HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Trails Feasibility Study; Carlsbad Trails Feasibility Study; 1990-08-01k.
r*
L
L
L
L
AUGUST 1990
CARLSBAD
FEASIBILITY
TRAILS
STUDY
c
c
c
B
0
C
c
c
I
i
C
0
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context
System Feasibility
Physical Implications
Financial Implications
Issues Summary
ISSUES DISCUSSION
Introduction
Trails and the Open Space System
Trails and Community Parks
Special Resource Areas
Trails and Park Land Dedication
Classification
Trail Design Guidelines
Landscaping
Staging Areas
Viewpoints and Picnic Areas
Signage and Interpretive Information
Furniture
Lighting
Road Crossings and Bridges
Joint Uses
Environmental Issues
Surrounding Communities
Safety: Police and Fire
Vehicular Access
1
1
1
2
3
9
10
10
11
12
1.2
14
14
16
18
18
22
22
22
22
24
24
28
29
Demonstration Project
Ownership
Liability
Cost Estimate Process
Costs Estimates
Acquisition Strategies
Financing Strategies
Operations and Maintenance
Phasing and Priorities
Approvals and Permits
LINKAGES DESCRIPTIONS
Individual Linkages Description
Map Sheet Index
Alignment Map Sheets 01 - 23
Bibliography
Acknowledgments
29
30
31
32
36
37
38
40
40
40
51
79
Following Page 80
81
83
C
LISTofFIGURES
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
II
C
Figure 1 Trails Network Map
Figure 2 Paved Pedestrian and Bike Path Design Concepts
Figure 3 Unpaved Hiking and Bike Path Design Concepts
Figure 4 Road Crossing and Information Signage Concepts
Figure 5 Trail Marker Design Concepts
Figure 6 Staging Areas
Figure 7 Viewpoints and Picnic Areas
Figure 8 Joint Uses
Figure 9 Demonstration Project
LIST of TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Tables
Costs Summary
Selected Carlsbad Land Assessments
Preliminary Acquisition and
Maintenance Cost Estimates:
Trail Linkages
Table 4 Preliminary Acquisition and
Maintenance Cost Estimates:
Staging, Viewpoints, and Picnic Areas
Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates
Table 6 Improvement Cost Estimates: Phase 1
7
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
2
42
43
45
46
49
LV
/T~Vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
Context
In 1988 the City embarked upon a comprehensive review of its open space
policies and planning. While not the only activity, this review was perhaps
most clearly evidenced through the convening of a Citizens Committee to
Study Open Space. The principal result of the Committee's actions was the
preparation of a report containing numerous policy and study
recommendations. Upon accepting the report, the City Council directed
staff to carry out a yearlong open space workplan to take the City through
the necessary steps of research, study, and planning, in order to resolve the
issues identified during the Committee's deliberations. The first task in that
workplan was the preparation of an in-depth trail system feasibility study.
This report presents the conclusion of that study.
System Feasibility
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, both physical
and financial, of Carlsbad implementing a citywide trails system. The one
overriding conclusion of the study is a clear affirmative. Should the City so
desire, it is feasible for an interlinking network of trails to be implemented
connecting the various areas of the City together. The principal conclusions
of the study, with regard to the physical and financial implications of
adopting such a policy, are outlined below.
Physical Implications
• There are a number of landscape resources distributed throughout the
City which both have high intrinsic aesthetic quality and also form
representative examples of the natural landscape of the City. Protection
of these resources within open space will serve to perpetuate the high
quality environment to which the City aspires. Access to these
resources via a trail system will enhance the recreational opportunity in
the City and allow residents to retain connection with, and build an
understanding of, the natural landscape upon which their community is
built.
The City is undeveloped over enough of its land area that the majority
of the trail system can be sited in these undeveloped areas and
implemented with future development planning.
A large proportion of the trail links in undeveloped areas pass through
large, single land ownerships or Master Plan areas. In these cases the
implementation of the trail system should be especially easy provided
trail needs are identified early enough in the planning and negotiation
process.
In those areas of the City which are already built-up, potential exists to
complete the citywide trail network through the improvement of existing
open space corridors. In a small number of cases traH linkages will only
be possible along sidewalks and through the use of bicycle lanes within
the road right-of-way.
• The City has a range of natural resources including water bodies,
riparian habitat, chaparral and coastal sage scrub, and naturalized tree
groves which have varying capacity to accommodate human land uses.
The trail system must be sited and designed so as to avoid negative
impacts on these resources. In particular the wetland and riparian areas
of the City and areas of chaparral and scrub with sensitive and/or rare
and endangered species will have to be carefully treated. In assessing
the physical feasibility of the system account was taken of these
resources. If the City decides to implement the trail system, full
environmental review will have to form part of the planning and design
process on each proposed project.
It is recommended that the City consider the immediate implementation
of a demonstration linkage to initiate the development of the trail system.
If action is taken promptly this linkage could be included in fiscal year
1991 -1992.
Trails Feasibility Study 1
Financial Implications
• Table 1 summarizes the acquisition, improvement, and annual
maintenance costs associated with implementation of the trail system.
It should be recognized that a series of assumptions are built into these
estimates; the assumptions and detailed discussion of the fiscal
implications are included in the main body of the report.
Table 1: COSTS SUMMARY
Total
Phase 1 Cost
Acquisition
$448,000
95,000
Improvements Annual Maintenance
$3,023,100
1,891,150
$290,000
70,000
The trail system has been designed to utilize existing public ownerships
and right-of-way to reduce acquisition requirements. Of the trail
segments that are not located on public land, most can be acquired
through land dedication as part of compliance with open space
standards of the City's Growth Management Plan or through the Master
Plan or subdivision approval process, minimizing the amount of land
that has to be purchased directly. While the open space set-aside
requirement does not necessarily require dedication of title to the City,
public fee title for the trail right-of-way within the wider open space
corridor should be sought prior to subdivision approval. If the City
acquires fee title, the property owner would be relieved of the
responsibility and cost of maintaining the trail system land.
Total acquisition costs for the entire system equal an estimated
$448,000 (in 1990 dollars). Phase 1 acquisition costs equal an
estimated $95,000. These estimates are based on the assumption and
recommendation that the trail system be aligned along designated open
space corridors for which a higher economic use is not permitted. If
2 7ra/7s Feasibility Study
during implementation, the trail is aligned on land for which a higher
economic use (such as residential, commercial, or industrial) is
permitted, acquisition costs could be more than 20 times greater for a
particular parcel, and the cost/benefit of such an acquisition would have
to be evaluated. This estimate also assumes that substantial portions
of the trail system can be acquired through the negotiated subdivision
approval process without direct public expenditure.
• Since acquisition costs are uncertain until specific trail linkages are
designed, it would be prudent to budget additional funds for acquisition
beyond the estimated acquisition of budget cost. Approximately
$1,000,000 is recommended.
The total improvement costs have been estimated at $3,023,100 (in 1990
dollars). This total is based on a series of assumptions about how much
of the trail system can reasonably be expected to be implemented and
dedicated to the City by future private development projects. Phase 1
improvements (years 1990 -1993) are estimated at $1,891,150.
Additional in-house or consultant costs may be incurred for
environmental review of the trail system and in the preparation of
improvement plans for Hosp Grove and Lake Calavera. These costs
have not been included in this study.
• In order to finance acquisition and improvement costs, the trail system
could be incorporated as an extra item in the City's public facility fees
program, or be included as a sub-element within the existing open space
or park facilities standards. A nexus will have to be established to
demonstrate that these funds will be used to benefit the new population
who will indirectly pay these fees. If the trail system is considered an
extra item, this might require an increase in the fee, subject to voter
approval, and would only be applicable to those zones for which the
public facility fee and financing plan has yet to be adopted, unless
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
G
C
C
C
C
C
G
existing plans were amended. If the trail system is considered a facility
for which public facility fee monies are already collected, an increase in
the fee would not be required, although no new additional revenue will
be raised specifically for the trail system. The trail system should be
considered a citywide facility.
Monies from public facility fees applied to new development could
finance acquisition and improvement costs for trails that serve new
population only. Other portions of the trail system would serve existing
population and public facility fee revenues would not be generated from
these areas. Therefore, general fund monies will probably be required
to fund trails which serve the existing population.
• The trail system's acquisition and improvement costs could be financed
with a general obligation bond, which would require two-thirds voter
approval. The City of San Juan Capistrano and the East Bay Regional
Park District recently achieved two-thirds voter approval for general
obligation bonds to finance park, open space, and trail acquisition and
development.
The City may negotiate with developers either to develop the trail
segments within their property, or to pay an in-lieu fee so that the City
may develop the trail segment.
Proposition H, passed in 1982, requires voter approval of City general
fund expenditures for any single project where costs exceed $1 million.
Acquisition and improvements funded by special assessments are not
subject to this measure. Since the ordinance which implements this
measure (Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code) states that a project "may
not be separated into parts or phases so as to avoid the effects of this
chapter," the City will have to determine whether the trail system plan
constitutes one or several projects.
protection which will be estimated by the respective departments, this
estimate also any recreation program costs the City wishes to offer
related to the trail system. In early years, as the trail system is being
developed and is smaller, annual maintenance costs should be less;
Phase 1 maintenance costs equal an estimated $70,000.
• Since the trail system serves the citywide population, incorporating the
trail system maintenance costs into the existing citywide lighting and
landscaping assessment district may be the most appropriate
approach.
Issues Summary
If the council decides to include the implementation of a trail system as a
component in the City's open space and recreation planning, there are a
number of issues upon which action needs to be taken. Each of the points
listed below represents a summary of the policy and action issues which
must be addressed. A fuller discussion of each issue is included in the
Issues Discussion section.
Primary Issues
• Staff should be directed to include planning for the trail system into the
wider open space planning context, specifically through inclusion in the
forthcoming development of the Open Space and Conservation
Resource Management Plan (Task 7 in the City's 1990 Open Space
Workplan), and in the Open Space and Conservation, and Parks and
Recreation Elements of the General Plan;
A decision will need to be made in the short term over funding for a
demonstration linkage, if that is to be achieved in fiscal year 1991 -1992.'
C
C
Total annual maintenance cost for the trail system is an estimated
$290,000 (in 1990 dollars). This excludes costs for police and fire
• The City will need to make a policy decision regarding the type of
ownership which will be used for the trails system. It has been assumed
Trails Feasibility Study 3
by this study that City ownership of the primary trails network is to be
preferred.
The Risk Manager and the City Attorney should review existing terms of
the City's liability policy in order to ensure coverage of trails-related
incidents.
• The City should choose a financing strategy for acquisition,
improvements, and maintenance which is equitable, recognizing that
the trail system will be a citywide facility serving both existing and new
populations.
Secondary Issues
• Consideration should be given to allocation of responsibility for the
planning, administration of implementation, operations, and
maintenance of the trails system. Decisions will need to be made over
which department is responsible for which actions, the amount of
budget allocations required for those actions, and the adequacy of
existing staffing to meet these new responsibilities.
This study identifies the primary trails network throughout the City.
However, the system would be much more effective if a system of
secondary trails were to connect into the main system. A policy would
need to be adopted speaking to creation of secondary trails and their
relationship to the City's primary trail system.
The City must ensure that future park designs take account of, and make
appropriate provision for, the completion of the trail system.
• It is recommended that the City prepare a master plan for Hosp Grove,
defining its use as a passive recreational site for trails and related
facilities such as staging areas, picnic sites, and viewpoints.
4 Trails Feasibility Study
The City should prepare a master plan for the trails use of the area
around Lake Calavera. This study should assess the precise boundaries
of any future trails use in this Special Resource Area in relation to: the
proposed golf course, the sensitive environmental context, access for
staging purposes, and use of the old quarry.
• The City should make a detailed study of the potential to increase its
Quimby Ordinance dedication requirements in order to assess the
impacts and potential for use of this enabling legislation for dedication
of trail land.
• For the purpose of implementing the trail system (and for the possible
preparation of a booklet or map advertising the trail system) the City will
need to break the trail system down into separate linkages each of which
forms a coherent excursion for the trail user. (This is in contrast with
the trail linkages breakdown in this study which is based upon
acquisition and implementation criteria rather than use pattern criteria.)
Linkages will go from one key node to another, or form loops based on
key access points.
The City should monitor trail use and, where peak areas of the trail
system are determined to pose negative impacts due to mixed use, be
prepared to restrict mixed bicycle and pedestrian use.
The City should prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines for
development of the trail system. These guidelines will not only be used
internally to guide City projects, but also may be distributed to private
developers to assist in preparation of their planning and design
submittals.
• As part of the preparation of design guidelines for the trail system, the
City should prepare a list of acceptable plant species which conform
both to the natural landscape aesthetic and water conservation needs.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G
0
The City should develop a system of signage for the trail system
describing both what specific information will be communicated, and
the design of the signs and markers which will be used.
The City should discuss with other agencies and communities in the
region the types of regional signage needed where connections will be
made between different communities' trails systems. If a coordinated
approach could be determined in advance, it would probably be of
benefit to all parties.
• The City should identify locational criteria for and design appropriate
road signage to identify the trail system to City motorists.
course in Linkage No. 13 and the service access road in Linkage No.
43.
Many of the landscape resources in the City which are potentially of
most interest to the trail user, are also the most environmentally
sensitive. The City will have to plan and design the interaction of trails
and environmental resources with care so as not to destroy the very
resource the trail design is seeking.
The City should establish and maintain periodic contact with
surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that the linkages necessary to
achieve a regionally connecting trail system are effected.
C
C
C
C
G
C
C
D
C
• The City should consider development of an interpretive program to be
implemented along with the trail system.
The City should consider preparation of a trails booklet describing the
system so as to make residents and visitors aware of the resources
available. The booklet could also be used to present rules and advice
on use of the trail system and interpretive information.
Recommendations regarding the construction and location of furniture
should be included in the overall development of design guidelines for
the trail system.
The City should consider commencing negotiations regarding
secondary trails use of San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) powertine
easements in the near future, given the apparent reticence of Southern
California Edison (SCE) to permit such secondary uses and the
impending merger potential of SDG&E and SCE.
The City should initiate the necessary internal design and negotiation
steps necessary to implement the shared use of the water drainage
• The City should lobby with regional organizations such as SANDAG for
the completion of a regional trails study to identify feasibility and outline
a program for implementation of a regional trails system.
The Fire Chief must be given the authority to close trail linkages as
deemed necessary during dry spells.
• The City should develop a trails patrol police unit using either
motorcycles or mountain-bikes or a combination of the two. It should
be noted that the costs of equipping and operating such a unit are not
included in this study.
Staging areas in particular and other trail sections close to the road
system should be designed to facilitate surveillance by police patrol
units.
• The City should introduce ordinances prohibiting the carrying of glass
bottles, alcohol, matches and other ignition devices, and any other
articles considered dangerous onto the trail system.
Trails Feasibility Study 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Early involvement of agencies such as the California Department of Fish
and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, _
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of •
Engineers will help ensure that the trail system is planned and designed "
in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with agency
requirements.
• The trail design at certain road intersections will have to provide barriers
which prevent public vehicular use of the trails but also allow for
maintenance/emergency vehicular access as needed. Removable or
knockdown bollards or some form of locked gateway device may have
to be installed. Design guidelines for the trail system should address
this issue.
• The City must be conscious of the economic value of land acquired for
the trail system, and, while implementing the trail system, should weigh
the cost/benefit of each link that requires public purchase once an
independent appraisal is made.
• The City will have to determine whether the trail system constitutes one
or several projects under the terms of Proposition "H."
6 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
D
C
C
c
c
G
C
C
t
Trails Network Map 01
FIGURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
8 7ra/7s Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u \
ISSUES DISCUSSION
I
e
B
C
C
C
G
C
G
0
C
Introduction
The 1973 Open Space and Conservation Element of the Carlsbad General
Plan contain general statements and references to the concept of the City
pursuing a citywide, interconnecting trail system. In particular the 1973
Prime Open Space and Conservation Map depicts corridors and linkages
between major open space areas. However, when the 1982 Park and
Recreation Element was adopted no specific policies or action programs
regarding a comprehensive trail system were included. This apparently
reflected decisions against pursuing a trails system because of the level of
improvement costs, ongoing maintenance costs, public liability, impact on
private property where the trail might have to be adjacent to homeowners
private yards, and perceived security and policing problems.
In 1989, the Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space concluded its review
of open space planning in the City and made a number of recommendations
for future policy action regarding open space in general and trails in
particular. On trails the committee recommended that:
"Since surveys by the state have shown that the most popular
outdoor activities, and those with the greatest participation, are
individual pursuits such as walking and hiking, the committee
recommends unanimously that the City Council give high priority
to studies preparatory to establishing a trail system throughout
the City."
This feasibility study represents the culmination of the first step towards
possible implementation of a citywide trail system. The intent of this study
is to give the City Council and others the information necessary on which to
base policy and administrative decisions regarding trails in the City of
Carlsbad.
It is important to note that the trail network studied in this report is intended
to form the primary linkages only. While establishing this primary network
as the backbone of the final system, it will also be important to ensure that
developments surrounding the primary trails take advantage of the
opportunity, and ensure adequate access to the primary system, through
the integration of a secondary network of trails which will lead through the
development and connect it to the main system.
There are three types of trail included in the feasibility study: 1) A fully
improved paved trail type which would be used in the most urban and heavily
used sections of the trail system - this type would be fully accessible to the
handicapped; 2) an unpaved trail type which is intended to be only
minimally improved in order to allow a more rural trail aesthetic; 3) and a
few trail linkages which would use the sidewalk and bike lanes in the road
right-of-way - this last type is to be used only where aligning the trail in a
separate right-of-way is not possible.
In selecting alignments for the trail system the study commenced with the
alignments indicated on the 1989 Comprehensive Open Space Network
Map produced as part of the conclusions of the Citizen's Committee to Study
Open Space. From this starting point the intention was to link together key
recreational opportunities in the City, including park sites and key natural
resource areas. A secondary concern was to provide an alternative
non-vehicular transportation system throughout the City. For all alignments
the first choice of location was to be in an unimproved open space corridor
away from any roadway. The second choice was to locate the trail within a
powerline easement. Third choice was to locate the trail within its own right
of way parallel to a roadway. Only where none of these options was available
does the trail system use sidewalks and bike lanes to connect together open
space linkages.
Trails Feasibility Study 9
Trails and the Overall Open Space System
In August 1989, as part of the conclusions of the Citizen's Committee to
Study Open Space, the City prepared a Comprehensive Open Space
Network Map. Based on a plan showing the distribution of General Plan
designated open space, approved Master Plan open space, and
environmentally constrained areas, the map indicated two broad concepts:
1. The idea of greenway corridors which would link together most of the
major open space areas of the City into a connected open space system
weaving throughout the urban and suburban development;
2. A set of conceptual alignments for a citywide trail system linking the
different neighborhoods of the City and the main parks and open space
areas.
In many cases the two ideas - greenways and trails - were coincident.
However, in a number of cases the map indicated open space greenways
without a trail, and also in places trail linkages that were not within open
space.
It must be stressed that the purpose of this study was to study the feasibility
of the trails component only (a process which has required the refinement
in site-planning detail of alignments for the trail links). This study does not
include analysis, observations, or recommendations regarding the
greenways. The intent of the Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space (as
clearly shown in the Comprehensive Open Space Network Map) was to
indicate a trail system which would fall, wherever possible, within open
space. If the open space setting for the trails is to be achieved it is essential
that the City undertake to prepare an open space plan which will address
acquisition (or other means of reservation) of the open space areas and
greenways. Specifically this should be included as part of the forthcoming
development of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management
Plan (Task 7 in the City's 1990 Open Space Workplan), and in the Open
Space and Conservation, and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General
Plan.
10 Trails Feasibility Study
Issue: The City must ensure that planning for open space is coordinated
with planning for the trail system. In particular integration must
occur in the forthcoming development of the Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan (Task 7 in the City's
1990 Open Space Workplan), and in the Open Space and
Conservation, and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General
Plan.
Trails and Community Parks
One of the objectives of preparing alignments for the trail system was to
connect the various existing and proposed community parks located
throughout the City. The system developed in this study connects with all
the major community park sites in the City:
• Hosp Grove Park;
• Larwin Park;
• Calavera Park;
• Veterans Memorial Park;
• Altamira Park;
• Poinsettia Park;
• Alga Norte Park;
• Carrillo Ranch; and
• Stagecoach Park.
It is intended that connection from one side of the park to the other will be
achieved through the park site itself. In those sites not yet designed and
constructed this should become one of the design criteria. Any alignments
indicated through park sites in this report are to be considered general
concepts only which will be revised during master planning and design
development of each park site. No significant improvements will be required
at the two existing park sites:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
B
D
At Calavera Park the trails connecting through the park are only intended
to carry pedestrians, who would be able to use existing paths through
the park itself;
At Stagecoach Park pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting at opposite
sides of the park will be directed around its perimeter on Mission
Estancia (the connections of Links No. 42,43 and 44). The introduction
of Unk No. 41 may require the addition of a new path along the western
perimeter of the park site.
Special Resource Areas are recreational sites characterized by the existence
of a special or unusual feature, natural or man-made, i.e.; a water body, earth
formation, historical amenity, ecological reserve, etc." This definition seems
to effectively encompass two areas which have potential for trails oriented
use. The two areas being considered are Hosp Grove and an area around
Lake Calavera. In both cases the intent of a trails-oriented Special Resource
Area would be to provide an essentially unimproved natural area for hiking
and bicycle use. Aside from minimal grading and improvements for the trails
themselves, the only improvements envisaged would be for staging areas
close to road access, minimal picnic sites, and viewpoints.
c
0
c
D
0
Part of the Hosp Grove area (in the north of the City) is included in the 1988
Draft Parks and Recreation Element as a community park site of 27 acres.
It is assumed in this study that this area will only be minimally improved, with
trails being the primary activity.
An additional issue with regard to the interaction of parks and the trail system
is the projected use of some of the park sites as a means for parking and
use as staging areas for access to the trail system. While this should not
create any significant problems, it is possible that additional use of parking
areas, in particular, may over-stretch the resources at the park sites. It is
recommended that the City monitor this situation carefully and ensure that
any need for additional parking at park sites should be addressed. At park
sites not yet constructed the inclusion of trails usage should form part of the
design process.
Issue: The City must ensure that future park designs take account of
and make appropriate provision for the completion of the trail
system.
Special Resource Areas
Parks planning in Carlsbad identifies a primary classification system for park
sites which includes three types: Community Parks, Special Use Areas, and
Special Resource Areas. This last category is defined as including sites
which "...provide a unique character, [and] are largerthan community parks.
Hosp Grove includes a 27-acre Community Park site and a 49.55-acre
open space area. It is recommended that the City undertake to prepare
a master plan for the entire Hosp Grove area. As planning for the City's
park system includes the 27-acre parcel at Hosp Grove as a community
park, it is recommended that this classification continue. However the
open space area could reasonably be reclassified as a Special Resource
Area for trails use through the eucalyptus woodland.
In the 1988 Parks and Recreation Element, Lake Calavera is included
as a 252-acre Special Resource Area. This acreage is now being
proposed intended to accommodate a golf course around the
lake. This intended facility is at present the subject of a separate
planning and design study and it will be necessary for the City to
integrate the golf course proposals with any future trails use. A number
of issues remain undecided regarding the golf course which will affect
planning for the trails area including access - what direction should it
come from, and how the area will be classified. Also undecided is the
policy issue of whether golf courses will be allowed 100 percent credit
towards the 15 percent additional open space growth management
performance standard. The area around Lake Calavera falls within the
additional 15 percent requirement. If the golf course does not obtain
full credit, then additional acreage could be used for acquisition of the
trails area.
C
Trails Feasibility Study 11
Issues: It is recommended that the City prepare a master plan for Hosp
Grove, defining its use as a passive recreational site for trails and
related facilities such as staging areas, picnic sites, and
viewpoints.
The City should prepare a master plan for the trails use of the
area around Lake Calavera. This study should assess the
precise boundaries of any future trails use Special Resource
Area in relation to the golf course, the sensitive environmental
context, access for staging purposes, and use of the old quarry.
Trails and Parkland Dedication
The City currently uses a Quimby Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter
20.44 of the Municipal Code) as a primary mechanism for acquisition of
community parks and other active recreation sites. Carlsbad's ordinance
requires the dedication of three acres of land per 1,000 population brought
to the City in new residential subdivisions. While the pre-1982 Parks and
Recreation Element emphasized acquisition of more passive parkland,
current policy is to place stringent conditions such that, typically, only land
with slopes of less than 10 percent gradient suitable for use in active
recreation, is accepted. The amount of acreage which can be obtained
through this mechanism is a fundamental foundation for plans to implement
the City's park system. If the City pursues a trail system then a clear decision
must be made regarding the use or nonuse of Quimby land dedication for
the trails system acquisition.
While the current ordinance lies at the standard maximum of three acres per
thousand permitted by the Quimby enabling legislation, Quimby also
permits the level of dedication to be increased to five acres per thousand
population where the City's current level of park provision already exceeds
three acres per thousand. Depending upon the method of measuring the
amount of parkland, it is possible that Carlsbad could be in a position to
increase its Quimby dedication requirements.
Issues: The City should make a detailed study of the potential to increase
its Quimby Ordinance dedication requirements in order to
assess the impacts and potential for use of this enabling
legislation for dedication of trail land.
Classification
The trail system as a whole includes a total of 56 miles of pedestrian, bicycle,
and joint use trails. The system has been broken down for convenience of
discussion and feasibility assessment into 55 segments of various length
determined by factors such as changes in ownership and interconnections
of one trail orientation to another. Each segment in the feasibility study has
been ascribed one of two trail types (except where a separate trail cannot
be aligned in which case the trail system would have to follow road
right-of-way using sidewalks and bikelanes):
Type 1: Paved pedestrian and bike path 2.5 miles
Type 2: Unpaved hiking and bike path 46.0 miles
Use of Sidewalk/bikelanes: 7.5 miles
The majority of the trail system is projected to be unpaved in order to keep
improvement costs to an acceptable level and to develop the trail system
with a naturalistic aesthetic, consistent with the intent of permitting trail users
to come to appreciate better the natural environment upon which the City
is built. The intent of paving certain paths is to allow for wheelchair access
to portions of the trail system. Paving is also assumed in the more urban
sections of the trail system and where especially heavy use is anticipated.
The trail system which has been anticipated by this study shows joint use
by bicycles and pedestrians of both paved and unpaved paths. The design
standards for the paved paths (see Figure 2) show a minimum path width
of twelve feet which conforms to the California Department of Transportation
standard for joint use. However, in some cases it is possible that joint use
of the unpaved trails (for which a minimum width of eight feet is shown on
Figure 3) could become dangerous - for example if particularly heavy use
12 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
I
i
I
I
B
I
Q
B
D
C
D
0
D
C
, r ir-O" min.
16'-0" rain. R.O.W.
, 2'
4" strlpini
road
jr -•
. 6'-0"8'-0'
20'-0" R.O.W.
6'-0"
. 6'-0"
9
8'-0"
26*-o" n
, 6'-0"
.o.w.
, 6'-0"
Paved Pedestrian and
Bike Path Design Concepts
Gradient:
0-5% Optimum
5-8% For distances < 30'0"
8% Maximum
Siting:
Most urban of all trails; best in heavy use
areas; loops near recreational areas.
Pavement can be striped for two-way biking
(8'0" minimum); hiking/handicap 4'-6'
(two-way wheelchair).
Signage for handicapped, drinking
fountains.
Cross sloped or crowned for drainage.
Fire/police/maintenance vehicular access.
lO'O" minimum clearance is necessary.
Materials:
trail: asphalt or concrete (reinforced to
carry vehicular load).
header: wood or concrete where necessary
landscape: drought tolerant, native, low
maintenance species that
provide barriers, shade, and
screening.
Right of Way:
26'0" Preferred, minimum in open space
corridors
20'0"
16'0"
Preferred, minimum elsewhere
Minimum
02
F I CURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
is made of a trail linkage. In such a case the City might have to either restrict
use to pedestrians only, for example, or construct an additional parallel path
within the right-of-way and use signage to keep pedestrians and cyclists
separated.
Issues: For the purpose of implementing the trail system (and for the
possible preparation of a booklet or map advertising the trail
system) the City will need to combine segments from the
feasibility study into separate trail each of which forms a coherent
excursion for the trail user. (The trail segments set out in this
study are based upon acquisition and implementation criteria
rather than use pattern criteria.) Trails will go from one key node
to another, or form loops based on key access points.
The City should monitor trail use and, where heavy bicycle and
pedestrian traffic could lead to conflicts or accidents, be
prepared to restrict either bicycle or pedestrian use.
Trail Design Guidelines
While the purpose of this study has been to assess the feasibility of the trail
system, some initial conceptualization of design for the trail system has been
necessary in order to predict improvement costs and to guide the
development of implementation recommendations. Design guidelines for
the two trail types are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
In addition to these standard trail types some special circumstances will be
encountered in developing the trail system:
• Where the trail crosses a road it is recommended that a uniform design
be developed so that the City trail system becomes a readily identified
and easily found feature of the City landscape. Some conceptual
recommendations are described in Figure 4.
• Where the trail must follow a regular sidewalk for a short distance in
order to link together two sections of open space corridor, it is
recommended that a clear marking system be used to identify the route
for the trail user. Some conceptual recommendations are described in
Figure 5.
Issues: The City should prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines for
development of the trail system. These guidelines will not only
be used internally to guide City projects, but also may be
distributed to private developers to assist in preparation of their
planning and design submittals.
Landscaping
Given that a primary intent of the trail system is to allow people access to
the natural landscape of the City the general rule applied to the trail system
design is that no landscaping in the sense of introducing new planting should
be used. The vegetation around the trail will be that of the natural open
space. Nevertheless there are a number of circumstances where additional
planting will be required.
Where construction of the trail requires removal of native vegetation this
should be replaced as far as possible;
• Wherever possible the trail system should be implemented using the
minimum of cut or fill so as to preserve the natural topography and to
minimize costs;
Where construction of trails or associated facilities leaves engineered
cut or fill slopes these should be revegetated with native plantings which
are consistent with erosion control needs;
14 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
0
G
C
c
0
0
D
C
r2'
11
. 8'-0" min.
'10'-0" preferred1,2'
12'-0" mlo. H.O.W.
Where appropriate,
control vegetation to
retain views.
Erosion control mechanisms
required on steep slopes.
8'-0" min.
Use switchbacks on steep terrain.
Unpaved Hiking and
Bike Path Design Concepts
Gradient:
0-5% Optimum
5-10% Acceptable
10-20% For distances < 100'
Use switchbacks on steeper grades.
Siting:
Signage at hazards and intersections;
directional signage; "Trail Etiquette"
signage for bikes/hiking; facilities at
staging areas, trailheads only (restrooms,
drinking fountains, telephone, and trash).
Based on topography include picnic tables
and shade trees.
Fencing at hazards; fencing or planting to
prevent cutoffs at switchbacks.
8'-0" minimum clearance necessary over
trail.
lO'-O" clearance preferred.
Materials:
trail:
landscape:
compacted dirt;
decomposed granite, compacted
gravel, woodchips/barkchips,
and coarse asphalt only where
heavy use or erosion problem.
drought tolerant, native, low
maintenance species that
provide barriers, shade, and
scretning.
Right of Way:
20'0" Preferred
12'0" Minimum
03
FIGURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
Where the introduction of a need for shading occurs such as at trail
staging areas and picnic areas, the use of native or naturalized tree
species should be used;
• In more urban contexts the trail system may in places assume more of
the aesthetic of a parkway where a wider diversity of plant material may
be introduced. In all cases however the species used should be in
keeping with their surrounding context and be drought tolerant;
At prominent locations the design guidelines for the trail system call for
a readily identifiable ensemble of trail markers, interpretive information,
gateways, and associated landscaping. It is recommended that the City
select a key tree species or group of species which will be repeated
wherever the trail system crosses the road system or at staging areas.
For further details on the design of these areas see the Trail Design
Guidelines section;
• In all cases where new planting occurs water conservation must be a
primary concern and only drought tolerant species should be used.
Issues: As part of the preparation^ design guidelines for the trail system
the City should prepare a list of acceptable plant species which
conform both to the natural landscape aesthetic and water
conservation needs.
Staging Areas
Primary access to trails should be via the staging areas. At these points,
trail users would be able to park their car, coordinate meetings with other
trail users, and learn about the trail system through interpretive and safety
oriented signage. Two types of staging area are included: Primary Staging
Areas with 20 parking spaces and full facilities including restrooms, and
Secondary Staging Areas with only six parking spaces and minimal
improvements.
16 Trails Feasibility Study
Primary Staging Area - Total Land Area = 0.5 Acres
Facilities to include:
• 20 parking spaces and driveway
• Fencing and gateway
• Signage/displays
• Restroom
• Picnic tables/benches
• Trash receptacles
• Handicapped drinking fountain
• Trees/landscaping
• Lighting
Secondary Staging Area - Total Land Area = 0.25 Acres
Facilities to include:
• 6 parking spaces and drive
• Fencing and gateway
• Signage/displays
• Picnic tables/benches
• Trash receptacles
• Handicapped drinking fountain
• Trees/landscaping
• Lighting
The locations of the various staging areas are shown on Figure 6. It should
be noted that in a number of cases the staging areas are within park sites,
either existing or projected. With the exception of a staging area at Hosp
Grove (which is included because that park site will be developed as a trail
oriented location) none of the staging areas within park sites are included
in the cost analysis presented by this report.
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
c
c
D
C
c
O
Front Elevation
Timber bollards to stop vehicular traffic
(can be removed for emergency vehicle
access).
Warning sign for cyclists:
Road Ahead
Road striping at intersection.
Side Elevation
Road Crossing and
Information Signage Concepts
Wood shingle roof
Vandal-proof clear cover
Trail maps, descriptions, trail safety
rules and interpretive information.
Standard trail gateway design concept.
Tree formation typical at trail gateways.
Timber post identifying trail. See detail
next page.
Information sign with trail maps and
descriptions, etc. See detail above.
Stone posts to mark trail.
Vehicle warning sign.
04
FIGURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
Viewpoints and Picnic Areas
The proposed trail system includes picnic areas and viewpoints. Key
opportunities for such facilities have been identified in this feasibility study,
although it should be recognized that other potential sites will probably be
discovered as implementation of the system proceeds. The sites are
included in the cost estimates for the system, in terms of acquisition,
improvement, and maintenance costs. For the purpose of cost estimates it
has been assumed that both of these classes of facilities would occupy a
site of 0.25 acres.
The locations of viewpoints and picnic areas included in the study are shown
on Figure 7. As with the staging areas, those viewpoints and picnic areas
which fall within community park sites, other than Hosp Grove, have not
been included in the cost estimates as it is assumed that such facilities would
be included in the park design regardless of whether the trail system
proceeds or not.
Signage and Interpretive Information
Aside from interpretive signage and information (see below) there are three
areas of concern in terms of signage for the trail system which need to be
considered: 1) signage along the trails themselves; 2) compatibility of the
signage with the wider regional trail system beyond the City; 3) and signage
along the roads in the City needed to alert motorists of trail crossings and
of the location of trail access opportunities and staging areas.
1. Carlsbad Trails Signage
An important component of the trails improvements will be the provision of
adequate signage. Three primary types of signage/marker are envisaged
for the Carlsbad trail system. Concepts for the signage are shown on
Figures 4 and 5.
• Along the trails at intervals of one mile (to provide a regular measure of
progress) and at junctions of trails, the City should place a simple marker
post bearing, at a minimum, the name/number of the trail and the type
of use permitted. A simple wooden post could have a number of
metal/enamel plaques attached to communicate necessary
information. Where the trail has to use a sidewalk in order to connect
two open space corridors it is suggested that a simple painted marker
be placed on the sidewalk at regular intervals to guide the trail user. In
Figure 5 a painted dot is shown as one possibility. Other symbols could
be employed instead, or the City could opt for a more expensive solution
using signposts.
At staging areas and other access points to the trail system the City
should erect a signboard containing at least a map of the trail system,
rules for trail use, and guidance on trail safety. It Is also recommended
that the City use these signboards to communicate interpretive
information.
• At viewpoints the City should provide information pertaining to
landmarks and to the location of other trails in the visible area.
Viewpoints would also be ideal locations for other interpretive
information. In as far as the trail system is intended to foster public
understanding of the City's natural landscape, the trail experience may
be viewed as a narrative one - the trail tells a story of the City.
Viewpoints are a key location for that narrative to unfold.
2. Regional Trails Signage
The issue of regional connecting trails is much discussed at present in north
San Diego County and it may be supposed that regional trails will be
developed in the future. Such a system of trails may develop its own signage
system with distinctive signposts or other markers. These could easily be
added to the Carlsbad trails signage without detracting from the value of
either system. If the regional system were to develop a small logo or symbol,
then a small metal/enamel plaque such as that suggested above for the
Carlsbad trail signage could be added to the wooden posts already in place.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
n
o
i
D
D
Front Elevation Side Elevation
Timber Trail Identification Post
Trail Marker Design Concepts
Information plaques to be placed on trail
identification posts. See detail at left.
05
F 1 G U RE
c
E
C
0
D
C
0
c
Timber post identifying trail. See detail
above.
Information sign with trail map and
descriptions. See detail previous page.
20' -0" on center typical
Dots to direct trail users to the
continuing path; to be painted on sidewalk.
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
3. RoadSignage
It is important that people driving along Carlsbad's road system should be
made aware of the existence of the trail system. Signs should be located
and designed to be legible from the window of a moving vehicle. Such signs
should both identify points where access can be gained to the trail system
(i.e., advise of a nearby staging area) and warn motorists on the approach
to at-grade trail road-crossings in order to mitigate against accidents.
Issues: The City should develop a system of signage for the trail system.
It will be necessary to determine both what specific information
will be communicated and the design of the signs and markers
which will be used.
The City should discuss with other agencies and communities
in the region the types of regional signage needed where
connections will be made between different communities' trails
systems. A coordinated approach, determined in advance,
would be of benefit to all parties.
The City should identify locational criteria for and design
appropriate road signage to identify the trail system to City
motorists.
Interpretive Information and Program
It is recommended that the City develop an interpretive program to
accompany the development of the trails system. This program could
enhance the function of the trail system as a means of allowing trail users
to understand and appreciate the natural and cultural landscape of the City.
Interpretive information could be presented on signage located along the
trail system as well as in an overall leaflet/booklet describing the trail system.
(Special leaflets could also be prepared discussing flora and fauna, cultural
20 Trails Feasibility Study
sites, and other themes which can be accessed through the trail system.)
The use of interpretive signage should be focused on the staging areas and
at points of special interest and viewpoints.
At key access locations, especially the staging areas, the interpretive d isplay
or signage should include information pertaining to safety of the trail user
and setting rules for trail use.
Rules should include bans on:
• Trail access, if the trail has been closed because of fire hazard;
• Smoking, fires, and use of firearms;
• Removal of any plant material, minerals, archaeological artifacts, or
animals;
• Use of short cuts - trail users should be advised to stay on the trail
path;
• Leaving any trash;
• Dumping or fly-tipping.
Advice on personal safety could include:
• Carrying water and appropriate food especially on longer and wilder-
ness trails;
• Appropriate footwear and clothing;
• Identification, avoidance, and treatment for poison oak;
• Information on rattlesnakes;
• A telephone number to call for further information on the trails;
• A telephone number for police and other emergency service assis-
tance;
• The location of the nearest public telephone.
Issues: The City should consider development of an interpretive
program to be implemented along with the trail system.
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
n
i
c
c
0
I
0
Staging Areas
Primary Staging Area
Secondary Staging Area
06
F 1 G U RE
C A RL S B AD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
The City should consider preparation of a trails booklet
describing the system so as to make residents and visitors aware
of the resources available. The booklet could also be used to
present rules and advice on use of the trail system and
interpretive information.
Furniture
The only furniture that has been specifically included in the cost analysis is
associated with the staging areas, picnic areas, and viewpoints. It is likely
however that additional furniture such as benches at convenient resting
places, and at secondary overlooks created by the detailed design of the
trail alignment, will be desirable on most of the trails. (The projected
improvement costs for each trail segment includes an allowance for
additional items such as furniture.) It is recommended that in all cases this
furniture be of a construction which will enhance the aesthetic of the trail
system. Therefore, in addition to ensuring use of sturdy and safe
construction, it is recommended that the City utilize primarily natural
materials such as stone and wood. The City may wish to formulate a set of
detailed design standards for trail furniture.
Issues: Recommendations regarding the construction and location of
furniture should be included in the overall development of
design guidelines for the trail system.
Lighting
To maintain the natural feel of the trail system and to keep improvement
costs to a minimum the use of lighting for the trail system has been assumed
only at the staging areas. Lighting may eventually be used along some of
the trail links depending upon the detailed design of that link in the context
of its surrounding development. For example, it seems quite likely that the
western end of trail Link No. 22 which will probably be part of the commercial
"Promenade" development would be lighted. However, the use of lighting
in such instances has been assumed to be a development project related
22 Trails Feasibility Study
issue and neither recommendations nor costs for such lighting are included
in this feasibility study.
Road Crossings and Bridges
In many places trails will cross the City's roads. In developing the trail
alignments, road crossings were designed wherever possible to coincide
with existing or planned traffic signals so as to avoid special costs to the trail
system. In the majority of cases this proved possible. However, in a small
number of cases, for safety or other reasons as specified in the linkages
descriptions, special pedestrian crossing traffic signals or bridges have had
to be included. Additionally the system includes three bridges to cross
natural landscape features - preconstructed bridges crossing a small
canyon and a small stream and riparian area and a concept for a floating
pontoon bridge to cross Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The special road
crossings and bridges and their associated costs are as follows:
Trail Unkage No.
15
18
46
47
48
Facility
Pedestrian traffic signal
Pontoon bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
TOTAL
Cost
$100,000
200,000
50,000
50,000
50.000
$450.000
Joint Uses
In certain cases the trail system follows along an alignment where the trail
itself is a shared use of the right-of-way. The primary example of this occurs
where the trail system falls within SDG&E powerline easements and
right-of-ways. Where SDG&E has a powerline, they typically allow
secondary uses such as a trail system. It should be noted, however, that
Southern California Edison (SCE) has a less cooperative policy in this regard
and if the merger of SDG&E and SCE proceeds this type of trail alignment
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
c
c
c
I
D
Q
D
C
Viewpoints and Picnic Areas 07
FIGURE
Viewpoint
Picnic Area
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R T
and if the merger of SDG&E and SCE proceeds this type of trail alignment
may be difficult to achieve. In most cases SDG&E maintains a service
access road along their powerline easements/ right-of-ways. This service
road could, in many cases, become the trail itself. In such cases SOG&E
have provisionally indicated that they would consider sharing the
maintenance costs of the trail/road. (I n order to ensure that the maintenance
cost estimates are not unrealistically optimistic, this sharing of costs has not
been assumed in projecting annual trail system maintenance costs.) While
the secondary trail use may be granted by SDG&E it should be noted that
they are required under Section 69C of the Public Utilities Code to maintain
the right to rescind the secondary use. Links with shared use of SDG&E
powerlines are shown on Figure 8.
The other joint uses in the trail system are:
Link No. 13: The western portion of this link is anticipated to run along the
shoulder of a City owned water drainage course. Initial discussion with the
City Utilities and Maintenance Department has indicated that this should be
feasible.
Link No. 43: There is an existing service access road along the north shore
of the lagoon for Utilities and Maintenance Department access to a sewer
line. For much of this link the trail will be able to use this road.
Issues: The City should consider commencing negotiations regarding
secondary trails use of SDG&E powerline easements in the near
future given the apparent reticence of SCE to permit such
secondary uses and the impending merger of SDG&E and SCE.
The City should initiate the necessary internal design and
negotiation steps necessary to implement the shared use of the
water drainage course in Linkage No. 13 and the service access
road in Linkage No. 43.
Environmental Issues
The City has a range of natural resources including water bodies, riparian
habitat, chaparral and coastal sage scrub, and naturalized tree groves which
have varying capacity to accommodate human land uses. The trail system
must be sited and designed so as to avoid negative impacts on these
resources. In particular the wetland and riparian areas of the City and areas
of chaparral and scrub with sensitive and/or rare and endangered species
will have to be carefully treated. In assessing the physical feasibility of the
system account was taken of these resources. If the City decides to
implement the trail system, full environmental review will have to form part
of the planning and design process on each proposed project. Agency
review, permits, and approvals will affect almost all proposed improvements
which may have impacts on environmental resources. Early negotiation
with and involvement of environmental agencies will help ensure effective
implementation of the trail system. (See Approvals and Permits section.)
Issues: Many of the landscape resources in the City which are potentially
of most interest to the trail user are also the most environmentally
sensitive. The City will have to plan and design the interaction
of trails and environmental resources with care so as not to
destroy the very resource the trail design is seeking.
Surrounding Communities
The City of Carlsbad is bounded by four other cities: Oceanside, Vista, San
Marcos, and Encinitas, and for a small distance by the County of San Diego.
Each of these jurisdictions have their own trail planning efforts, each at
different levels of detail and stages of implementation. As part of this
feasibility study contact was made with all the jurisdictions to ensure the
development of concepts and alignments which would be compatible with
those of the surrounding areas. A summary of the issues regarding each
community is presented below.
24 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
0
0
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
o
D
I
C
c
C
I
c
c
Q
Joint Uses
•• • San Diego Gas & Electric
Maintenance Access
• • • City of Carlsbad Utilities and
Maintenance Department Access
08
FIGURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
Oceanside
With the exception of the north-south linkage along the coastal railroad
corridor (Link No. 10), there is only one strong trail linkage opportunity
between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside. (The physical
barrier presented by Route 78 and the Buena Vista Lagoon effectively
preclude any other possibilities.) The one linkage identified by this study
(other than the regional link along the railroad) connects Lake Calavera with
a neighborhood park which has recently been constructed in the City of
Oceanside, immediately to the south of Lake Boulevard, just beyond the
northeast corner of the City of Carlsbad. (See Link No. 10 on Map Sheet
No. 3.) Additional linkages between the two cities have tentatively been
identified within the road R.O.W.'s along Hill Street, Jefferson, El Camino
Real, Rancho del Oro, and the future alignment of College. These will
however only comprise bike lanes and sidewalks and, as such, do not fall
within the type of trail system being considered within this feasibility study.
It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad ensure that any future planning
for bicycle circulation take account of linkages to Oceanside.
Vista
Exhibit "E" of the Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails Element of the Vista
General Plan is a plan which indicates a number of trail links emanating to
the north and east from Lake Calavera into Vista. All of these alignments
(which are shown very conceptually) run through already developed areas
of the City of Oceanside. Vista is also conceptually considering a trail
linkage westward from Buena Vista Park into the City of Carlsbad. In this
case field investigation and assessment of ownership revealed the only
feasible link to run across the top of a steep slope held under seven different
ownerships, from whom access rights would have to be purchased. Given
that the trail would have clear vision into the homes concerned, this whole
linkage seemed very unlikely to succeed. Moreover, with access to Squires
Dam limited, and the views of the reservoir from afar being cluttered with
heavy civil engineering structures, it was not felt that this linkage was worth
pursuing. The City of Vista also indicates on Exhibit "E" a link along Melrose
Drive. This could be connected to Linkage No. 26 in this study.
26 Trails Feasibility Study
San Marcos
The City of San Marcos City Council has recently adopted a Parks and
Recreation Master Plan which includes a citywkte trails system. Two
linkages are shown in the San Marcos plan which connect to Carlsbad. Both
of these linkages have proved feasible within Carlsbad and are included in
this feasibility study as Linkages No. 36 and No. 53. The trail in San Marcos
connecting to Linkage No. 53 is shown as including equestrian use.
However planning for the Carlsbad trail system has not included equestrian
use and the City of Carlsbad should communicate to San Marcos regarding
this incompatibility.
Encinitas
The City of Encinitas General Plan Recreation Element includes conceptual
trail connections. Although the feasibility of the connections has not been
assessed, the City is proceeding with implementation of the intent of the
linkages, in most cases achieving connection even though the alignment
may not correspond in detail with that indicated in the General Plan. One
primary potential linkage exists into the most southeasterly corner of the
Carlsbad system. Linkage No. 55 of this feasibility study has been aligned
so as to effect a connection into Encinitas which will lead into the proposed
Escondido Creek Trail — the spine of the Encinitas trail system - which will
eventually lead to the San Elijo Lagoon. A second potential linkage between
the two cities may occur to the west of El Camino Real and the final alignment
of Link No. 50 of this study should be coordinated with Encinitas. It is also
possible that a secondary trail spur could lead from No. 50 west up to a
ridgetop where the City of Encinitas is proposing the construction of Ecke
Park. The third linkage opportunity lies along the coastal railroad - Linkage
No. 40.
San Diego County
The San Dieguito Community Planning Area Riding and Hiking Trails Plan
(adopted as General Plan Amendment - GPA 87-03, Item 4) indicates a
I
I
I
I
0
c
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
C
c
I
0
c
L
Demonstration Project
Proposed Demonstration Trail Route
09
FIGURE
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
proposed trail corridor crossing county land between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of San Marcos. It is possible that this connection could be
implemented, and if so, could have potential for linking into the Carlsbad
system. However the county map was prepared with very minimal study
and many of the indicated alignments are not practicable. It has not been
possible to confirm the validity of indicating a trail in this area. If at some
future date this county trail connection were to be completed the short
easterly spur of Linkage No. 53 is designed to make this connection.
Issues: The City should establish and maintain periodic contact with
surrounding Jurisdictions to ensure that the linkages necessary
to achieve a regionally connecting trail system are effected.
The City should lobby with regional organizations such as
SANDAG for the completion of a regional trails study to identify
feasibility and outline a program for implementation of a regional
trail system.
Safety: Police and Fire
As part of this feasibility study, meetings were held with the Police and Fire
Departments in order to gain their input and understand their concerns with
regard to implementation of a trails system. Neither department felt that a
trails system was unduly difficult with regard to carrying out their
responsibilities. However both had concerns and both foresaw an increase
in operating (and possibly capital) costs. The following issues were
discussed:
Police Department
The concerns of the Police Department focus on the prevention of illegal
activities both on the trail system and adjacent to the trail system - for
example using trails as a means of access to private property. The Police
Department already has an off-road patrol component using two
motorcycles and is currently studying the potential for establishment of a
28 Trails Feasibility Study
mountain-bike patrol unit. The trails could be patrolled using either
motorbikes or mountain bikes or a combination of the two. The use of
mountain bikes would be more consistent with preserving the rural integrity
of the trail system. Some of the larger trail systems in California operate an
independent security force, but the Carlsbad Police Department indicated
that this would not be seen as a preferred option. Given the relatively small
size of the Carlsbad trails system (it is a citywide but not a regional system)
a separate security force seems unlikely to be cost effective in any case.
The Police Department believe that the majority of law enforcement
problems are likely to occur close to the road system and especially near
to staging areas. The design of staging areas in particular and other trail
sections close to the road system should be designed to facilitate
surveillance by police patrol units. The Inclusion of lighting in the staging
areas will help prevent inappropriate use patterns at night. With regard to
security, generally it should be noted that frequent levels of trail use for
legitimate recreational purposes will serve to provide informal monitoring,
and discourage inappropriate or illegal activities. Encouragement of trails
use through making people aware of the resource, scheduling hiking tours
and schools use etc. will not only optimize use of the system but will also
serve to preserve the safety of the system. It should be noted that many
communities throughout California and the United States have existing trail
systems and have not found them to be an undue security problem.
Fire Department
The Fire Department is responsible for both fire prevention and control, and
the operation of the City's paramedic service. With regard to fire control the
primary concern is over public access through scrub and brush areas during
the dry season when fire risk is at its greatest. The presence of the trail
leading to increased public use of wilderness areas may increase the
incidence of brush fires. It should be noted however that in many cases the
proposed trails are already unofficially used either for recreation or for
residence by homeless/migrant workers. The fire risk from legitimate
activities replacing existing activities may not be significantly increased. It
will be important to coordinate the final alignment and design of trail links
with the Fire Department so as to ensure optimum avoidance of fire risk. It
will also be necessary for the Fire Chief to have the authority to close certain
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
B
C
c
G
I
C
C
c
c
trail sections when fire hazard is especially high - even if this means closing
linkages for the whole summer. Again, it should be noted that the nearby
City of Poway has a trail system that leads through extensive and often
isolated areas of scrubland and there does not appear to have been any
significant incidence of fire associated with the trail system. With regard to
the paramedic service, the concern of the Fire Department is over the ability
to retrieve injured parties from the trail system. In terms of enhancing
response time it is recommended that staging information boards include
directions to the nearest public telephone. The possibility of including
telephones the trails was considered but rejected as too expensive.
However, the City might consider locating public phones at key locations in
the future. (Many of the staging areas for the trails system would be at public
park sites which typically include public telephones among their
improvements.)
Issues: The Fire Chief must be given the authority to close trails as
deemed necessary during dry spells.
The Police Department should develop a trails patrol using
either motorcycles or mountain bikes or a combination of the
two. It should be noted that the costs of equipping and operating
such a unit are not Included In this study.
Staging areas in particular and other trail sections close to the
road system should be designed to facilitate surveillance by
police patrol units.
The City should introduce ordinances prohibiting carrying onto
the trail system items such as glass bottles, alcohol, matches
and other ignition devices, and any other articles considered
dangerous.
Vehicular Access
The trail system would be closed to any motorized vehicles for recreational
purposes. The only vehicular access which would be permitted on the traH
system is for:
• Maintenance vehicles, either for the trail itself or for other purposes, such
as where the trail shares a utility easement and access is required to
maintain a waterline or other utility;
• Police patrols — possibly using motorcycles;
• Fire and paramedic vehicles may need to access the trails system in
case of emergencies.
Issues: The trail design at certain road intersections will have to provide
barriers which prevent public vehicular use of the trails but also
allow for maintenance/emergency vehicular access as needed.
Removable or knockdown bollards or some form of locked
gateway device may have to be installed. Design guidelines for
the trail system should address this issue.
Demonstration Project
As part of its implementation program, it is recommended that the City give
consideration to the possibility of a demonstration project: a high profile
effort to put in place a prototype trail linkage within a short time of adopting
a policy for building a trail system.
One possibility for such a demonstration project is shown on Figure 9. It
would involve implementation of Linkages No. 23 and No. 24, forming a loop
from the future intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real, along the
south side of Cannon Road to the future site of Veterans Memorial Park,
through the park and up a ridgeline (which affords excellent view over Agua
Trails Feasibility Study 29
Hedionda Lagoon), then through open space areas, through the edge of the
Kirgis property, between the Kelly Ranch and Evans Point developments (to
a viewpoint within the open space area of Evans Point) and back down to
the Cannon Road/El Camino Road intersection. A number of attributes
suggest this linkages as a demonstration project:
From the viewpoint site in the Evans Point development, one can see:
most of northeastern Carlsbad, including the area around Lake
Calavera; much of the remainder of the eastern portion of the City, out
to the ridgelines, and potential links with trails in San Marcos;
• The trail would include a second potential viewpoint with vistas of both
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the ocean;
• The trail would include one of the City's most important future
community parks;
• The two major private properties affected by these trail linkages (Kelly
Ranch and Evans Point) are both in the process of negotiating
development approvals and their development is scheduled in the near
future; phasing would be consistent with early implementation of the
demonstration project.
Existing conceptual plans for the Evans Point development indicate use
of an old barn as a study/interpretive center. This center could be linked
into the trail system and might also serve as a trail staging area.
In order to implement this trail, it will be necessary to negotiate an alignment
from the Evans Point and Kelly Ranch developments through the Upland
Industries (Carlsbad Research Center) development and/or the Kirgis
property, to the Macario Canyon property already owned by the city (APN
212-020-38: Upland Industries, APN 212-010-03: Kirgis). It is anticipated that
the City might have to purchase open space for trail right-of-way along a
600-foot length of Linkage No. 24.
30 Trails Feasibility Study
The cost of such a linkage would vary according to the percentage of the
trail acquisition and improvements for which dedication can be negotiated.
Issues: The City will have to take almost Immediate budgetary action If a
demonstration linkage is to be implemented in fiscal year 1991
- 1992.
As for most of the linkages, the City will have to negotiate with
developers for alignments and dedications. Given that these
properties are being planned and designed at this time, the need
for negotiation is immediate.
Ownership
City fee simple ownership of trail linkages and associated right-of-ways is
the most secure form of ownership forthe trails system. The feasibility study
has assumed that fee simple is is the preferred type of ownership for the
citywide trail system as the city would need ownership to ensure continued
access rights and consistent improvement and maintenance standards, fee
simple ownership is feasible in most cases.
However, where the trail system has to pass along a utility easement, such
as an SDG&E powerline easement, the trail will be a secondary use and will
be subject to the ownership system utilized by the primary easement holder.
In the case of SDG&E powertines, the projected trail system would usually
use easements where the underlying land ownership is still held by adjacent
private landowners. (SDG&E purchased only easement rights, not the land
in fee simple.) In these cases, the trail system will have to pass through
privately-owned land and will be subject to successful negotiation of
easement rights with the landowner. (SDG&E also has the right of refusal
over the granting of secondary use easements.) In a few cases, SDG&E
owns the land under their powerlines (especially close to the power plant)
and in these cases a secondary use access easement would have to be
obtained from SDG&E directly. (It should be noted that SDG&E has a more
cooperative policy with regard to secondary uses than Southern California
I
I
I
I
e
i
i
i
c
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
D
C
c
c
y
D
0
Edison [SCE]. If the potential merger of SDG&E and SCE does proceed,
the potential for secondary uses may be reduced or removed altogether.)
The third main type of trail ownership would be for trails to remain under
private ownership, for example through the responsibility of a Home Owners
Associate (HOA). There are a number of trails in the City already existing
under this type of ownership. The problem of this ownership is that access
is typically limited to members of the association. While this is clearly not
appropriate for the primary trails being studied in this report, it is possible
that privately owned and maintained secondary trails within subdivisions
could link up to the main trail.
Liability
As part of this study, a survey was conducted of nine cities in California and
the East Bay Regional Park District in order to investigate a range of
responses to the issue of liability with regard to a trail system. The individuals
interviewed are presented in Appendix A. All of the jurisdictions are
"self-insured" against any claims that would be filed against them by trail
users. Self-insured cities pay off a judgement against them using their
general funds. The limit of a city's self-insurance ranges from $100,000
(Rancho Cucamonga) to $1,000,000 (Burbank). In the event of a claim
against a city greater than its self-insurance limit, the city's membership in
an insurance "pool," e.g., Independent Cities Risk Management Association.
enables payment of judgements from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000.
The City of Montebello is the one exception because the County of Los
Angeles has jurisdiction over its trail system which fronts a county flood
control channel. The County is covered by self-insurance for any dollar
amount.
All of the jurisdictions surveyed with the exception of the East Bay Regional
Parks District reported that they have not had any claims filed against them.
The East Bay Regional Parks District has had claims filed. According to the
District representative, however, the courts generally have ruled favorably,
protecting the recreational use. Most suits Involve one type of user versus
another type; for example, an accident between a pedestrian and a bicyclist.
In the past, the District tended to settle out of court but now intend to change
their policy and will begin to fight most suits. Their experience has been that
if there are no real hazards, and the trail is well-maintained and has proper
signage, the District can successfully defend Itself. The District has lost one
suit in recent years when a juvenile strayed off the trail and drowned in a
flood control ditch that was not In the District's jurisdiction. The District was
held partly responsible because the trail took the individual to the hazardous
area and there was no warning sign. The District had to pay approximately
$45,000 in 1989 as a result of the court's decision. Two other agencies were
also successfully sued for a total award of approximately $100,000. Other
than this case, the District reported that no other major suits have been lost.
To reduce the possibility of claims being filed against them by trail users,
the various jurisdictions work to maintain the safety and intended design of
the trails. Employees and/or volunteers control the growth of weeds, trees,
shrubs and bushes; clear away dangerous debris like rocks or broken
bottles; post signs warning of potential hazards like rattlesnakes, skunks,
poison ivy, etc.; erect and repair fences so unsafe areas are not easily
accessible; and patrol the trails on a regular basis.
Some national insurance companies will offer specific liability coverage for
certain user groups that may use and maintain special segments within the
citywide system.
State law limits the liability of landowners who make their land available,
through easements, to the public. The Recreational Use Statute (California
Civic Code Section 846), protects landowners from financial responsibility
in the event of injury. I mmunity only applies, however, If the landowner does
not charge a fee for the recreational use of the land other than the fee paid
by the government or another entity to use the property, and if the landowner
does not expressly invite the person onto the property. A property owner
who gives permission to enter and use the property (such as on a trail
easement) is not expressly inviting use of the property and does not assume
responsibility or incur liability for injury. The public enters at its own risk.
C
Trails Feasibility Study 31
Thus this measure protects landowners from claims by people who stray off
the public trail onto the adjacent private open space or property, as well as
users of the easement. However, the landowner must warn or guard against
a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. While this law protects
the landowner, it does not preclude a suit from being filed, and the landowner
may still have to Invest time and resources in the legal process.
The State of California has protected itself (Government Code Section 831.2
and 831.4) from "liability for injuries resulting from natural conditions of state
park areas where the only improvements are recreational access road and
hiking, riding, fishing, and hunting trails." Section 831.2 states that a public
entity is not liable for injuries caused by a natural condition of unimproved
public land. Therefore, liability increases as improvements to the property
are made. Exposure to liability diminishes if the trail is in a natural state.
California also limits liability for public land trusts (Government Code Section
831.5). The land trusts must enter into agreements with the California
Coastal Conservancy or the State Public Works Board, which confer the
status of "public entity" upon the trust, giving the trust additional limits on
liability.
Although this plan attempts to address liability issues, the City attorney
should be consulted regarding specific liability issues as the trail plan is
implemented.
Issues: The Risk Manager and the City Attorney should review existing
terms of the City's liability policy in order to ensure coverage of
trail-related incidents.
The experience of other jurisdictions with trail systems is that few suits
are likely to ensue from trails use, and that those which do are generally
decided in favor of the local jurisdiction. Nevertheless, should suits
occur, the City will incur increased defense costs regardless of the
outcome. These costs have not been included in the total cost analysis
of this report.
32 Trails Feasibility Study
Cost Estimate Process
The method for estimating trail system acquisition, improvement, and
maintenance costs included several steps, as follows:
Field Check
After a preliminary trail system route was established, those segments in the
preliminary system for which acquisition might be more difficult were visually
reviewed. During this field check, site characteristics, surrounding land
uses, and access opportunities were considered to better determine the
type of land that might be acquired fee title or through an easement. Minor
changes in the route were suggested that would facilitate acquisition and
implementation.
Linkages Analysis
Acquisition issues vary considerably by location. The preliminary system
was divided into 55 discrete linkages for planning purposes. Linkages were
defined based on a number of factors, including ownership, zoning, land
use, and location within public facility districts.
Identification of Linkages Requiring Acquisition
After the linkages were designated, probable methods for acquiring the trail
system for each linage were identified. Most of the linkages lie either within
existing public lands or large ownership areas for which master plans are
yet to be approved. Public funds will not be required to purchase trails in
these areas since either the land is already owned or will be acquired through
land dedications. Trail right-of-way may have to be acquired within certain
segments. Those segments that might have to be acquired and the type of
ownership, land use, and zoning issues affecting the value of those
segments were identified.
I
I
I
c
L
I
I
I
C
1
I
I
I
I
B
B
B
c
B
B
C
C
c
L
An attempt was made to avoid the need to purchase trail right-of-way by
designing the trail system along existing public land, public right-of-way, or
large ownerships subject to subdivision approval where dedication is
possible. This design strategy reduced anticipated acquisition costs to a
relatively minor amount.
Cost Estimates for Acquiring the Trail System
Purchase costs were estimated for those trail segments to be
purchased. These estimates were based on a review of recent land sales in
Carlsbad on a per-acre basis (see Table 2), adjusted for inflation and parcel
size. Comparable land was defined as parcels with similar zoning and size.
Although parcel characteristics were considered, a parcel-by-parcel
valuation or appraisal was not conducted. Instead acquisition cost
estimates were aggregated, resulting in an order-of-magnitude estimate for
acquiring the right-of-way for the total system. The value of trail right-of-way
that will be acquired through dedication, per the subdivision approval
process, was not estimated since public funds will not be expended.
Cost Estimates for Improving the Trail System
In order to estimate the improvement costs for implementing the trails
system, a general unit cost was developed for each type of trail and for each
of the special facilities such as viewpoints and staging areas. Estimates
were based both on industry standards for construction costs and on a
review of typical cost estimates incurred by other agencies in developing
trails.
Trail Linkages
The costs associated with the two types of trail - paved and unpaved -
reflect an allowance for the clearance, grading, surfacing, and associated
improvements such as fencing, signage, and occasional minimal
landscaping. The general per lineal cost represents an aggregate estimate.
Some linkages will probably cost less than the average while others will cost
more; the cost estimate process was designed to provide a system-wide
evaluation of overall cost implications. The cost estimate of $1 /LF for those
links which use a sidewalk and bikeiane along existing or planned roads is
to allow for the painting and striping of roadways and/or sidewalks.
Trail Type 1 • Paved (per LF)
Trail Type 2 - Unpaved (per LF)
Sidewalk/Bikelane
Primary Staging Area
Twenty Parking Spaces and Driveway
Fencing and Gateway
Signage/Displays
Bicycle Racks, etc.
Rest room
Picnic Tables/Benches
Trash Receptacles
Handicapped Drinking Fountain
Trees/Landscaping
Lighting
Contingency
TOTAL
Secondary Staging Area
Six Parking Spaces and Drive
Fencing and Gateway
Signage/Displays
Bicycle Racks
Picnic Tables/Benches
Trash Receptacles
Handicapped Drinking Fountain
Trees/Landscaping
Lighting
Contingency
TOTAL
$46
24
1
8,000
5,000
5,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
5,000
8,000
4.000
$44,000
Trails Feasibility Study 33
Viewpoints
The $10,000 estimated for each viewpoint is intended to allow for the
installation of signage/interpretive information and some seating. It is
assumed that the construction for viewpoints would be simple and not
include any significant built structures.
TOTAL
Picnic Sites
Eight Table/Bench Units
Shade Trees
Trash Receptacles
TOTAL
Cost Estimates for Maintaining the Trail System
Maintenance and liability costs were estimated based on the survey of
existing jurisdictions with trail systems regarding their maintenance costs
on a per-mile basis (see below). The Carlsbad trail system studied in this
report has two trail types — paved and unpaved. Estimates for the two
different types were made on a segment by segment basis.
Method for Financing Acquisition, Improvement, and
Maintenance Costs
After total acquisition, improvement, and maintenance costs were
estimated, the appropriate methods for financing such costs were
recommended. The survey of existing jurisdictions with trail systems
provided some guidance as to how these costs currently are financed in
other communities. The recommended method or alternative methods also
depended on the estimated magnitude of costs.
34 Trails Feasibility Study
Recreational Trail Survey
A survey was conducted to gather specific data about recreational trails in
a sample of communities. The survey included questions regarding the type
and size of each trail system; the cost for improving and maintaining each
system; and methods each jurisdiction used for financing the acquisition,
improvement, and maintenance of each trail system. Sources included, but
were not limited to, employees and officials in a jurisdiction's Park and
Recreational Department, Community Services Office, Engineering
Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Budget
Analysts Office, or Risk Management Office (see Appendix A). The data is
accurate to the best of each respondent's knowledge.
The communities involved in the survey - Burbank, Fontana, Glendora,
Montebello, Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Whittier, and Valencia - are
relatively small in size and population, with inhabitants numbering 50-100
thousand. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District, which serves over
35 communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, and is one of the largest trail
systems in the state, was also surveyed. During the survey, our use of the
term, "recreational trails," referred to a path, route, roadway, or lane
designated for the exclusive use of pedestrians/hikers, joggers/runners.or
bicyclists. Equestrian usage was not considered for the purposes of this
study. It was understood that vehicular use was prohibited, with the possible
exception of emergency vehicles.
Maintenance
There is considerable difference among the cities and special districts with
respect to yearly budgets for maintenance and operations (M/O), depending
on the trail type and the extent to which volunteer labor is used. For example:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
C
c
D
I
B
C
Budget/Mile/Year
N/A
$2,000/mi./yr.
$6,667/mi./yr.
$2,029/mi./yr.
$20,000/mi./yr.
City/Jurisdiction
The City of Burbank and the City of Glendora do not
have annual budgets for trail M/O. Volunteers do all
of the work and provide all tools and supplies.
The City of Fontana allocates funds for trail M/O
including personnel and supplies, totaling $2,000
per mile per year. There is an additional outlay of
$300 for tods. Finally $144 is designated for an
ongoing series of "nature walks." Nine walks are
scheduled in a year. A guide is paid $8 an hour to
lead these two-hour walks. Fontana's total annual
budget is $5,444 for its 2.5-mile trail system.
The City of Montebello does not actually pay to
maintain its trail system. Since the trail borders a
flood control channel, the County of Los Angeles
has jurisdiction over the area. County sources indi-
cate it costs $10,000 per year to maintain and
operate the 1.5 mile trail system in Montebello.
The City of Poway allocates $71,000 for the M/O of
their 35-mile trail system. This figure is likely to
increase because the City is seeking to extend the
length of the trails. The California Conservation
Corps helps Poway city employees to maintain the
trail system and perhaps keep M/O costs from rising
too high.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga spends the most
money per mile, $100,000 annually, for trail system
M/O. Their trail is the only one that consists of 100
percent compacted granite that is 4 inches deep and
20 feet wide, and is lighted. The trail is bounded
$1,429/mi./yr.
N/A
$7,000/mi./yr.
C
along its entire length by PVC (pdyvinylchloride)
and concrete rails for safety. The city maintains a
tractor, dump truck, and a pickup truck for trail
upkeep. Finally Rancho Cucamonga is the only city
that does not utilize volunteer labor. The M/O work
is contracted out by the city. All of these factors
contribute to a relatively high annual M/O budget.
The City of Whittier is similar to the City of Montebel-
lo, in that the County of Los Angeles has respon-
sibility for trail system M/O. The crucial difference is
that Whittier actually contracts "with the county, and
utilizes Fire Camp workers to help with M/O." Coun-
ty sources indicate a total of $5,000 is spent on
annual M/O for Whittier.
The community of Valencia is unique among the
surveyed areas. The homeowners there pay
property tax assessment fees that go into a
Landscape Maintenance District fund (LMD No. 8)
to cover costs of M/O. A specific dollar amount for
annual M/O costs could not be determined since the
work is contracted out to a management company
that cares for the landscape, pools, trails, etc.
without separating each into a particular category.
The East Bay Regional Park District, located in the
East San Francisco Bay region, has the largest trail
system of the jurisdictions surveyed, totaling 1,000
miles over 35 different communities. The regional
trail system was formed in the early 1970s. Many of
the trails are multiuse trails and are located on
right-of-ways owned by other agencies. The District
enters into license agreements (usually 25 years)
with railroad, canal, water district, and utilities dis-
tricts, most of whom do not require payment for the
Trails Feasibility Study 35
easement rights. The District tries to get easements
or fee title through dedication and consider this
method the best. Sometimes the Agency leases
easements. The Agency estimates that its annual
maintenance costs, including staff and equipment,
is $7,000 per mile for a paved path. Natural paths
are less costly to maintain. Homeowner associa-
tions will maintain adjacent landscaping if they
desire better than standard landscaping.
Costs Estimates
Acquisition
Most of the trail system is on existing public land or in large landholdings
subject to subdivision approval where dedication is likely. Consequently,
acquisition costs are relatively minor and apply only to those properties for
which plans have already been approved, where there are existing privately
owned open space corridors, and where there are utility easements. It is
assumed, and recommended, that any trail link traversing these properties
be located along open space corridors, per zoning and the General Plan,
so that land costs are kept to a minimum. Land acquisition costs would
increase tremendously if the land purchased had greater economic value
and was zoned for a higher use such as residential, commercial, or industrial.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, total acquisition costs equal an estimated
$448,000 (in 1990 dollars). The actual amount may be lower since some
owners of existing open space corridors in already approved or developed
areas may wish to transfer their property to the City to relieve themselves of
the cost to maintain those corridors. Phase 1 acquisition costs equal an
estimated $95,000.
Since actual acquisition costs cannot be determined until specific trail
segments are designed, it would be prudent to budget additional funds for
36 Trails Feasibility Study
acquisition beyond the estimated cost,
recb'mmended.
Approximately $1,000,000 is
Improvements
The improvement costs for the entire system are shown in Table 5, organized
by linkage number. The two critical figures for each link are the Total Cost
and the Minimum Public Cost columns. The Total Cost indicates the
estimated improvement costs for each line item. The Minimum Public Cost
indicates those line items which it is anticipated the City will have to finance.
It is assumed that those line items which show $0 for the Minimum Public
Cost will be attained through dedicated improvements by associated
developments. It should be recognized that predicting the outcome of
negotiations over dedications is an imprecise science and that the figures
represent a best-guess estimate. If the City were not successful in, or for
some unforeseen reason did not pursue, the assumed dedications then the
overall cost of the system could rise. However it should also be noted that
the improvement cost estimates were conservatively made and the City may
be able to achieve many of the linkages at a lower improvement cost.
Furthermore the City may be successful in negotiating more dedications
than has been assumed.
Given the provisos above, the total cost to the City of Carlsbad for
improvements to implement the trail system is estimated at $3,023,100. The
Phase 1 improvements are estimated at $1,891,150. (See Table 6.)
Maintenance
Maintenance costs were estimated for each trail link (Table 3) and staging,
viewpoint, and picnic area (Table 4), based on annual costs of $5,000 per
mile for Type 2 trails, $10,000 per mile for Type 1 trails, and $7,000 per acre
for staging, viewpoint, and picnic areas. No maintenance cost was assumed
for trail links identified along existing or future sidewalk and bike lanes, since
these links are already maintained as part of the road system.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
R
C
C
D
I
I
L
C
c
Total annual maintenance costs for the whole trail system is an estimated
$290,000 (in 1990 dollars). This excludes costs for police and fire protection
which will be estimated by the respective departments, and excludes any
costs for recreation programs the City wishes to offer related to the trail
system. In early years, as the trail system is being developed and is smaller,
annual maintenance costs should be less; annual maintenance costs at
completion of Phase 1 are estimated at $70,000. Carlsbad may be able to
reduce maintenance costs by utilizing volunteer labor, as does Poway.
Maintenance costs may also be reduced by sharing of costs with SDG&E
in utility corridors.
Acquisition Strategies
The trail system has been designed to utilize existing public ownership and
right-of-way to reduce acquisition requirements. Of the trail segments that
are not located on public land, most can be acquired through land
dedication as part of the subdivision approval process, minimizing the
amount of land that has to be purchased directly. Goals and policies will
need to be added to the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the
General Plan to require future Master Plans for the undeveloped portions of
the City to address provision of trails and related open space corridors within
the Master Plan areas. There are a few situations where public purchase
may be required, as follows:
• Segments which are proposed in large landholdings that have already
received approval. The developer may still choose to dedicate the trail
link to the City, especially if this relieves the developer of maintenance
costs. Still a developer may ask for compensation for the easement.
Segments which are in existing open space corridors privately owned
and maintained by a homeowners association. Again, the homeowners
may choose to dedicate the trail system to the City to reduce the
association's responsibility to maintain the open space corridor, but
some may attempt to negotiate a purchase price instead.
Segments which traverse small ownerships. A trail traversing a small
parcel could potentially reduce the value of that parcel and would
require acquisition. The trail system, however, has been planned to
avoid small ownerships to avoid this circumstance.
• Segments which are on utility easements. According to interviews with
SDG&E representatives, SDG&E would not object to a trail along their
easement, but since they do not own the underlying property in most
cases, the right to use this easement must be negotiated with the private
property owner who may ask for compensation.
To mitigate acquisition costs and issues, the following is recommended:
1) Use public lands when possible.
2) Seek trail dedication in the subdivision approval process as either part
of the open space or parks requirement; increasing park land dedication
requirements (per the Quimby Act) to include trail lands might be
considered.
3) Plan trails at property edges to minimize their impact and cost on parcel
values.
4) Seek flexible easements on parcels that are not proposed for
development in the near term, allowing the property owner to change
the alignment at a later date.
5) Align the trail in open space corridors and not through parcels that have
a higher economic use and are therefore more costly.
6) Negotiate the use of utility easements immediately, in the event that
SCE, which does not have as liberal policies for joint-use of their
easements, takes control of SDG& E.
Issues: The City must be conscious of the economic value of land
acquired for the trail system and, while implementing the trail
system should weigh the cost/benefit of each link that requires
public purchase once an independent appraisal is made.
Trails Feasibility Study 37
Financing Strategies
Acquisition and Improvements
Options for financing land acquisition and improvements include the
following:
1) Public Facility Fees
In order to finance acquisition and improvement costs, the trail system
could be incorporated as an extra item in the City's public facility fees
program, or be included as a sub-element within the existing open space
or park facilities standards. If the trail system is considered an extra
item, this might require an increase in the fee, subject to voter approval,
and would only be applicable to those zones for which the public facility
fee and financing plan has yet to be adopted, unless existing plans were
amended. If the trail system is considered an element within facilities
for which public facility fee monies are already collected, an increase in
the fee would not be required, although no new additional revenue will
be raised specifically for the trail system. For purpose of meeting the
"nexus" test, the trail system should be considered a citywide facility.
2) General Obligation Bond
The trail system's development costs could be financed with a general
obligation bond, which would require two-thirds voter approval. The
City of San Juan Capistrano and the East Bay Regional Park District
recently achieved two-thirds voter approval for general obligation bonds
to finance park, open space, and trail acquisition and development.
3) Citywide Assessment District
A citywide assessment district could be used to finance trail system
development costs; however, since assessment district monies are
recommended to cover annual maintenance costs, the burden of an
assessment to cover both maintenance and development must be
evaluated and the nexus more clearly demonstrated.
4) Community Mello-Roos District
A citywide Mello-Roos Community Facilities District may be formed to
help finance improvement and acquisition costs. Formation would
, require two-thirds voter approval, similar to a general obligation bond.
A general obligation bond, however, is considered a more secure and
lower cost financing mechanism, if approved by voters, because its
security is based on the City's full faith and credit, and authority to raise
taxes to cover all costs. A Mello-Roos supported bond limits the tax
which may be assessed, each year, and is secured by the value of the
underlying property instead. Since the value of the underlying property
may change, bond holders consider this less secure. Consequently, the
cost of financing using a Mello-Roos bond is somewhat greater.
In summary, the advantage of a general obligation bond is that it
requires the same two-thirds voter approval as a citywide Mello-Roos
district but is a lower cost financing mechanism. The advantage of a
Mello-Roos district on a citywide basis is that funds may be used for
financing maintenance costs in addition to capital improvements.
A Mello-Roos district can be formed on a less than citywide basis such
as over large landholdings on which new neighborhoods will be
developed. If there are fewer than 12 property owners, the vote for a
Mello-Roos district is by acreage owned, facilitating approval prior to
development.
5) Negotiated Development Agreements/Dedication
The City may negotiate with developers either to develop trail segments
within their property or to pay an in-lieu fee so that the City may develop
the trail segment. The City may consider increasing its Quimby park
land dedication standards to include trail land.
6) Grants
State Grants and SANDAG grants exist fortrail planning and acquisition.
The process is competitive and the amount of funds available is limited.
Still, grants should be pursued for those particular segments that have
the greatest chance of competing for grant monies.
38 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
c
E
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
e
D
1
I
I
c
c
D
I
I
C
L
C
L
7) Public Land Trusts
Trail lands may be donated to, or purchased by, a nonprofit public land
trust who may then maintain the trail link or lease it to the City for a
nominal fee.
8) General Funds
Finally trail development costs may be incorporated into the capital
improvement plan budget and funded with general fund revenue. While
monies from public facility fees applied to new development would
finance acquisition and improvement costs for segments of the trail
system that serve the new population, portions of the trail system would
be serving existing population from which public facility revenues will
not be generated. Therefore, general fund monies will probably be
required to fund that portion of the trail system's acquisition and
improvement which is allocated to serve the existing population.
Of the financing methods described for acquisition and development,
incorporating the trail system into the City public facility fee program,
negotiating trail improvements in the subdivision approval process, and
using general fund monies over time, appear to be the most appropriate
approaches.
Proposition H, passed in 1982, requires voter approval of City general fund
expenditures for any single project where acquisition and development of
public land exceed $1 million. Acquisition and improvements funded by
special assessments are not subject to this measure. Since the ordinance
which implements this measure (Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code) states
that a project "may not be separated into parts or phases so as to avoid the
effects of this chapter," the City will have to determine whether the trail
system plan constitutes one or several projects.
Maintenance
Maintenance costs may be funded through one of three basic approaches:
Citywide Assessment District
1) Since the trail system serves the citywide population, incorporating the
trail system maintenance costs into the existing citywide lighting and
landscaping assessment district may be the most appropriate
approach.
2) Citywide Metlo-Roos District
Incorporating trail system maintenance costs into a citywide Mello-Roos
District formed for other public facilities and services is a possibility. A
Mello-Roos district, however, requires two-thirds voter approval, which
may be difficult to achieve.
3) General Funds
Many cities fund their trail system maintenance costs out of their general
funds. While this is always a possibility, this approach does not raise
additional revenue for the trail system program and general funds
expended on the trail system would be weighed against the other City
demands for general fund monies.
Another approach, which is not recommended here, is to use different
funds to maintain different segments of the trail system, such as smaller
Mello-Roos districts formed for specific subdivisions, homeowners
association fees, neighborhood assessment districts, and private
development agreements. While this approach allows greater flexibility,
it could present coordination problems, result in inconsistent
maintenance standards, and may increase the liability exposure to
private owners and homeowners associations that maintain portions of
the trail system.
Issues: The City should choose a financing strategy for acquisition,
improvements, and maintenance which is equitable, recognizing
that the trail system will be a citywide facility serving both existing
and new populations.
Trails Feasibility Study 39
Operations and Maintenance
The responsibility for maintenance of the trail system would probably be
placed primarily under the remit of the Parks and Recreation Department.
This is consistent with their responsibility for maintaining community-serving
recreational facilities street trees, and median landscaping. Initial meetings
and discussion with the Parks and Recreation Department have indicated
general support from the department management for this position. The
maintenance operations would also have to be supported by the Utilities
and Maintenance Department, with regard to repair and some ongoing
maintenance of paved surfaces, lighting, built facilities, traffic signals,
bridges and underpasses, and any special drainage improvements made
for the trail linkages. Again, preliminary meetings and discussion with the
Utilities Department has generated general acceptance of these
responsibilities.
For both departments, of course, the ability to complete these additional
tasks is contingent upon receiving additional funding.
Phasing and Priorities
The boldface categories shown on various tables and in each of the linkages
descriptions indicate the time frame within which each linkage might be
scheduled for implementation according to a subjective assessment of their
value to the system as a whole. The time frames associated with each priority
were:
Priority 1:
Priority 2:
Priority 3:
0 - 3 years
3 - 6 years
6+ years
The phasing category indicates the time frame at which the trail link might
be anticipated to be implemented if the determining factors did not include
the priority ranking (i.e., when development would be expected). For
example, in an area yet to be developed, the phasing for the trail linkage
indicates when it is anticipated that area will be developed, so that if trails
implementation is tied to the subdivision process that is when the trail would
be implemented. The only concern in correlating these two categories is
when the intrinsic priority of the link suggests implementation sooner than
the phasing category would allow. In such a case the City, if it decided to
implement the segment prior to development of the area, might have to
purchase the land and fund improvements where it might otherwise have
achieved acquisition and improvement of the trail segment at little cost
through dedication. Alternatively the City might be able to negotiate some
form of reimbursement agreement through which to recoup the expense.
Even then the City would have to find the capital expense in the short term.
The only linkage so affected is No. 47 which because of its intrinsic merits
- a unique linkage in the system along the rim of San Marcos Canyon -
is ascribed a priority 1 whereas the area is not anticipated to develop until
Phase 3.
Issues: A decision will be required as to whether the City will incur
additional expense to accelerate implementation high priority
linkages before the surrounding area develops and dedication
of trail acquisition and improvements through the subdivision
process can be effected.
Approvals and Permits
As with any other land use proposal the implementation of a trails system
will be subject to review from a variety of agencies from whom approvals
and permits may be required for the project to proceed.
With regard to trail sections located adjacent to areas of sensitive wildlife
habitat such as wetlands or areas where state or federal listed species occur,
40 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
D
0
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
the trails proposals may include review by any or all of the following
agencies:
• The California Department of Fish and Game,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
• The Coastal Commission,
The Environmental Protection Agency, and
special fencing between the trail and the sensitive habitat. One such fence
standard which has received U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers approvals calls for a 3.5-foot high wood frame and
welded wire fence continuous along the habitat perimeter.
Issues: Early involvement of agencies such as the California Department
of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal
Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will help ensure that the trail system is
planned and designed in an environmentally sensitive manner
consistent with agency requirements.
c
G
C
I
I
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Specifically, a Section 404 Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers wherever any type of dredge or fill of wetlands is involved.
(Areas of wetland which are under one acre in size and in isolated locations
relative to other wetland may fall under the definitions of a Nationwide Permit
and avoid the need for a Section 404 Permit, but this should not be counted
on.) Trails running within habitat areas of federally listed endangered
species will be subject to Section 7 consultations with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and those running through state listed endangered species habitat
will be subject to Section 10 consultations with the State Department of Fish
and Game. The Coastal Commission will not issue a permit per se, but will
have review of trails proposals which should be in accordance with local
Coastal Zone Plan requirements. Given that public access is a key concern
of the agency, it is unlikely that significant problems with regard to a public
trails system would originate with the Coastal Commission.
D
The trail alignments selected in this study have been placed so as to avoid
obvious conflicts with the requirements of these agencies. However, a
number of trail links go close to sensitive areas. In these cases coordination
with various agencies will be needed to refine a final alignment. Additionally
some special design standards may be required such as the inclusion of
Trails Feasibility Study 41
Table 2 Selected Carlsbad Land Assessments
LAND USEXS1ZE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural/
Open Space
1-5 Acres 6-10 Acres 11-20 Acres 20+ Acres
APN $/sq.ft. Recording Date APN $/$q.ft. Recording Date
156-142-31-00
167-030-53-00
167-080-41-00
167-112-07-00
167-540-01-00
167-570-01-00
205-260-05-00
211-040-17-00
211-040-18-00
209-082-04-00
212-061-03-00
212-070-18-00
212-091-07-00
212-092-20-00
212-110-01-00
209-070-02-00
209-070-03-00
211-010-05-00
212-050-13-00
$3.86
$13.75
$1.31
$5.22
$9.97
$13.30
$5.87
$14.76
$11.16
$14.27
$9.50
$7.74
$8.69
$8.47
$6.11
$0.12
$0.42
$0.32
$0.21
05/23/89 207-101-21-00 $1.49 03/31/89
10/18/89
06/09/89
04/07/89
07/18/89
08/22/89
11/03/89
03/01/89
03/01/89
06/30/89 212-061-08-00 $8.00 01/23/90
01/23/90
01/30/89
09/13/89
08/18/89
05/19/89
10/17/89
03/09/90
12/29/89
08/04/88
APN S/sq.ft. Recording Date APN $/sq.ft. Recording Date
167-101-03-00 $0.71 04/08/88 167-101-19-00
167-101-27-00 $0.91 04/13/89 168-040-14-00
207-390-35-00 $0.00 07/06/88 168-040-18-00
168-040-23-00
168-040-25-00
168-050-27-00
209-060-59-00
212-040-22-00
212-040-30-00
209-040-24-00 $0.23 02/22/89 212-020-23-00
167-250-35-00 $0.13 10/28/88 167-040-24-00
209-060-55-00
$0.58
$0.56
$0.30
$0.59
$0.47
$0.53
$0.77
3.73
3.87
$1.39
$1.27
$0.17
04/13/89
04/13/89
04/13/89
04/13/89
04/08/88
04/13/89
02/13/89
04/21/89
12/29/88
01/04/90
09/21/89
10/06/89
42 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3 Preliminary Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Estimates: Trail Linkage
0
I
I
C
I
I
C
L
L INK
1
2
i
t
i
6
7
7*
•
9
9A
10
IOA
1 1
1]
11
14
UA
IS
16
17
It
19
JO
11
2IA
21
23
24
24A
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TtPC PHASE LINEAR FEET CARLSBAD OTHER PRIVATE
S/lll 3
S/bl 3
2 1
2 1
2 1
S/bl 1
1 3
s/bl l
2 3
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1
2 3
2 1
2 I
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 2
s/bl 3
bridge 3
s/bl 3
2 2
1 2
s/bl 2
1 2
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 1
2 2
2 2
5 000
2.000
3.000
3.000
1.000
2 000
300
1.200
3.000
3.000
3.000
4.000
6 500
14.500
6.000
4.000
2.000
500
5.900
7.500
1.500
1.000
9.500
6.600
1.500
1 , 500
• 500
5.000
10.400
600
8 250
8.750
4.500
4 000
2 500
7.000
6 500
IOOH
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
100%
50%
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0%
100%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ok
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90%
0%
50%
O%
0%
0
10%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
ion
0%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
67%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
90%
100%
0%
0%
50%
100%
(00%
rH I VA 1C
EXISTING USE
Public
Public
public
public
Public
Public
undeveloped
Public
undeveloped
open space
open Space
undeve 1 oped
open space
utility
utility
Undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
open space
Public
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeve 1 oped
Public
Agriculture
Open space
undeveloped
undeveloped
undeveloped
Agr (cultural
Railroad
open Space
undeveloped
Agriculture
mdustr la)
I*K 1 VH 1 C 1
PL AWED USE
N.A.
N.A.
N A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
comerclal
N.A.
Mixed-use
Residential
Residential
open space
open space
utility
N.A.
open space
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
N.A.
N.A.
Residential
Residential
COMerclal
N.A.
coMwrclal
Residential
Residential
Residential
Mixed-use
Industrial
N.A.
industrial
Industrial
Residential
Industrial
L4CLMIA 1 IUn
POTENTIAL
N.A.
N A.
N A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
ves
N.A.
Maybe
ves
Yes
NO
N.A.
Yes
N.A.
ves
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
N.A.
N.A.
ves
Ves
Yes
N.A.
ves
yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
NO
NO
NO
Yes
ves
1-vni.iwat ACQUISITION COST FAC1OR MAINIINANCt
REQUIRED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL AC/OPEN SPACE COST PER LINEAR fOOl COST PLR YEAR
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Maybe
No
NO
Maybe
NO
NO
Yes
NO
NO
NO
NO
Yes
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
ves
No
NO
NO
NO '
Yes
NO
*>.
1270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
SI25
129
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
129
129
129
125
129
129
125
129
129
125
129
129
129
125
129
129
129
125
125
129
129
125
129
125
125
125
SI70
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
18
1
1
6
•
>
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
t
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
6
8
8
to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24 . 000
0
0
32.000
0
0
4» 000
0
0
0
0
40.200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 800
0
0
0
0
10.000
0
0
to oo
0.00
0 95
0 95
0 95
0 00
1 .90
0 00
0 95
0 95
0 95
0 99
0 99
0 95
0.95
0 95
0 95
0.95
0 95
0 95
0.00
5 00
0 00
0 95
1 90
0.00
1 90
0 95
0 95
0 95
0.95
0 95
0 95
0 95
0 95
0 95
0 95
SO
0
2 650
2.850
950
0
570
0
2.650
2.850
2.650
3.800
6. 175
13.775
5.700
3.800
1.900
475
5.225
7. 125
0
5 000
0
6.270
2.650
0
16. 150
4 750
9.680
570
7 836
8.313
4 275
3.800
2 375
6 650
6. 175
Trails Feasibility Study 43
i;
Table 3 Continued
I INC tYPE PHA5C
12 2
33 1
14 2
35 2
16 2
37 2
3> 2
38A S/bl
39 2
40 2
41 2
42 !/bl
43 2
43* 1
44 2
45 2
45A 1
46 2
46A S/bl
47 2
41 2
48A 2
44 )/bl
50 2
91 S/bl
52 2
S3 2 '
94 2
35 2
total trails
s/bl * <ldr»alk/blke
2
2
9
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
I
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
s 1 Residential
(21 MalnlriMiirr based
1 INEAR FEE! CARISHAO OTHER PRIVAIf EXISTING USE PIAMMED USf
4 250
4.000
6 000
5.250
4.750
2.250
500
1.500
1 .000
15.500
1 .750
4.250
7.000
2.500
2.500
4.500
500
2.500
1 .750
4.000
4 000
4.000
3 000
7.250
7.000
1.500
10.750
7 .750
7.000
248.100
lane N A.
« 16 25/S 1 : Ct
ox ox too* Agricultural Residential
o*. ox 100% undeveloped Residential
ox ox loox undeveloped nesldentlal
ox ox loox undeveloped Residential
ox ox loox Agriculture Residential
5ox ox 50X Residential Residential
100X OX OX Public NA.
loox ox ox Public NA
IOOX OX OX Public N.A.
Ox ox 100X Railroad NA
ox ox toox Residential N.A.
loox ox ox Public N.A.
toox ox ox public N.A.
100% OX OX Public N A
ox ox loox Agr (cultural Residential
ox ox toox undeveloped Agricultural
ox ox toox utility open space
ox ox loox ut 1 1 1 ly open space
100X OX OX Public N.A.
ox ox toox undeveloped Residential
ox ox toox utility open space
ox 40X 60X undeveloped Residential
100X OX OX Public N.A.
ox ox loox undeveloped Mixed-use
ox ox toox undeveloped Residential
ox ox toox undeveloped Residential
ox ox loox undeveloped Residential
ox ox loox undeveloped open space
ox ox loox undeveloped open space
* Not Appl Icable
MMerclal • $13 50/s 1.: Industrial • 16.90/s .1.:
on S5.ooo or lio.ooo per Mile, depending on trail type, excluding
POIENIIAl REQUIRED COMMERCIAL RES
yes
Yes
ves
yes
ves
yes
N.A.
N.A.
N A.
No
N.A.
N.A.
N A.
N.A.
Yes
ves
NO
NO
NO
yes
yes
Yes
N.A.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ves
Yes
No
NO
No
NO
NO
Maybe
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Yes
ves
No
NO
Maybe
No
No
No
No
NO
No
Maybe
Maybe
Agricultural/open space •
lire and police.
270
170
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
170
270
270
170
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
170
170
170
270
270
10. 40/1.1.
IOENIIAL
125
125
125
115
115
115
115
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
129
129
129
129
129
115
129
129
125
125
115
115
115
115
. applied
INDUSTRIAL AC/OPEN SPACE COSt
170 8
170 8
170 1
170 e
170 •
170 • *
170 a
170 (
, 170 a
170 a
170 •
170 I
170 8
170 •
170 •
170 (
170 t 4.
170 • 10.
170 a
170 I
170 • 31.
170 1
170 •
170 •
170 1
170 8
170 |
170 t 62.
170 | 56.
1342.
Phase t costs: 144.
to 20 square leet per linear loot.
i iuw tua
PER I
0
0
0
0
0
.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
000
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
000
000
•00
il rAHUN IHAINI rnANit
INEAI FOOr COSt PER YEAR
0.45
0 45
0 45
0 45
0 45
0.49
0 49
0 00
0 49
0.49
0.49
0.00
0 45
f .40
0.45
0 45
0.45
0.45
0.00
0 49
0.49
0.45
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.45
0 45
0.45
0.45
4 038
3.800
9 700
4.988
4 513
2.138
475
0
450
14.725
1.663
0
6 650
4.750
2.375
4.275
479
2.375
0
8.550
3.80O
3 800
0
6.888
0
t.429
10 213
7.363
6.650
1261.219
152.250
I
I
I
I
c
44 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4 Preliminary Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Estimates: Staging, Viewpoint, and Picnic Areas
OWNERSHIP
TRAIL PRIVATE
TYPE PHASE SQUARE FEE! CARLSBAD OTHER PRIVATE EXISTING USE
STAGING. VIEWPOINT AND PICNIC AREAS
AVERAGE LAND COST PER SQUARE EOOT ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE ESTIMATED
PRIVATE DEDICATION PURCHASE ACQUISITION COST FACTOR MAINTENANCE
PLANNED USE POTENTIAL REQUIRED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL AC/OPEN SPACE COST PER SQUARE EOOT COST PER VEAR
3 2 1
10 2 1
24 2 1
27 2 3
43 2 1
44 2 2
47 2 3
48 2 3
50 2 3
53 2 2
Total Area
43
43
to
10
10
21
10.
10.
10.
10.
185
560
560
,890
.890
.890
.780
890
890
890
,890
,130
IOOX
IOOX
OX
OX
IOOX
OX
OX
OX
OX
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
IOOX
toox
ox
toox
toox
IOOX
IOOX
toox
Public
Public
undeveloped
Ra 1 1 road
Public
Agr Icul tural
undeveloped
ut i 1 1 ty
undeveloped
undeve 1 oped
N.A.
N.A.
open space
N.A.
N.A.
Residential
Residential
open space
Mixed-use
Residential
N.A.
N.A.
Yes
NO
N.A.
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
NO
NO
Yes
NO
Yes
NO
NO
NO
NO
,„
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
50
$6
6
6
6
6
6
6.
6
6.
6.
.25
25
25
25
.25
25
25
25
25
25
18.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8 50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
Phase
to
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
1 Costs:
to
0
0
92.565
0
8.712
0
4.356
0
0
JI05.633
to
0.
0
0
0.
0.
0
0
0.
0.
0.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
6.970
6.970
1.742
1.742
1.742
3.485
1.742
1.742
1.742
1.742
129.621
J17.424
i
i
c
c
N.A. * Not ApplIcable
(1) Land costs based on the lollowing median prices of recent sales for 5 acres or less:
Residential * «6 25/s f ; ccxnerclal » ti3.50/s.f.: Industrial * ta.50/s.f.: Agricultural/open space = to.40/s.f.. applied to 20 square feet per linear foot.
(2) Maintenance based on t7 ooo per acre, excluding lire and police.
Source: Economics Research Associates
«L
i;
Trails Feasibility Study 45
Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates
Link Priority Phase Type
Length Special Minimum Public
(LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost Link Priority Phase Type
Length Special Minimum Public
(LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost
01
02
03
03
03
03
04
OS
06
07
07
08
09
09
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Sideualk/ 5,000 1 5,000 5,000 5,000
Bikelane
Sideualk/ 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 2.000
Bikelane
2 3,000 24 72,000 72,000
Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
Staging Area 230,500 230,500 230,500
Viewpoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
2 3,000 24 72,000 72,000
2 1,000 24 24,000 24,000
Sidewalk/ 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 2,000
Bikelane
1 300 46 13,800
Sidewalk/ 1,200 1 1,200 1,200
Bikelane
2 3,000 24 72,000
2 3,000 24 72,000
2 3,000 24 72,000 72,000
2 4,000 24 96,000 96,000
2 6,500 24 156,000 156,000
Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
Staging Area 230,500 230,500 230,500
Viewpoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
11
12
13
14
14
15
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
'3 3
1 1
1 1
3 1
3 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Signal
2
Sidewalk/
Bikelane
Bridge
Sidewalk/
Bikelane
2
1
Sidewalk/
Bikelane
1
2
2
2
Viewpoint
14,500 24 348,000
6,000 24 144,000
4,000 24 96,000
500 24 12.000
2,000 2( 48,000
5,500 24 132,000
100,000 100,000
7,500 24 180,000
1,500 1 1,500
1,000 200,000 200,000
9,500 1 9,500
5,500 24 132,000
1,500 46 69,000
1,500 1 1,500
8,500 46 391,000
5,000 24 120,000
600 24 14,400
10,400 24 249,600
10,000 10,000
144,000
96,000
48,000
100,000
1,500
200,000
9,500
1,500
14,400
10,000
46 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
c
0
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
0
I
c
0
I
I
L
C
I
Table 5 Continued
link Priority Phase Type
Length Special Minimum Publ ic
(IF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost Link Priority Phase Type
Length Special Mininun Public
<LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost
25
26
27
27
28
29
30
32
33
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
3 3
3 3
2 2
2 8,250 24
2 8,750 24
2 4.500 24
Snail Staging
Area
2 4,000 24
2 2.900 24
2 7,000 24
2 6,500 24
2 4,250 24
2 4,000 24
2 6,000 24
2 5,250 24
2 4,750 24
2 2,250 24
2 500 24
Sidewalk/ 1,500 1
Bikelane
2 1,000 24
2 15,500 24
2 1,750 24
198,000
210.000
108,000
44,000 44,000 44,000
96,000
60,000 60,000
168,000
156,000
102,000
96,000
144,000
126,000
114,000
54,000 54,000
12,000 12,000
1,500 1,500
24,000 24,000
372,000
42,000
42
43
43
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1 Sidewalk/ 4,250 1
Bikelane
1 1 2,500 46
1 2 7,000 24
1 Picnic
1 Small Staging
Area
2 2 4,000 24
2 Staging Area
3 2 500 24
3 2 4,500 24
3 2 2,500 24
3 Sidewalk/ 1,750 1
Bikelane
3 Bridge
3 2 9,000 24
3 Bridge
3 Snail Staging
Area
3 Viewpoint
3 2 4,000 24
3 2 4,000 24
3 Bridge
4,250
115,000
168,000
8,000 8,000
44,000 44,000
96,000
230,500 230,500
12,000
108,000
60,000
1,750 1,750
50,000 50,000
216,000
50,000 50,000
44,000 44,000
10,000 10,000
96,000
96,000
50,000 50,000
4,250
115,000
8,000
44,000
230,500
12,000
60,000
1,750
50,000
50,000
44,000
10,000
96,000
50,000
Trails Feasibility Study 4 7
Table 5 Continued
Link Priority Phase
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Type
Length Special Mininun Public
(IF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
3 Viewpoint
2 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
3 2
3 Small Staging
Area
1 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
1 2
2 2
2 Viewpoint
1 2
1 2
10,000 10,000 10,000
3,000 1 3,000 3,000
7,250 24 174,000
44,000 44,000 44,000
7,000 1 7,000 7,000
1,500 24 36,000
10,750 24 258,000
10,000 10,000 10,000
7,750 24 186,000 186,000
7,000 24 168,000 168,000
Special Costs Total: * 1,412,250
Total Cost Total: 7,898,500
Minimum Public Cost Total: 3,023,100
Total Length (LF):298,500
48 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
e
E
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
D
0
I
C
G
D
I
I
C
li
C
li
Table 6 Improvement Cost Estimates: Phase 1
Link Priority Phase Type
03
03
03
03
OS
06
10
10
10
10
12
13
Length Special Minimum Public
(LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost Link Priority Phase Type
Length Special Minimum Public
(LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost Cost
23
24
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1 2 3,000 24
1 Picnic
1 Staging Area
1 Viewpoint
1 2 3,000 24
1 2 1,000 24
1 Sidewalk/ 2,000 1
Bikelane
1 2 4,000 24
1 2 6,500 24
1 Picnic
1 Staging Area
1 Viewpoint
1 2 6,000 24
1 2 4,000 24
12 500 24
1 2 2,000 24
1 2 5,000 24
12 600 24
1 2 10,400 24
72,000
8,000 8, 000
230,500 230,500
10,000 10,000
72,000
24,000
2,000 2,000
96,000
156,000
8,000 8,000
230,500 230,500
10,000 10,000
144,000
96,000
12,000
48,000
120,000
14,400
249,600
72,000
8,000
230,500
10,000
72,000
24,000
2,000
96,000
156,000
8,000
230,500
10,000
144,000
96,000
48,000
14,400
24 1 1 Viewpoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
29 212 2,500 24 60,000 60,000
37 112 2,250 24 54,000 54,000
38 1 1 2 500 24 12,000 12,000
38 1 1 Sidewalk/ 1,500 1 1,500 1,500
Bikelane
42 1 1 Sidewalk/ 4,250 1 4,250 4,250
Bikelane
43 111 2,500 46 115,000 115,000
43 112 7,000 24 168,000
43 1 1 Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
43 1 1 Small Staging 44,000 44,000 44,000
Area
51 1 1 Sidewalk/ 7,000 1 7,000 7,000
Bikelane
52 112 1,500 24 36,000
54 112 7,750 24 186,000 186,000
55 112 7,000 24 168,000 168,000
•••BBBBBBBBB«BBB*BBBB»BBBBBBBBEBBBBBBBBBBBBBSBBB3B
Special Costs Total: $ 561,000
Total Cost Total: 2,476,750
Minimum Public Cost Total: 1,891,150
Total Length (LF): 91,750
Trails Feasibility Study 49
The Linkages Descriptions of the report includes detailed descriptions of all
the links considered as viable as a result of the feasibility study. The linkages
are both described in a proforma and are shown on a series of 23 map sheets
which follow the descriptions. It should be noted that the aerial photographs
on which the linkage alignments are shown were taken during the period
September and October 1988.
I
I
I
I
B
50 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
LINKAGES DESCRIPTIONS
I
0
D
I
I
0
c
I
I
c
L
c
L
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 1
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
From Carlsbad Boulevard along Laguna Drive and Jefferson
Street to 1-5
I
5,000 L.F.
City owned right-of-way
Residential to south, lagoon to north
N/A
Follow along existing city streets; City Parks and
Recreation Department considering development of
recreational facility on site west of Carlsbad Boulevard to
which trail would connect; trail needs to cross railroad
line to get to beach - at present trail is assumed to cross
along Carlsbad Boulevard bridge but a pedestrian bridge
over the railroad is being considered as part of the Parks
Department improvements and the trail could use this if
built.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
If trail crosses railroad on new bridge, this will have
to meet appropriate design and construction standards for
the railroad crossing.
City
$0
$5,000
Part of street maintenance program
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 2
From 1-5 along north side of Jefferson Street to Duck Pond
at Marron Road and Hosp Grove.
2,000 L.F.
156-010-32; 154-180-06; 156-010-08; 156-010-01;
156-031-10,11,12; 154-140-29,30,32; 150-160-28
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Lagoon to north, bluff to south in private ownerships.
N/A
Follow along existing City street using existing or future
sidewalk/bikelanes; will have to use narrow existing
sidewalk on bridge across 1-5
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
The Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
would have to be consulted for approval as construction of
sidewalks along Jefferson would probably involve some fill
of the lagoon. Off-site mitigation might be a condition of
approval which would be expensive. The City has already
engaged in some discussion with the agencies regarding the
construction of a sidewalk in this location.
City
SO
$2,000 (does not include construction costs for sidewalk or
mitigation which have been considered a street improvement
expense - the $2,000 is for trail signage only).
Part of street maintenance
Trails Feasibility Study 51
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 3
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Hosp Grove
I
3,000 L.F.
City of Carlsbad
Open Space
N/A
From a proposed staging area located south of the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Marron Road, through
the north edge of the grove crossing Monroe Street at
Marron, leading up the slope in a southeasterly direction
to a viewpoint, and on through the main portion of the
Grove to Hosp Way.
Some access for maintenance vehicles will probably need to
be incorporated into the site design for Hosp Grove.
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $320,500
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $9,820 per annum
Notes:
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 4
Leading south from proposed staging area in Hosp Grove
along to Elm Avenue.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
I
3,000 L.F.
City of Carlsbad
Open Space corridor in-between road and residential area.
N/A
Trail should stay close to the top of the slope.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $72,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,850 per annum
Notes:
52 Trails Feasibility Study
II
I
I
0
6
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. S CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 6
D
0
I
R
C
C
1
I
C
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Desigi
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Leading from existing staging area at Wickham Way north
into main part of Hosp Grove joining with Linkage *3.
I
1,000 L.F.
City of Carlsbad
Open space
N/A
Utilize existing trails as well as developing new
connection to north. Existing trails do not meet the
standards described in this plan in terms of width but are
proving adequate at present. Construction cost estimate
includes improvement to new standard.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing: I
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $24,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $950 per annum
Notes:
Existing Conditions .
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Along Hosp Way from Hosp Grove to El Camino Real.
I
2,000 L.F.
City owned right-of-way
Residential street
N/A
Follow along existing City street.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $2,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of existing street maintenance
Notes:
u
nb Trails Feasibility Study 53
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 7 CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 8
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
From intersection of Hosp Way and El Camino Real east to
Avenida de Anita and then following along street to
intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron Road.
1,500 L.F.
City owned right-of-way; private parcel: APN unknown
Carlsbad Plaza South commercial development to north;
undeveloped to south; existing residential along Avenida de
Anita.
Commercial development to southeast of Hosp Way and El
Camino Real intersection.
Along streets except where trail links up slope from
commercial area to residential along Avenida de Anita.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane except for 300 L.F. of Type 1
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
$1,200 - City cost
$13,800 - dedicated improvements
$570 per annum
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
From intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron Road
through open space to Larwin Park.
2 and 25
3,000 L.F.
167-040-24; 167-442-13; 167-090-48
Undeveloped to north; residential to south
Buena Vista Park Plaza Specific Plan
Trail should be located in open space in preference top
alongside road; follows SDG&E R.O.W. at south end of link;
staging area at Larwin Park.
SDG&E maintenance vehicles
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Secondary use of SDG&E easement requires negotiation of
easement rights.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
Public access easement; underlying ownership to remain with
private property owners.
$18,000
$72,000 - dedicated improvements
$2,850
Could use portion of 15 percent growth management standard
in Zone 25.
54 Trails Feasibility Study
I
c
G
I
I
I
C
i
I
I
I
I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 9 CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 10
I
B
C
G
1
I
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Larwin Park to Calavera Park
7
6,000 L.F.
167-101-19
Open space; residential; school; undeveloped area around
northwest portion of trail
New residential adjacent to trail, but trail to remain in
open space corridor; east portion of trail falls within
open space in Calavera Hills Master Plan.
From Larwin Park to connect across to Vancouver street
through easement. Cross Vancouver to open space canyon.
Follow within open space corridor to Tamarack. Grade
crossing at Tamarack north of Chatham Road and across Elm
at signalized intersection to enter Calavera Park.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
$72.000 - City cost
$72,000 - dedicated improvements
$3,700 per annum
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance (Cost/Financing):
Calavera Park to Calavera Lake and linking to Oceanside
7 and 14
10,500 L.F.
167-101-28; 168-040-02, IS, 23, and 25; 168-050-01; main
portion of trail around lake to fall within existing City
ownership
Undeveloped; open space
Calavera Hills Master Plan
From Calavera Park go east along south side of Elm with at
grade crossings required at Glasgow Drive and future
intersection of Elm and College; then follow open space to
Calavera Lake; area around lake to be used as special
recreation area focussing on trails use including a primary
staging area, picnic site, and viewpoint.
N/A
2
Riparian areas close to trail alignment will involve
agency review from the Department of Fish and Game, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
City
$24.000
$500,500
$10,070 per annum
Notes:Notes:The trails system around the lake will interact with the
proposal for a golf course currently under study for the
area.
G
i;
Trails Feasibility Study 55
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 11
Along AT & SF tracks from Carlsbad Boulevard past Encina
Power Plant to Cannon Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
1.3
14,500 L.F.
AT&SF
AT A SF railroad/Encina Power Plant
SDG&E power plant expansion
To be located along railroad - full study will be required
of the relationship of train traffic to trail use as part
of the design of this linkage.
Maintenance vehicles for railroad
2
3
3
Dependent upon negotiations with SANDAG and AT & SF
City or public access easement over AT & SF ownership
SO
$348,000 - For the purpose of assessing the total trail
system costs, it has been assumed that improvement costs
for this linkage would form part of a special regional
program and would not represent a City expense.
$13,775 per annum
It is assumed that the City will participate in any
regional trail venture to implement a coastal rail-trail;
if this does not materialize the City may at some
unspecified time in the future decide to try and implement
this linkage unilaterally.
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 12
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
SDG&E easement from Larwin Park to Tamarack Avenue.
2
6,000 L.F.
167-090-31, 33, and 34; 208-133-119
Residential adjacent to trail alignment; SDG&E powerline.
N/A
Trail may be able to use SDG&E service road.
SDG&E maintenance vehicles
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Secondary use of powerline agreement needed from SDG&E.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Costs Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
Public access easement required; underlying ownership to
remain private.
$36,000
1144,000
$5,700 per annum
II
I
I
r
o
i
i
i
c
56 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
0
I!
I
n
c
c
c
e
B
C
C
c
i;
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 13
Parallel to Tamarack Avenue from La Portalada Drive,
crossing Pontiac Drive at Tamarack, then turning northward
up steep slopes into open space area.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siling Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
2, 7
4,000 L.F.
167-101-19; 208-010-34, 35
Residential; undeveloped; open space
Calavera Hills Master Plan
Southern portion of linkage follows shoulder of City owned
drainage channel; from Pontiac northward the alignment
should contour up the slope to the north of Tamarack; a
connection should be made into Buckingham Lane.
Maintenance vehicles for the drainage channel
2
Implement* HOB
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 14
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
From Calavera Park westward under Tamarack Avenue into open
space area south of Elm Avenue.
7
2,500
167-101-19
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Community park; open space; residential; undeveloped
Development Plans: Calavera Hills Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
From park trail traverses down slope to south, leading
through existing road culvert/underpass and then contours
around slope to west, then north, then west again to join
Linkage *13.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
$12,000 - dedicated improvements
$48,000 - City cost
$2,375 per annum
Trails Feasibility Study 57
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 15
From the intersection of Pontiac Drive and Tamarack Avenue
to the intersection or Cannon Road and El Camino Real.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
14
5,500 L.F.
208-010-32
Open Space; undeveloped
Residential
Contour up slope to south of Tamarack Avenue from the
intersection with Pontiac Avenue (a traffic signal is
required at Tamarack and Pontiac); then south along
riparian area/drainage course through the middle of future
residential development to future intersection of Cannon
Road and El Camino Real.
N/A
2
2
2
Traffic signal approvals
City
SO
SI00,000 for traffic signal - City cost
$132,000 - dedicated improvements
$5,225 per annum
While a traffic signal may ultimately be required for the
intersection of Pontiac and Tamarack, it is unclear at this
time whether traffic counts would warrant a signal and
therefore the cost of a signal at this location is
anticipated to be a trail related cost.
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 16
Through Robertson Ranch from south of Lake Calavera to
Cannon Road west to El Camino Real.
14
7,500 L.F.
168-040-18; 168-050-17 (Robertson); 168-050-19 (Carlsbad
Unified School District)
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Undeveloped
Residential - low to medium density; northern portion of
linkage falls within Calavera Hills Master Plan.
Locate trail along riparian corridor; crossing of College
Boulevard required north of Cannon Road.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may have review due to
riparian area.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
$30,150
$180,000 dedicated improvements
$7,125 per annum
58 fra/Ys Feasibility Study
II
I
I
B
e
i
i
i
c
i
i
i
i
i
0
0
Q
I
D
C
G
C
I
I
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 17
From intersection of Cannon Road and AT & SF railroad line
west along Cannon Road and then north along Carlsbad
Boulevard.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
DeslgB
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
1,300 L.F.
Existing City right-of-way.
Residential
N/A
Site along existing City streets.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: 11,500
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of existing street maintenance.
Notes:
Existing Condlliou
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 18
Across Agua Hedionda Lagoon immediately to the east of 1-5
bridge.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
I
1,000 L.F.
Public
Open space
N/A
Concept for a floating pontoon bridge crossing Agua
Hedionda Lagoon joining Linkages *19 and *22 to form a loop
around the lagoon.
N/A
Bridge
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$200,000 - City cost
SI0,000 per annum
D
C
Trails Feasibility Study 59
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 19
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
North side of Agua Hedionda from 1-5 to Kelly Drive.
I
9,500 L.F.
Various: public and private
Open Space; residential
Infill residential
Bridge east of 1-5 to connect to south side of lagoon;
overlook at Kelly Road; trail will mostly follow City
streets; off-road trail option to be encouraged wherever
possible; connects to Laguna Riviera Park.
Local Coastal Plan designates trail
Sidewalk/bikelane
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
$0
$9,500
Part of street maintenance
Connection to existing Panonia Trail should be made,
possibly through use of signage.
60 Trails Feasibility Study
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 20
From Laguna Riviera Park to intersection of El Camino Real
and Cannon Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
I, S
5,500 L.F.
208-020-28
Open space; residential; undeveloped
Residential
Locate along open space associated with riparian corridor.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$132,000 - dedicated improvements
$6,270 per annum
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
D
I
n
c
c
g
i
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 21
Along north side of Cannon Road from AT & SF to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
3, 13
3,000 L.F.
211-010-23, 24 SDG&E
Undeveloped
Promenade - commercial development, SDG&E expansion
Utilize sidewalk/bikelane under 1-5; alignment should move
away from Cannon Road as soon as possible east of 1-5.
Maintenance vehicles
1,500 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
1,500 L.F. Type 1
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
SI,500 - City cost
$69,000 - dedicated improvements
$2,850
Existing Condition
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 22
West Agua Hedionda Lagoon (south side) to Faraday/Cannon
13
8,500 L.F.
211-010-23,24 SDG&E, 212-010-14 SDG&E, 212-010-11 City
Veterans Memorial Park
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Existing agriculture/open space
Promenade shopping center
Trail alignment from pontoon bridge (Linkage #18) along
edge of Promenade project next to lagoon to Macario Canyon
Park.
N/A
1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City; some of the linkage may only be possible as an
easement over SDG&E ownership.
$0
1391,000 - dedicated improvements
116,150 per annum
0
0
0
Tra//s Feasibility Study 61
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 23
East from Macario Canyon Park along south of Cannon Road to
intersection of Cannon and El Cam!no Real.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
5,000 L.F.
20S-020-2S Kelly Ranch
Open space
Kelly Ranch - residential
Locate as far as possible from road; introduce buffer
landscaping between road and trail where possible.
N/A
2
1
I
Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
City
SO
$120,000 - dedicated improvements
$4,750 per annum
It may be necessary to construct a temporary staging area
somewhere along this linkage for use until Macario Canyon
Park is developed; this linkage could form part of a
demonstration project to be implemented as the first
section of the trail system setting standards for future
implementation.
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 24
From intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real south
to Veterans Memorial Park.
11,000 L.F.
208-020-28 - Kelly; 212-010-03 - Kirgis; 212-010-11 - City
of Carlsbad; 212-020-38 - Upland Industries; 212-050-29,
30, and 34 - Wimpey
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
Undeveloped; open space
Residential
From intersection of Cannon and El Camino through Evans
Point development linking to barn/visitor center with
secondary staging area, up to viewpoint, along open space
area between Evans Point and Kelly Ranch developments,
through edge of Kirgis property to viewpoint in Macario
Canyon Park, through Veterans Memorial Park keeping away
from roads and making best use of ridgeline views.
N/A
2
1
I
N/A
City
$3,600
$24,400 - City cost
$249,600 - dedicated improvements/park improvement costs
$12,192
This linkage could form part of a demonstration project to
be implemented as the first section of the trail system
setting standards for future implementation.
II
I
I
B
0
I
I
I
c
62 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
c
c
y
i
o
c
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 25
South from Linkage *I6, crosses Cannon at College, through
Sycamore Creek and Sunny Creek to county parcel to north of
Safety Center.
14. \5
8,250 L.F.
168-050-23 - Western Land; 209-060-06 - Western Land;
209-070-01 - Cantorini/O'Hare; 209-060-55 - Sandlin;
209-060-59 - Sycamore Creek; 209-040-15 - Ebright;
209-040-03, 209-070-07, 209-050-25 - County; 209-050-21 -
Title Insurance/Trust
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Open space; undeveloped
O'Hare Specific Plan
Future high school at north; locate in/adjacent to riparian
corridor; locate alongside College Boulevard right-of-way
for northern section; keep above woodland for views,
special concern along creek is the considerable amount of
poison oak.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$198,000 - dedicated improvements
17,838 per annum
Trail could utilize additional 15 percent open space
requirement in both Zones 14 and 15.
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 26
From Sycamore Creek through County land to Palomar Airport
Road at intersection with Melrose Avenue.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
5, 15, 16, 18
8,750 L.F.
209-050-21, 22, 23, 24 Title Insurance and Trust
Existing agriculture/open space
Future industrial (Palomar Oaks Phase II Specific Plan)
Locate trail in open space alongside future industrial
development; last segment along future Melrose Alignment;
crossing Faraday at future intersection with El Fuerte.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coordinate with future alignments of Faraday Avenue and
Melrose Avenue; ensure consistency with floodplain and
riparian at west end of link.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Acquisition/Financing:
Maintenance (Cost/Financing):
Notes:
City
SO
$210,000 - dedicated improvements
$8,313 per annum
Trails Feasibility Study 63
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 27
AT & SF right-of-way from Cannon Road to Palomar Airport
Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
4,500 L.F.
AT&SF
Railroad; industrial; residential
City-owned parcel at Cannon Road could be used for
potential future park or other recreational facility.
Cannon Road site to include secondary staging area; trail
may be able to move away from railroad tracks into open
space corridor.
Railroad maintenance vehicles
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Development of trail subject to negotiations including
SANDAG and AT & SF
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
Access easement over AT & SF ownership
$0
$108,000 - regional trails program cost
$44,000 - City cost
$6,017 per annum
The proposed future realignment of the intersection of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road should take
account of trail routing needs; possible Carlsbad Boulevard
excess right-of-way study should include trail alignments
as part of analysis.
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 28
Veterans Memorial Park (Faraday at Cannon) to future ICelly
Drive to Palomar Airport Road
5, 8, 13
4,000 L.F.
212-010-11 City of Carlsbad; 212-010-14 SDG&E; 211-010-19
SDG&E; 212-041-05 Ecke; 211-021-19 CalTrans
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Open space, planned industrial
Huntington Beach Properties - approved plan, planned
industrial at south end of link; north half falls in
Veterans Memorial Park.
Trail stays within Macario Canyon Park to Kelly Drive;
crossing at Kelly to west side; parallel to Kelly on west
side to Palomar Airport Road.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000 park related and/or dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
64 Trails Feasibility Study
II
I
I
r
c
i
i
i
c
y
i
i
i
i
I
0
G
I
Existing Condi lions
Location:
c
c
c
y
i
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 29
Altamira Park to intersection of Kelly Road and Palomar
Airport Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Snared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
5,20
2,500 L.F.
212-40-32 - Kelly
Undeveloped
Industrial park along Palomar Airport Road; Residential -
medium density to east of Altamira Park.
Trail to follow open space canyon.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $7,500
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $60,000 - City cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,375 per annum
Notes:
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 30
Laurel Tree Road south to Poinsettia Lane, then east
parallel to Poinsettia Lane to Poinsettia Park.
20
7,000 L.F.
212-040-29 - BCS; 212-040-30 - Carlsbad Land Investors;
215-080-01 - DeJong
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Desiga
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Agriculture
Medium density residential
A secondary trail southward through the Aviara project
could connect to this linkage away from major roads.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $168,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $6,650
Notes:
L
i;
Trails Feasibility Study 65
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 31
From intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Kelly Road
crossing along base of bluff south of industrial park to
link with No. 30.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
6,500 L.F.
212-040-39 - Faize; 212-040-30 - Carlsbad Land Investors
Industrial park; undeveloped
Industrial park
Locate trail along future frontage road for industrial
park.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: 1156,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): 16,175 per annum
Notes:
66 7ra//s Feasibility Study
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 32
Poinsettia Park to El Camino Real
19, 20, 21
4,250 L.F.
215-020-01 - Carlsbad I, 215-020-12 - Bons, 215-020-13
Hunt
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Agriculture; undeveloped
Residential
Potential underpass as part of development proposal at El
Camino Real or use intersection with Carrillo Way.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $102,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $4,038 per annum
Notes:Within Zone 21 alignment could use additional 15 percent
open space requirement.
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
y
i
i
i
i
I
e
i
i
i
n
c
c
c
I
I
c
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 33
From intersection of El Camino Real and Carrillo Way to
Alga None Park.
10
4,000 L.F.
215-021-07 - BCE; 215-021-08 - La Costa Hotel; 215-031-08
BCE
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans:
Desiga
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Residential
Future alignment of Carrillo Way will determine actual
location of trail; locate along north side of Carrillo Way
as far as possible from the roadway; crossing Carrillo Way
into Alga Norte Park.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 34
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
From Alga Norte Park to Carrillo Ranch
6, 10, 18
6,000 L.F.
215-031-04 - Rancho Carrillo; 222-011-06 - Woodward Company
Open Space; undeveloped
Residential
From Alga Norte Park locate parallel to and south of future
alignment of Carrillo Way; proposed arboretum will effect
siting - trail should follow boundary of arboretum if
alignment through is not possible; follow valley, riparian
corridor to Carrillo Ranch; use future subdivision traffic
signal for crossing at El Fuerte.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
$0
$144,000 - dedicated improvements
J5.700 per annum
G Trails Feasibility Study 67
Existing Condi lioni
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 35
From future intersection of Carrillo Way and El Fuerte
north to Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing
18
5,250 L.F.
213-030-15
Undeveloped
Most of trail in open space area; some future residential
development close to intersection of Carrillo Way and El
Fuerte.
Locate through General Plan designated open space corridor;
crossing of Palomar Airport Road at Melrose Avenue;
crossing of Carrillo Way at El Fuerte.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coordinate with future alignments of Carrillo Way, El
Fuerte, and Melrose Avenue.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$126,000 - dedicated improvements
$4,988
68 Trails Feasibility Study
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 36
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Carrillo Ranch to San Marcos border.
IS
4,750 L.F.
222-010-02, 221-010-018 - Carrillo Ranch
Agriculture; undeveloped
Residential; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Canyon route from Carrillo Ranch to San Marcos trail
system; road crossings at Melrose and Carrillo Way need to
be built into residential development plans; trail to be
located near riparian woodland.
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
N/A
2
3
3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
SI 14,000 - dedicated improvements
$4,513 per annum
II
I
I
p
I
I
I
c
I
1
I
I
I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 37 CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 38
I
c
c
I
B
0
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
From Altamira Park to Poinsettia Lane
4
2,250'L.F.
City of Carlsbad; 214-140-40 - Abada
Existing residential to west, existing residential to east
at Poinsettia.
School site
Altamira park design connects to Linkage *29; City owned
trail in place from Poinsettia north to Camino de las
Ondas; location of trail between park (which has been
dedicated to city) and Camino de las Ondas will have to be
aligned in relation to development of school.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing: I
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: 16,750
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $54,000 - City cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,138 per annum
Notes:
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
From Camino de las Ondas along Seascape Drive to the
intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive.
2,000 L.F.
City-owned right-of-way
Residential; Home Owners tennis facility
N/A
From Camino de las Ondas follows along Seascape Drive
improved sidewalk and along existing paved path adjacent to
tennis courts across Buttercup Road and along west edge of
City-owned detention basin area to Poinsettia.
N/A
1,500 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
500 L.F. Type 2
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing: I
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: 113,500 - City cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $475 per annum
Notes:
G
Trails Feasibility Study 69
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 39
From AT & SF railroad tracks at Poinsettia Lane to South
Carlsbad State Beach.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
22
1,000 L.F.
AT & SF; City-owned right-of-way; state
Undeveloped
Trail follows up cut slope from railroad tracks to south
side of Poinsettia Lane; across Carlsbad Boulevard at
existing traffic signal; into State Beach site to beach
access stairway.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Negotiate with State Parks Department for access
Proposed Ownership: City; State
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $24,000 - City cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $950 per annum
Notes:
70 Trails Feasibility Study
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 40
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Opportunities/Constraints:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Along AT & SF Railroad from Palomar Airport Road to
Encinilas ( La Costa Boulevard).
9, 22
15,500 L.F.
AT ASF
Railroad Right-of-way
N/A
Locate along railroad right-of-way
Railroad maintenance vehicles
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Dependent on negotiations with SANDAG and AT & SF
Proposed Ownership: Public access easement over AT & SF ownership.
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: {372,000 regional trails program expense
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $14,725 per annum
Notes:
II
I
I
0
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
c
c
I
e
c
Existing Coadillons
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 41
Railroad line to north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, located
on lop of south facing bluff.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
9
1.750 L.F.
216-140-29; 216-140-25 - Sammis; 216-140-16 - Lamb
Residential to north; Batiquitos Lagoon and associated
wetland to south.
New residential
Existing dirt road along western portion of link is
currently used as an informal pedestrian trail; eastern
section would follow trail marked out by developer to
follow brow ditches along top of slope incorporating
existing viewpoint; at north point in mid section of link,
trail should cross detention basin spillway.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $42,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $1,663 per annum
Notes:
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 42
Along Lagoon Lane from Poinsettia Lane to Batiquitos
Lagoon.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
19
4,250 L.F.
City-owned R.O.W.; 216-150-03, 05, 214-17-21, 22 Savage
Residential/Undeveloped
Undeveloped area to become residential
Utilize existing City-owned trail on east side of Lagoon
Lane for northern portion of Link; incorporate secondary
staging area at southern end of linkage.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$4,250
Part of street maintenance
Trails Feasibility Study 71
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 43
From Lagoon Lane along north shore of Baliquitos Lagoon to
Aviara east property line.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
72 Trails Feasibility Study
19
7,000 L.F.
Public
Undeveloped to north, Batiquitos Lagoon on south
Proposed Aviara Development on north
Public access along lagoon, can have areas for nature
interpretation, views out over lagoon. Falls within
public-owned 100' wetland buffer. Possible picnic site at
Promontory 1,400 L.F. from east end of link; secondary
north-south linkage through Aviara project can link with
trail; for 2,500 L.F. of this segment a second paved path
has been included alongside the unpaved path - for
handicapped accessible trail lead along part of the lagoon
to proposed picnic site.
Utilities Department maintenance vehicles (for sewer)
7,000 L.F. - Type 2
2,500 L.F. - Type I (alongside existing Type 2 trail)
1
Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission.
Negotiate for maintenance by Aviara.
City
$0
1167,000 - City cost
SI68,000 - dedicated improvements
113,142 per annum
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 44
From Aviara eastern property line to El Camino Real, along
north side of Batiquitos Lagoon at base of south facing
bluffs.
19
4,000 L.F.
216-121-01 - McMurphy. 216-121-02 - Mitsuchi, 216-121-14
Newport Shores
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Agricultural; open space
Residential
Continuation from Linkage #43 along north shore of lagoon;
includes primary staging area at east end of linkage; trail
should be aligned as far from development and roads as
possible.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate ~ Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
16,534 (for the staging area)
$96,000 - dedicated improvements
1230,500 - City cost for staging area
J5.860 per annum
II
I
I
c
E
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
c
c
c
I
I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 45
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
From Alga None Park south to Alga Road.
6, 10
5,000 L.F.
215-030-14; 215-031-08; 215-061-09; 215-480-02, 03
Undeveloped; golf course
Residential
Trail should be aligned so as to take advantage of views
south and west over golf course and lagoon - possibly to be
located on west edge of future residential development.
Alignment to lead to crossing of Alga Road at Alicante.
N/A
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: A portion of the segment may fall under an SDG&E
powerline and secondary use easement may have to be
negotiated.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City; public access easement under powerline
S3.000
1108,000 - dedicated improvements
$12,000 - City cost
$4,750 per annum
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 46
From intersection of Alga Road and Alicante along Alga Road
eastward to SDG&E powerline; follows powerline easement
from Alga Road to El Fuerte Street.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
6
4,250 L.F.
215-491-47 - BCE Development
Residential surrounding powerline open space corridor.
N/A
Along powerline locate so as to minimize impact of trail on
privacy of adjacent housing; this linkage would require a
bridge at £1 Fuerte to ensure a safe road crossing.
Utility maintenance vehicles
1,750 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
2,500 L.F. Type 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Secondary use easement negotiation with underlying land
owner and SDG&E.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
Public access easement over underlying private ownership;
within existing city right-of-way along Alga Road.
$15,000
$111,750 -City cost
$2,375
C
Trails Feasibility Study 73
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 47
Along north bluff top of San Marcos Creek Canyon from El
Fuerte Street to staging area off Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
6, II
9,000 L.F.
215-491-48; 223-010-19, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 223-021-16, 17
Undeveloped; open space
Residential; open space
Trail should be located on edge of canyon rim providing
public access along open space corridor; linkage includes
one bridge over a small canyon east of and close to £1
Fuerte; much of the trail could follow existing SDG&E
maintenance road; short spur towards overlook; staging area
at east end of link to east side of water treatment plant.
SDG&E maintenance vehicles
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service
may become involved because of possible habitat impacts on
chaparral and/or sage scrub.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: '
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
SO
$216,000 - dedicated improvements
$104,000 - City cost
18,550 per annum
74 Trails Feasibility Study
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 48
From staging area close to Rancho Santa Fe Road southwest
along south rim of San Marcos Canyon to viewpoint in SDG&E
easement, then due east along easement to join with Linkage
#53 east of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
6, II
8,000 L.F.
223-021-11; 223-011-02, 04, 05, 06
Open space; undeveloped
Residential
From the staging area at the east end of Linkage #47, a
bridge will carry the trail south over San Marcos Creek and
associated riparian area; trail then leads along canyon rim
taking advantage of views where possible; then to viewpoint
in SDG&E easement; then follows easement.
Utility maintenance vehicles
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service;
negotiations with SDG&E and underlying owners for public
access secondary use easement along powerline.
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City; easement along powerline
$27,267
$96,000 - dedicated improvements
$156,000 - City cost
$9,342 per annum
II
I
I
0
B
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 49 CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. SO
B
0
I
D
C
D
I
I
D
Existing Cooditioni
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Opportunities/Constraints:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Along El Camino Real from Arenal Road to La Costa Avenue.
6, 19
3,000 L.F.
216-121-14 - Newport Shores; 216-122-23 - Aviara
Lagoon to west; residential, open space, and commercial to
east.
N/A
Must use existing bridge to cross San Marcos Creek;
pedestrian trail to west of El Camino Real except at bridge
crossing; bicycles to use bike lanes on road.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implement* tlon
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition; $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $3,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Notes:The improvement cost estimate does not include any street
improvements or bridge improvements which (if necessary)
have been assumed to be a street improvement related
expense.
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance'Cost (Annual):
Parallel to El Camino Real from La Costa Avenue to boundary
with the City of Encinitas.
23
7,250 L.F.
216-122-24 - Aviara; 216-122-37; 255-011-10; 255-011-12;
255-021-5, 6, 7. g
Riparian open space to east; undeveloped to west
Commercial/office/residential - medium to high density
Trail to go west along La Costa Avenue before turning
south; then locate along west side of riparian area.
Possible secondary trail to form loop around future Green
Valley development. Also potential secondary trails to
link up to top of slope to the west to proposed Ecke Park
in Encinitas. Crossing of El Camino Real to join Linkage
*51 to be implemented with new road crossing.
Maintenance vehicles for management of riparian corridor.
2
Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission
City
$0
$174,000 - dedicated improvements
$44,000 - City cost
$8,630
Notes:Trails could use additional 15 percent of land area
required to be set aside as open space in Zone 23.
Trails Feasibility Study 75
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 51
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Opportunities/Constraints:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
From El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
12
7,000 L.F.
Fieldstone
Undeveloped; open space along riparian corridor
Residential development plans agreed upon with Fieldstone
Company.
Trail connection already shown on agreed development plans,
to be sited in landscaped band adjacent to future alignment
of Calle Barcelona. Crossing at El Camino Real at
Olivenhain, and Rancho Santa Fe Road at future road access
to Green Valley development.
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: JO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $7,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Notes:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 52
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
From Stagecoach Park north to La Costa Avenue
II
1,500 L.F.
223-060-40 - Christopher Homes
Undeveloped; existing residential development to east
Residential - medium density: Park View West
Locate trail in General Plan designated open space
corridor; open space corridor indicated on Park View West
development proposal.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: I
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements: 136,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): SI,425 per annum
Notes:
76 Trails Feasibility Study
II
I
I
B
B
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
D
D
I
I
C
n
rL
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. S3
From Mission Estancia in northeast direction to join with
proposed trail in City of San Marcos.
11
10,750 L.F.
223-050-64, 223-060-49, 223-071-05, 07 - B.C.E.;
223-071-06; 223-071-10; 223-071-09; 223-032-01
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Undeveloped; open space
Residential - low density; open space
Street crossings required at Mission Estancia and Melrose
Avenue; steep slopes area - trail needs to follow contours
and use switchbacks, etc.; between Mission Estancia and
Melrose Avenue locate within General Plan designated open
space corridor; trail to stay to west side of water tower
and reservoir; crossing of Melrose to be located at future
intersection with La Costa Avenue; Ensure alignment
corresponds with planning for San Marcos trail; spur to
east close to water tower could effect connection to
proposed county trail linkage.
N/A
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: SO
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance (Cost/Financing):
Notes:
$258,000 - dedicated improvements
SI0,000 - City cost
110,213 per annum
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 54
From Stagecoach Park southwest along east side of Rancho
Santa Fe and then east along open space corridor to south
of existing development at Calle Vallarta and Avenida
Anacapa.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
II
7,750 L.F.
255-031-26 - Fieldstone
Open space; undeveloped
Small commercial site at intersection of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Mission Estancia; residential low to medium.
Crossing at Mission Estancia into Park. East of commercial
development at Rancho Santa Fe and Mission Estancia trail
to run through open space corridor along drainage course.
Crossing of Calle Barcelona at Rancho Santa Fe. Continues
southwest in open space between residential development and
roadway. Then east along floodplain open space.
N/A
2
Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
City
$46,500
SI86,000 - City cost
$7,363 per annum
Possible connection into loop with Encinitas trail system
to south.
Trails Feasibility Study 77
Existing Conditions
Location:
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 55
From intersection of Mission Estancia and Calle Acervo at
Stagecoach Park south to Encinitas.
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
11
7,000 L.F.
Private
Undeveloped
Residential
After short section along sidewalk trail follows boundary
of future school site and then into open space areas of
proposed residential developments.
N/A
2
Existing Conditions
Location:
Length:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Trail Type:
Notes:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Notes:
City
$42,000
$168,000 - City cost
$6,650 per annum
Possible connection into Encinitas trail system
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 55A
From Link No. 54 south of Calle Vallarta west to the City
of Encinitas.
4,400 L.F.
Will need to cross Rancho Santa Fe. This could occur in
conjunction with drainage culvert or would otherwise have
to connect with traffic signal — possibly at Olivenhain.
Should follow drainage channel in between Willowhaven Road
and Wood Road.
At the request of the City of Encinitas, this link has been
included in the study after completion of the main body of
the report. Because of the late date of inclusion,
complete analysis of the segment has not been performed and
costs associated with this link are not included in the
report. However, it appears to be viable and useful and
should be considered in future planning.
I
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
c
78 Trails Feasibility Study
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
D
I
G
C
L
I
D CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
W R
Wv;.r^ •^3®*:®£mF&lViv^r '\'^&:;^$?$&$&ffl
''A- ^v' • ^'^;ift^,Sw>. > • W^f^^'^^A
*\ '. ' ^ **''&' t ""•'-•. •"',.*"'"»'.* !
'- j^ ^x. ^ „ i i *_ ^
01
M
*!.
5^
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
r«iooo
W R T
02
M
\
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f = 1000'
1
4
111
5
3
6
W R
03
MAP
5
•^
t^
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLANr=iooo'
7
W R T
04
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f '• 1000'
, W R T
^5m, $> '^M^ifi^la>;\\\xvrvov ./r * ><<« V-w-? ~T*vmv^£rii^Wt.ii«.,\'\£} >,/•*•• >/;i \\• ^iV'Sw^ |i£Wf
^N^^tiW 'J^J vs^^^m W3?'<P i V
'•? v-. ,, i« ^-« 'i \'5^«'\\VVW>X s-.'',•**-V'Wlf^- ^ '• ^ '
iPtSiSllt'ViSlIN ^ V
hM^;V^^&i^^^^rv A '^Sf *S a? V»**,'«i'"\^V'»''*^'**k(Mj%* (>-O ^*"*™*ew4^|i iK'SvfwC'
, !* ?i' iS.* J^il i\*--i*'<T« \t
05
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
T'lOOO
1
4
8
2
sites
9
3
6
10
W R T
06
M
\
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
l' = 1000'
2
5
9
3
III
10
7
11
W R
07
M
C A R L S B AD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000'
3
6
10
111
11
W R T
08
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000
12
W R T
09
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLANr=iooo'
4 5
:;«;
12
6
10
13
W R
10
M
v\
CARLS BAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000
5
9
12
6
j«
13
7
11
14
W R T
«~ I '* -4'i.'9f % *«7 ^ f *•« f I ' ' '/-.^^$ii':,^i^r>
—.„ -•. IT*-«*> - * , ,
t* "v, ->"i' i
i ;>*% ^
r*11M A
CARLS BAD
TRAILS PLANr=iooo'
6
10
13
7
Wi:
14
W R
12
M
\
u^
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f = iooo'
8 9
i|||
15
10
13
16
W R
13
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000
9
12
15
10
:;«
16
11
14
17
W R T
14
M
V
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000
10
13
16
11
11
17 18
W R T
15
M A
C A R L S B AD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000
12
I Hi
19
13
16
20
W R
16
M
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
1* = 1000
12
15
19
13
9
20
14
17
21
W R
17
M
\
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f = 1000'
13
16
20
14
11
21
18
22
W R T
18
M
arcos w
nincorporated Area CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'lOOO'
14
TT
IT
W R T
19
M
€q.
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f:1000'
15 16
20
W R
r: V-r-t-,"'.•? », -*' ,# * t ' 4^'^ ^
" *'
,
'N^tgt- t*4i»y ^^ ^St,*^ ^ « rfjwl' **• ''5*' ' * ';
, .
«" ' *. .!H ./:•
20
M
CARLS BAD
TRAILS PLAN
f'1000'
15
19
16
mm
17
21
23
W R T
21
M A
^\
^
'
\\\
~1u
^u
u"1
^
%f?i}j
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
r»iooo
16
20
17
iiii
23
18
22
W R
No Trail Linkages on this Map
22
MAP
V
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
f = 1000'
17
21
23
18
«:;
W R
23
M
±*
CARLSBAD
TRAILS PLAN
r=iooo'
20 21
lil
22
W R
0
I
B
I
C
c
Bibliography
City of Carlsbad Report of the Citizen's Committee for Review of Carlsbad's
Open Space Plan and Programs. City of Carlsbad, July 1989.
CalTrans., Highway Design Manual.
DeChiara, Joseph, and Koppleman, Lee., Urban Planning and Design
Criteria (26 ed.l. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1975.
Fogg, George E.. Park Planning Guidelines Revised. National Recreation
and Park Association, 1981.
Harris, Charles W., and Dines, Nicholas T., Time Saver Standards for
Landscape Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
National Trails Symposium., National Trails Agenda Task Force User
Conflict Subgroup. Report on the Ninth National Trails Symposium,
September 11 -14,1988, Unicoi State Park, Georgia.
Poway, City of., Trail Standards and Specifications.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Easement Guidelines for
Riding and Hiking Trails.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Improvement Guidelines
for Riding and Hiking Trails.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service., Trails Management
Handbook.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service., Standard Trail
Construction Specifications.
I
Poway, City of., Trails Guide.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Procedure for Locating
Riding and Hiking Trails on Land Development Projects.
|c
! H
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Public Road Standards.
January 1985
Trails Feasibility Study 81
L
I
Appendix A Sources for Trail Survey
CITY
Burbank
NAME
Anna Mendiola
Jim Patricola
East Bay Regional David Clovis
Park District Steve Fiala
Fontana
Glendora
Montebello
Poway
Rancho
Cucamonga
Valencia
Whittier
Jim Engel
Dick Swinney
Bill Mahler
Fred Palmer
John Wicker
Robert Wilcox
Dan Cannon
Jerry
Bruce
Jeff Barnes
Jim Hart
Mr. Hideo
Cynthia Herman
82 Trails Feasibility Study
DEPT.PHONE
Parks/Rec (818) 953-9554
Risk Mgmt. (818) 953-3168
Risk Mgmt. (415) 531-9300
Land Acq. (415) 531-9300
Parks/Rec (714) 350-6709
Parks/Rec (818) 963-5668
Parks/Rec (213) 725-1200
L.A. County (818) 330-3860
L.A. County (213) 738-3028
Parks/Rec
Planning
(619) 748-6600
(619) 748-6600
Parks/Rec (714) 989-1851
Parks/Rec (714) 989-1861
Public Works (714) 989-2813
Finance (714) 989-2813
Parks/Rec (213) 945-8200 ext. 479
Risk Mgmt. (213) 945-8200 ext. 370
I
I
I
f!
C
I
I
I
c
c
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
G
L
C
C
B
I
Acknowledgments
The City of Carlsbad
City Staff
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Dennis A. Turner, Principal Planner
Van W. Lynch, Planning Technician
Mike Shirey, Assistant Civil Engineer
Ralph W. Anderson, Utilities and Maintenance Director
Greg Woods, Street Maintenance Supervisor
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst
Michael E. Smith, Fire Marshal
Walter Brown, Principal Civil Engineer
Lt. Hasenaur, Police Department
Trails Subcommittee
Dave Castner
Courtney E. Heineman
Anna Knox
Anthony (Tony) Lawson
Kip McBane
Julianne Nygaard
Fay O. Round
Cindy Ward
Bob Wilkinson
C
Planning Commission
Tom G. Erwin
Matthew Hall
Robert Holmes
Mary Marcus
Jeanne B. McFadden
Clarence ("Bud") Schlehuber
Sharon Schramm
Parks and Recreation Commission
David Castner
Shirley Dahlquist
Anna Knox
Anthony (Tony) Lawson
John B. Strayer
Cindy Ward
Kim Welshons
For assistance in the supply of specific information,
grateful acknowledgment is made to:
ADL Planning Associates
Fay Round/ & Associates
Hofman Planning Associates
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Wallace Roberts & Todd - Paul Rookwood, Project Manager
and
Economics Research Associates - William Anderson, Principal
August 1990
Trails Feasibility Study 83