Loading...
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.