chairman Wright appointed Commissioners Donovan, Popovich
and Regan to assist with the interviewing for the consultant
for the golf course feasibility study.
Commissioner Dahlquist asked whether the theater study was
going to be included, and Chairman Wright stated that was a
separate proposal. Council direction was to go ahead with
the golf course feasibility study. The theater study and
the ballfields are not being considered at this time.
Commissioner Morrison stated the studies would determine
whether or not the Master Plan would be revised at a later
date.
NEW BUSINESS;
Chairman Wright requested Item No. C be discussed at this
time.
C. SDG&E Proposal
Dave Bradstreet reported the proposal is to use the Cannon
Lake site in lieu of Cannon Park on Carlsbad Boulevard. He
referred to attachment H in the packet, which is the letter
from Mr. Dudley, Supervisor of the Land Management
Department, SDG&E. He stated proposals one and five were
not to be considered.
Mr. Bradstreet stated Cannon Park on Carlsbad Boulevard is
leased to the City as a Special Use Area. It is a practice
Softball area, outdoor basketball area, green area and tot
lot. SDG&E wants this property back, and they have that
right as long as they give a 60-day notice. They have
presented a proposal to the City that they would take this
property back any time after 60 days to 1989, and in return
they want to offer $100,000 for development of another area
to replace this.
There has been discussion about using Cannon Lake property,
which is in the park inventory as community parkland. The
City wants to keep that property, and it was dedicated by
Mr. Cannon around 1978 to be a children's park or a passive
area. The Cannon Lake area is seven acres instead of the
one acre in Cannon Park. The area surrounding Cannon Park
is dangerous, due to the heavy traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard
and Cannon Road. It would be much safer to have the
activities another area.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS .AND RECREATION COMMISSION Paqe 8
COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS; (continued)
Commissioner Conti made a motion to direct staff to study
the Cannon Lake property and its usage of whatever funds
available from SDG4E, subject to negotiation, and come back
to the Commission with a plan, for what can be done with that
property. Chairman Wright seconded the motion.
Commissioner Morrison inquired whether there was a time
limit for accepting the $100,000 from SDG4E. Mr. Dudley
stated SDG4E is asking the Commission to accept their plan
in concept, and the details would be worked out later. They
would like a contractual arrangement with the City to
provide the funds for the park development and do an aerial
survey now. They would submit the aerial survey to the
Planning Department and would transfer the funds to the City
before 1989. There would be three years to do the planning
and development of the new park area.
Mr. Dudley stated it was felt $100,000 was sufficient to do
what was necessary at Cannon Lake Park, including fencing
along the railroad, or whatever might be deemed necessary to
make a safe playground area.
With the consent of the second, Commissioner Conti amended
his motion to read as follows:
Parks and Recreation Commission accepted in concept the
proposal to receive $100,000 from SDGAE for development of
Cannon Lake Park to replace Cannon Park, and directed staff
to come back with recommendations.
A. Calavera Hills Community Park Development
Dave Bradstreet reported an Agenda Bill will go before
Council April 22, 1986, and Phase I of Calavera Hills Park
will be out to bid. It is estimated park development will
start sometime in July. The cost of the park has been
updated and they are not asking approval of additional funds
at this time.
Chairman Wright stated there was no action needed on this
item at this time.
B. H.P.I./Staff/Parks & Recreation Commission Committee
Park Site Tour
Dave Bradstreet reported that Paul Klukas was present
representing H.P.I. Properties. A map was used to indicate
the land H.P.I. Properties is recommending to be dedicated
to the City for a park. After the density on the H.P.I,
property was reduced, the number of acres owed to the City
was reduced from 4-0 to 30 acres. The Committee had looked
at the area and the Commissioners thought it was good
property. Mr. Bradstreet asked for authorization to go
ahead with this proposal. They also were looking at the
proposal made by Sammis Properties, who owes the five acres
to the City. They have offered to put their amount of fees
Into the development of a portion of that 30 acres dedicated
by H.P.I. Properties. The developers have worked together
to come up with a proposal for a turnkey park to be provided
by Sammis on part of the 30 acres dedicated by H.P.I.
Properties.
Wright
Conti
Dahlquist
Morrison
Regan
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page 9
COMMISSIONERS
NEW BUSINESS; (continued)
Mr. Bradstreet called attention to a wall chart showing a
conceptural plan for that park. There would be two
ballfields, two soccer fields overlayed and basketball
courts, tennis courts and passive areas.
Commissioner Conti inquired whether it was possible to get
five acres of land from Sammis Properties rather than the
proposal to spend the money on the H.P.I, property.
Commissioner Conti stated he would prefer to get the acreage
rather than have the H.P.I, property improved by Sammis.
Commissioner Conti made a motion to divorce the Sammis
Property requirement from the H.P.I, property and direct
staff to enter negotiations with Sammis based on the Council
Directive established for whatever number of acres required.
Chairman Wright seconded the motion.
Commissioner Conti continued, stating 30 acres was not the
entire amount of park property as shown on the map
represented by the green dot.
Chairman Wright stated this was what was required at
H.P.I.'s buildout. The 30 acres would be given up front
instead of after development.
The suggestion was made to take the fees from Sammis'
Properties and buy land either adjacent to this H.P.I,
property, or in a different area.
Commissioner Conti restated his motion to direct staff to
continue negotiations with Sammis Properties to divorce
Sammis from the H.P.I. Proposal and to continue to negotiate
with Sammis for property rather than development of H.P.I
properties.
Commissioner Conti stated he would like some of Sammis
Property in a prime area, preferably with a view.
Discussion among Commissioners determined Sammis would
probably not dedicate any prime land to the City for park
area.
Commissioner Conti reiterated he wanted to continue to
divorce Sammis' proposal from H.P.I. Properties and
negotiate with Sammis to purchase additional property
abutting the H.P.I, property.
With the consent of the second, Commissioner Conti withdrew
his original motion.
Dave Bradstreet stated the school district has been
negotiating to purchase land in that area, and the cost was
stated to be around $50,000 per acre.
Mr. Lucas stated H.P.I, was not willing to dedicate any more
of their land than the 30 acres required for the park.
However, there was property adjacent to this area that was
not owned by Hunt Properties.
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Page 10
COMMISSIONERS
NEW-BUSINESS; (continued)
Commissioner Regan stated she felt 30 acres was sufficient
for the park area, and was in favor of accepting this
property from H.P.I, and proceeding. She felt Commissioner
Conti's suggestion had merit, and if the City Council could
get more than ^ 1/2 acres from Saronis, she felt that would
be fine. However, she felt the Commission at this time was
considering whether or not they wanted to proceed with this
piece of property from H.P.I.
Parks and Recreation Commission accepted the park site from
H.P.I. Properties, and to renegotiate with Sammls to purchase
land adjacent to H.P.I. Park site for their P.I.L. Dedicatior
Requirement.
C. SOGJE Proposal
This item was taken out of order. (See Page 7)
D. Park-In-Lieu Update Report
This item was deferred until the May meeting.
COUNCIL REPORT
Council Member Pettine was not present at this time.
COMMITTEE REPORT;
A. Senior Citizen Feasibility Study
Commissioner Contl reported Sue Spickard had stated there werje
2,000 seniors who paid dues, with approximately 200 of those
members active. He further added the bingo game is not held
specifically for the senior citizens, but is a money-raising
affair for the Senior Citizens Association.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS;
A. Right-of-way Signs
Commissioner Dahlquist stated she saw no right-of-way signs
designating the beach areas, and Dave Bradstreet stated the
signs are in the process of being completed and will be put
up as soon as possible.
SCRIBE REPORT;
Commissioner Dahlquist gave the Scribe Report.
Wright
Conti
Dahlquist
Morrison
Regan
MINUTES
April 21, 1986 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Pa%JWMISSIONERS
MAY MEETINGt
Dave Bradstreet announced the May 19, 1986, Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting will be held at Levante Park
Community Center at 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT;
By proper motion, the Meeting of April 21, 1986, was
adjourned at 7:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
HARRIETT BABBITT
Minutes Clerk
HB:tc
May 13, 1986
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KEITH BEVERLY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY/CONSULTANT SELECTION
After a tabulation of the rating forms used by the selection
committee to evaluate each firms written golf course feasibility
study and oral presentation, the top two consultant firms have
been identified. Economics Research Associates was the firm
with the highest overall ranking, followed by Laventhol & Horwath.
Reference inquiries have been performed and the reputations of
both consultant groups appear beyond reproach. It is recommended
that the Parks and Recreation Commission select the firm of
Economics Research Associates to conduct the Golf Course
Feasibility Study.
KB: dm
ATTACHMENT B
May 14, 1986
TO: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR'
DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES FOR CANNON LAKE COMMUNITY PARK
Below is the estimated cost to develop the Cannon Lake Community
Park as per the conceptual plan designed by the City's Park
Planner on May 13, 1986.
Area (acres)
1. Cannon Lake Site
A.
B.
Land
Water
Total
State Property
A. Land
B. Wetland Area
Total State and City Acreage
(land and water surface)
Total 11.0
17.7
Total State and City Developable Land - 10.7 acres
Construction Cost (Based on 10.7 acres)
1. Grading & Site Work @ $60,000/AC $642,000
2. Restrooms (2) @ $80,000 160,000
3. Security Lights 60,000
4. Soil, Engineering, EIR Reports 30,000
Total $892,000
5. Design - 7% 62,500
6. Engineering -10% 89,200
7. Administration - 5% 44,600
8. Inspection - 5% 44,600
Total $240,900
(Items 1-4)
(Items 5-8)
15% Contingency
Grand Total
$ 892,000
240,900
$1,132,900
169,935
$1,302,835
-z/r
DB: jm Attachment C
MARIE E. QUISENBERRY
5140 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 438-1094
April 29, 1986
Mr. David Bradstreet, Parks and
Recreation Director, and Members of
the Parks and Recreation Board
The City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Bradstreet and Members:
Re: Cannon Park
The endorsement by the Parks and Recreation Department of the offer of
San Diego Gas & Electric Company to pay to the City $100,000 for the return
of Cannon Park was hasty and ill-advised. And the statements of Mr. Dudley,
SDG&E's supervisor of land management and development, relating to the
benefits to be derived by the citizens of Carlsbad for the exchange were
faulty. The only benefit from the exchange will accrue to SDG&E.
Your Board apparently has no knowledge of the background incident to
the establishment of Cannon Park.
Prior to execution of the lease between SDG&E and the City, SDG&E had
applied to the City for a permit to install a maintenance yard on its
property at the corner of Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. At the
Council meeting at which the hearing on this application was held the
households of Terramar were almost 100% represented, most if not all, of
whom opposed SDG&E's application. As a result, the City Council
disapproved the application for the maintenance facility but authorized
SDG&E to establish a storage yard, provided that the company set aside the
corner [on which Cannon Park is now located] as a buffer zone and to build
the wall presently surrounding its facility.
Once SDG&E agreed to these terms and the 'buffer zone' was
established, the matter of its use was considered and the result was
the lease to the City for use as a park. SDG&E did not want to have to
maintain the "buffer zone". Mr. Conti's statement, "It's their property.
They can take it back whenever they like. I don't see any option", indi-
cates a lack of knowledge on the background of the establishment of the
park.
It is to be hoped that the City Council will give serious consideration
to any proposal by SDG&E for the lifting of the earlier requirement of the
reservation of this 'buffer zone1.
ATTACHMENT D
SDGSE works in devious ways:
Early this year two representatives of SDG&E spoke before a meeting of
the Terramar Association for the purpose of educating residents of Terramar
on its plans for development of its property west of the Freeway between
Cannon Road and the Lagoon:
1. At the meeting no mention whatsoever was made of its
intention to request the return of Cannon Park.
2. The representatives characterized their proposed building as
a "Customer Service" building, serving approximately 100 customers per
month, with a staff of about 60 people. Mr. Dudley, as was reported
in area newspapers recently, now characterizes this proposed building
as an "Administration Center". My definition of an "Administration
Center" is totally different from that of a "Customer Service"
building. A designation as an "Administration Center" connotes far greater
activity than a designation as a "Customer Service" building.
At the meeting the representatives' statements tended to lead those
present to believe that there would not be a great deal of activity
or traffic generated by the proposed use as a "Customer Service"
building. An "Administration Center" normally includes many more
activities than those carried on in a "Customer Service" operation
with resultant increase in traffic.
Mr. Dudley apparently stated to your board that the existing park has safety
problems because of its location at the intersection of two major streets.
Granted there are some safety problems but these are only sporadic but not
of the magnitude which Mr. Dudley's statement would seem to indicate. Use
of the park is seasonal, the heaviest use being in the summer when baseball
games are played there. These occur only 2 or 3 times a week and not every
week. The park is used a few times each year as the staging ground for
special events, such as bicycle races. Cars park along Cannon Road and
Carlsbad Boulevard for the periods during which these games and events are
in progress. The remainder of the time the park is used by residents who
travel there on foot. Moving the park across Cannon Road would not substan-
tially eliminate these few traffic problems. If a building is constructed
on the present Cannon Park site, there will be day long automobile traffic,
entering and exiting from and to either Carlsbad Boulevard or Cannon Road,
whichever street is determined to be used for the entrance to the building.
Lastly, the Board has voted to accept $100,000 for the return of the park.
Park Commissioner Kathy Regan's concern about the feasibility of using the
Cannon Lake property as a park was justified. This property has been found
unsuitable for either a "Teen Center" or a "Senior Center". Certainly, it
is likewise unsuitable as a park for small children, ball games, and other
recreational activities. So what happens to the $100,000? It will no doubt
be swallowed up in the cost overruns on other City parks now being planned
and we will be minus a park in a different part of the City to the
detriment of the residents in that area.
This "offer" by SDG&E needs a great deal more thought and investigation.
Sincerely,
cc:Mayor Casler and the
Carlsbad City Council Marie E. Quisenberry ATTACHMENT 0-1
May 9, 1986
TO: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
FROM: MARK STEYAERT, PARK PLANNER
REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM MEDIAN DESIGN
STANDARDS - KELLY RANCH PROJECT
As the attached letter indicates, the landscape architect for
Kelly Ranch, on behalf of the developer, would like to differ
from our median standard on the future Cannon Road adjacent
to the project (see site plan).
The median standard that relates to planting and surface
treatment is outlined in the City of Carlsbad's Landscape
Guidelines Manual (section attached) and was adopted by the
City Council in May of 1983.
The reason for developing a median standard and proposing this
particular design was for two major reasons:
1. To tie the City together with a set of common themes
throughout the major arterials.
2. To set forth a design that would be attractive yet
maintainable.
a) The stamped concrete area between planters allows
crews to drive up onto the medians and safely
maintain the planters.
b) Reducing the total planter area (rather than
having the whole median planted) reduces water
consumption which the City pays for.
Staff RECOMMENDS DENIAL of this variance request. Agreeably,
each major project in Carlsbad has unique characteristics. To
allow each project to vary from our median standard would nullify
reason No. 1 above for creating the standard. Secondly, this
variance proposes to increase the planting area from the standard.
If this project (and subsequent other projects) are allowed to
substitute a higher maintenance design, there could be a negative
cumulative effect in terms of maintenance cost to the City.
MS: jm
Attachment: Letter from landscape architect
Site plan and median standard
c: Clyde Wickham, Engineering
Wayne Florian, Florian Martinez Assoc.
Parks & Recreation Commission
ATTACHMENT E
FLO RI AN MARTINEZ ASSOCIATES PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • REGULATORY SERVICES
September 30, 1985
Mr. Mark Steyaert, Park Planner
Parks & Recreation Department
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Reference: Kelly Ranch
Gentlemen:
Our firm is serving as the Master Landscape Architect on the
referenced project for Kaufman & Broad and Cal Communities.
As the Landscape Architect, we are extremely interested in
providing design solutions that are responsive to the spirit of
the project as envisioned by the City staff, City Planning
Commission, City Council, the California Coastal Commission and
established City of Carlsbad Design Standards.
It is one of the established City Design Standards that prompts
this letter. It is our professional opinion that the City's
design requirements for the 18 foot wide street median strip to
be located within Cannon Road is inconsistent with the native
coastal character of the contiguous coastal wetlands and the
adjacent native hillside vegetation to be protected.
The City mandated median strip design requires the majority of
the median strip be covered with stamped concrete with regular
cutouts for tree and shrub planting. We are requesting that
this more urban solution be waived for this project and instead
a fully planted median strip design be substituted.
Specifically, we are proposing to use City approved Eucalyptus
trees as the primary tree planting with several other
appropriate varieties of smaller trees for accent massing.
Shrubs and ground cover planting will largely utilize native
plant varieties so as to minimize water consumption and
maintenance problems. The irrigation system will be designed
in such a way so as to again minimize wasted water, maintenance
and potential overspray onto adjacent road areas.
Certainly, it is impossible to say that our proposed solution
will require less maintenance than the existing City Design
Standard. It is though possible to say with justification that
13132 Newport Avenue, Suite 110, Tustin, California 92680. (714) 731-6011
Wayne M. Florian, A. S. L A., Gilbert M. Martinez, Jim Stebbms. A. S. L. A., William F Laymon
ATTACHMENT E-l
Mr. Mark Steyaert September 30, 1985
City of Carlsbad Page Two
with careful design, the additional maintenance will certainly
be within acceptable limits and given the very unique ecology
of the adjacent coastal wetlands will certainly be overall a
far superior solution in terms of visually protecting a very
important part of the City of Carlsbad's beauty.
Sincerely,
FLORIAN MARTINEZ
Wayne M. Florian, ASLA
President
Calif. License #1161
ke
cc Clyde Wickham, City of Carlsbad
Mike Howes, City of Carlsbad
Bob Galloway, Kaufman & Broad
Bill Shanker, Kaufman & Broad
Jerry Gates, Kaufman & Broad
Wayne Callahan, Cal Communities
ATTACHMENT E-2
#'
ATTACHMENT E-3
(0
UJa.
uUJec
JJ TJ
CU CO
Ij ^J
JJ 3
CQ O
(U U
,i3 J
JJ 42
uj a;
OTJ
P ca
CD TJ
JJ COo oCO Pp
CO cu
4= JC
CJ JJ
r-t 00
r-l C
CO Op I—Icu ca
O TJ
0)
CU JJJ= cou O .o >.
JJ i-l COcu 3ca cu i
p U-I
CO CO O
0) TJ JJ
P C4=
JJ CO 00
•rH
CU CU P
CO O.a; co cu
4Z CJ 4=E-" ca jj
I
(ft
1
<U "JJ M
JB "'a£*- »
4J -i-l
JJcCUTJ OE 0) 3
CU JJ JJ
i—I CO
O--rl U-4
Br-l Oo
U CU JJ
CO -r<o o eJJ 43 -r<
cu E
JJ O CO
O P C
cu u-( O
I—I -rl
0) CO JJ
CO 0) •!-!
CUTJ
(UPC
P JJ OCU CJ
3 JJu cu
CO CU JJ
0) r-l -rtCD cu ca
o
CU • OJca 'cu ••">
CU CU O
41 p Pt-> u a.
o^
a
O<N
o
CU
0) '"opo.
CD
jj CD^^ m r»CO,
P JJ
- p
TJ O0) u-i
jj
CJ CU
CU <JJI—I p
CUco
0) JJ
P CO
O- CU
f^ P^fc o.
0) <0 CO
CU -C
42 JJ
CO>o
>sJJ
JJ (U 'r4
O CO Uc o
O P
CU 4S O
> O UJ
CO
JC C JJ
CO 1H
CO CJ<u(1)JJ
SLJo
QJ r-*ca cua> >jc a)
T5 CO
£ •
•^ 9
*- eu o
0)
CO
CJ
a.
CL
CO
TJ
0)
3cr
0)
(U
p
COo.
ca
CO
COJJ
cac
JS
o-6
r-i a>co e
42 0)
CQ >o
CQ
0)
(Up
JJ JJ
CU (U
CQ 0)
0) P
-C JJe- co
I
•o «
IB «
(0 «
SH
e
(0
43
COo
CLa.
CO
0)
JJ CCOc
•rl CO
JJ
JJ C
D -1-Ho oo.
CO C
CJ CU
CQ >%
C AJ
•2 CJ to"
JJ cl)
CJ CD 0)
CU 4J p
ca JJ
P r-l
0)
AJ i-l
C 3
co
us
CO
TJ
(VJJ
CJ 3=
Q) f—I *r*
r-l O0) W a)
CD Qu O.i < ca
P C/3
Q-E-iw
<jj b3
S orfO 6-C73 C/5
I
95
tu
UJo
UJa.<o
(0o
« >
00 CO
C P0)dJ JJ
CUTJ CCO COu ,a
CQ CQ O.
oo
ATTACHMENT E-4
ONA
May 12,1986
Landscape Architecture • Planning
Wells Fargo Bank Building
101W Broadway/Suite 505
San Diego, CA 92101
619 239-2450
City of Carlsbad
Parks and Recreation Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Attention: Mr. David Bradstreet
Project: Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park
Subject: Landscape Median
Dear Mr. Bradstreet:
Sammis Properties, developer of this project, would like to request a deviation from the
city "standard" median treatment in the development of landscape medians for their project.
Attached is a copy of the proposed concept for your consideration. We understand that the
"standard" median treatment has been developed for purposes of visual continuity, ease of
maintenance and water conservation.
In the case of the Batiquitos Lagoon project, we feel that the proposed deviation would be
appropriate for the following reasons:
1. Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park is a destination point, therefore it will
create its own visual identity unlike projects along a City thoroughfare.
2. The project has a balanced landscape varying from manicured areas to
drought tolerant/native areas. Maintenance and water conservation are key
components of this balance.
3. The medians contained in this project will not be maintained by City forces.
We feel that the proposed treatment as a component of our total program will result in an
aesthetic and responsible landscape. Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Yours truly,
ONA, INC.
ack T. Nakawatase, ASLA
Principal
JTNxjh
Encl.
cc: Sammis Properties
ATTACHMENT F
.lank Nakawatase • 1458 / Dennis Otsuii • 1557
a£
a
t/5•s2
asg cc o<f> <
3Q.e
s
VO Z00 O"Ox M
< Q.
8
co
52'
m
•• o
CJ
Jt
CO
0
s
CJ
.*
00
r-
CJ
00
u
00
CJ
CO
r-
u
CO
u
PJ
u
d-
0\
VO
* a</) ^
vorj
orj
00s
fi
s
u
OS
<->!<i
<!o]
<!
Attachment G
§1
h-CO
O
m.
£
I
HHa
S
z.-W
g
Q.
I
Q
I
H-COhHo
>-JO
*•':
vo'col
SN 3 m (Gte =.* r«» «— '•MVO _ i c
8rf£3l£ % CIT- >H O —1- CO UJ CD1 1 1 1 M LJ SO Qe tjj eg— . ^^^ ,-* Q O LJ Gr-fvjcnd- ^ < Z U.
*J 4J .4J 4J.8.8.3.3
to H to H -
m in in in • c
O O O O Q t
S O CS co c
o>5o>5 oe 3 < «e
IztSSH
P S
o iS ?^t-t _iU. Q- Q£ass
co a.LJ O
^-. O vo •
C < CO (M C
*J - t—10 o>cc Q. —•3 a- a! s «£exs. s
I 5- *
SL 2
S fl
"2 u
Uu S i
"2 £ OLIB Z M
1 ^ ^.p
voy°°iSriUJ HHg|
\O ^n NO h*K^j ^ f^ p^ ION
T^rCvT^V
i i i i
t- pj i**! .* »—
•u *J *J 4J c/3U U U U
« in in in
Q O 0 Q
•O -D -0 T3 Z
* LJ * UJ =)z z co co cy
0<
o\
CD
•*
^j
^
8\
G
^
°^O
l
<
^
*
m
3
IBZ
&} 4} 4) ^
1111
2- 2- 2- 2-
CJ O CJ O
cj o cj okj< < < ^r*
«d" CO O Oi^J
« — Rjb
^o
^HbU
4oc
fl3 1)7 C V-H 3 0) Q.
_Q fl TJ OX _) X X
4.
jj
•His
* QZ •»-
0
<
O
00Psl
jj
m
S
0
^
•*
00
CO
-
-3
z
4) >
ll
2-2-
0 0
too< < <
Ov|0\O (MKvj•sk
^« 1
*H•HX
<t
4) C
CJ »J
(M
o
Sin<HLJ az ^
o«e
§
5j
CO
r~
JJ
^
CN
1
<
0\
VO
"A
3IB
4)
min
£
0
o o< <
olojsja
3*ot—
UJb
Alt amifT\
0•*4
in•H*s
o
GO
00
o
00
o
o
<
ON
vfl
4) 4)
II
&&
o o
o o o< < <
o o"o
ON co r-PjJP'N
5?
c &
O 1—
IBo j:
IB fQ
41 Oin uO ttjo ai
^
u
•H
inwHUJ Q10 %-
0,
^)Jj.1
vo'
fvj'
«
'(
ol
^!
**ii
3
•*!
o
ON!
^0 it— (
Q
g
c|•3:
u!3,
p'
(•oio.
b'
V.•o,c
it '
"^ H-1— 3
U. 5- M
C^ § O3
I »—
k- O h- »—M Z < 3
ilill
L
5 O lA Q._ -J .
* p CD III O
OCC fc^L> uj uj 5 o_ oe a. o <
K
E
8
XON^
t—u
I 1u
K oe9 LJ a.
£ §u5
>«.01o
•J LUUJ tA> <uJ UJ
I 1
iS£H- <M OCO
01H- t—
gUJ
10 oUJ O
h-
oe
3O»
%
0
^
Ch
'-
<
T-
0\
u
«(0
4> 4)
4-> 4J3 3
2- 2-
CJ O
cj okj< <!<
r^ op^
- afe
^^
ON O j— '5£ g• *-^
u c
IB O_J oC ~4 CN0 b 0VC IB 0\
or i
q_
o
tn
•H
IS
<
K
VO+
^ON
VO
<
fN
JtIA
0 O
3 3
& 2-
CJ CJ
CJ Cj|O< <j<J
o ojo
? ab
00 »—
T ? ^b Oin o t—
i-H-H CX >.
b I-H O4) **4> 0> «-
IB ^ IB ONO Q. Z T-
<NI
o•Hisin
•r*UJ O
o
00
1
0
^
o
K
<
00
V V O
11 I
tf)«H
w e £.
i to o
o o olo< < ^P
o o olo
O m ^P
x-«.
•H _J
£ 1CO ^CO0V C
00 T- XCO O
ON 1
1 -H bE IB ON»-* g O ON
^<f>£*
ff^
U
01
*H
* O
Jj
00
1
0
^
c
CO
<
00
d<NJ
o v
1 1
| *
o o
o okj
< """Po oloa sis
•^
•o _lS5 <
ON 0 O
i •
t!"
b
Oi o ON
^
U
in^4LJ aco ^
vo00ON
VO
o<
00
IA1
0 I
ON ]
*^ I
S 1
o it
o S
I i
o jl< 1
•* ll
•* 1
i^
o
$g
Attachment G-l
.^
55HHO
m
•
g
h—§
3
i
^6
z
LJ
tH
£
5
LJ
M
U
CO
§
•
to
o
m,
Q
D.
I*-
^ ink^ t-
d- r~ »- f\ vo -J g
vO T™ *" CO ** * -Jpn <NJ **v. 3r, ""NO M
^ ^ !• 1 BO
1 1 1 1 •— ' LJ Q
Pf\j£\? § < Z1 L?
4J 4J 4J 4J
TJ X "Z X
m in in v) o
o o o a a fc
• • • • S 2 </> o
Tjj "a To "!? J»*H a: ^1
oSoS ce3<<
1*88
h-
M 3
Uj &L
-^
tO Q.LJ O5dLvo in~. < CO • Q
O O ^~ (&J O
•W OCC Q. —
5 a a!£ <£
Q.a
|
&
§ ^"^
11 ^S ^ £5
1 s^
^
UJ
LJ
ff
<
1 t 1 1
— i *-*. **+. *~*. UJ^- M f^ ^ f—
H-(
O U U U
.p is i> is« « in «v4 «^ «^ «H°sss""^
• • • • ^
Islci 1
» LJ * LJ 3Z Z IT) to O>
3
a
10
o«c
vo
**"
o
PJ
CO
CJ
CO
mPJ
CJ
vo•o
4JCV t) 0) t) CJ V
£££&$$$$&$$$£$$
^•^•^•^•Qg ii^>6>sss •S'SS
CJCJCJCJCJCJCJCJCjOcjOCJCJCJ
oooooooooooooo uJcj
co4-d-omoomovoco<M<-o mU
T~^cjf*>r^fvjT— f\jcvj^(\j(\j r^ko
_lin • <;
J * x • oE UJ </) 1—
V •
O 4J U1 — 1 _< g O . •b « -H CL 4) C 5 L. E bO CD -HCg-H . O — 1 "5 ID J5 Oo >cSu.oinLj»4 -^•H C >, UCJ • t4 — 1 C L±J >,
^rec Sin >i^^HC4JV^H
O^ X4J 4>tO~4 <QV?I^^H Q1X C>-4
gL O f rr ^ t _) in t _* ^ r^ *^ ^* y r\ •;*
^
^o•H
Hto*^* oz ^
u
^cc• •
^5
^CO
0
u
, ^
+
CJ
^r^i
V
•H«
tf)
2
£"
o
cjKJ
olo
^1^
<
01—
c
J
cj
^Ju
in
~4
LJ O
U
CO
^J
^
0
m
in^™
0
r^
i
o
^
fT\
-
5!u7!3 -in jj
in— '
LJj3"8
o °
o olo
Or~k
^* ^Jrvj
^o1—
14 h4J iac D.
§c
"1
O O
^JJ
y
•Sin
•H* a01 ^
CJ
^
in
u
«—
.*
(M
CJ
<
d-
«-
-f
U
m•i^
1> 4) 0> 4) 0)
o u u u o
•
a"3
•iS iS ^iS >
&S v! o in £
u u cj u olo
vo o «- o cslr~
I»N M Jt CO '-JJO
_j
^o>—
• 4^S 4)iJ^ 10LJ W N•H t> -H4) D O 4J — 1S4J C C LJb U a
3 3 fl 0) 4JU. U. CJ _J (rt
1?
4UU*«-4isin
LJ at/5 »^
VOCO<-> 3 e^^ j ^
CO u •>
' n ^><X
CJ ]* !VO I
CO 1VO 1
U J|
° ii^ i•?!
° 4
CO I
^ 9M 1
o
g
^VO
_l<o
Q
g
Attachment G-2
*-COHHa
£
1-
=>
§
>•
S
z
LJ
^Zt— 1
LJ
5
S
Qc
S
LJ
QC
*
uWS
•
^
H-<f>t—t
Q
o«a.oa.
NO
COON
ON GO *~ LAtcALA ^ n"s CNJ INO.* r~ «~ "Nho
NO" »-" «-' acTW _i cem IM m 31m ^ ob— 2 u. H-O !Di i r i M Q O
h- CO UJ O^^^^^ l-l LJ Q -J«— <M fTN ^- aCCUJh-l
Q O LJ =
4J 4J -U *J ^<ZCQo o u o,3 Jj -S _H
b Li Ll b£ 4J 4J -PCO <fl tO CO
w^ »H ^ »H Q ^o o o o H 5
~~~~ SStoiiii in
iz^i*
!—tj (/*
0 =1-H —1u. ceHi1"— ' +
g
Q NO ^00 h-C rv Ov ^o St/>£ 2-H 3 LJ =•<-> o ce cc a.10 LJ O LJ O-i ne < a. fit?3a.a
•*
8. ^
8 ^
fa
£
LA 1cerj LJ a.ISpc(0 t-
1 £** 0,co 45 to•— _l 3
^5LJ h-
Q CO
S•^LJCC
*
sssgte
rj ^ r^ tMtTN
*- r* NO" ^HoT
iiii
i— IM rr, ^
4J 4J 4J 4J LJ
U U U O t—_H -4 -H _| HH
is i £ i ""
(0 CO (0 COw^ «*H w^ ^^sss Q
*"*"
. . • . (_
«0 fQ IQ <t) $3338 |
* UJ * LJ . 3
Z Z CO tO O
ce
LJ
^0
*^
im
CJ<
s'
u
^f
fM
^»m
t
tJ<c
ff\lA
*W ^ 4)
5 3-2to £ co10 10 CO10 Z >0a. — o.
— ^ tu —tu <o > cu
> b — < >•H 3 CO -H*J •» CO *J
O 10 10 O< Z 0. <
0)^~ **» 4JLJ ty tu tu 10SV) 4-> JJ >>o fo re — i
Q (U 4J 4J L,175—1 to to Q.
^ -s -s•H ^4 "H
JJ i> WU, t. U,n: >0 10a. Q. a.
u u< < !
< < tsj rJ I• • :•* CJ co .* iLA O ro oprj IM »
coo =171 0« O *^_J 01 •"!o -<>0 _l -D -H^ tn 10C 10 b wO WO 0JH co _ i-•a ^H* > to
* J
§ S 8
^ m CD
^jjo•-H
£to
wH
* 0
o<
J*
.*
LA
O<
.*
w*
u
CO
•r^
i
u^c
GO
r%
OJ
3i(0(0(0a.
1)
*j4?
tu— , 4Jtu 10•<-> >>0 -H4J f-lco a.
-a^H4JIH(OQ.
o ;|< '
<M tM (
S S J
4->
•H
•8 -Sfc- *J
0 O
(0u£g£
f\J
JJo
— (£to
MHLd az -^
IK
Si0
o<
*vo;
i^
ON
NO
O
<
OD
r-r~
o<
IArr\
LAl-»r~-+
o<
ON
NO
^
v tu cu^34(0 10 tf)(0 (0 <fl
Q. Q. Q_
tt> "fd "a> "^ "a? *(d> t- > u, > t-•* 3 -H 3 -H 34J fl jj JP 4J •£jj, o, j,.
cu
LJ tu -~. 4) CU 10X < V) 4J *» *> >
w C9 10 • C 10 "0 -H»H O tU S 4J 4J ho tn _j x t/5 co Q.
•s•HCU CU CU 4Jc c c uo o o >oZ Z Z Q.
o o< < ,
O O O ISN cA
< < < <M «M
CO rj ^ co (NjCO CN 00 (M ON i«- * r~
co ^~o *>at •*
2 "8 -3
lj 4->10 O Os - "-3 -g st4 a- £*o —t yo CD *^ *fl S w «Z X CD CD
^
Jjo1HistoHH
* 0CO ^^
u
^
<NJ
s
o<
CO
oM
O<
t^
*+
O<
ON
NO
f-l .
•as
b CU
S 3(0 CO
•H (0
X ID-**» d.
a* ^5 5in *5
(0 4J.2 3
tu
— -ucu 10& %z-H 4J b
O CO Q.
•S TS•H -H
4-> 4->U (-T3 (Q
Q. CU
<Jo < o 3
< ^ <m co vo ]
O GO 00 J*— M ^ fl
4J
•H•8 -a
&4 *J
0 0
0 ~ "-H CO-H tU•H j;
t »OS U
U CD
?
4J
O•iH
isen
•Has
s£o
(j<:
ta^
•
Si
o £< I
*li*^ j|
o :^c
IA.*•
U !<
r».
jf
fNJ
<-> I
<
m
r»N.d-t»N
"~
_!
Ot—
Ois
Attachment G-3
April 4, 1986
TO: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
FROM: KEITH BEVERLY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
BACKGROUND;
The current land value figure used in the computation of the Park-
in-Lieu Fee Schedule was established in 1982. The existing land
value was based on the average estimated fair market value of land
within each of Carlsbad's four park districts.
The figures currently used for land values per acre are: District
1, 2, and 3 - $87,000; District 4 - $109,000. These figures were
intended to be adjusted annually but have remained constant since
1982.
Request For Proposals to assess the current land.value in each of
Carlsbad's four park districts have been sent to 15 real estate
appraisal firms, of those 15 Request For Proposals only two were
returned.
The G. R. Bill Company will report the change in the average fair
market value of residential land in the City of Carlsbad for 1985,
expressed in terms of a percentage.
DODD-Graves & Associates, Inc. returned a proposal that would not
be an appraisal of land values as such, but rather, an expanded
letter of consultation intended to serve as a guideline to City
officials in determining Park-In-Lieu Fees.
In order to develop a simple methodology of evaluating the fair
market value of land on an annual basis, several agencies have
been contacted. These agencies have provided economic indicators
with regards to the increase and/or decrease of land values within
the past year.
RECOMMENDATION;
Because the City of Carlsbad's Park-In-Lieu dedication requirement
utilizes the "fair market value" of land as a component in its cal-
culation of park fees and/or land dedication for developers, the
current market land value figure should be updated immediately, re-
evaluated and adjusted annually. ,
Back up information will indicate that a five percent per year in-
crease in land value would be a conservative figure.
ATTACHMENT H
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Two
Since the fair market value figure for land has remained at the same
level for the past four years, an immediate increase of 20% should be
implemented.
It is further recommended that the services of a qualified real
estate appraiser be employed to re-evaluate the immediate increase.
All indications suggest that this figure will also increase.
ALTERNATIVES;
1. Adjust the current land value figure within a range of zero
to 30% to adequately'compensate for the lack of increase over
the past four years.
2. Employ the services of a qualified real estate appraiser to
determine the fair market value of property within the four
park districts. Retain the real estate appraiser to annually
update the market value and appraise all land in relation to
major developments in order to adequately determine equitable
Park-In-Lieu Fees.
3. Once the fair market value has been established, adjust the
market value annually or quarterly according to the Consumer
Price Index, or the "McGraw-Hill Construction Index for the
County.
FISCAL IMPACT;
An immediate increase of 20% would have the following fiscal impact
upon land value in their respective districts:
CURRENT 20% INCREASE
District 1,2,& 3 $87,000 $104,000
District 4 $109,000 $130,800
Revised P.I.L. Fees CURRENT 20% INCREASE
Dist 1,2,3 Dist 4 Dist 1,2,3 Dist 4
A. Single Family $786 $983 $943 $1,180
Detached & Duplex
(0 lot line or
attached wall)
B. Attached Single $656 $820 $787 $984
Family (4 units or
less attached)
C. Attached Multiple $524 $655 $629 $786
Family (more than
4 units)
D. Mobile Homes $458 $573 $550 $688
It is further suggested by back up information that a re-evaluation
of the fair market value of real estate by a qualified appraiser
ATTACHMENT H-l
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Three
would increase these figures. The extent of this increase cannot be
determined at this time.
The cost to determine the average fair market value of land within the
four park districts by a qualified appraiser are as follows:
1. G. R. Bill Company - 1,750 + $85 per hour for all work done
beyond the scope of the original assignment.
2. DODD-Graves and Associates, Inc. - estimated between $3,600
and $4,200.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
Listed below is back up information. While the following information
may not be consistent, I think it will indicate an overall increase of
land value and a need for re-evaluation of our Park-In-Lieu Fee Schedule,
1. Real Estate Agencies
A. Carlsbad Board of Realtors
Carlsbad multiple listing - average sale price of residential
houses from:
- October 1983 to October 1984/ -13% (Decrease)
- January 1984 to January 1985/ -3% (Decrease)
1. October 1984 to January 1985/ +14% (Increase)
- April 1984 to April 1985/ -4% (Decrease)
1. January 1985 to April 1985/ -4% (Decrease)
- July 1984 to July 1985/ +55% (Increase)
1. April 1985 to July 1985/ +25% (Increase)
- October 1984 to October 1985/ +13% (Increase)
1. July 1985 to October 1985/ -24% (Decrease)
- December 1984 to December 1985/ +40% (Increase)
1. October 1985 to December 1985/ +16% (Increase)
B. North San Diego County Multiple Listing Service
Statistics provided to the redevelopment agency, representing
a profile sales activity of residential properties, indicate a
16% increase in the average selling prices for 1985. This figure
is reflective of sales from January 1984 through September 1984,
as compared to sales from January 1985 through September 1985.
While the M.L.S. average residential sales in Carlsbad primarily
reflect the selling price and the amount of houses sold, it is also
contingent upon many other variables. The average sale price is also
indicative of, but not limited to mortgage interest rates, supply and
demand of housing as well as land values.
C. "Real Estate Review" *
North County Multiple Listing statistics indicate a two percent
ATTACHMENT H-2
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Four
increase in the average sale price of residential homes from
February 1985 to February 1986.
D. "The San Diego Economic Bulletin"
The January 1986 edition of the Bulletin, published by the
Economic Research Bureau of the Greater San Diego Chamber of
Commerce, indicates a 17.2% increased change in value based
on their housing market price index for Carlsbad. However,
the same index signified a decrease of 13.2% change of value
in La Costa for the same time period.
E. Real Estate Researchers Council of Northern California
In a telephone conversation with a member of the Council, the
land values were suggested in terms of a percentage of the
actual sale price of a house. In other words, in an area of
greater demand it is estimated that 40% of the total value of
the house would reflect the value of the land it was built on.
For example, if a house sold for $150,000 and was on .33 of an
acre, 40% of the house value would be $60,000. This figure
multiplied by three would then give you the value of an acre
of land, $1.80,000.
1. County Assessor
The County Assessor appraises all new construction and changes in
ownership as of the date of completion or ownership change. All
other property may be increased by the rate of inflation as
indicated by the Consumer Price Index, not to exceed 2% as
provided for by Proposition 13. In other words if the CPI
indicates a 6% inflation rate, the assessment rate can only
increase by 2%. If the CPI indicates a 1% inflation rate, the
assessment rate will increase one percent.
2. Appraisal of Real Property/Market Data Summary of Commercial
Land Sales
In a report done for the Redevelopment Agency by the G. R. Bill
Company, a commentary on the trend of land values in the Carlsbad
area was requested. It was estimated that a 10% per year increase
is still a conservative figure. A recently completed appraisal
update in the San Marcos area indicated an upward rise in values
which was very demonstrable at 15% per year. Carlsbad and San
Marcos are part of a five city North County chain that has a
proven population growth rate of 2.9% per year, compared with
San Diego's rate of 2.0% per year.
This report was not intended to be represented as an appraisal
report, but rather an advisory message of a preliminary nature
only.
ATTACHMENT H-3
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Five
3. Consumer Price Index
The C.P.I, was considered as a viable source of justification
for increasing land values especially when considering the
housing component of the C.P.I. The housing component of the
C.P.I, has changed considerably in the last year. Whereas the
component used to address factors such as mortgage rate,
mortgage insurance, homeowner insurance, property tax, property
insurance, maintenance and repair, the housing component now
simply addresses the situation in terms of a percentage increase
as if you were renting your own home.
With this in mind, the housing component factor in relation to
the Consumer Price Index has increased 6^.1% from November 1984 to
November 1985.
To further exemplify the need to re-evaluate the Park-In-Lieu Fee
and to provide information on perhaps how to best accomplish this,
other cities have been contacted. While most cities acknowledge a
need for constant update, few have developed a methodology to do so.
A variety of methods have been used depending upon how each city
administers their Park-In-Lieu contribution. Below are listed
examples of other cities, their calculation and the ways in which
they increase their fee schedule:
1. San Diego County
Flat fee based on density.
- Up to 11 units per acre = $145 per dwelling unit.
- Over 14 units per acre = $115 per dwelling unit.
The fees will be increasing soon to reflect inflation/cost
of living index (CPI) .
2. Vista
Flat fee based on number of rooms.
A. Case 1 - Each room addition to an existing dwelling
unit = $129.90
B. Case 2 - Each dwelling unit of all types:
1983 1986 (15% Increase)
1 Room Unit = $113 $129.90
2 Room Unit = $225 258.70
3 Room Unit = $338 388.70
4 Room Unit = $450 517.50?
5 Room Unit = $563 647.40
6 Room Unit = $675 776.20
7 Room Unit = $788 906.20
8 Room Unit = $900 1,035.00 ATTACHMENT H-4
rt.fjVI.SXGN OF j-iAXD VALUES
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Six
Mobile Home in Mobile Home Park = $373.70
Rooms to be exluded in fee schedule:
1. Bathrooms
2. Open patios and porches
3. Dining rooms with openings to kitchen
4. Storage rooms/garages
C. Case 3 - Each dwelling unit in a proposed subdivision =
$776.20
D. Case 4 - Each dwelling unit in a subdivision where building
plans are submitted - same figure as Case 2.
Fees are updated annually by City Resolutions, these increases
are based on the McGraw-Hill Construction Index for the County.
3. La Mesa p^i-v- i^M"'*' t-kM; f~u IN-C
Based on unit dwelling fee.
Single Family Residence, 1 bedroom = $200
Single Family Residence, more than 2 bedrooms = $250
Duplex = $150 per side
Apartment Complex = $125 per unit
4. El Cajon t>«)~tT" V£N/M> I-***- ro l ^(—
Based on unit dwelling fee.
Single Family Residence, 2 or more bedrooms = $300
Single Family Residence, 1 bedroom = $225
Duplex = $225 per unit
Multi-Family (condominium) = $185 per unit
Mobile Home = $150 per space
5. Escondido
Based on unit dwelling fee.
*Note increase in fees as of February 1, 1986.
Single family residence, 1 bedroom $450 $580 *(29%)
Single family residence, 2 bedrooms $515 $660 (28%)
Single family residence, 3 bedrooms'$540 $770 (42%)
ATTACHMENT H-5
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Seven
Single family residence, 4 bedrooms $565 $735 (30%)
Single family residence, 5 bedrooms $590 $770 (30%)
Mobile Homes . $490 $515 ( 5%)
Mobile Home family unit $515 $660 (28%)
6. Chula Vista
Fees based upon per unit basis:
Single family dwelling $175 per unit
Condos ... $125 per unit
Duplex $100 per unit
Multi-Family (Apt.) $85 per unit
Mobile Homes $75 per unit
Land dedication in-lieu of fee is as follows:
Single family dwelling - 322 sq. ft. of park land +$175
Condominiums - 272 sq. ft. of park land +$125 per unit
Duplex - 218 sq. ft. of park land +$100 per unit
Multiple family (Apt.) - 174 sq. ft. of park land +$85 per unit-
Mobile Home - 157 sq. ft. of park land +$75 unit
7. Oceanside
Fees are based on districts. The City is divided into 10
districts and parks fees vary according to the district in which
the development occurs. In addition to the district fee there
is also a Community/Regional Fee and a Beach Fee. Per unit fees
per district are as follows:
District 1 - $190 District 6 - $217
District 2 - $175 District 7 - $497
District 3 - $336 District 8 - $294
District 4 - $628 District 9 - $504
District 5 - $604 District 10 - $365
Community/Regional Fee - $242
Beach Fee - $100
Land dedication requirements in lieu of fee payment are rare
according to the Planning Department. However, land dedication
is based on a level of five acres per 1,000 population (based
on an average of three persons per dwelling unit).
8. San Clemente
The calculation of park fees and park land dedication is based
on the standard of five acres/1, 000 ..population.
Park fee per dwelling unit is based on the cost of $161,020 per
acre of park land and average number of persons per dwelling unit.
ATTACHMENT H-6
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Eight
The cost per acre- of park land is adjusted quarterly according to
the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim
area.
PARK REQUIREMENT TABLE
Dwelling Units
Per Gross Acre
Up to 6.5
6.6 to 15.5
15.6 to 25.5
25.6 and Up
Average Number
of Persons
Per Dwelling Unit
3.75
3.20
2.10
1.90
Acreage To Be
Dedicated Per
Dwelling Unit
.0188
.0160
.0105
.0095
Park Fee Per
Dwelling Unit
$3,027
$2,576
$1,692
$1,529
Fees shall be paid in-lieu of park land dedication if there is
no park or recreational facility designated in the Parks and
Recreational element of the General Plan to be located in whole
or part within the proposed subdivision or if the proposed sub-
division contains fifty (50) parcels or less.
9. Irvine
When the requirements of park dedication are complied with
solely on the basis of providing park land, the minimum amount
of land to be provided shall be based on the dedication standard
and the density classifications and persons per dwelling unit
included in the following table:
Dwelling Units
Per Net Acre
Up to 6.5
6.6 to 12.5
12.6 and Up
Persons Per
Dwelling Unit
3.15
2.15
1.95
Acres Per
Dwelling Unit
.0158
.0108
.0098
Whenever the requirements of park dedication are complied with
solely on the basis of the payment of park fees, the amount of
such fees shall be computed by multiplying the number of pro-
posed dwelling units by the acres per dwelling unit in the table
shown above, and by multiplying the resultant acreage amount by
the fair market value of land being developed.
The fair market value is defined by Irvine as the value of
property as determined by the Planning Commission based upon
an appraisal by a qualified appraiser. In the event the applicant
disagrees with this fair market value determination, he may select
a qualified appraiser who, together with the original appraiser,
shall select a third qualified appraiser. The three appraisers
so selected shall conduct a fair market value analysis of the
property and their determination shall be binding upon the City
ATTACHMENT H-7
REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
April 4, 1986
Page Nine
and the applicant for the purposes of this division. All
costs of appraisal shall be paid by the applicant prior to
the recordation o.r any final map or the issuance of any
building permit.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The Engineering Department is currently proposing, via agenda bill,
an annual contract for appraisal services.
There currently exists a need for acquiring professional appraisal
services to evaluate City owned land, surplus property, or other
real estate items needing an estimated value.
An annual contract for appraisal services would eliminate repetition
of City staff time in performing placements of advertisements, inter-
viewing prospective appraisers, acquiring and reviewing bids and
candidate selection.
The estimated value of land per acre^iwith regards to the Park-In-Lieu
Fee has not been adjusted since 1982. As a result, the calculation
of Park-In-Lieu dedication requirement for developers is currently
resulting in a net loss of park land and/or money for the City of
Ordinance 9791, adopted January 21, 1986, prohibits the issuance of
building permits throughout the City. It also provides for a study of
the Public Facility Fee and other development fees. This study is to be
completed on or before July 20, 1986.
During this study time some exceptions to development are allowed. To
qualify for an exception the developer must agree to pay any increase
in the Public Facilities Fee and any other development fees determined
during the study period.
An increase in Park-In-Lieu Fees is justified and should be adopted
during this study period.
ATTACHMENT H-8
ADDENDUM TO: REVISION OF LAND VALUES USED
IN PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
PAGE SIX, NUMBER 4
El Cajon
El Cajon - Parkland Fund Acquisition and Development
Land Dedication in lieu of fee is as follows:
Single family dwelling - one acre per 135 units
Condos - one acre per 160 units
Duplex - one acre per 200 units (100 Duplexes)
Multi-family - one acre per 250 units
Mobile Home - one acre per 278 units
4 ATTACHMENT H-9
May 1, 1986
TO: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: Mayor Mary Casler
SUMMARY REPORT FROM 4/21/86
A. S.D.G.& E. proposal. I gather that the company
is exercising their option to regain use of the
land they have allowed the city to use on the
corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road.
Their proposal to pay $100,000 to upgrade the
Cannon Lake site frankly surprises me, but
would allow us to get started on improving that
property for another useful park in the Northwest
quadrant. I look forward to seeing the plans.
B. Good committee and am glad this study is going
forward.
C. Sorry I didn't hear your discussion on
negotiating fees for land from Sammis. Did
you not feel that the 30 acres provided by
Hunt was a large enough park for the Southwest
quadrant? Were the developable acres not
enough? Were Sammis1 fees not enough to start
development of the park? I really can't comment,
as I don't know the details.
/v\s&~^*~*
MARY CASLBR
Mayor
ATTACHMENT I
FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER MEETING
April 14, 1986
10:00 A.M.
ATTENDING
David Castner, Senior Citizens' Association Board Member
Hiram Hoskin, Senior Citizen Commission
John Mitchell, Senior Citizen Commission
Howard Harmon, Senior Citizens' Association Chairman
Sue Spickard, Senior Citizen Coordinator
David Bradstreet, Parks & Recreation Director
John Conti, Parks & Recreation Commission Member
Ron Paige, Consultant, Recreation Systems, Inc.
1. Discussion of Harding Center Site
Ron Paige presented a graphic schematic floor plan of a
17,000 square foot, one-story, replacement for Harding
Center. It occupied all of the present lot and required
the property to the north of present site (Jacobs property).
Approximately 30.7 000 square feet of parking property
required (125-150 cars) to meet building codes and City's
requirements. Cost of such an acquisition subject to
conjecture.
After some further discussion, the Committee concluded
that Harding Center is feasible only if:
A. 30,000 square feet of parking property is purchased,
B. Jacobs property is purchased,
C. the cost of such is approved (approximately total cost
of project will exceed $3.5 million),
D. Harding Street site not realistic.
2. Pine Street Site
David Bradstreet brought Committee up to date on City/School
discussions. School District and City seem to have reached
a working agreement to pursue the Pine Street project.
Committee adjourned to field inspect both "parking property",
south of Harding Center, and the Pine Street site.
Pine Street Site
• Size - "L" shaped (see attached site schematic) approxi-
mately 5-8 acres.
• All buildings will be razed (3 condemned) for project.
ATTACHMENT J
Minutes of Feasibility Study Committee
April 14, 1986
Page 2
2. Pine Street Site cont.
• School District suggests a two-story 12,000 square foot
building to be temporarily shared by District and
Senior Citizens, completely given to seniors in
years.
• Ron Paige (RSI) will get accurate plot plan and do
another schematic presentation for Committee.
CONCLUSION
Committee feels Pine Street project is feasible and is
suggesting further study be done and presented to Council.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Submitted by:
John Conti, Parks & Recreation Commission
ATTACHMENT J-l
ATTACHMENT J-2
I, ~£>(SCu$Z/0<O
rr~
,
0
"
73?
ATTACHMENT J-
s/v yes.
ATTACHMENT J-4
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
"GREEN SHEET"
MAY 19, 1986
Interviews were held May 8th and 9th, 1986, for the selection
of a project team to perform the Golf Course Feasibility Study.
Six firms were interviewed and the selection process should
be completed within two weeks.
The construction plans and specifications for the construction
of Calavera Hills Community Park Phase I have gone out for bid.
Bid opening is scheduled June 6th, 1986.
Stagecoach Community Park Phase II is under construction!
The foundation for the community center/gymnasium has been
poured and foundation pads have been graded for the tennis
courts and restroom facilities.
Construction plans and specifications for Calavera Hills
Community Park Phase II are currently undergoing the City plan
check process.
Conceptual plans are being developed for the Cannon Lake
Community Park site. Specific park amenities included within
the design are restrooms, parking, walkways, bikeways, access
road, picnic areas, volleyball, horse shoes, basketball courts
and a group camping area.
The dedication for the newly constructed Fuerte Park site is
scheduled for the morning of Saturday, June 21, 1986.
The summer 1986 edition of the Parks and Recreation Department's
Summer Brochure has been distributed to 26,000 Carlsbad
residents.
Five thousand Triathlon registration forms have been distrib-
uted throughout California and the nation. The Fifth Annual
Carlsbad Triathlon will be held Sunday, July 13, 1986. Once
again we need volunteers to help man this community-wide special
event. If you would like to volunteer or need further informa-
tion, please call Rosemary Eshelman at 438-5590.
The Recreation division is requesting assistance from Parks and
Recreation Commissioners to help pass out awards to the winning
participants of the Triathlon, Sunday, July 13, 1986, at 10:00 a.m.
June 7, 1986, will mark the date for Carlsbad's Annual Garage
Sale. Held at Holiday Park, more than 100 area citizens will
be offering their wares to a crowd of 4-5,000 browsers. Youth
groups will offer choice food goodies to hungry buyers, and
the festivities will last from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Parks & Recreation Commission
"Green Sheet"
Page 2
One week later, June 14, 1986, avid running enthusiasts can
anticipate a brisk pace in the Eighth Annual Carlsbad 10K
Run. Slated for an 8:00 a.m. start, the course follows a
route southward along the Coast Highway and doubles back
ending at Cannon Park. Colorful 10K shirts and handsome
plaques are part of the excitement.
There are currently 114 adult league teams playing Softball,
basketball, volleyball, and soccer. More than 1,800 citizens
participate.
Carlsbad continues to, spearhead the San Diego County Senior
Softball League as league administrators. Currently, eight
men's senior teams (55 years and better) compete in the county-
wide league. Three or four more teams are expected in the new
league, slated to begin in late May. Carlsbad currently has
two teams entered.
Rosemary Eshelman is back to work as of May 5, 1986, after
having an eight pound, 15 ounces, 20% inch long baby boy
named Samuel David Eshelman on February 12, 1986.
The following trips are scheduled for the remainder of the
month of May for the Daytripper Program:
Picnic at the Ahmanson Theater, May 24, fee $39.
Laughlin Turnabout, May 25, fee $10.
Lake Tahoe/Reno/Sacramento, May 31-June 4, fee $240.
For more information please call 438-5574.
Robin Bettin has been appointed as a Recreation Specialist for
the Senior Program. She will be planning trips and special
events. Upcoming events: Trip to Hotel Del and Tour of
Coronado; a day at the Del Mar Fair.
Senior Citizen Commissioner John Mitchell is moving out of
Carlsbad and has resigned as Commissioner. A new appoint-
ment will be made soon.
The exterior of the Granary is completed. An appreciation
ceremony was held on May 1st to show gratitude to over 30
volunteer Rotarians who worked on the project.
Recreation Division personnel were represented at the Spring
Fair on Sunday, May 4. Recreation Brochures and other depart-
mental material was made available to the public.
The Spring Recital, which includes performances by children
and adults in recreational classes, will be held at the
Carlsbad Community Cultural Arts Center on May 29, 1986.
Invitations have been sent out. For more information or
additional tickets call Dee Pope at 438-5576.