Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-20; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: Time of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. October 20, 1986 City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Wright called the Meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Wright, Commissioners Dahlquist, Donovan, Lawson, Morrison, Popovich, and Regan. Absent - None Staff Present: Dave Bradstrest, Director of Parks and Recreation Keith Beverly, Administrative Assistant Lynn Chase, Recreation Superintendent PUBLIC OPEN FORUM; There was no one present wishing to address the Commission during the public open forum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the taped meeting of September 15, 1986, were approved as corrected. Chairman Wright commented on a note received from Irene Strause, 3291 Highland Drive, (one of the speakers at that meeting) requesting the minutes be amended at the bottom of page 2, under item B. "I.S.O.C. Request to Use Monroe Courts" wherein Sheryl Campbell, representing the Carlsbad High Tennis Athletic Department Program and the Physical Education Department, addressed the commission to oppose the conversion of the tennis courts to soccer. APPROVAL OF AGENDA; The Agenda was approved with the following changes: A. "UNFINISHED BUSINESS" Defer item 7.C.I "Revised Field Report" under "Review and Update of Ball Field Analysis" to November meeting. Change items 7.C.2 and 7.C.3 to Information items. Correct item 7.C.3 to change tennis standard to 1/2,000 instead of 1/20,000. B. "NEW BUSINESS" Move item 8.A "Request for Variance" up to just after the Scribe Report at item 7.A.I. APPOINT SCRIBE; Commissioner Regan was appointed Scribe for this meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS; A. Scribe Report Chairman Wright called attention to the Scribe report in the packet. Wright Dahlquist Donovan Lawson Morrison Popovich Regan Wright Dahlquist Donovan Lawson Morrison Popovich Regan MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page COMMISSIONERS B. Request for Variance Dave Bradstreet reported that the majority of Commissioners had viewed the property owned by John and Nancy Clarkson and familiarized themselves with the nature of the request for variance. The Clarksons were referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their endorsement for a special use permit from the Engineering Department because their property is adjacent to City property. Keith Beverly reviewed the background of the John and Nancy Clarkson's request to have the Commission's approval to relocate their backyard fence onto a portion of the open space area in La Costa, off Romeria Street starting on Levante Drive. The Building Department directed them to Parks and Recreation staff to have this item endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and then to proceed back to the Building Department to begin application for a special use permit. Photographs were circulated to the Commissioners. Mr. Beverly reported that the change appears to be minimal. Following further discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to approve the Clarkson's variance for a special use permit to relocate their backyard fence onto a portion of the open space area in La Costa, off Romeria Street starting on Levante Drive. C. Golf Course Feasibility Study Dave Bradstreet reviewed the background stating that on December 3, 1985 the City Council directed the staff to proceed with a Golf Course Feasibility Study and to work with San Diego Gas & Electric regarding participation in that study. On February 25, 1986 staff requested the City Council to appoint the seven member committee to assist in the review of the process. At that council meeting, Council heard reports and proposals from Jim Courtney regarding ball fields and the sports complex and Mike O'Hara regarding the theatre proposal. The Council's decision was to refer this item back to the Parks and Recreation Commission to study how all of the items could be included in a master plan update. On March 17, 1986 the Commission endorsed the staff's priority projects, one of which was the golf course study. At that time it was suggested that existing proposals (sports complex, theatre proposal, etc. ) could be implemented in the new study. Requests for proposals for the golf course study were sent out on May 19, 1986 and on June 10, 1986, on the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council awarded the contract for the Golf Course Feasibility Study to Economics Research Associates for $25,000. At that meeting, the Council appointed the Parks and Recreation Commission, rather than a citizen review committee, to review the study. Since that time, there have been numerous meetings between the Parks and Recreation Committee and Economics Research Associates relative to various phases of the study. Wright Donovan Dahlquist Lawson Morrison Popovich Regan MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page COMMISSIONERS Mr. Bradstreet further reported that he had contacted San Diego Gas & Electric who advised that they were not interested in participating financially in the study but would like to work with the Committee and would be happy to participate in other aspects of the study. San Diego Gas & Electric further indicated that their master plan study is currently in limbo. Mr. Bradstreet also reported that the theatre group had taken no action to be incorporated in Macario until after the outcome of the November election. He then directed Mr. Keith Beverly to introduce the representatives of Economics Research Associates (ERA) who were present and would be speaking to the Commission. Mr. Keith Beverly introduced the team: Gene Krekorian - Economics Research Associates Steve Halsey - Leisure Planning Associates Jack Duray - Leisure Planning Associates Dave Abrams - Stevens Planning Group who then turned the time over to Gene Krekorian to present a summary of the findings. Mr. Krekorian stated that Economics Research Associates had presented a draft report to the Commission for review and comments. Mr. Krekorian stated that he would address the market support and needs assessment, after which Dave Abrams will present the environmental concerns and issues and constraints affecting development of the golf course in the study area; Jack Duray and Steve Halsey will then present alternative routing plans for the golf course based on the environmental findings and the physical characteristics of the property and, finally, he (Mr. Krekorian) will then present the development economics and opportunity for privatization of the course within the city. Mr. Krekorian reported that the overall San Diego inventory of facilities is in balance with market demand. Ratio of population to public golf courses are comparable to state-wide averages and well below Los Angeles and Orange County. The Carlsbad ratio is one course per 83,700 population which is comparable to the state ratio; however, nationally there is one public regulation golf facility for every 50,000 to 60,000 population. On that basis, the county is not over-supplied with facilities. Municipal golf courses within the county are operating at very high levels of play volume, most of the municipal courses are operating at 90,000 to 100,000 rounds per year, however not all of those are 18 hole rounds. That approaches effective capacity for the courses. They typically have a fee structure of $8.00 to $9.00 for an 18 hole round during the week and $12.00 to $13.00 on weekends. Most daily fee courses, which are privately-owned courses available to the public, are operating at 60,000 to 75,000 rounds per year and the green fee structures, excluding the resort courses such as La Costa, are typically $12.00 to $14.00 on weekdays and $16.00 to $18.00 on weekends. While overall demand in the county is in balance, the Carlsbad area and the North County area in particular, is significantly under-served with respect to golf course MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page COMMISSIONERS facilities. A six mile radius is a good primary market area to study the need for a course; typically 70-802 of the play will derive within 6-7 miles of the course. There are no public regulation golf courses within six miles of the proposed site. Extending out to a secondary market area of 6-10 miles, there is only one regulation public course and that is Oceanside Municipal. There are a couple of daily fee courses just beyond the ten mile radius which are available to the public. The six mile radius has a current population of approximately 158,000 and is projected to go to 180,000 in 1990. The secondary market area (6-10 miles) has another 211,000 population and is forecast to go to 280,000. He directed attention to a map in the report which delineates the market areas. In considering the demographics of the Carlsbad area, it typically requires 80,000 population to support a regulation length golf course. Within the primary (6 mile radius) and secondary market areas (6-10 mile radius), ERA estimates current support for 1-1/2 to 2 additional public, regulation length, golf courses at this time. By 1990 ERA projects 2-1/2 to 3 courses supportable within that ten mile radius market area. Mr. Krekorian reported that there are a number of proposed courses for San Diego County, however, most of those proposed are private courses. There are some public courses proposed to be built in North County within the next three years, the two most prominent being a potential course for San Marcos (Twin Oaks area) and a daily fee (higher quality) course at Lake Hodges. ERA feels that even with those courses coming on line, a course within Carlsbad would still be supportable. Chairman Wright requested clarification that the primary market area is six miles. Mr. Krekorian replied that for a municipal golf course, considering population densities in this area, six miles is a reasonably good estimate of where 70-80% of the resident play would be drawn. A higher quality course would draw from a significantly larger area. Chairman Wright then requested clarification of the 158,000 population figure within the six mile area. Mr. Krekorian confirmed the population figure and stated that this figure includes most of Oceanside, all of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Leucadia, San Marcos, Vista and referred Commissioners to the map on Figure 5-1, stating that he will again check the validity of the figure. Commissioner Dahlquist requested clarification on the Oceanside Municipal Course and its inclusion in the six mile radius. Mr. Krekorian confirmed that there is a crossover and that the periphery and overlap must be considered. Dave Bradstreet stated that if Macario is considered the exact center of Carlsbad, Buena Vista Lagoon to Batiquitos Lagoon is about 6-1/2 miles, which means that three miles north or south would take you into other cities such as Encinitas and Oceanside. Commissioner Lawson inquired as to how the 2-1/2 to 3 supportable courses by 1990 would be affected by private MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 5 COMMISSIONERS course play. Mr. Krekorian stated that there is some dilution by private courses but, for the most part, ERA's demand numbers are based on some anticipation that there are private courses available. He further stated that, typically, the cost of playing a private course is so much higher that it differentiates the market fairly well, but it is a consideration. Commissioner Lawson then requested clarification as to whether these figures take proposed new private courses into consideration and was advised that ERA's demand figures are based on resident demographics with 65-70Z of the play on public oriented courses and the remainder on private courses. Mr. Krekorian turned the podium over to Dave Abrams to present the environmental considerations. Mr. Abrams displayed a site analysis map on the wall which was an enlargement of Figure 3-1 contained in the draft report presented to the Commissioners. In trying to identify the environmental constraints which would impact golf course development, details were compiled from existing plans and environmental studies previously done in the area together with current information. He stated that there are extensive transmission and utility lines criss crossing the site which need to be considered for grading purposes. There are additional SDG&E facilities anticipated which are still in the planning stages. These include more lines crossing the area and a large electrical substation at a site which is yet undetermined. In addition, no permanent structures could be built in the drainage area of Macario Canyon which is a flood way. The primary environmental impact is the lagoon, the wetlands area, and the riparian habitat. All of these sensitive environmental areas are addressed in the local coastal programs of Carlsbad, Agua Hedionda LCP and Hello II. There are also several state and federal permits which would be required, particularly for development in the riparian area. In addition, there are statutes which specifically address the preservation of existing agriculture, however the new Bradley Act (Assembly Bill 37-44) does allow for payment to mitigate the loss of agricultural land. He further identified several steep slope areas with degrees of slope in excess of 25% and the coastal plan specifies that these slopes must be undisturbed to varying degrees. It is possible that the City Council, by amendment to the local coastal plan(s), can make certain discretionary findings and permit a portion of these areas to be graded in some fashion. Mr. Abrams identified the planned road alignments showing Cannon Road going through the site as a major arterial roadway with Kelly Drive having secondary arterial status and Faraday Drive as a collector street. With regards to geologic and seismic safety, he identified three potential landslide areas which would have to be addressed for grading or construction. There have been no epicenters identified within five miles, however there are some small faults which are described in the draft report. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 6 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Morrison questioned whether the problems just noted are more extensive than most golf course developments would encounter. Mr. Abrams stated that this area is more environmentally sensitive than other areas. Commissioner Lawson questioned whether the riparian area had actually been delineated by the State Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Abrams stated that he had spoken with Fish and Game and that the riparian area is currently an estimate. Mr. Abrams turned the podium over to Steve Halsey to present the alternative studies. Mr. Halsey directed attention to three golf course routing designs on the wall and stated that each design takes into consideration the natural features of the topography and would not disrupt drainage or natural water flow. Construction costs were also a major consideration as well as the possibility for privatization. Design #1 takes a more circuitous route but would receive greater opposition from the Coastal Commission because the routing skirts the wetlands. Design 112 uses less land than Design It I and there is less wind action. Design #3 is recommended because it uses less land, has a lesser degree of environmental constraints, and the construction costs due to grading are much less than Designs #1 and #2. Further, it allows more room for hotels and future peripheral development. Commissioner Wright questioned the compact nature of Design //3. Mr. Halsey stressed that the compact layout is good for all levels of golfer and does not impact the riparian areas. Also, it is the most utilitarian and the best to irrigate. Commissioner Donovan requested clarification on the amount of buffer being proposed between the golf course and the sports complex. She also asked how much area would be available for a sports complex, utilizing Design </3. Mr. Halsey stated that the buffer zone between the golf course and the sports complex would be from between Faraday Drive to the intersection and that this plan would permit 20 acres for the proposed sports complex. Additional landscape would also be added to increase the buffer. Dave Bradstreet requested clarification as to the proposed location of the hotel and was told that Design '/3 allowed for a hotel to be constructed outside the canyon floor area. Mr. Bradstreet stated that he felt a hotel was necessary for a higher quality golf course. Commissioner Dahlquist questioned the probability of utilizing recycled water and whether a recycling plant would be necessary. Mr. Halsey stated that reclaimed water is currently available from San Marcos and the current water line parallels Palomar Airport Road. Without the existing line, irrigation costs would be very costly. The question of who would bring the water line from Palomar Road into Macario Canyon remained. Mr. Halsey turned the podium back to Gene Krekorian to present the economic alternatives. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page COMMISSIONERS Mr. Krekorian stated that the objectives of the market study were to satisfy recreational needs, produce revenue, and enhance the city's image. They also compared value with the cost of developing a golf course. Economic Research Associates, considering the aforementioned objectives, recommends a resort quality golf course because it provides a place for a hotel resort and conference center and will attract private development over the municipal concept. In addition, it would permit future privatization. Mr. Krekorian stated that a resort quality golf course would utilize Design #3 as the routing plan but would require more landscaping. Commissioner Donovan stated that she did not see the Hunt proposal in the draft report. Mr. Krekorian replied that ERA does not feel the Hunt proposal is incompatible and that the market is strong enough to accommodate both developments. She further inquired as to the market strength in the event that Proposition G is passed in the forthcoming election. Mr. Krekorian stated that, in ERA's opinion, the Carlsbad growth is not a significant factor since the golf course would be serving Carlsbad no more than one-third of the time. Commissioner Donovan then questioned the dilution factor, considering the Hunt proposal in addition to the other courses now being planned, and was advised that the ERA proposal is based on current trends; that ERA believes it can be supported. Commissioner Regan requested clarification on the riparian area in Design #3 and whether the sports complex could be constructed east of Faraday. Mr. Krekorian stated that there is room for both but that a hotel site would require five acres and that this would require the sports complex to be scaled down. Commissioner Dahlquist questioned whether another hotel in this area would not be one too many. Mr. Krekorian stated that ERA has not yet done a market survey on a hotel but that he believes it would increase the marketability if a hotel site is available. Commissioner Morrison inquired if the entire Macario Canyon original plan was included. Mr. Krekorian stated that some of the picnic area had been scaled down. He then referred the Commissioners to an aerial view of the Macario Canyon topography. Chairman Wright directed the attention of Commissioners to Part 2, page 8, of the draft report. It clearly states that development of the golf course would displace the sports field complex since only half of the available acreage is useable due to the riparian area, wetlands, and the slopes with more than 202 grades. He presented the four alternatives which he feels are available: (1) Table action on the golf course feasibility until after the election, (2) accept the report as it is, as a feasibility study, (3) send Economic Research Associates back for firm information for more specifics on where to put a hotel and the sports complex, and finally (4) send an endorsement in favor of the golf course to the City Council. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 8 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lawson remarked that he could not support tabling the item until after the election because he would like some assurance that the sports complex, in some compatible fashion, could be included in the acreage along with the golf course. He would like the draft report sent back for a slight redesign. Commissioner Dahlquist concurred saying that she does not want to give up on either option and that she feels that the amount of acreage available should be more than enough to accommodate both a sports complex and a golf course. Commissioner Donovan explained that she feels the Commission's perspective will be better after the November election and the outcome of Proposition H which will determine whether or not a sports complex for Macario Canyon actually receives the approval of the voters. Following further discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that action on the golf course be tabled until after the November election. Dave Bradstreet stated that he will have more information in the November agenda packet on issues relating to the golf course. D. Review and Update of Ball Field Analysis Report Dave Bradstreet reported that staff is recommending that the standard the National Recreation and Parks Association has endorsed for football be revised from 1/25,000 to 1/20,000 due to the amount of participation and the number of football players that we have in Carlsbad. He further recommends that the National Recreation and Parks Association tennis court standard of 1/2,000 be adopted, which includes counting private courts as one-half towards the standard. Lynn Chase addressed the Commission and, with visual aids, reported on the tennis court standards recommended by the National Recreation and Parks Association. Since there is no provision for lighted courts in National's standards, she stated that a consultant, Ron Paige of RSI, was contacted for his recommendation which was that we generally follow National's standards and that 503 of all available courts should be lighted. Using the 1/2000 population in the community, he stated that we should count all courts in the community to which the public has access, and consider private courts as well if the public has an opportunity, at a reasonable cost, to use those courts. She stated that although La Costa Resort Hotel has 25 lighted courts, staff made a subjective judgement and does not feel that those courts are truly accessible to the public and, therefore, should not be included in the count. Using the NRPA standard of 1/2000 population, based on a population of 52,000 the City of Carlsbad should presently have 26 courts, 13 of which are lighted. Staff has identified 15 existing courts, four of which are lighted. Considering the four lighted Stagecoach courts which should be ready for play in May 1987 and the two Monroe courts which need work to be used, and the two Calavera Hills courts in Wright Dahlquist Donovan Lawson Morrison Popovich Regan MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 9 COMMISSIONERS Phase II down the road, we would have a total of 23 courts. Without considering private courts, we are still below the standard. She reviewed the private courts and stated that all have strings attached. Some require membership and monthly fees such as the Olympic Resort, however because the $500 membership can be sold and since the monthly fee is only $45, it was included in the count of private courts. Staff has identified 26 private courts, excluding the La Costa Resort. The consultant suggested using a 50% factor, therefore 13 private courts are available but they are not open to the general public. It is felt, however, that they do meet some of the general population needs. There are several ways to determine whether the NRPA standard is adequate, one of which is a random sample which surveys all residents (not just tennis players) however this method is costly. As an alternative, staff surveyed several other municipalities and were confronted with a conglomeration of different standards. Each city surveyed felt that interest, weather, economic, and demographic factors should all be considered when adopting a tennis court standard. Commissioner Dahlquist stated she doesn't feel that private courts should be considered since they were not included in the survey for the pool and the golf course. She also inquired as to why the courts at Valley Jr. High School were not included. Ms. Chase stated that the School District determined that mobile buildings will be constructed on those sites so they were excluded from the list. Commissioner Dahlquist stated that she had spoken with the Site Administrator at Valley as late as 3:00 p.m. today and he intends to expand Pods B and C to the west and Pod A to the south and feels with 1,200 students he would like to see the six tennis courts upgraded. Ms. Chase further stated that her input was from Dr. Brierly and John Blair and that school board action was not anticipated until December or January. Dave Bradstreet will look further into this situation. Commissioner Donovan concurs with Commissioner Dahlquist in not including private courts. She questioned the method which staff plans to utilize in securing input from the population. Ms. Chase replied that random sampling is a possibility and that she has already heard from a majority of the tennis players. Commissioner Donovan feels this needs to be brought before the public before the soccer issue goes to the Council. Ms. Chase reported that staff is presently in the process of contacting all tennis players and plans are being made to bring this before the public prior to the subject becoming an action item. Commissioner Popovich questioned whether a survey questionnaire could be included in the quarterly Parks and Recreation questionnaire. He further stated that he hopes the newspaper will write a story so the community will become aware of the situation. Commissioner Dahlquist inquired as to whether some tennis courts could be built at Cannon Lake with the money that has been set aside for this development. Staff will look into the suggestion. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 10 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lavson stated that he feels we cannot confuse tennis players with soccer's organized team support since tennis is a more individual sport. Commissioner Morrison stated that she feels we definitely have a need for more tennis courts. However, our tennis courts are free and feels that private courts should be included as serving some of the population. Commissioner Lawson questioned whether staff is planning for 68 courts to coincide with the master population plan of 135,000. Dave Bradstreet replied that all areas currently have parks planned with tennis courts and the NKFA suggested standard of 1/2000 as well as maintenance, construction, and other necessary cost factors are being taken into consideration. Commissioner Regan voiced her opinion that although we are short on tennis courts, she doesn't feel that private courts should be included in our needs assessment unless they receive a. very minor consideration. She further feels that we should expeditiously pursue the reconditioning of the Valley Jr. High School courts. Dave Bradstreet replied that staff will look at the possibilities and come back at the next meeting. The following individual addressed the Commission: Cliff Chandler, 3969 Adams Street. He stated that he had addressed the September 15, 1986 meeting but that nothing was reflected in the minutes and he would like to be included. He further stated that he agrees with the 1/2000 as an average ratio but that Carlsbad is above average, therefore we should try to better the ratio. If we lose Monroe, we will be 405! below the National standard. Further, if we include private tennis courts in calculating the ratio, he feels it is discriminatory. Mr. Chandler concluded by saying that since school courts are only available to the general public 1/3 of the time, the ratio worsens. Lynn Chase stated that staff had no intention of counting private backyard facilities--only to count courts in homeowner associations or private clubs. E. Indoor Soccer/Monroe Street Lynn Chase reviewed the background on this item. She stated that an appeal had been filed by Irene Strause through the City Clerk's office and that by ordinance, Parks and Recreation were required to bring the matter before the City Council within 30 days of receipt of the appeal. At the time of agenda bill review, it was determined that Ms. Strause's objection was not an appealable item, based on the fact that the Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. Letters to this effect were mailed to interested parties. Staff has been requested to take this item to the City Council on October 28, 1986 and a new agenda bill has been prepared. A copy of the new agenda bill will be provided to Commissioners. MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 11 COMMISSIONERS Ms. Chase went on to say that the entire matter of indoor soccer has changed considerably since the Commission first took action one year ago and that there is much misconception and misunderstanding. She added that staff desires to do what is best for the community and she went on to review some items of misunderstanding. One misconception was that staff was told that I.S.O.C. was a community organization similar to Little League, Bobby Sox, Pop Warner, etc. with non profit status; however there is still no proof that the I.S.O.C. is non profit. Staff was advised that they applied for their non profit status one year ago and that it has not yet been received. Ms. Chase would recommend that Monroe Courts be provided only if the I.S.O.C. is proven to be a non profit enterprise. Ms. Chase stated that privatization is a future goal as a way of developing sites at no cost to the city and over a period of time generate revenue; however, she reiterated that privatization will not begin with the Monroe Courts. She will be making a staff presentation to the City Council on October 28. Commissioner Lawson stated that he would like to see a standard set for advertising if privatization is implemented. Ms. Chase thanked the Commissioner for his suggestion and stated that advertising will be a criteria in the Use Permit. She stated that the school district will no longer allow advertising on school property, even though it used to be allowed for Pony League at Pine Field. Commissioner Lawson questioned whether privatization was being encouraged on the Monroe Courts and was told that staff was under the impression that they were dealing with a non profit organization like Little League or Bobby Sox. There will be no negotiations with I.S.O.C. until proof of non profit status is provided. F. Alga Norte Community Park Dave Bradstreet reported that this was only an information item as follow up at the direction of the Commission. There were no questions or comments. G. Samrois Park Dedication Requirements Dave Bradstreet reported that following the Commission's recommendation, staff followed up with a letter and has since been in touch with John Briggs who has been in touch with two property owners. Both property owners are from out of the country. Their representatives have stated that they do not want to negotiate with the City until after November 4. There were no questions or comments. H. Time Lock Gate at Christiansen Way Keith Beverly gave a brief background and update on this item. A letter was sent to Mr. Mecino to install the time lock gate. Staff received a call from Mrs. Vigil who stated that the lock has been installed. There were some problems with the hinge on the gate and she requested that a sign be made, which should be installed within the week. No further MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 12 COMMISSIONERS problems are anticipated. Commissioner Donovan requested staff to follow the item through to completion. There were no further questions or comments. NEW BUSINESS A. Macario Canyon Theatre Proposal Dave Bradstreet reported that the Theatre proposal is on hold until after the November election. B. California Parklands Act of 1986 Keith Beverly presented a brief report. The City's per capita allocation is $131,000. There are three funding cycles which can be divided, if desired, or taken at one time. Restrictions are that grant funds may be expended only for land acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of park, recreation, or historical facilities. Operation and maintenance is not included for this grant money. With the availability of $131,000 he requested direction from the Commission since deadline for the application is December 12, 1986. The possible areas of consideration are: 1. Calavera Hills Phase I 2. Cannon Lake 3. Macario Canyon k. Calavera Hills Phase II Dave Bradstreet was recognized and reported that the agencies administering these grants look very favorably to cities that have their plans shelf-ready and Carlsbad is shelf-ready in Calavera Hills. He reviewed the status of all four projects and stated that we are short of funds for Calavera Hills and since the plans are shelf-ready, would recommend we proceed with the grant application for Calavera Hills Phase I. Commissioner Donovan requested clarification as to whether the grant funds, if received, are identified for specific use or placed in the general fund. Dave Bradstreet replied that the funds go into the general fund but may be identified if desired. Chairman Wright indicated that Commissioner Dahlquist, prior to leaving, indicated her desire for funds to be used for tennis at Cannon Lake. The Parks and Recreation Commission directed staff to proceed with the grant application for Calavera Hills Phase I. C. California Park and Recreational Facilities Act of 1984/Regional Competitive Program 1987 Funding Cycle Keith Beverly stated that a Grant Request for $200,000 towards the funding of the Community Center at Calavera Hills has been reapplied for. The Grant Request was denied during Wright Dahlquist Donovan Lawson Morrison Popovich Regan X -—"•». X X X X X X MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 20, 1986 Page 13 COMMISSIONERS the 1986 funding cycle. Last year's request ranked 8th in San Diego County with seven projects being funded. Keith Beverly closed his remarks by explaining that the grant application is regional and competitive. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Chairman Wright reported the representative notified him this evening of his inability to attend the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting tonight due to the necessity of participating in the City's Speakers Bureau regarding the ballot measures. COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Wright advised that new committee assignments would be given next week. DIRECTOR'S REPORT There were no additions to the green sheet. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS A. Commission Christmas Pot Luck Dinner Dave Bradstreet reported that the Christmas Pot Luck Dinner would be held the third Monday in December which is the 15th. NEXT MEETING The next Commission meeting will be held at the City Council Chambers on November 17, at 5:00 p.m. SCRIBE REPORT Commissioner Regan gave the scribe report. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting of October 20, 1986 was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Section II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section presents a brief summary of our findings regarding the feasibility of constructing a golf course at Macario Park. Substan- tiation and documentation of these findings are contained in Sections III through VIII of this report. Key findings are outlined below, followed by a more detailed summary of the major results. KEY FINDINGS Market demand currently exists for a municipal or higher quality daily fee course at Macario Canyon. Market growth and changing demographics in the north county region will further increase golf demand levels such that even if other proposed courses are developed, sufficient market support will exist. Three golf course routing alternatives have been developed. Alternative III (Macario Canyon) is the preferred alternative as it has substantial design, environmental, and capital and operational cost advantages over the other alternatives. Alternative III is not in conformance with current environmental policy. Approvals will require successful negotiations with the environmental agencies having jurisdiction in this area. Note that the play fields shown in the existing master plan also are not in compliance with current environmental policy. Development of a "resort quality" golf course is recommended. A high-quality course has the following advantages: Creates the opportunity to develop a golf-oriented hotel/conference complex. Gives Carlsbad residents the opportunity to play a high- quality course at an affordable greens fee structure. II-l ATTACHMENT B o Development of a golf-oriented hotel site east of Faraday Road is a means to capture value which is created by development of the golf course. This site would provide a basis for city revenue generation and substantially increase the potential for privatization of the golf course itself. o Development of a hotel site would further displace uses in the Macario Canyon plan, but by integrating other uses such as a conference center and restaurant with the hotel, additional land area could be available for recreational development. GOLF COURSE MARKET SUPPORT The San Diego County and Carlsbad local market areas can be characterized as follows: o Overall, the county inventory of public golf facilities is in balance with market demand. The ratio of population to public golf courses for San Diego County compares favorably with other urban areas and the state as a whole: Population (thousands) 2,135 2,130 7,891 25,998 Number of Public Golf Courses 25.5 15.5 42.5 301.0 Population per Public Golf Course 83.7 137.4 185.7 86.4 Area San Diego County Orange County Los Angeles County State of California County residents generate approximately 1.8 million rounds on public courses annually, an average of 72,000 rounds per course per year. Municipal courses, with a lower greens fee structure, accommodate 90,000 to 100,000 rounds per year (80,000 to 90,000 18-hole equivalents), while daily fee public courses typically receive 60,000 to 75,000 rounds annually (55,000 to 70,000 18-hole equivalents). II-3 San Diego County municipal course greens fees generally are $8 to $9 on weekdays and $10 to $13 on weekends. Daily fee courses charge $12 to $13 on weekdays and $14 to $18 on weekends. While the demand-supply conditions in the San Diego County golf market are roughly in balance, the Carlsbad primary and second- ary market areas are significantly underserved. There are no regulation length golf courses available to the public in the primary market area (within 6 miles of the subject property) and only one (Oceanside Municipal) in the secondary market area (extending to 10 miles). There are two daily fee regulation courses just beyond the secondary market area. In a suburban community such as Carlsbad, it requires about 80,000 full capture population to support a public regulation length golf course. The primary market area has a current population of 158,000, with 1990 population forecast at 181,000. The secondary market area has a current population of 211,000, and a projected 1990 population of 280,000. Carlsbad residents currently are served primarily by the Oceanside Municipal course and to a lesser degree by daily fee courses outside the secondary market area, such as San Luis Rey, Circle R, and Whispering Palms. The capacity available to Carlsbad residents at Oceanside is artificially limited by the preferential greens fees policies accorded Oceanside residents. Based on the local market area population and the existing inventory of golf courses (including courses just outside the secondary market area), we believe that an additional 1.5 to 2.0 courses are supportable in the primary and secondary market areas today, with 2.5 to 3.0 supportable by 1990. II-4 o There are a number of golf courses in some stage of planning proposed in San Diego County. The most significant of these include a municipal course in San Marcos and a daily fee, resort quality course at Lake Hodges. Even if these courses are developed, sufficient demand will exist for either a municipal or daily fee golf course in the Carlsbad primary market area. GOLF COURSE DESIGN FEASIBILITY Within the 288-acre study area, three golf course routing plan alternatives have been formulated which meet the basic design criteria for a regulation length golf course. In addition to these alternatives, a number of other alternatives have been analyzed but discarded because they either did not meet basic design criteria or would have created severe environmental impact. The Alternative I routing plan uses most of the western portion of the property, including the HUB area and some of Macario Canyon. Most of the property is owned by or leased from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Alternative II is a meandering plan which uses both the HUB area and parts of Macario Canyon. Alternative III is concentrated in the Macario Canyon area, with a small portion of the course on property owned by SDG&E. There are a number of environmental constraints which affect each plan, as well as other issues such as cost, access, and compatibility with the Macario Park master plan. Alternative III is the preferred golf course routing plan. The principal advantages of this alternative include: o The plan relates to a well designed course which will provide a high quality golf experience for area golfers. o The plan requires substantially less grading than the other alternatives. II-5 o Environmental impact relating to the lagoon would be limited with this plan. o The cost of the course would be $500,000 to $1 million less than with the other alternatives. o Fewer holes would be affected by the transmission lines; also, because of the height of the lines, holes on the preferred alternative would be less affected than holes on the other alternatives. o This layout would encounter fewer wind problems, thus improving playing conditions and reducing irrigation requirements. o All but a small portion of the site is owned by the city; ground lease of 5 to 10 acres from SDG&E would be necessary. Alternative III relates to a compact, well-designed golf course which will be much less expensive to construct and operate. Moreover, while there remain significant environmental impacts with this alternative, they are substantially less severe than with the other alternatives. The principal impact involves infringement upon riparian areas in Macario Canyon. Development of the course (Alternative III) would conflict with current policies of the environmental agencies having jurisdiction. It is impos- sible to categorically determine whether the agencies would permit devel- opment of the course with appropriate mitigation of the impacts, but there appears to be some likelihood that through proper design and compensating measures the city could secure necessary approvals. PROJECTED CARLSBAD GOLF COURSE PERFORMANCE There are a number of golf course alternatives (course orientation, quality, fee structure, volume) which would be supportable from a market perspective. We have formulated two operational alternatives which respond to the city's objectives. The first is a standard quality daily fee golf course designed to accommodate high levels of play, with an affordable greens fee structure. Carlsbad residents would pay fees II-6 similar to those at other San Diego County municipal courses. The second is a resort quality daily fee course designed to provide a higher quality golf experience. A more moderate level of play would be accommodated, and a two-tier differentiated fee structure is proposed. Nonresidents would be charged a fee commensurate with other high quality daily fee courses, while residents would be charged fees consistent with standard municipal courses. These alternatives are considered representative of the broader number of alternatives which would be supportable. A third alternative was formulated which consists of the profit maximizing combination of play volume and fee structure. The profit maximizing operational alternative relates to a resort quality course without any restrictions on greens fees to residents or other golf course policies. This profit maximizing alternative was not seriously considered since it does not satisfy the basic objectives of the city. Nonetheless, reference to this alternative is made to provide perspective regarding the economics of the other two operational alternatives. The following utilization and rate structure are proposed for the two operating alternatives: o Annual Play Number of Rounds Year Standard Resort 1 50,000 50,000 2 65,000 60,000 3 75,000 70,000 4 85,000 75,000 5+ 90,000 80,000 18-hole equivalents 81,000 74,000 II-7 Greens Fees Resident Weekday Weekend Nonresident Weekday Weekend Carts Fee Percent of Players Utilizing Carts Other Gross Revenue Practice Range Food and Beverage Pro Shop Greens Fee (constant 1986 dollars) Standard $10 14 10 14 Resort $10 14 14 18 $14 $16 40% 60% Amount at Stabilization (thousands of constant 1986 dollars) Standard Resort $100 200 160 $100 240 240 PRO FORMA FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Stable year net operating income, before debt service and land lease payments, is summarized below: Annual Amount (thousands) Net Operating Income Golf Course Cart Rentals Practice Range Pro Shop Food and Beverage Total Less: General & Administrative/ Management Fee Total Net Operating Income Standard $381 122 60 27 18 $608 174 $434 Resort $422 214 60 62 22 $780 213 $567 II-8 Has a positive impact on the city's image. Generates more revenue for the city than other alternatives. The resort quality golf course design is economically feasible. Based on its income producing potential, the value of the golf course exceeds the cost of development, and generates positive residual underlying land value. The underlying land value forms the basis for ground lease payments to the city. The preferred design alternative would displace the other recreational uses proposed within the canyon area, as depicted in the Macario Canyon master plan. This includes primarily play fields and picnic areas. The proposed athletic center initiative (five play fields and athletic center) could not be accommodated with development of a golf course. The displaced master plan uses potentially could be relocated east of Faraday Road in the vicinity of the Artisans Village/ Conference Center or to the "HUB" area. Although a number of environmental and physical design issues need to be investi- gated, it appears possible that a limited number of play fields could be accommodated on property east of Faraday Road; how- ever, a complex of the scale proposed in the athletic center initiative could not be accommodated in either location. The HUB area could not accommodate a full scale athletic complex with multiple play fields; however, perhaps one or two play fields could be developed in this area. The cost of developing play fields east of Faraday Road or in the HUB area would be significantly higher than in the canyon, primarily due to much higher grading requirements. II-2 The course "turnkey" development costs are estimated at $3.7 million for the standard quality and $4.6 million for the resort quality alternatives. This does not include provision for off-site costs such as access improvements or the cost of an environmental impact mitigation. Based on the income producing potential, a capitalized value for each alternative is estimated. The course value, along with an estimate of underlying land value for both alternatives, is summarized as follows: Amount (thousands) Standard Resort Project Value $3,489 $4,842 Less: Development Costs (3,551) (4,447) Developer Fee (174) (242) Residual Land Value ($ 236) $ 153 One measure of economic feasibility is whether project value, based on the income producing potential of the course, exceeds the cost of development. In this case, the resort quality course value exceeds cost and creates positive underlying land value. Positive underlying value establishes the basis for ground lease payments. It should be pointed out that the project value under a profit maximizing combination of fees and value is estimated at $5.4 million, creating an underlying residual land value of $700,000.! Ifiased on $14 weekday and $20 weekend greens fees; 70,000 rounds at stabilization. II-9 Ground Lease Revenue The potential for ground lease revenue is related to the value of the underlying land. With the standard quality course, it is unlikely that any ground lease revenues would be generated in the foreseeable future. For the resort quality golf course alternative, minimum annual ground lease revenue in the range of $15,000 to $25,000 at play stabiliza- tion can be expected. Under the profit maximizing scenario, minimum annual ground lease revenue of about $70,000 is estimated. PRIVATIZATION POTENTIAL It is the intent of the city to solicit the private sector for development and operation of the proposed golf course on a ground lease from the city. Within recent years, the economics of golf have improved substantially to the point where, in strong golf markets, private devel- opers often are interested in developing courses on leased land. This improvement in operating economics has resulted from the following: (1) greens fees have increased sharply over the past several years, much more than the general cost of living; (2) demand for golf is increasing rapidly as the population expands and ages; and (3) operating expenses -- particularly water costs -- have not increased as fast as was expected several years ago. Nonetheless, most golf courses still are constructed as part of a real estate venture, where the course creates the opportunity to capital- ize on residential site premiums. We believe that with limited restric- tions applied to a developer, and if the city assumes responsibility for all of the off-site costs, there is a reasonable likelihood that private development/operation will occur. However, the probabilities would increase markedly if a resort hotel site were created and integrated with the golf course development. Development of a golf course creates peripheral land value, and thus development of a hotel site would allow capture of this value. A 200- to 250-room hotel site (4 to 6 acres) has an estimated value of $1.5 to $2.5 million. Therefore, while the standard 11-10 quality and resort quality operational alternatives have negligible under- lying land value and consequently will produce little, if any, ground lease revenue, development of the hotel site offers an opportunity to generate one-time front-end value or annual ground lease income for the city. A golf course oriented resort hotel would require guaranteed start- ing times. It is estimated that a 200-room complex would utilize one- fourth to one-third of the golf course capacity. As the number of restrictions and policies increase with regard to greens fees, city resident discounts, reservation practices, and the like, it will become more difficult to attract private sector participation. OTHER ISSUES Development of a golf course in Macario Canyon would create a number of other impacts and issues. These are briefly summarized as follows: o Development of the course would displace the sports field complex as depicted in the existing Macario Park master plan and would be incompatible with the proposed athletic center initiative. It may be possible to relocate the athletic center, multi-use play fields, and other uses on property east of Faraday Road or in the HUB area. o The environmental, physical, and economic feasibility of relocating the displaced canyon recreation uses either east of Faraday Road (or to the HUB area) requires investigation. Based on a preliminary review of these issues, the potential appears to exist for relocating a scaled-down version of the athletic complex and sports fields to the area east of Faraday, or substituting these uses for other uses in this area. However, because of substantial grading requirements, the development of these uses would be more costly than in Macario Canyon. 11-11 The HUB area is a less likely relocation site for the athletic complex uses. This area is much more environmentally sensitive, has limited contiguous land area with less than 25 percent slope, and may not be compatible with SDG&E ownership and electrical substation development plans. The recommended development of a golf-oriented resort hotel site is a means to capture value created by development of the golf course, and improves the probability of privatization. The logical site for this complex is east of Faraday Road, on the northern portion of the site. This use would displace other Macario Canyon recreational uses, but the integration of the conference center and restaurant uses with the hotel site would free up other sites east of Faraday Road for development of other recreational uses. Both Faraday Road and Kelly Drive would require realignment. There do not appear to be restrictions affecting the realignment of these roadways. Revenues accruing to the city would be generated from several sources. The annual revenue accruing to the city for the standard and resort quality courses, along with the profit maximizing scenario, is summarized as follows: Annual Revenue (thousands) Revenue Source Ground Lease Golf Course2 Hotel2 Property Tax Transient Occupancy Sales Tax Standard -- $ 4 4 Resort Without Hotel $ 15 6 5 Resort1 With Hotel $ 15 150 30 250 28 Profit Maximizing^ $ 70 150 30 250 28 Total $ 8 $ 26 $473 $528 ^Assume development of a 200-room resort hotel complex. ^Minimum ground lease revenue. IU Z O Q. O 0. O OCD CJ IO cc Ou. Q UJ DC D O UJoc DCUJm O111 (0< CQ Q DC < Q Z < I-co O Z X Ul Z O HoO DC Hw Z O O DC 111 Q Z D <rO Oai LUcrDC D O««* 111 DC LL. 00 a CO CO x UJ U)>•u * sianoo/scmid 10 -QN CITY OF CARLSBAD FACILITY STANDARDS Activity Youth Softball/Baseball Adult Softball Youth Soccer Adult Soccer * Youth Football * Adult Football ** Tennis Lighted Baseball Fields NRPA - 1983 National Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. City - Based on NRPA, population percentage and park consultant recommendations. * Revised ** Needs to be adopted. NRPA 1/ 5,000 1/ 5,000 1/10,000 1/10,000 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/ 2,000 1/30,000 STANDARDS City 1/ 4,000 1/ 6,000 1/ 4,000 I/ 6,000 1/20,000 1/20,000 1/ 2,000 N/A 10-19-86 '•"'•"V Page ATTACHMENT C CO to >• 5f z o LJ LJ a_i LJ t— 1 LJ_ Q CD CO _Jce 0 o>o <\T LJ"\ vfl 0 CO CO ON LJ Z<- CO LJ I •< S O Cu ZI <- O •P O < HHI—<_J™^ Q.OQ. SQ13ld 3WV9 IV a. 3 O 0 UIrt^-»^J >,^5 -53 0) 3 CDC•(H £ 4Jo C >^ t—44_) C 0) C/) 3^ Q. liN310d IDNI1SIX3 + 9NI1SIX3 ii3id3a/snidyns Q3y i n£)3y si i NO sai3id 3wv9 yod ayvaNVis ('3vyd s 3wv9) iy 319V1IVAV SQ13ld «3d 319V1IVAV A1NO 33ll3Vyd 1M 319V1IVAV SQ13 3dS U3d dO 'ON sansid dO 'ON DdS y3d Id 3WV9 /33ii3vyd 3sn-innw -ON 0z h- 1 I—coi— i X LJ ^^^a; •Hu_ f-iu£0 co o 1 2 O 5 M . X h- 0 > _i _i CO 331— LJ Lt. CO 0 < CO CO (M I * O0o vO 0 m ^ J ^f1— CD_l H- <]'*—-.. rn 4^ C E 1) LJ C •Ha. T3 — i .— I U. L4 <"H <U ^H * flO .O L> C_J 4-> 0) Oo s <n>. o o «-0) U. _l 4)(^ ci_ --I tO CO <*- <M ? O Oo-d- ao (^ lA 3£ X LJ 1— O 38>- CO •o V LL. ("H t^ — ( U T3 * J2 C O 4-> O —1O <rt O fcj >.Li_ 4) 4) Q- ^H CO <t- -H50) ro n > (MI ON O ^ ^ O ^ ceH- LJ_l O < to •^ ^^0) •H U. -H j— 1 f^jQ j^joou_ CO 5 ^ - oo (M O VO j. _J ^£X CO1— h- J ^^ ^3 ^^> u_ ! I TT^_l 9) U. b -H <U -H i 13o .a_J 4->o>. o1) U. —4^H CO^ ^c > 0 ^ - o0 o vfl (M ~ i O OsJ vfl i L i J. -I — J ^fi- en_i h—•=> oQ 0< U_ VO co_j ^s i—ijj O Z H- •oa. COh- (co 5; Z ^C Ct '-OUJ coLU 1 Z CT\^- Q i_J 0 UJ <—1— 1 U- 4J< 5COCO «Jce C_> ,-— . / co.^ po3 £ (flc 8 8 O L, (N T3LA c 3 5 to o0 h- -- UJ Z T3CO UJ C£ I *O T3Z O 4)O C H-t C r- fl < •— t -1 Q_ Q. (flO 4) 0. -H 4-) •H ZjGfl U. i 4)Z OV^d 5 3WV9) iyOdS H3d 19V1IVAV SQ13ld dO 'ON y3d 319V1IVAV SQ13ld A1NO 33liOVyd dO 'ON 319V1IVAV S013ld 3WV9 '33mvyd asn-innw 'ON LU ^^ 1— U, * rvj•*^ fl 4J •H > flC 0)3CD *-™s (M•^^ 1— 1 4> (0fl JT CL '*"*• coro ^ «H/• ^ G O t-O 4) Q^ ^CT fl fl -H 4-> fl CO U •y ^> o ^•N T™ • T^S M M o;co y—i*fl r- f~ ^* s ^^^ Q. ^ cO (a— i tj « •H JJ CX C 4)43 £fl C_> 4) L4 1—^4) >,LU > 4Jfl 4) 4)—i t>- a fl fl OU CO X o o o _, _, ^c ^cCD COt— LUU. CO0 < CO CO ^^ *~*- ^~ (M —s»^* 1— 1 M M 4) 4) (/) to fl fl JT .C --Na. Q. *- *-» 10 ftnn -H —( h •H .H 4J JT X X Ca ai^3 ^ fl ^JO Li UG 4> 4) >i4) > > 4->CT fl fl 4)fl ^H — 1 <(- J^J fl fl flCO C_) O CO ^ o ^ _l< 1- CD_J h-3 U_ Q 0< CO <-"\ ^~ **^ hH M oCO -^*s fl r- ^ t^fif CL ^-v (fl ^4 ^~(M _4 fl ^ •H C fl J= X 4) 4->G e «ifl fl 4) -H O Li -H > G 4) UJ4) > flCT fl 4) Cfl I-H a. 4> •P fl O 3CO O X CO LA 0 LA ceX LU1— U^ c^o o>- to ^~. r~ *^r H- 1 H- 1 a> (0fl(~a. *"^ v? ^"*<M — 1 ^^ ^ fljr x -PG <"fl fl -H O Ll >G 4)4) > flCT fl Cfl ~4 4) •P fl 3CO O CQ ^ O ^ ce1— LU_1 O §8< CO ^^K ^" •^^ 1— 1 i— I 4)(0fl Ha. ^-s (0 T-(M — t ^ >^ -H fl £ X 4JG </>fl fl -H O Li >'J 4)OJ > fl CT fl Cfl ^H 4)•P fl 3tO CJ CD LA <_ ^ _J_l ^X COH- 1— §8 >- LL. **~* T"™ >^^. 1— 1 h- 1 4)cOfljr Q. ^ tne^l -H •H-C XGfl flO LJG 4)4) >CT flfl -1 4-> fl CO 0 ^^ o rA ^^h- CO _ J ^—3 OQ O< U. 1i ^^ t? •H § _i I C•H 4)Lifl «. 0 § •4-3 G3t. C8 4)T3C3 4) .p •H4) CO 4)X3 —I1— ( •H GflU_ Li fl CL •4) <flLi 4) 3 CT4J fl3 P *" S ,_ (A to ^ LU OZ 1— 011— tto>• J ^z^c QLd Ld Z _J Ldt— i LL. ,0^£ 03to J ft" ^£CJ ooc*» <M LA "^VQ O CO tO 1 0 H- ON Ld Z r- 01 Ldi < -Z.o en s: r- O Z CJ •P O< p-l1— •^1=> Q.O0. sai3 U 3WV9 /33ii3vyd 3sn-uinw (SQ13IJ 3WV3) Q3yinfi3y SUMO C'nwyj <? juwn^\ Jvad j dWvJJ la 319V1I\/AV SQ13U M3d 3iaV1IVAV A1NO 33ll3Vyd ia( 319VTIVAV Sai3 "i J C U "3 JJab add JO *ON SQ13IJ JO 'ON )dS y3d J 3WVD /33ll3Vad 3Sn-liinW 'ON aZ i . iLUi— t Ql H" ^3 t/5 + t—^^ Z.DX LuLd P_JJoo o 01 43r* *-> <^_ • •H </) T34) -H~- 1 43 .O *H03 <+—— 1 C.-I -H 03 > T3 C .0 -H V^•^ tO i-H 3 S 0 O$ — J ^^V) 03-a •— ' "O •-* 3 43e -p03 O CT •-( Sri 43 4-> Sri CO ± b VO 2 ^1^1 <M r™ _l _J ~J — J X 03 33H- >— Ld O O < >• 01 03 • ato3 •-a JZ CCT 33 Oo Sri Sri 1 •"* Sri •P 03 43 4J >> C tj -X43 Sri 43 <£ * Sri X 8. _Q f^ «/) ~-< >. •>H <*0 <0 "O >^0 X *H "O tfl i-H43 -a •H 43 LL. >. — ' — i^ a. 03O QJ 43 Sri10 03 fO CC tO 4301 e ^C ^3cj a LA . 1^ ^ fA I«J t- 03 ^^ 1 i_j y_ Q 0< to • to CJ _c CT3OSri.CJH> 4J C43 Sri O JJJ o -H •H03 ^03 •o 4) •H LL. <-H "mJ2 +J O O 1 L <y^ 5 + 2 m Osl m o a: X Ld 1— CJ O O >- 01 *Q01 CJ J"* CT3Otrif^ 4^ 4.) C43Sri Sri O • 43 (rt -ri "O JO C •H 4303 43 > *03 C-a o 43 ^•H 43 U_ >> — 1 —I— i a. J2 43 •P <riO 03 O Lu tf) 4301 e 5d OJ ON r— ^* O cch- Ld _J CJ Q O< 01 , Qto CJ l~ CT3 O Sri.c4_) j_) C43 Srioa- . i/l — < 03^ "O ^ fcj— i 3 03 03 > Ol03 C-a o — 143 T3•H 43 Lu >>03— i — 1 03.C 43I ^ (^ O 03 Q Lu (0 43 01 EX 030 O LA ^ LA «•" ^ 00 ^«J X 031— (— C3 O > U- t 1 Q '! 01 || CJ r- II CT 1 3 0 Sri f~ I P IIII 4.J C Sri 1 Srio1- '1 43 S03 p-ril •H 03 ^03 •o •-H (fl 43 ^3 •H C Lu 43v — t 43 |8 4J C 0 0oLu (0^, Ol 03 X —1CJ Q- * ^ \ ON OJ _, <H- Ira Q O <! ILL. (M * 0LA \oo INI ON 01 <! U O Z t- r C 20 19 18 17 16 15 U 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 YOUTH SOFTBALL/BASEBALL STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 4,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 *CHS LOWER FUERTE FUERTE LEV ANTE 3EFFERSON CHASE CHASE CHASE PINE NO. *CHS LOWER STANDARD EXISTING & POTENTIAL MAY REQUIRE FEE AND LIMITED AVAILABILITY BUENA VISTA BUENA VISTA STAGECOACH STAGECOACH STAGECOACH CAL. HILLS PHASE I CAL. HILLS PHASE I CAL. HILLS PHASE II SAFETY CENTER HOPE ELEMENTARY FUTURE r 10/86 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 ADULT SOFTBALL STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 6,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,OOO I////////////////////! *FUERTE LEVANTE CHS LOWER *CHASE *CHASE *CHASE PINE CALAVERA HILLS PHASE I CALAVERA HILLS PHASE I CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II SAFETY CENTER STAGECOACH STAGECOACH STAGECOACH NO.STANDARD EXISTING *CHASE FIELD - LIMITED TO WOMEN'S & *FUERTE SENIOR SOFTBALL FUTURE 10/86 YOUTH SOCCER 20 19 18 17 16 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 2 1 STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 4,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 I////////////////////! *VALLEY LOWER **CHS FOOTBALL **CHS LOWER ***3EFFERSON ***PINE ELEMENTARY MAGNOLIA MAGNOLIA JEFFERSON KELLY VALLEY UPPER LEVANTE LEVANTE FUERTE FUERTE PINE ELEMENTARY BUENA VISTA HOPE ELEMENTARY CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II STAGECOACH STAGECOACH NO.STANDARD * VALLEY LOWER ** CHS LOWER/CHS FOOTBALL *** JEFFERSON/PINE ELEMENTARY EXISTING RESTRICTED AVAILABILITY LIMITED AVAILABILITY/FEE REQUIRED MINOR UPGRADES REQUIRED FUTURE 10/86 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 ADULT SOCCER STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 6,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 **CHS FOOTBALL 3EFFERSON ***VALLEY LOWER FUERTE *CHS LOWER MAGNOLIA MAGNOLIA BUENA VISTA CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II STAGECOACH STAGECOACH MO.STANDARD EXISTING & POTENTIAL *CHS LOWER - LIMITED AVAILABILITY/MAY REQUIRE FEE **CHS FOOTBALL - LIMITED AVAILABILITY/FEE REQUIRED ***VALLEY LOWER - RESTRICTED AVAILABILITY 10/86 FUTURE 15 YOUTH FOOTBALL STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 20,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 * 3 2 1 NO. | **CHS FOOTBALL I I////////////////////I I FUERTE I////////////////////I I I////////////////////I I *CHS LOWER I////////////////////I I I////////////////////I I VALLEY LOWER I////////////////////I I STANDARD EXISTING & POTENTIAL BUENA VISTA STAGECOACH STAGECOACH CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II FUTURE *CHS LOWER - PRIMARILY USED FOR PRACTICE AND IS AVAILABLE FOR GAMES **CHS FOOTBALL - LIMITED AVAILABILITY/FEE REQUIRED 10/86 f -V.- 15 ADULT FOOTBALL STANDARD = 1 FIELD PER 20,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 NO. I////////////////////I I////////////////////I I////////////////////I I////////////////////I I////////////////////I I////////////////////! STANDARD **V ALLEY LOWER *CHS FOOTBALL FUERTE *CHS LOWER EXISTING & POTENTIAL STAGECOACH STAGECOACH CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II FUTURE *CHS LOWER - LIMITED AVAILABILITY AND FEE REQUIRED *CHS FOOTBALL - LIMITED AVAILABILITY AND FEE REQUIRED **VALLEY LOWER - RESTRICTED AVAILABILITY 10/86 TENNIS COURT STANDARD = 1 COURT PER 2,000 POPULATION BASED ON POPULATION OF 52,000 26 | RACQUET CLUB 25 21 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 U 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 * 3 2 1 I ////////// 1 ////////// I//////////I !//////////!I//////////II//////////II//////////II//////////!i//////////i I//////////I i//////////iI//////////II//////////Ii//////////i I//////////II//////////I IMONROE (S) I//////////I II//////////I IMONROE (s) I//////////I II//////////I ICHS I//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I II//////////I ICHSI//////////I I I//////////I ICHSI//////////I I I//////////I I LAG. RIVIERA* I//////////I I I III! Illlll I I LAG. RIVIERA* 1 1 III II till \ ILA COSTA CANYON* I//////////I ILA COSTA CANYON* CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II MONROE (N) MONROE (N) STAGECOACH* STAGECOACH* STAGECOACH* STAGECOACH* 1 [RACQUET CLUB 1 1C 'BAD PALISADES 1 | OLYMPIC RESORT 1 I OLYMPIC RESORT 1 (OLYMPIC RESORT 1 (OLYMPIC RESORT 1 | OLYMPIC RESORT 1 IVAL. OF THE TREES 1 (TELESCOPE PT. 1ITANGLEWOOD 1 I TANGLEWOOO | TANGLEWOOD 1ISEA CLIFF1 ISEA CLIFF 1IRANCHO C'BAD 1IRANCHO C'BAD 1 I MEADOW RIDGE 1 (MEADOW RIDGE 1 IL.C. TOWNHOMES IL.C. TOWNHOMES 1 (FOREST PARK 1IALTA MIRA 1IALTA MIRA 1IALTA MIRA1IALTA MIRA 1mr. = Lighted LAlOliNG PUItNI1AL « TUlUTCt (S) = South (N) = North (3'"\ / KKIVAIt CUUK 1 5 COMMUNICATION October 22, 1986 TO: Board Members, Carlsbad Unified School District Superintendent, Carlsbad Unified School District FROM: Carlsbad National Little League SUBJECT: Lover Field-Buena Vista Elementary School Varsity Baseball Field-Carlsbad High School We at Carlsbad National Little League (CNLL) would like to propose the following: (1) the development of 2 minor league playing fields on the lower section of Buena Vista Elementary; (2) the lighting of the Varsity baseball field at Carlsbad High School. We are expecting a registration of between 400-500 boys and girls this season, within the age goup of 7 through 12. This number necessitates the dividing of CNLL into two leagues, Carlsbad National Little League and Carlsbad American Little League. Our present facility, Chase Field, can not accommodate 'this many children. Our need of playing fields is an immediate one. This situation carries over into the Junior, Senior and Big Leagues, therefore, we would also like to propose the lighting of the Varsity Field at Carlsbad High School. Carlsbad National Little League would like to present estimates for both projects and respectfully request a place on the agenda for the next School Board meeting. Sincerely, If'"Margaret Knox, President Carlsbad National Little League cc: David Bradstreet,Director Parka and Recreation, City of Carlsbad ATTACHMENT D POST OFFICE BOX 1575 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 434-3114 ^A. fitt .<& */ouse 2*'ou.se CARLSBAD "Village By The Sea"October 30, 1986 Dave Bradstreet Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Carlsbad,. CA 92008 Dear Dave, Enclosed Is a check for five hundred dollars which Dooley's would like to donate to the Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department on behalf of all the participants in the 5th Annual Pro Am Golf Tour- nament. We had anticipated a greater donation amount, but had sev- eral last minute "No Shows" which detracted from the bottom line. I hope that your department will find a beneficial use for the money. Please thank all who helped in making our banquet Clam Bake at Maghee Park a huge success. Warmest Regards, Sanderson Hoist Director of Operations ATTACHMENT F DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY'S P.O. BOX 1575 - CARLSBAD. CA 9Z008 ACCT# 7240 SPECIAL EVENTS NO.011111 DOOLEY MCCLUSKEY'S P.O. BOX 1 575 CARLSBAD, CALIF. 92008 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH COUNTY OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 90-3902 1222 N0.011111 tCHECK>NO. *****PIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS- PAY TO TH = ORDER Of CARLSBAD PARKS & RECREATION 1200 ELM AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 10-31-86 ^AMOUNT $500.00 Parks & Recreation Commission November 17, 1986 "The Green Sheet" Fire Station #4 was dedicated October 29, 1986. Parks staff members designed the landscape plan which was installed by the Contractor. Parks staff members met with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Architect for the State Office of Historic Preservation. A tour of the Carrillo Ranch and discussion of the grant application for $300,000 was the purpose of the meetiag. Expansion of Indoor Soccer at Monroe Tennis Courts was turned down by Council November 4. Staff will work with the soccer group to find a suitable site elsewhere. Stagecoach Park slope stabilization came in at the low end of the budget and was completed ahead of schedule. City Council approval of the plans and specifications for Calavera Hills Community Park Phase I and the authorization to go out for public bid is anticipated by early December. The Parks and Recreation Director is attending the GPRS annual training session at Asilomar during the week of November 10-15, 1986. Primary focus will be on "Negotiating for Peak Performance". Daytrippers traveled to Oak Glen to pick apples on Saturday, November 8. Thirty-three participants took part in this enjoyable day. The Recreation Division is sponsoring a Jr. High Air Band contest on Friday, November 21st at 7:00 p.m. at the Harding Community Center. The Recreation Division sponsored a Halloween Crafts Party for children ages 4-8 on October 28, 1986 at Levante Center. The event was very successful, approximately 30 children attended. Parks staff has graded, leveled and seeded the top portion of Larwin Park property as an erosion control measure. Parks Division will be interviewing for one Maintenance Worker III position and five Maintenance Worker I positions to provide maintenance to new parks and City facilities. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AREA TOUR October 20, 1986 ITINERARY 1. Parks and Recreation Administration Office - 4:00pm. 2. Stagecoach Community Park - 4:30pm-5:00pm. 3. Macario Canyon - 5:30pm-6:00pm. 4. Calavera Hills Community Park - Drive-by.* 5. Hosp Grove - Drive-by.* 6. City Council Chambers regular scheduled Commission Meeting-6:30pm. *Time permitting. Parks Division will be making the final preparations for the ballfield at the Safety Center - which will include fencing, bleachers, benches, drinking fountain, base and infield preparation. Chris Harmon attended the California Department Boating and Waterways "Advanced Boating" training course, November 3-7, in San Diego. He will continue working weekends at the Lagoon to monitor Fall use; in addition, he handles all Lagoon permits and monitors insurance requirements for new and continuing boaters. Lynn Chase (and Keith) - on vacation November 7-14 in Roatan, an island off Honduras to look underwater; maybe another slide show, will be the end result of this diving trip.