Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-07; City Council; 5946; Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program7 CITY OF CJAW,Isr�AD- AGEtiD:: f3F7,T. W. 9 1-16_y Initial: Dept. lid AATi:: Auqus;t 7. , i979 C. t'Atty,�)1 DrP7AR TMENT: _City ?°iaxra er C. Mgr.' 5ibject: REGIONAL OUTDOOR %FORE' ATION PI AN AND PROGRAM Statenapnt of the Matter. The Conpr4her.sive Planning, Organization Board of Directors has asked for the City's response corcerni.ny the Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Porgram. This plan has been prepared as an element of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Councilwoman Casl.er served as the chairperson of the ad hoc connittee that assisted in reviewing and preparing the report, The basic objective of the study was to develop a set of goals that would wide future decisions in providing outdoor recreation resources through- out the region, as well, as assure a system of land, facilities, equipment and programs within the region to serve present and future outdoor rcacreatior. needs of residents, visitors and tourists. The Board has requested that the City Council respond to (1) the list of parks a.dcntified by CPO as regional parks, and (25 the actions recommended to be taken by the CiLy for the proposed Lake Calavera Regional Park:, EXHIBITS 1, Letter from CPO dated June 14, 1979, requesting the City's response to attached list of parks, 2. DAAFT letter to CPO from City Manager. 3. Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program Draft (On file in the Parks and Recreation Department and City Clerk's office). REC0:4I,1EhDATION That Council review the exhibit: listed above and make any recommendations or comments concerning the list or ;projects. Instruct staff to send letter to CPO as drafted or +.. any deletions or additions as Council deems appropriate. CounciLiAction: 18-7-79 Council continued the matter to the meeting of August 21, 1979. °8-21-79 Council' instructed staff to send the letter to CPO as drafted with the inclusion of a sentence to notify them the Coastal Commission is not approving Agua Hedionda as a park..' E � ,, > v� � •,jam :, ` COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza JZS � \?. 1200 Third Avenue June 14, 1979 C , I i� - San Diego, Cali'Grnia 92101 (714) 236.5300 Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program Dear Mr. Bussey: At its May meeting, the CPO Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of the draft Regional outdoor Recreation Plan and Program which was mailed to you in March. The Plan encourages implementation by listing actions necessary for high priority regional parks. Each agency rspcnsible for action is being eked to commit itself to take the actions identified. The CPO staff would be glad to talk with your staff or council co further explain the rec=mnded actions. Each, action reoormended should, where possible,, be under way.- within• cne year. The progress made will be checked by CPO staff and a report made to the CPO Board by next July, together with a new list of recommended actions. rifle Board requests that the City of Carlsbad approve the list of parks identified as regional (see attached list) and indicate its willingness to carry out the actions reco mended for the following high priority regional parks: Regional Park Action Reommlended/Responsible Aqen Lake Calavera Revised blaster Plan (County) Acquisitions (County and Carlsbad) As development continues in vicinity of Lake Calavera, the City limy wish to acquire park land adjacent to its current ownership, as has been proposed in the Lake Calavera Hills developuent. A revised blaster Plan would help the City and the County jointly to determine the areas which should be acquired. The Board would appreciate the City's response to (1) the list of parks identified by CPO as regional parks, and (2) the actions recommended to be taken by the City for Lake Calavera Regional Park. The Board will review SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MemberAgencies, Cities of Cartsbatl. Chula Vista, Coronad,), Doi Mar, El Cajon. Imperial Beach, La Mesa. Lemon Grove, National Ci,v, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego!cx,ofhcio Member California Department of TransportatronlHonorary Member: i ,mano, B, CFA, Mr. Paul Bussey -2- June 14, 1979 all ca ments prior to adoption of the Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program, now planned for the -August.meeting. Subsequently, all A-95 reviews requesting federal funds and CEQA reviews of -proposed development will reflect : the CPO Board's adopted actions. Ztie CPO project manager, Ruth Potter, will be contacting you soon regarding this request. Sincerely; qnit W pcecative Director PJH:RP:ce Attachment cc: Parks and Recreation Director Planning Director . TABLE A-1 REGIONAL, PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Canping %b date�lo Action � .Use Only Land Acquired DevelopedDay General P, ecreation Parks (15) Agua- Caliente X X Balboa X Calavera Fake X Chollas Reservoir X rr v j•cos X X El Monte X Fortuna'Mountain X Gaajome X Palamar•Mountain State Park X X Potrero X X X San Clemente San Dieguito X San Elijo Canyon X Sweetwater X* Vallecito X* water- Recreation Parks (13) Agua iiedionda Lagoon X Dixon, Lake X X Lake Renshaw X* Lake Hodges/Kit Carson X Lake .Jennings X X Lake Morena X X 14ae Murray/Cowles Mt. X Lake Wohlford X* Miramar Reservoir X Mission Bay X X Otay Reservoir X X San Vicente Reservoir X Santa Margarita Canyon X Ecological Preserves (7) Batiquitos Lagoon X Buena Vista Lagoon X Heise X X International Park/ X Bonier Field Los Pdnasquitos X San Elijo Lagoon X Torrey Pines State Pans X. Special Purpose Parks (4) Quail X Sar, Pasqual X Sycamore Canyon X Wilderness Gardens X *Iand In public ownership, but not designated for camping. 1200 ELM AVENUE CA9L59AD, CALIFORNIA 92008 `# Office of the City Manager QZ,itp of C, ar .Aab July 31, 1979 DRAFT ONLY Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization Security Pacific: Plaza, Suite 524 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 Subject: CPO Draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan TELEPHONE- (714) 729.1181 In response to your letter dated June 14, 1979 relative to the subject plan and program, the Council has reviewed those parks which have an immediate impact on the City. Some comment has been made concerning each of the four potential regional park sites but, generally, it should be understood that as regional parks, the major financial burden of acquisition, development, and maintenance must be shared by the total County populAtion. At this time it appears that the most likely way that this can be accomplished is by the County of San Diego taking the respon- sibility. In view of the current economic climate it may be that the total program is too ambitious. It does appear that without extensive aid from the State, the projected timing can- not be met and should be reconsidered prior to adoption of the plan. Calavera The City of Carlsbad continues to support the County's acqui- sition of Lake Calavera and appropriate surrounding lands necessary for a regional park. This support is premised on the County taking positive action on the park within a reason- able period of time. It is also premised on the County making adequate provisions =or the payment of lands to be acquired from the City Water ieaartment. We do not have any information on the need to revise the Master Plan for this County Regional Park site, but would be happy to review and work with the County tc: see that any proposed revision is consistent with the City's Genrral Plan. While we wi.l look at each development that occurs in the Calavera area to derermine if it will impact the Park Plan, we cannot commit at t-+his time to the acquisition of such land. Using the City's present- code provisions for the acquisition of park land, as development occurs we will aid the County in its acquisition program if the Council is satisfied that all local park needs have been net. We will inform the County of each development so that they will have an opportunity to take appropriate action. July 31 , 1979 Page 2 DRAFT Subject: CPO Draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan Aqua Hedionda Although Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed as a regional park, the City of Carlsbad considers its primary purpose is to provide for local recreation needs and the primary emphasis. of the City in its planning efforts will be to provide for those needs. If it is anticipated by CPO that the area should be developed to reach its full potential, we would be interested in your views of how this could be accomplished without placing a disproportionate share of the costs of development and maintenance on the citizens of Carlsbad. The City has not anitcipated that camping would be accommodated at this park. Buena Vista Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon is properly listed in the CPO report as an ecological preserve. It is however, listed as an area which anticipates camping. Due to its location and the general nature of.development in the area, it should no longer be considered as a potential camping area. Batiquitos The City has previously gone on record as supporting Bati:quitos Lagoon as a potential County park site. As originally planned by the County staff, the park contemplates the development of land which lies in both unincorporated County territory and the City of Carlsbad. Since the plan anticipates being serviced through the City of Carlsbad for utilitie,, and access, the County should firmly commit itself to the park plan as soon as possible to assure that park development will be compatible with adjacent private development and City services. We hope the information provided will be of value to you in evaluating the plan for your board. PAUL D. BUSSEY City Manager PDS:idg COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION q= Board of Directors Agenda Report No.: R-64 Date 3/19/79 REGIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN AND PROG.WI: PRELIMINARY DRAFT Introduction Tlie draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program has been prepared by PBQ&D, Inc., consultant Ed Perkins, working with staff and an ad hoc committee headed by Councilwoman Mary Casler of Carlsbad. The draft report includes the committee approved statement of recreation system goals intended to guide the study and also future decisions in providing outdoor recreation resources throughout the Region. The overall goal is: to assure that a system )f land, facilities, equipment and programs is provided within the San Diego Region to serve present and future outdoor recreation needs. In addition, the plan updates information presented in the Regional Parks Implementation Study (RPIS) of 1971. That earlier study had presented an extensive analysis of the recreational activities to be included within each of 38 (later 39) designated regional parks; it assigned priorities for acquisition and development of 20 parks by the County, but it did not -propose an implementation program for 19 parks under jurisdiction of other agencies. This report revises all the designated parks, proposes priorities for action and indicates the action necessary and the implementation agency for each of the top priority category of parks. The current study also revises the information presented on per capita recte- ation participation, that is, active involvement in any recreation, activity. Ten recreation activities were included in the RPIS: picnicking, mature walks, playing games (including tennis, golf, and informal gams), bicycling, riding, swimming, boating, .Fishing, camping and hiking. These activities were again considered in this Plan. When adopted, the Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program will become an element of the Roglona7 Conprohensive Plan. It will be used ', CPO in considering l'wu1111g requcs1.5, based upon the Plan's general prig..aty ranking of each regional park; it will be used as a guide in encouraging local jurisdictions to provide recreational facilities to keep pace with population growth. Table 8-1, (page 83 of the draft Plan report), shows the Regional Park Evaluation and the Priority Range of each. park. The action and the imple- mentation agency recommended for the top priority parks is shrncn on page 84 of the Plan report. a In order to permit regionwide review and comment, it is mD/ RIiCM%HWMTION that the draft of the Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program be accepted for distribution. Discussion The draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and 4'rugram reviews the 1971 Regional Parks Implementation Study (RPIS); iL describes the activities considered suitable in regional parks and the land required to provide for them. Me draft report presents a number of findings and recommendations. Findings: I. The recreation participation rate (individual involvement in any recreation activity) is much higher for many activities than stated in the RPIS. 2. Tourist recreation demand probably will grow faster than resident demand, based on visitor industry studies of tourism growth. 3. Total acreage required in regional parks will grow from the current need, 36,000 acres to 62,000 acres in 1995, based upon proposals presented in the Plan. Some 26,000 acres have already been acquired and another 16,700 are "potentially available", that is, in some form of public ownership. 4. To continue the current level of service, .local park systems should be expanded by about 3,750 acres over the current 4,760 acres, an increase of almost 80%. 5. Additional facility needs by 1995 will include 20 new 18 hole golf courses to accommodate both residents and tourists, and 20 public swimming Pools, just to maintain the current service level. (MAle golf courses require very large acreages, most of them have been provided by the private sector, relieving the local jurisdictions of much of this demand.) Recommendations: I. Increase the regional park system acreage from 36,000 to 62,000 acres by 1995, about 14,000 acres more than proposed under the RPIS proposal. Umeans to acquire land (purchase in fee, long term Use all appropriate lease, etc.), and to develop facilities (public development, concession- naires, volunteers, etc.) 2. In order to accomplish No. 1, revise standards for various activities and reallocate some activities based upon changes in attitudes and avail- ability of facilities, as explained in the report and below: a. Revise "camping" standard :From 4 camp sites per acre to 16 camp sites per acre, at least for Recreation Vehicle (RIO camping with full hookups -- ►uter, sewer, electricity. This should help to en- courage the private sector outside of parks and as concessionnaires Within regional parks. b. Allocate more of the "playing gapes" activity to local parks, schoo"s, sports Fields and also the private sector to reduce the WIS proposed regional park area rcquiremont (by 50 percent). 'fills should also encourage the private sector to provide for popular activities, such as tennis and racquet ball. c. Reduce the bicycling allocation to regional parks by ha1f, allocating more to streets and roads since bicycles serve both recreation and transportation needs. 3. Recognize local governments as the agencies responsible to maintain at least the current level of local recreational facilities in the region, because local recreation resources provided are thDSe least likely to be available from private sector sources. Regional Prrrk;; The draft rep krt indicates that the need for increased recreation area is greater thwi had previously been recognized in the wIS. However, over the years since 1'e RPIS was prepared, some of the land proposed for regional park acquisitiv-1 NaK; been lost to development. In other cases land proposed for "approprlrt" regulation" has been acquired in fee, an expensive alternative. Some 16-'(r"} WTes of publicly owned land, .mach of which was proposed for in- clusicl "r regional parks, rewiri "potentially available" today, assuming that , h•- land will be held, not sold. The re c rt w)V C stand,e".j� Plus use of "appropriate re elattz.,ns" co,Ud ake t some changes in date, r cA � ,� �" � l:e the land acquired to the land potentially available", adequate to meet the demand in 1995 ; i"- re fore, the changes proposed, particularly in "camping standards", shoillJ t•, raviewed carefully. A rrvw of the RPIS acquisition recomlendations for Target 1978 appears in Cllapt". r 7. Wo pertinent examples follow. Lake (iilavera - The Lake Calavera regional park proposal has continued to cause controversy over the years. The City of Carlsbad owns the lake .and land around it, 252 acres. The RP1S suggested ra total 1990 size of 2,665 acres. The nortliorn areas of Oceanside have been developed, eliminatingthe of acquisition there. No further plans havebeenmade to exand ttlllespresent public rea except a proposed addition of five acres adjacent to the northern side of the lake. Th i."e and adjacent area should again be considered for expansion into a rr" i,e.11 park due to its ability to serve thousands of North County residents, .'ista and San Marcos as well as Carlsbad and Oceanside. The loss of r f Jal recreation area from eastern Buet:a Vista Lagoon, eastern Agua Itedionda Lagoon and possibly Batiquitos makes acquisition of land around Lake Calm ;ra more urgent. Lake-±lodges/Kit Carson - The master plan recommended for development of a Wit r• recreation regional park has not been prepared. This step is needed bec,, 2 development pressure is considerable on the north, where additiogal lanti {cquisition was proposed in the RPIS. Furthermore, the City of Scan Diego hater utilities Department has declared as surplus 410 acres of the usable area to the south, as well as 18 acres on the north. If this land is sold, or otbt.,Atse developed, its usefulness to the regional park will be gone. At least part of the surplus land is being considered for a community park .for the Rancho Bernardo community. 'Pile park certainly would be used by the larger co�nntutity, as is Kit in Park in :scondido. (hie additional concern at Lake Ilodges is its use as a domestic water storage r reservoir. Downstream users wish to use all water level drastically. they can, which would reduce the Plater they uses would require a stable water level for appropriate Water along the shoreline. r;r addition, the Area - of 19ater Quality Management Plan has In that any changes in the use of Lalze (lodges await the results of a study of the effect on Lake [lodges of infiltration of reclaimed ivater used u stream for a P gricultural irrigation. All of these concerns should be resolved in a park Master Plan, because the Lake [lodges/Kit Carson Regional Park would be park in Forth County, the most accessible regional Regional Park Development Very little of the regional park development proposed fr,r "Target 1978" has taken place. Tile first 22 acres of Sweetwater Park have been developed as have same 40 acres in ie. Th in the region Is most heavily e City of San Diego has continued development used parks -- Balboa and Mission Bay. And Escondido has developed both Kit Carson and Dixon Lake. Alost of these de- velopments were assisted by various state and federal fi>riding programs, Local Parks The draft report in Chapter 5 discusses local parks as an importan demand ast resource in the oveallocated to themrall recreation program; more than one-third of all recreation , more "playing games" and "picnicking". Tile report notes that about 3,750 additional acres will be needed for local Parks- TTris will be difficult because local park fees and acquisitions From developers are not keeping up with the demand created by new residential de- velopment. Typical fees ($200/10t) provide arly about $10,000 per acre, while land costs are now much higher. Local park acquisition and especially development 1), as been assisted signifi- cantly by tlyree state sources of funding and the Urban Open Space and Recreation Act ofe1976 (SBBondt174),1074 Unleand 197 ss similar sources of funding become available in the future, local park development, particularly, will be seriously set back. The State legislature currently is considering a continuation of the latter program, again entitled SB 174. I'llis program should be supported by local agencies, if current development Programs are to be carried out. Staff has prepared a letter for the Chairman's signature which expresses to the appropriate members of the State Legislature the GPO's continuing support of SB 174. Other Regional Recreation Concerns I. Canping. Camping demand in t}re San Diego region (based upon data gathered in Orange County and applicable to San Diego area camping activities) 4 suggests that almost 15,000 campsites will be needed by 1980. Available data indicate that 10,000 campsites exist now. 11011?ever, less than 2,500 are provided in public sector campgrounds, where the standard is four campsites per acre. The private sector, catering largely to recreational vehicle (RV) drivers, provides some 7,500 campsites at densities ranging from less than one site per acre to more than 25 sites per acre. Thus, it appears that a much higher density stanci<ard could be considered in regional parks -- e.g., 16 RV units per acre. This would reduce the demand for much additional land. Furthermore, it might encourage private concessionnaires to develop and operate campgrounds within regional parks. This discussion appears at the end of the draft report and in Appendix A. 2. Golf Courses. A brief review of golf- courses shows that the San Diego region will need an additional 20 golf courses (18 holes) by 1995 in order to maintain the current level of service. 3. SIaimning Pools. One of the most popular activities in the region -- in addition to "going to beaches" -- is "swi=ing". Since the possi- bility off expansion of beach areas for public use is limited, inland swinming opportunities are becoming more important. An anOysis of the 46 existing pools open to the public shows that most areas, not all, are served within WO miles. To maintain the current level of service an additional 20 pools will be needed by 1995. ('Three are now under con- struction.) A review of the draft plan by local agencies throughout the region will advise the Board as to the acceptability of the proposals. T2ICiW J. IuFF T.-:xecutive Director r 5 1 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Manager August 22, 1979 Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization Security Pacific Plaza, Suite 524 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 Subject: CPO Draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan TELEPHONE: (714) 729.1181 In response to your letter dated June 14, 1979 Calative to the subject plan and program, the Council has reviewed those parks which have an immediate impact on the City. Some comment has been made concerning each of the four potential regional park sites but, generally, it should be understood that as regional .parks, the major financial burden of acquisition, development, and maintenance must be shared by the total County population. At this time it appears that the most likely way that this can be accomplished is by the County cf G-n Diego taking the respon- sibility. In view of the current economic climate it may be that the total program is too ambitious. It does appear that without extensive aid from the State, the projected timing can- not be met and should be reconsidered prior tc adoptiGn of the plan. Calavera The City of Carlsbad continues to support the Co%nty's acqui- sition, of Lake Calavera and appropriate surrounding,lands necessary for a regional park. This support is premised on the County taking positive action on the park within a reason- able period of time. It is also premised on the County making adequate provisians for the payment of lards to be acquired from the City Water Department. We do not have any information on the need to revise the Master Plan for this County Regional Park site, but would be happy to review and work with the County to see that any proposed revision is consistent with the City's General Plana. While we will look at each development that occurs in the Calavera area to determine if it will impact the Park Plan, we cannot commit at this time to the acquisition of such land. Using the City's present code provisions .for the acquisition of park land, as development occurs we will aid the County in its acquisition program if the Council is satisfied that all local park needs have been met. We will inform the County of each development so that they will have an opportunity to take appropriate action. August 22, 197.9 Page 2 Subject: CPO Draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan qua Hedionda Although Agua Hedionda Lagoon iG i;_^Led as a regional park, the City of Carlsbad considers its primary purpose is to provide for local recreation needs :end the primary emphasis of the City in its planning efforts will be to provide for those needs. If it is anticipated by CPC that the area should be developed to reach its full potential, we would be interested in your views of how this could be accomplished without placing a dis- proportionate share of the costs of development and maintenance on the citizens of Carlsbad. The City has not anticipated that camping would be accommodated at this park. Past discussions with the Coast Commission have indicated their disapproval of the Agua Hedionda area for park purposes. Buena Vista La oon Buena Vista Lagoon is properly listed in the CPO report as an ecological preserve. It is however, listed as an area which anticipates camping. Due to its location and the general nature of development in the area, it should no longer be considered as a potential camping area. Batiquitos The City has previously gone on record as supporting Batiquitos Lagoon as a potential County -ark site. As originally planned by the County staff, the park contemplates the development of land which lies in both unincorporated County territory and the City of Carlsbad. Since the plan anticipates being serviced through the City of Carlsbad for utilities, and access, the County should firmly commit itself to the park plan as soon as possible to assure that park development will be compatible with adjacent private development and City services. We hope the information provided will be of value to you in evaluating the plan for your board. -1 n PAUL D. BUSSEY City Manager PDB:gb �.' ^'mow �:T � • , .. � -�{±,. . J `�`� � �,s• .� l: +.+r . :n:, t •x..' , • .. .. � _ '; ,:, -, .i; � ram; !,; ; ,--�,+, i •t'1- .,t .. � 'ter' .%Yi��i v �---•.'W'.ywtY`.v'�`w�rtri.�dr......cat -.�,. m.1.d..vcY.Sin..RnYra..vW......-.�o..,.v,..Aw.W.�.ta+.ww#f...:"s-;+.+:u..s * __ _q,�µ„ Wit. • _ - '.'iv��ti MARCH 1979 This report was financed with Federal funds from. the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and local funds from CPO Member Juri4etions, Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 ! (714) 233-5211 ' fro i Iw t Will MEMBER, ACENCI ES Cities of Cm Isbdd, Chula Vmd, Cururiddu, Del Mar, El Cajun, Eswudidu, Imperial Beach, La Musa, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Dieg„ , EA �F F iClu MEMbEh California Department of Traneportatiun { 4UNUMAh t MLNIULH. Tijuana, B. CPA. r) BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION The Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) is a voluntary association of local governments formed to assure overall areawide planning for the San Diego region. V,)ting members include the County of San Diego and the Incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City,"Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista. Advisory members include the State of California, through a memorandum of understanding with the California Department of Transportation. The City of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, is an honorary member of CPO. CHAIRMAN: Paul Graham VICE CHAIRMAN: George Bailey SECRETARY —EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Richard J. Huff CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Anthony Skotnicki, Vice Mayor (A) Honorable Dr. Ronald Packard, Mayor CITY OF CHULA VISTA Honorable Will Hyde, Mayor (A) Honorable Lauren 1. Egdahl, Councilman CITY OF CORONADO Honorable Lewis Hardy, Councilman (A) Honorabh. C. Patrick Callahan, Mayor CITY OF DEL MAR Honorable Hervey L. Sweetwood, Mayor (A) Honorable Al Tarkington, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Merrill Groat, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Honorable John Reber, Mayor CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Honorable Hazel Bailey, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Honorable Jackie Palmer, Councilwoman CITY OF LA MESA Honorable George Bailey, Vice Mayor (A) :ion. Richard Augustine, Councilman CITY OF LEMON GROVE Honorable W. Dale Bailey, Councilman (A) Honorable James V. Dorman, Mayor CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Honorable Jess E. Van Deventer, Councilman (A) Honorable J. Louis Camacho, Vice Mayor CITY OF OCEANSIDE Honcrable Paul Graham, Mayor (A) Honorable Wm. D. Bell, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF SAN DIEGO Honorable Larry Stirling, Councilman (A) Honorable Tom Gade, Councilman CITY OF SAN MARCOS Honorabla Robert Harman, Councilman (A) Honorable Richard R. Danover, Councilman CITY OF VISTA Honorable Bernard Rappaport, Mayor (A) Honorable Dan Carr, Councilman COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Roger Hedgecock, Board of Supervisors (A) Hon. Lucille Moore, Board Chairwoman STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (Ex Officio Member) Adriana Gianturco, Director (A) J. Dekema, District Director -rIJUANA, B. CFA (Honorary Member) Lic Xicotencatl Leyva Mortera, Mayor As of January 2, 1979 11 LJ a� �g COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION rpp Suite 624, Security Pacific Plata 1200 Third Avenue u San Diego, California 112101 (714) 236.5300 March 19, 1979 iw ;1 TO THE ELECr1iD OFFICIALS ARID CITIZENS OF THE SAN DIEM 1tEGION The draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program has been prepared for CPO by PBQFD, Inc.., working with an ad hoc committee of local staff members, interest groups and citizens of the region. The draft report presents the findings of the study and proposals for continuing action --planning, acquisition and development. The study comes at a time when all local jurisdictions are concerned about means of con- tinuing the present level of services. The study recognizes the problem and makes suggestions for revisions in standards which will revise the level of service in some kinds of activities, but may increase recreation opportunities. The proposals presented in this draft report should be considered carefully. �i Following a two month review period, the Board will discuss the proposals together with the responses from agencies and citizens throughout the region. 11 The revised Plan and Program will then be considered for adoption by the Board and local governments to guide recreaticn plans and programs through- out the region. We encourage your early response to this draft report. r -- ;44d#44*Pf--' i r I PAUL GRAHAM j Chairman, Board of. Directors f 4 >W It ISAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Member Aedencies Corns of Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado, 001 Mar, El Colon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San, DILWISanMarcos,Vwa, and County ofSan Uiopo/ExofficioMember CablorniaOepartmentofTransportatfon/HonoraryMember Tijuana,8 CPA, i t ABSTRACT i ri TITLE: Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program �i AUTHOR: Comprehensive Planning Organization I14TE: ,March 1979 LOCAL PIMNING AGENCY: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region SOURCE OF COPIES Comprehensive Planning Organization 1200 Third Suite 524 -Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 wMJMBER OF PAGES: 108 UABSTRACT: The draft Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and and Program includes recreation system N goals. It updates infoibation presented in the Regional Parks Implementation Study of 1971. The study revises earlier data on per capita recreation participation in r. .ten activities usually included in regional parks. It revises the total acreage required in regional parks by 1995; and it estimates s acreage requirements for future local parks. The study presents a brief evaluation of f each of thi. proposed regional parks, and L4 indicates •che resident population closest to each regional park within 15 minutes driving time. The report sets forth priorities t �� for all the parks, calling for early action - master planning, acquisition or development for 16 of the parks. Finally, it suggests potential locations for additional regional parks. v 11 ACD0 1EDGBEffS A number of individuals have assisted in preparation and review of this report. Assistance of the members of the Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program Committee particularly is acknowledged, Hon. Mary Casler, Chairperson, Councilwoman, City of Carlsbad Mr. Jack Krasovich, Parks and Recreation Dept., City of San Diego ; Mr. Richard Enriques, Ait., Parks & Recreation Dept., City of San Diego F Mrs. Maria Reeder, League of Women Voters Mr. Emerson Hall, Parks $ Recreation Dept. City of Chula Vista . Mr. Aft Mazzola, Parks & Recreation Dept,, City of El. Cajon z Mr. Major L. "Cy" Williams, Con=ity Services/Recreation Dept., San Dieg'aito'Union High School District Ms. Mary Duncan, Dept. of Recreation, San Diego State University Ms. Jeanie Westmoreland, Area Agency on Aging, San Diego County Ms. Donna Beverly, San Diego Urban League Ms. Mary Roush, Parks $ Recreation Dept., County of San Diego bir.'Dave Vokac, Alt., Parks & Recreation Dept., County of San Diego *� Mr. Mike Stang, Planning Department, City of San Diego ids, Faythe Taylor, Recreational Services for the Handicapped Idr. Richard E. Mod»d, Cleveland National Forest„ Mr. Al Ulm, State Dept. of Parks $ Recreation Mr. Michael Kennedy, San Diego Coast Regional Comm. �. Ms. Betty Fellows, Citizens Coordinate for Century III Ms. Lois Miller, Integrated Planning Office, County of San Diego 14s. Marilyn Bryan, Lake Cuyamaca Recreation 4 Park District Mr. Don Watkins, Parks G Recreation.Dept., City of Escondido the following staff members of the Comprehensive Planning Organization participated in preparation of the report.: Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Kenneth E. Sulzer, Deputy Executive Director Stuart R. Shaffer, Director of Land Use and Public Facilities Ruth ;. F. Potter, Senior Regional Planner, Project Manager Tony-Madga, Planning Technician Consultants on the program and report preparation were PBQF,D, Inc. and Edward L. Perkins. . 1; ad vi 3 r�� U TABLE OF CON`n N'1'S CIWPTER I INTRODUCTION AND GOALS... ` CHAPTER 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RE-03 iENDATIONS...,....................... 7 © Wl'TER 3 OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMAND IN SAN DIEGO COUMY............ 13 QEMTER 4 'DOTAL REGIONAL PARK SYST£M REQUIRE•21EM'S.................. 25 CIWPTT;R S OTHER RECREATION RESOURCE REQUIREtlENTS................... 39 GfnC-R 6 REGIONAL PARK. SYSTiTI GOALS ............................... 49 CIWPTER 7 INDIVIDUAL PARK SYSTEM COMPONENTS ....................... 57 CIWPTER 8 REGIONAL PARK. SYSTEM DEVELOPME�ir PROGRAM: 1979-199S..... 81 APPENDICES A - CADMPING AND CAMPGROUNDS .............................. 91 B - GOLF COURSES ......................................... 99 C - S1'IDWING POOLS ...................................... 101 BIBLIOGRAPIMY........................................................ 107 V11 y f e + f LIST OF TABLES ;J ' TABLE 3-1 Comparison Between PARIS and Orange County.......... KI Recreation Participation Rates 15 TABLE 3-11 Effects of Age Income and Time Trends 17 � Y on Recreation Participation in Orange County:���� " " 1978-95 r TABLE 3-3 Recreation Participation in San Diego County: ...... 19 1978-95 TABLE 3-4 Out -of -County Demand by Recreation and ........ 20 r Type of Facility " " " TABLE 4-1 Percentage Allocation of Basic Recreation ........... Demand to Areas 26 -, T.'U3LE 4-2 Instantaneous Demand and Turnover Factors ........... 28 TABLE 4-3 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-95.. 29 ' RPIS Methodology TABLE 4-4 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-95.. 32 New Survey Methodology ' TABLE 4-5 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-95.. Adjusted New Survey Methodology 34 TABLE 5-1 Selected Local Park Acreage Requirements: 1975-95... 42 TABLE 5-2 San Diego County Requirements for Other ............. Recreational Facilities: 1978-95 43 TABLE 7-1 Total RegPark System RPIS Acreage t �"� 1979ional Allocations and Actual -- "�'�" " 58 TABLE 7-2 RPIS Regional Park Classification System t� ............ 60 TABLE 7-3 Resident Populations Allocation to Closest 61 ` ........,, Regional General Recreation Park �1 tY» 4` viii «.a Pi TABLE 7-4 Resident Population Allocated to Closest ............ 62 Water Recreation Regional Park �.i TABLE 8-1 Regional Park Evaluation ............................ 83 TABLE A-1 P-IIS Regional Park Classification_ System - .......... 93 Camping Proposed TABLE A-2 Campgrounds - San Diego Region ...................... 94 LISP OF FIGURES �i FIGURE 7-1 General Recreation Regional Darks - 1995 Population.. 64 ? Not Accessed FIGURE 7-2 Water Recreation Regional Parks - 1995 Population ... 65 Not Accessed i FIGURE C-1 Swimming Pools ...................................... 103 rM� CELMT .R 1 INTROLJUMON AND GOALS r ? r r CI MER 1 INTRODUCTION AND GOALS The Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program has been prepared as an element of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. The study was guided by an fi ad hoc committee appointed by the CPO Board of Directors in April 197S. The study provides an update of the information presented ,n the Open Space Plan adopted in 1974 and, especially, the Regim-al Park Irplementation Study (RPIS) prepared for San Diego County and adopted by CPO is December 1973. A major part of the report discusses revisions in outdoor recreation demand, based mainly upon changes in recreation participaion. In addition the report provides a review of the status of each regiaaal park discussed in the RPIS and presents alternate ways of providing for soine of the recrea- tional activities which have bean precluded in some parks. The report also indicates that sorer additional regional parks may be needed and suggests locations to be considered. Goals One of the basic objectives of the study was to develop a set of System Goals which would not caly uuid� the study but also guide future decisions VA in providing outdoor recroation resources throughout the Region. The ad hoc committee adopted the following goals, which are more fully detailed in Chapter 8. i, General Goal To assure that a system of land, facilities, equipwrit, and programs is 'L� provided within the San Diego Region to serve present and future outdoor recreation needs. This system should `y o Serve the needs of resident recreational participants, regional visitors and tourists, and the general community. 0' o Consist of a mix of resources and facilities, or different types, sizes, and locations, to sorve as broad a range of demands for ;' individual recreation activities as possible. o Consist of a logical acid coordinated mix of component units that tt are owned, operated, and financed by the many different jurisdictions involved: local, county, state, federal, and private. I o Be easily accessible to as marry users as possible, in terms both of proximity to residential areas and tourist accommodation centers, and of different modes of transportation. o Se financed by an equitable mix of local taxes, state and federal outdoor recreation funding sources, and user charges. i� 4 CHAPTER 2 CONCLUSIONS AND REMMENDATIGNS CIIN'TliR 2 CONCLUSIONS AND REW^?I ENDNTIONS The Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program is in large part an update of the earlier Regional Park Implementation Study (RPIS). Therefore, ref- erences to the RPIS appear izi the conclusions and recommendations and tlirough- out the report. The RPIS set goals for acquisition and development by 1978; these are listed in Chapter 7 together with tho results. Conclusions The ten basic recreation, activities used in the RPIS to determine regional park requirements can reasonably be used to determine recreational demand: Picnicking Nature walks Playing games (tennis, golf, baseball, softball, informal games, etc.) Bicycling Horseback riding Swimming Boating Of Fishing Camping Hiking o New data, based on measured recreation participation rates in Orange County, show that considerably higher participation rates (than used in the RPIS) can be anticipated in several activities which have a high demand for land - playing games, bicycling, and espec- ially camping. *� o iVhile out -of -County (tourist) demand was calculated in the RPIS to directly reflect the population growth rate, 2.2 percent a year, visitor industry studies show tourism probably will grow by 3.0 to M percent per year. This must be accounted for in future recre- ation planning. o Total acreage required in the regional park system is expected to increase from about 36,000 acres in 1978 to 62,000 acres in 1995, based upon assumptions presented in Chapter 4 of this report. o Beach use demand will require recreation use of adjacent areas ' game forplaying, � ( g picv►i :ring and especially camping) in some locations, and improved transportation in others. 6: 7 I o Mountain and desert land resources are generally adequate, but resource management agencies (Bureau of Land Dbnagement, Cleveland National Forest, and California Dept. of Parks and Recreation) prefer low intensity levels of development. This suggests a con- tinuing opportunity for the private sector in the provision of high intensity "modern urban" RV camping facilities on private lands. o Local park systems should be expanded by about 3750 acres to provide recreation resources not likely to be available from the private sector, as noted in Chapter S. o Because of population growth the Region will require specific new facilities just to maintain the current recreation service levels in the Region: 20 golf courses (18 holes) 20 public swimming pools � Recommendations m•s 1. The new data set forth in the Regional Outdoor Plan and Program should ' be used in detexinining recreation demand, rather than data from the RPIS based on the State PARIS* (1966) model. The new data should be revised to reflect the State Dept. of Parks and Recreation study as soon as it is completed, probably in mid-1979. 2. Total acreage in the regional park system should be increased from the f 4 cur -Tent acreage need, 36,000 acres, to 62,000 acres by 1995. As noted t in Chapter 4, a number of changes should be made in the current standards and allocations, so that the 62,000 acres will be adequate:' a. Revise the "camping" standards from 4 campsites per acre to 16' campsites per acre for RV camping in Regional parks. Retain the lower density standard for tent camping. b. Allocate more of the "playing games" activity to local parks, school yards, and sports fields to reduce the regional park area require- t ment for this activity by 50 percent, or 1600 acres. c. Reduce the bicycling allocation to regional parks by one half, since ; much of this activity will be on existing local streets, as noted in Chapter 4. d. Revise the standard for hiking from 40 hikers per mile of trail to 15 hikers, thus increasing the acreage required for this activity. 3. Beach use demand should be met through a number of actions: ARTS. 7be State Park and Recreation Won ation System created in 1966 to inventory recreation areas, estimate demand for 22 outdoor activities and evaluate deficiencies for four major activities for each county. 8 ,, :a a. Provision of parking and non -beach activities :in adjacent areas rather than or: the beach. b. Improved transportation, especially to under-utilized beaches. c. Development of sandy beaches at water -based parks, as at Mission "} Bay, possibly at E1 Capitan Reservoir, Lake Miramar and Lake Murray. 4. Mountain/desert recreational demand should be met through increased participation of the private sector, especially in the "modern urban" level of RV camping. The mountain and desert areas must satisfy most of the demand for hunting, although some duck hunting is possible at the Li lakes, and game bird hunting is possible in the foothill areas and at Camp Pendleton. These areas also must satisfy much of the demand for ORV activities. S. Local park recreation demand should be met by local governments -- using all available opportunities -- schools, non-profit organizations, and developers' fees and dedications, and user fees. All the available teelniques should be reviewed to be sure they are appropriate to accom- plish what is intended. 6. Local governments should determine to at least maintain the current standards for both local and regional recreational facilities in the region. CHAPTER 3 OUTDOOR RECREATION i3E2'lAND IN MI DIECO COUNTY lot CIWP'I'ER 3 e, OUTDOOR RECREATION DE14AND IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Total regional park requirements were computed in the RPIS on the basis of the amount of land required to accommodate participation in ten "basic recreation activities, which have high potential demand in the County and are likely to be provided at most regional parks." These ten activities are picnicking, nature walks, playing games, bicycling, horseback riding, swvrming, boating, fishing, camping, and hiking. Total acreage demands �. were calculated as the amount of land required for activity -specific Purposes, plus allowances for support facilities, plus additional allowances for land to provide for "park character, buffer, and feeling of openness." hhile other activities obviously take place in regional parks, the RPIS authors believed that total park land requirements could be reasonably well estimated by participation in these ten activities. Other activities, taking place elsewhere, are discussed in Chapter S. Accordingly, an update of the RPIS mist necessarily begin with an update of the forecasts for participation in these ten recreation activities. It appears that the RPIS significantly underestimated future growth in recreational demand in San Diego County, both in absolute and percentage terms. The base -year demand figures, derived from data in the State's Park and Recreation Information System (PARIS), were probably well below actual San Diego County demand levels at the time the IWIS was originally published. Moreover, the RPIS methodology incorporates no growth in per -capita recreational participation, even though the intro- ductory comments in the RPIS report clearly describes trends in increasing per capita recreational participation, as well as trends in total recre- ational participation. For this reason, it is appropriate to recalculate some of the base -year and forecast demand figures for recreation in San Diego County as a part of this update. a: San Diego County Demand (RPIS Methodology) Updated projections of future recreation demand in San Diego County, as devel- oped using the RPIS methods, are actually slightly lower than those shown in the RPIS, due to the use of more recent population forecasts which are slightly below those that were used previously. Jc 6 In the RPIS methodology, the per capita rate of participation in each of the major recreation activites does not change over time. Total demand is tt therefore simply the product of the (constant) per capita participation rate, for each activity, and the total county population, for any given year. Table 3-1 shows participation rates for the ten .individual activities { included in the RPIS computations. 13 San Diego County Demand Based on Orange County Results The per capita participation rates used in the RPIS were derived from data] in the State of California's PARIS model. PARIS data, in turn, were originally obtained through `he survey conducted for the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1960. Although the State Parks and Recre- ation Department has, on several occasions, updated these figures, no rigorous statewide recreation demand survey has ever been completed within the State of California: , Since the PARIS model figures are based on data approximately 18 years old, and on rates reported for the western ' census region, rathern than the State of California, there is a serious question as to the accuracy with which these per capita participation dates reflect actual San Diego County recreational participation, even in current years. There is, however, an alternate source of recent information on recreation demand that might conceivably be applied to San Diego County. In addition_ to the statewide study, a comprehensive countywide demand study has just been completed in adjacent Orange County. The survey was conducted in the Fall of 1978, covering summer -season 1978 recreation participation. t �•i The second column of Table 3-1 shows the per capita participation rates in nine of the ten recreation activities covered by the RPIS, as measured in the Orange County survey, and annualized. Annualization was accomplished,► with the same seasonality factors as were used in the RPIS. Only modest adjustments were required to make the Orange County figures compatible with T, those in San Diego: the Orange County survey separated RV camping and tent rA camping, which were combined to form a carping total; similarly, natural resource and,pool swimming were combined into a total swimming figure; sailing and powerboating were combined into a single boating figure; and several specific individual kinds of outdoor games were combined into an aggregate 'playing outdoor games" total. The Orange County survey did not include nature walking, so the RPIS base -year figure is used for Orange+ County in Table 3-1. A comparison of the participation rates in Table 3-1 indicates that, for, most activities, measured recreation participation rates in Orange County are considerably higher than those shown for San Diego County in the PARIS data. Some of the very large differences between the current Orange County participation rates and updated PARIS participation rates are obvious, given the fact that the PARIS rates were derived from data collected in ;,4 1960. For example, the mach higher Orange County result for swimming is probably due in large degrree to the tremendous increase in swimming pool 01 ownership by private individuals and swimming pool, availability at multi- ta family residences. The normal means of updating figures such as PARIS lThe State of California just conducted a comprehensive statewide survey of recreational demand in the Fall of 1978, covering suumu..r-season 1978 recre- ation participation. Unfortunately, as of February, 1979, no analyses] of these data have been completed, and they are not available for use in any recreation plamiing activities. 1J 14 j Table 3-1 ^x Comparison Between PARIS $ Orange County Recreation Participation Rates !� Annual Per Capita Participation PARIS Orange County (RPIS) �1978 19951995 Picnicking 4.8 9.3 12.8 Nature 11nik 3.1 (3.2)1 (3.9)1 Playing games 16.3 47.6 57.6 Bicycling 5.2 32.2 35.1 Horseback: riding 1.6 2.0 2.7 Swiruning 14.6 33.2 46.8 Boating 3.6 1.9 2.9 Fishing 3.4 3.3 3.6 Camping 1.5 5.6 G.2 ri h liking 1.2 1.6 2.6 Lj 1Growth Forecast Orange County. based on "Other Park Visitation" participation rate in 1 Fs t '? 4+1 �f �+r 15 4 simply do not take into account large-scale external effects such as this. Similarly, it would be difficult to find any updating technique for 1960 data that would account for the tremendous bicycle boom in the last decade; also the much higher Orange County results for playing outdoor games undoubtedly reflects a recent rapid trend toward increasing adult interest in physical fitness and outdoor recreation activities. The agreement between Orange County and PARIS results is generally good for those activities that have traditionally been very stable, showing relatively slow national growth rates and relatively little difference among regions of the nation. Specific examples include horseoack riding, fishing, and hiking. The Orange County methodology provided for forecasting changes in per capita participation rates in accordance with three external variables known to affect recreational participation: �jLe. Per capita participation rates in outdoor activities are generally sensitive to age because the percentage of older people is expected to rise considerably over the next two decades; par- ticipation rates will increase for some activities, decrease for others. Income. Per capita participation in most outdoor recreation activities ;. increases with increasing family income. Since constant -dollar family income is expected to increase over the next two decades, per capita r participation rates should also increase. Time Trend. A time trend change toward increasing per capita participation pation in virtually all kinds of recreational activities can be discerned in historical statistics, over and above any changes in per capita participation rates that can be explained by .3ocio- economic and demographic variables such as age and income. Table 3-2 shows the numerical results of these three external factors an per capita participation raises in Orange County for each of the ten activities. In all cases, the combined effects of changes in the age mix of the pop- ulation, average income, and time trend effects is tc increase the per capita participation rate, sometimes rather significantly. Forocasts of increased participation rates for 199S, shown in Table 3-71, incorporate ` these effects. A reasonably good case could be made for the use of recreati^a participation rat-.,; derived in Orange County in estimating San Diego Cozaity dmand: The two cGunties are reasonably similar in terms ,if climate, , geography, and availability of outdoor recrertion resources. + The differences between the updated PARIS participation rates and the currently -observed Orange County participation rates 'j appear intuitively reasonable, in light- of external factors W that have occurred in recreation markets and behavior patterns that could not be included in the procedures to update the 1960 ,( data on which PARIS rates are based. 16 '' t4 ! ` Table 3- 2 E t, Effects of Age, Income, and Time Trends on Recreational Participation in Orange County: 1978-1995 tt s (percentage change) n. i Abe Income Time Trend Total effect Picnicking -3 +14 +27 +38 Nature Walk -3 + 3 +27 +27 Playing games -6 +18 + 9 +21 d Bicycling -8 + 2 +1S + 9 E,! Horseback riding +4 +17 +1S +36 Swimming -7 +21 +27 +41 p Boating -4 +38 +21 • +S5 Fishing -4 0 +1S - --+11 +11 — � Camping ,.3 + 2 +1Q Hiking +9 +29 +27 +65 Z I i i } 4 i AID 17 If Orange County rates are accepted as being reasonably good measures of current demand for Southern California generally, it then becomes evident that the aggregate demand figures in the RPIS understate "actual" demand -- base -year and future -year --by a significant margin. Table 3-3 shows 1978 and 1995 estimates of San Diego recreation demand calculated by Orange County methods, 1978 participation is more than two and a half times the corresponding RPIS figure. And, because the participation rates themselves increase in the Orange County methodology, by 1995 the projected demand is over triple that estimated by the RPIS methodology. Remands from Out -of -County Sources San Diego County is one of the leading tourist destinations in the entire United States, and tourism is one of the County's major OR sources of em- Ployment. Visitors are attracted by many factors, including virtual year-round participation in many outdoor recreation activities, cl► of it mu in Regional parks. Accordingly, use of County resources by out -of -County residents is an important element of the total de system. mand for a regional park t In the RPIS, it was estimated that anywhere from 6 Percett (bicycling) to over 56 percent (camping) of the total regional park use will be by out-of-CO'Mty residents. The total estimates of out -of -Co of the 10 basic activities are shown un ty use for each directly from the RPIS. Althouon Table 3-4, which is extracted gh neither data sources nor methodology is cited for these estimates, they appear to be reasonable; accordingly, these 91 Percentages were employed in the updating process. �t However, the forecasting approach employed in the RPIS--application of certain out -of -County factors to future demand levels based on constants County participation rates --is not realistic. As previously indicated, the RPIS projectionsoffuture demand were based on participation rates for each of the ten basic activities that remained constant through 1990. Titus, growth in total demand, as calculated, was at the same annual rate as #_i total population --a rate of 2.2 percent per year during the 1978-1995 period, But the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, in the report, "Profile: San Diego's Visitor Industry in 1982," indicated that, x� on a very conserva- tive basis, total visitor -days should grow at a compound rate somewhere between 3.0 and 4.5 percent per year. This disparity of growth rates results in a significant difference in total growth over a 17-year period. According to the RPIS methodology, cut -Of -County demands in 1995 would be only about 4S percent over 1978 levels, while growth at the rates pro- jected by the Convention and Visitors Bureau for tourist visitor -days would result in future increases of 6S to Ill percent, It makes no sense to assume that future visitors to San Diego County will participate less, per day, in outdoor recreation activities day than present- visitors, Accordiggly, some upward adjustment of the RPIS out -of -County demand figures is isurranted. M 18 Table 3-3 Recreational Participation in San Diego County: 1978-1995 Based on Orange Cowtty Participation Rates (thousands of activity -days) 1978 1980 1995 Picnicking 15,760 17,330 31,500 Nature Walk 5,255 5,720 9,600 Playing games 80,680 87,210 141,700 Bicycling 54,580 58,080 86,400 Horseback riding 3,390 3,750 6,600- Swimm;.ng 56,270 62,190 115,100 Boating 3,221 3,570 7,100 Fishing 5,594 5,900 8,900 Camping 9,492 10,190 15,300 (liking 2,712 3,040 6,400 Total 237,000 257,000 428,500 19 Table 3-4', 0I1T-OF-00UNTY DEMAND BY RECREATION ACTIVI'!'Y AND TYPE OF FACILITY (PIRTFCTI3D FOR 1980) Jasi.c Regional Mountain/ Recreation Activity Parks Beaches Desert Total Picnicking 23.0o 34.0o 20.0% 29.6% Nature Walk 13.5 40.0 20.0 20.7 Playing games 21.8 35.0 20.0 13.2 gicycling 5.7 10.0 20.0 5.0 Horseback riding 18.1 20.0 20.0 18.7 "Swimming 14.3 40.0 20.0 26.0 Boating 24.9 40.0 20.0 35.2 Fishing 26.5 37.0 20.0 31.7 caving 56.1 97.0 30.0 58.6 Hiking 18.4 40.0 20.0 22.4 Total 21.1% 40.60 22.1% 27.4% Source: RPIS 20 01 to ii 0, Z t � t � t i Total Demands While there are some real theoretical and practical objections to the application of Orange County recreation demand rates in San Diego County, the rate -of -growth projections developed in the Orange County methodology seem to be considerably more realistic than those developed in RPIS: The Orange County -based calculations result in an average annual growth rate in total recreational participation by San Diego County residents of approx- imately 3.5 percent per year. When the effects of population growth are removed, this is the equivalent to a Jong -term growth of about 1.3 percent per year in per capita recreational participation. Even this figure is conservative by most measures. For example, aggregate annual per capita attendance at National Parks, State Parks, Corps of Engineers recreational facilities, and National Forests has been increas- ing at rates between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent annually. The growth rates derived through the Orange County methodtlogy for County residents are also consistent with long-term projections of San Diego County visitors. Accordingly, it seems more reasonable to employ the Orange County results --with appropriate resF rvations--in this update, rather than the RPIS rates: the latter significantly understate future San Diego County recreation demands, and therefore understate future regional park needs. fk L 21 QiAPTER 4 TOTAL REGIONAL PARK SYSTBI REQUIRBMS CHAPTER 4 r TOTAL REGIONAL PARK SYSTTTT REQUIREMENTS ell The total acreage required in the San Diego County regional park system is expected to increase from about 36,000 acres in 1978 to 62,000 acres in 1995. This composite forecast is based on the combination of the RPIS, Orange Counry, and independently -derived data and methodology, as subse- quently described. Functionally, however, the analytical process follows the same approach as the RPIS. �xe Allocation of Remand to Regional Parks In the RPIS, the total ,future recreational demand to be served by the regional park System was estimated by a straightforward allocation process: o Total estimated future demand for each of the 10 basic recreation activities, generated by San Diego County residents, was first allocated ami ng five classes of resource --regional parks, beaches, the mountain/desert area, local parks, and recreation resources located outside the County. These allocation percentages are shown in Table 4-1, taken directly from the RPIS. o Factors previously tabulated in Table 3-5 were employed to determine the additional demand, for each of the 10 activities, that would be the result of use of out -of -County residents. The resultant allocation process was summarized in Table 13 of the RPIS report. It was simply an extensive activity -by -resource matrix, based on the foregoing factors, and need not be replicated here. That portion of the total recreation demand for each of the ten activities allocated to each of the five resource classes was simply determined by the row totals �., on this matrix. Unfortunately, no sources or methodology were given in the RPIS for the allocation of in -county demand among various types of resources. As a practical matter, therefore, there is no choice but to employ the sane figures for this updating process. It should be emphasized, however, that the downstream determination of park system acreage requirements is ex- tremely sensitive to these allocation ratios. Ideally, at some point, it would be highly desirable to re-examine this demand allocation in a much me re rigorous lay. Total. System R�T Acreage uirements - - - 17ic tecimique for converting annual activity days of participation in recreation activities to total acreage requirements for regional parks is 25 Table 4-1 $j PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION OF BASIC RECREATION DI2MD TO AREAS SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESIDENTS Regional Mountain/ Local Outside Parks Beaches Desert Parks San Diego County' Picnicking 39.6% 18.0% 6.6% 39.3% 1.0% Nature Walk 71.0 7.8 7.1 0.0 20.3'# Playing games 30.1 5.0 4.9 59.6 3.0 k? Bicycling 21.2 4.0 0.8 55.1 1:0 Horseback riding 62.5 0.1 10.0 17.6 14.0 1165 ,w3 Swimming 19.9 43.3 0.8 33.6 4.0 Boating 30.6 55.5 0.8 1.0 14.1 Fishing 58.9 8.5 3.0 3.0 29.9 j- Camping 33.3 0.8 32.0 0.0 42.4 Hikdng 50.0 1.4.3 18.1 0.0 26.0 Total 34.5% 19.7% 4.510 35.6% 8.1% Note: Recreation activity percentages total more than 100 percent because of double counting of regional parks which are also either beaches or in the movnitain/desert area. Source: RPIS Y 26 i� f �s quite straightfoniard, as outlined in the "Acreage Demands" section of Chapter 3 of the RPIS. Basically, the following sequence is followed: !P o Total annual activity days are converted to peak -season activity days by seasonality factors for each of the ten activities. o Total instantaneous capacity --the maximum designed number of people to be accommodated for each activity at any one point in time -- is determined by selecting a capacity level that will be used for design purposes. Specifically, this means determining an acceptable number of days during the season on which recreation facilities for these will become overcrowded, and determining through empirical results what combination of instantaneous capacity and turnover factors are required to meet this design level. Turnover is the number of times per day different participants will use each type of facility. o The number of recreation units required (e.g., picnic tables, camp sites) is determined by dividing the instantaneous capacity by the number of people each unit can accommodate (e.g., four people per picnic table). o Finally, total resource acreage is determined by the appl1cation of # a standard relating number of units of recreation facilities per acre of park land. Seasonality factors employed in the RPIS are shown in Table 4-2, extracted directly from the RPIS report. These are PARIS data --therefore, based on a 1960 survey of the western census region --rather than locally -generated data. Many of the seasonality factors seem to be unrealistic: For example, in view of the San Diego Region's good year-round climate, it hardly seems appropriate to allocate over 70 percent of the annual activity -days of swbmiing to the summer quarter, or two-thirds of the hiking, or 59 percent of the boating, or even 52 percent of the camping. (San Diego County data show a peak season factor in 1978 for camping in Lake Jennings r Regional Park and in Lower Otay Regional Park, as 28% and 43% respectively.) It would be possible to develop some better approximations of local San Diego seasonality factors by reference to seasonal attendance patterns at selected County recreation resources. In general, such revisions should result in lower numerical values for these factors --indicating that a comparatively smaller percent of the total annual demand would have to be accommodated within the peak summer quarter. This reduction, in turn, would result in lower total resource requirements in the subsequent cal- culations. However, in view of the fact that the RPIS resource forecasts are known to be low, on the basis of the Orange County results, there is no point in going through the mechanics of these calculations, only to reject the subsequent results. F The Orange County survey covered just the summer quarter of, participation. No seasonality factors are required if these demand data are employed to ap- proximate San Diego County demands. The annualized data shown on Table 3-1, however, would be affected by use of different seasonality factors, but it is the peak season --not annualized --demand rates that are used in the subsequent resource calculations. �+ 27 i Table 4-2 ! INSTANTANEOUS DEMAND AND TURNOVER FACTORS �. Peak Instantaneous Persons Persons 4 Seasons Capacity Turnover per Uni� per Acrg t Factor Factor Factors Factor Factor ' Picnicking .485 .01 1.5 4 12 Tables ' Nature Walk .238 .01 2.0 10 2 Miles Playing games .233 .01 2.0 20 1 Acre Bicycling .395 .01 2.0 20 2 Miles Horseback riding 2.0 20 1 Mile .446 .01 Swimming .702 .01 2.0 435 1 Acre Boating .588 .01 2.0 2 2 Boats Fishing .478 .01 2.0 25 1 Acre Camping .522 .01.5 1.0 4 4 Units Hiking .683 .01 2.0 40 2 Miles . aPARIS study bCounty standards Source: RPIS i W'4 J 28 � . Table 4-3 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-1995 RPIS Dtethodology (acres) 1980 1995 Picnicking 300 410 Nature Walk 290 400 Playing games 660 900 Bicycling 100 140 Horseback riding 240 340 Swimming 10 10 Boating 1,930 2,660 Dishing 470 640 Camping 970 1,340 Hiking 60 80 Total activity -specific 5,010 6,900 Total including buffers 35,100 48,300 29 Instantaneous capacity and turnover factors used in the RPIS are shown in Table 4-2. Obviously, these "factors" are actually functions reflecting the peaking characteristics of recreational participation: choice of a single factor for use in planning represents a conscious judgment as to what level of demand is to be adopted as a "design" day" or "design stan- dard". This type of determination is similar to, and consistent with, highway design practice, where highways are designed to some less -than - peak capacity; designing to peak capacity would increase costs to un- acceptable levels. Data presented in the PARIS planning monograph indicate that, for day° activities, single -day demand will exceed one percent of total summer season demand on 51 of the 92 summer -season days; it will exceed twc percent of the total on eight days, and will exceed three percent on only one day. This is in general agreement with conventional wisdom in recre- ation planning, which holds that peak -day attendance (or demand) can generally be estimated as three percent of total seasonal attendance (or demand). State planners determined that overcrowding on eight days per season was an acceptable design level. They then determined that with a turnover factor of two they could adopt an instantaneous capacity factor equal to 1.0 percent of the total summer season demand. In fact, this is really a two -component standard: a design day of two percent of seasonal demand, coupled with a turnover rate of t<wo. Some activities --notably canping--by definition can have a minimum turnover rate of 1.0. Here, the State adopted an acceptable overcrowding level of 19 days per season. According to PARIS data, this can be provided by designing to 1.5 percent of total summer demand. A design level for camping equivalent to that for day activities --eight days of overcrowding per season --would require an instantaneous capacity factor of about 1.9{ percent of total summer demand. The RPIS obviously followed the PARIS approach to instantaneous capacity. Except as subsequently noted, it seems reasonable to continue the use of these figures in the updating process. The unit factors employed in the RPIS--number of persons generally occupy- ing one unit of a resource at any me time --are shown in Table 4-2. These are standards previously adopted by San Diego County; most (but not ail) of them appear consistent with PARIS and with national standards compiled by the Heritage Conservation and Resource Service (HCRS, formerly Bureau of Outdoor Recreation). The units per acre factors, also shown in Table 4-2, similarly represent County -adopted standards generally consistent with state and national practice. Two of these latter factors appear questionable for continued use in this updating process: the unit factor for hiking, and the acreage factor for camping. Hiking is normally viewed as th t portion of the foot -travel spectrum that involves wilderness/remote areas, long trails, and rugged conditions, as contrasted with nature walking, which is relatively less strenuous and often takes place in heavily -used urban parks. It therefore seems incongruous that the hiking standard calls for four times the persons - per -unit density as nature walking. In fact, the recent HCRS standards report indicates a range of instantaneous capacities from 2.4 to 21 hikers per mule. 30 �, i The unit factor for camping--4 sites per acre --is at the lower end of the scale of appropriate camping standards in the latest HORS study, which �* listed a reasonable planning range of 3 to 19 campsites per acre, and a median value of seven. Obviously, the standard of four campsites per acre P" reflects a rural type of experience, and is probably appropriate for such camping f. On the other hand, the bulk of the camping activity in San Diego County is, and will undoubtedly remain, centered in a much more urban setting. In fact, within San Diego County --and particularly the western +^ portions of the County where most of the demand will be concentrated- -camping facilities are generally serving as low-cost tourist accommo- dations rather than as sites for rural or nature experiences. Finally, two additional factors were employed in the RPIS to convert the -" amount of acreage required for the individual ten basic recreation acti- vities into a total park acreage figure: �»!f o The sum total of activity -specific acreage was multiplied by 2.0, doubled to account for the "area required for support facilities". o The resulting total developed area was, in turn, multiplied by a factor of 2.5 to determine the "area required for park character, buffer, and feeling of openness". Thus, the final res.rlt is that total system acreage is calculated at seven times the act:ivit, .specific acreage. No sources are given for either of these figures, which would appear to be design "rLdes of thumb". However, they appear to be reasonable; in any event, there are no newer data avail- able for this conversion. 14 Table 4-3 shows the results of the first of three sets of total acreage com- putations. These figures are based on use of the RPIS demand and con- version factors. The only differences between the data in Table 4-3 and those in Table 18 of the RPIS are due to the (slightly) different total county population forecasts. -'" There appear to be compensating errors in these estimates. The unit factor employed for campinl; is unreasonably low, as previously discussed. But perhaps the most cnrcial weaMess ii, these RPIS-based estimates is the fact +� that the growth increment --the difference between 1995 and 1978--is under- stated, due to th,e unrealistically low growth rates employed in forecasting total recreational demand, as discussed in Chapter 3. ti Table 4 4 shows total 1978 and 1995 regional park system acreage calculated on the bats of participation rates and participation growth factors devel- oped from new survey (Orange County) data, but with the RPIS unit and ' acreage factors. Ruth the 1978 and 1995 totals are much higher than those hd in Table 4-3, Niue to the considerably higher values for base -year outdoor recreational participation and the h.,gher 17-year growth factors for #t participation. 64 In fact, the 1995 system acreage, requirements shown in Table 4-4 are clearly unrealistic in light of the availability of funds for land acqui- sition and conpetition from other land uses. Accordingly, some adjustments t� i�u. 31 Table 4-4 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-1995 New Survey Methodology (acres) 1980 1995{ Picnicking 600 1,090 Nature Walk 300 500 Playing games 1,960 3,190 Bicycling 650 960 Horseback riding 320 560� Swimming 10 20 Boating 1,070 2,130 Fishing 450 680 Carming 3,700 5,550 Hiking 80 170 Total activity specific 9,140 14,850: Total, including buffers 64,000 104,000 w 32 with particular emphasia on some of the individual activities "consume" the greatest amounts of system acreage. Camping requires more acreage than any other activity. But, as discussed, the standard employed--4 sites per acre --is unrealistically low for camping areas in or near urban areas. I£ a more realistic standard of 16 units per acre is used --still lower density than many private campgrounds, and wit}in the IMS 3-19 rage --the total acreage requirement decreases by 19,460 acres in 1980, P;:,! 29,120 acres in 1995. The 1995 camping reduc- tion results in a 28 percent reduction in the total forecasted requirement for system acreage. Playing outdoor games requ;.res the second highest amount of total systems acreage. For this activity, it might well be possible to reduce the 30 percent of total County -wide demand allocated to the regional park system. If accessibility to schoolyeard facilities is provided, and if some effic- ient sports -field local parks are developed, it might be possible to reduce this allocation by half, thus achieving an additional reduction in the total 1995 area system requirement of about ll,200 acres. The 50 percent reduction is used in Table 4-5. It is probably not realistic to decrease the acreage allotted to boating, especially in view of the fact that the new survey methodology actually allocates less area to boating than the RFIS did. Picnicking is .nether activit) especially well suited to regional. parks for which the allocation should probably not be changed. The P'11IS allocated 21.2 percent of Cotmty-wide bicycling -activities to the re;;lonal park system. This seems }ugh, in light of the very heavy concern tration of bicycle -riding in non -park areas, generally. CPO 1979 bicycle project data show only 50 miles of separated "path", and 108 miles of restricted "lane" and 123 miles of "shared route" on streets. Therefore, regional parks, with generally steeper terrain and (sometimes) lack of paved bicycle trails might be expected to serve a relat.: ely smaller Aiare of the total. Arbitrarily reducing the bicycling allocation in half would cut the total 1995 system area requirements by 3,360 acres, based upon data in Table 4-2. The allocations for nature walks, horseback riding, swimning, and fishing seem to be reasonable. In any event, the total acreage requirement is less sensitive to changes in these activities than b those discussed previously. Finally, however, it appears appropriate to decrease the standard employed for hiking. As indicated, the RPIS standard seems extremely high, at 40 hikers per trail mile. A standard of 15 hikers per trail mile is much more realistic, in light of the recent HCRS report; use of this revised standard would increase the 1995 system area requirement by 1,960 acres. Table 4-5 is the final system acreage tabulation, based on the foregoing modifications to the data in Table 4-4. Resultant total cva4nm ZV,34; a%_reh--is in very close (if coincidental) agreement with the RPIS 1980 figure of 35,100 acres. The 1995 requirement in Table 4-5, halever, is 14,000 acres above the RPIS-based figure, due to the higbei growth rates in participation inherent in the new survey methodology. Table 4-5 Regional Park System Acreage Requirements: 1980-1995 Adjusted New Survey Methodology (acres) Picnicking ouV Nature Walk 300 500 Playing games 980 1,590 Bicycling 320 480 Horseback riding 320 560 Swimming 10 20 Rnatina 1.070 2,130—^ Fishing 4DU V V V Camping 920 1,390 Hiking 210 450 Tnt11 nrtivity - snncific 5.190 8,900 Tnta1 inr_lnding buffers A-Lzernaze: Total including S times the act!V iy specific acreage 25.1950 44,500 Mflo*% �. r ri I ij One other approach to determining future requirements might be considered. At present, the regional park system consists of about 26,000 acres. If this existing system is considered appropriate within the present San Diego context, then this figure might be employed to determine an "em- pirical" naltipler of 5 to be applied to the total activity -specific acreage requirement to arrive at total system requirement, in place of the figure of 7 used in the RPIS. Application of the "empirical" 5 figure to the 1995 activity -specific total shown in Table 4-7 results in a system total of 45,000 acres. The results based ai the Orange County demand factors, with the modifica- tions to the individual -activity totals described, has been selected as a reasonable and realistic estimate of regional park requirements in San Diego County. The�,c figures, in turn, have been incorporated into the subsequent, detailed analyses of .individual resources. 35 CHAPTER 5 OTHER RECREATION RESOURCE REQUIRDEM r r, O MER S �s OTHER RECREATION RESOURCE REQUIRFZ`EWS r, Ilie preceding analyses of total demand and resultant regional park system ,, acreage requirements, in Chapters 3 and 4, serve; as a basis for more detailed planning of the County's regional parks. But other components of i, the total Countywide recreation resource system must also be considered. Beaches The RPIS allocated 19.7 percent of the total recreation demand originating P within San Diego County to the beaches. Moreover, the beaches, at 40.6 percent, attract a higher share of out -of -County demand.than any other com- ponents of the Total resource system. Perhaps the most important characteristic of the ocean beaches is their almost fixed total size and ultimate capacity. Ju,t about all of the coastal beach that is suitable for recreational use is already in public ownership and relatively accessible. The resource base cannot realistically be expanded to any significant degree, so future growth in demands will have to be accomplished by more efficient use of exh ting resources. The County's beaches have had --and are continuing to have --a great deal of study. CPO completed a Regional Coastal Access Study in September, 1978, which included some considerable attention to the question of future coastal recreation demand and supply. The following are among the major W findings: ( o While some beach areas --especially in the Mission Beach -Pacific } Beach -La Jolla area --are already at close to capacity during peak periods, there are still extensive beach areas in North County and in Silver Strand and Imperial Beach that are widerutilized. '-� o In many areas, parking capacity, rather than people capacity, is limiting total beach use. o DSost beach visitors respond to changes in the transportation supply -- in detdrmining resource choice. Since the transportation supply t�! is subject to more control than the resource supply, transportation modifications can successfully help balance recreation demands. tl At the time of this report, the Coastal Commission is in the process of conducting additional studies of the beach areas of the County. The recrea- tional use of beaches and the adjacent areas as well should be emphasized f� in all the local coastal programs now in preparation. In recognition of this need, the State of California --the agency responsible for most of the County's beach areas --is continuing with plans to increase r� the capacity of its resources. Specifically, it is in the process of relocating some camping areas and parking lots inland, thus freeing beach, bluff, and adjacent areas for higher density beach recreational activities. Also, the state and federal agencies are acquiring additional adjacent areas at the south end of the County. In view of the findings of the Coastal Access Study and the actions of the 'M State, it seems likely that the County's beaches will be able to accommodate *i most of the demand growth predicted for 1978-1995, except for camping demand. As denands increase, major transportation system changes nay have 19 to be made to encourage use of underutilized resources and to make sure that automobile capacity limitations do not restrict total beach use. Specific problem identification and solution recommendations are contained in the Coastal Access Study; others will be contained in the new study by the Coastal Commission. Mountain/Desert Resources In the RPIS, mountain/desert resources were allocated 4.5 percent of the resident recreation demand, along with a 22 percent out -of -County increment. In view of the federal and state resource holdings in the Anza-Borrego Desert and Cuyamaca Rancho State Parks, the Cleveland National Forest, and Bureau of Land Management holdings, there has been little local concern about a supply -demand balance. In terms of regional park experience levels, the "capacity" of existing and proposed regional park resources probably is adequate. There are,. of course, some other concerns. Typically, the resource management agencies are more concerned with conservation and the preser- vation of remote/wilderness environment and experience levels than the �- County and municipal agencies that operate regional parks. Due to the comparatively high percentage growth in mountain/desert recreation demands, there continues to be a need to consider requirements for additional re- source acquisitions including some specific important parcels. The par- ticular need will be .for the resource managers to follow demand patterns �. closely so as to be prepared to provide an appropriate mix of low intensity use facilities, given increasing demancs and the constraints of resource !� use policies. y In recognition of the increase in the camping demand, the Cleveland National ir4 Forest will offer more opportunities for dispersed primitive camping, that is, camping without established campgrounds which provide parking and other facilities. Even the somewhat more improved campgrounds are likely to be at the "rustic" level, that is, providing motorized access but without electrical hookups and conterporary sanitation services. The "imdern urbanized" RV camping type experience is not being provided by CNF, nor is it offered by the State Dept, of Parks and Recreation in the mountain/t desert area. Thus, the fully developed RV camping parks remain an important W demand, satisfied only minimally by the regional park, system. However, the demand has been addressed by the private sector with many private cane - grounds providing more full hookup facilities for RVs every year. The RV T campground remains an opportunity area for the private sector. (See Appendix A.) 40 F I� Local Parks The RPIS allocated 35 6 percent of all San Diego County recreation demand Et to local parks. This .s slightly higher than the 34.5 percent allocated to regional parks, but the total system requirements for regional parks P: are significantly larger, due to the additional out -of -County use (no ex- ternal use of local parks was projected) and generally lower unit and acreage factors employed for regional park planning. Also, only a very modest amount of the total demand for the activities that require the highest amounts of park space --camping, boating, fishing and nature walking --were allocated to the local park system. The main activities of concern to the local park system are playing out- door games, at 59.6 percent of County demand, picnicking, at 39.3 percent, and bicycling, at 55.1 percent; these activities all require considerable amounts of area. Local parks were also allocated a large share of the County demands for swimming, but the acreage requirement is miniscule. The local park allocation of bicycling in the RPIS is unrealistically high. The RPIS allocated 82 percent of all resident bicycling demand to the four ` elements of the park system, plus the out -of -County demand, and this appears unrealistic in light of the recent findings. For example, in Orange County, approximately 70 percent of all bicycling activity -days occurred in the "around home, didn't ?rive" time category, which generally means no park resources were involved. Even for participation at greater distances, an appreciable portion of the total bicycling demand is satisfied outside of any park system. Accordingly, it is suggested that the bicycling allocation to local parks be raluced from 55 to 15 percent of the total San Diego ri County bicycling demand. Nevertheless, the acreage requirements to serve the demand allocated to the local par], system will be substantial. In addition, the local system will ] presumably have to accommodate that portion of the playing games and pic- W racking demand removed from the regional system requirement (per Chapter 4). Some idea about future local park requirements can be developed through ]� analysis of the available data. First, it can reasonably be assumed that the land requirements for playing outdoor games and picnicking will generate most of the local park system resource requirements. The amount of acreage i' required to support a given level of activity in a local park will clearly be less than in a regional park --thus, significantly higher unit and acreage factors should be employed. Also, the amounts of area for support #; facilities and buffer areas to protect the character of the parks will be sharply less. Use of an instantaneous capacity of 60 persons per acre for playing games (compared with 20 in the RPIS) and 30 picnic tables per acre (compared with 12 in the RPIS), plus an overall ratio of total acreage to activity -specific acreage of 3.5 (half that used for regional parks) results in the local park system acreage requirements shown in Table 5-1. bf The base -year figure of 4,760 acres is in reasonable agreement with the existing local park inventory. Current County inventory records show a total of 3,955 local park acres. In addition, however, there is an unknown amount of other land --school property, college campuses, and vacant private s Iwt 41 lands, for example --that is providing some sort of local park function. i Unfortunately, inventory data are not sufficiently comprehensive or accu- rate to be more specific. But the calculated figure at least seems reason- c able in light of available inventory data. Regardless of minor differences in base -year estimates, however, the most important consideration is growth increment required by 1995, about 3,750 acres. Providing for tP ; amount of local park growth will be especially ° difficult in light of declining school budgets and general fiscal pressures on local governments. But these local parks provide recreation resources that are among the least likely to be available from alternative private - ; sector sources. Accordv g y, adequate provision for the required growth in local park facilities must necessarily be a high priority for local governments. Other Facilities The entire demand -supply computation described in Chapters 3 and 4, and in; the preceding sections of this Chapter, is based on the determination of system requirements through participation in the ten basic recreation activ- ities incorporated•in the RPIS analytical system. While this approach is, reasonable for planning general-purpose park systems, it does not include some other specific facilities that are important within the total County- wide recreational context. Table 5-2 shows 1978 and 1995 estimated San Diegc County requirements for several specific types of recreation facilities. These estimates are Table S-1 Selected Local Park Acreage Requirements: 1978-1995 r-- Total Acreage Required `- +. 1978 1995 Playing Games 1,170 2,050 Picnicking 190 380 x{ Subtotal activity -specific 1,360 2,430 Total including buffers „} I (3.5 tines) 4,760 8 510 a; 42� �a Table 5-2 }, San Diego County Requirements ,j for Other :Recreational Facilities: 1978-1995 f' Standard ;acility Requirements ", (units per million population) (units) !^ 1978 1995 —' Baseball Diamonds 167 298 411 ,I Softball Diamonds 333 595 819 Tennis Courts 500 894 1,230 BasketballCourts 2,000 3,570 4,920 Swimni.ng Pools (50-meter) SO 89 123 e Golf Courses (18 holes) 40 72 98 Source: NP.PA based on the standardz shown i,i the Table, which were derived from national f reconmendations prepared .,y tee National Recreation and Parks Association I� (NRPA) for general conaramity guidance. W These facilities can be incorporated into regional and local parks, but they need not be. In most cases, 6alf courses are independent and many of the other types oj'faciliti.es are often separate as well. In any case, they represent the supply component for activities that enjoy large demands, and they emu t be considered within the total recreational planning context. L. Golf Courses The NITA guidelines indicate a base -year requirement for the equivalent of 72 18-hole golf courses, increasing to 98 in 1995. Since the NRPA figures are national averages, they undoubtedly reflect greater seasonal peaking than is the case in San Diego. With year round play, an area can accommo- date a given annual demand with fewer resources than would be required in more seasonal areas. Thus the existing County inventory, the equivalent of 55 18-hole courses, appears to be within reasonable balance of present demand levels. The detailed inventory is in the Appendix. Just keeping up with the present standard will require the addition of 20 18-hole courses over the next 17 years, and this methodology includes no growth due to per capita partici- pation increases. Undoubtedly, much of this increment will be provided by the private sector, ;E either as golf courses associated with large-scale housing developments, 43 or as separate private courses and clubs; in view of land prices, golfers will undoubtedly have to travel increasing distances from urban centers to reach these new facilities. But there will surely be some significant demands --perhaps for as many as five to ten courses --to serve the large Population segments unable to join private clubs or purchase homes in "country cluo" developments. However, some of this demand may be met *� through expanded use of existing courses, throught night lighting. In view of the very high costs of golf course construction, this may well become a u demand segment that will not be met. Swimming Pools The NRPA factors indicate a need for the equivalent of 89 fifty meter (or "Olympic") pools, or equivalent, in 1978, growing to 123 in 1995. These national average guideline figures may be unrealistically high for the San Diego Region, where it must be assumed that the availability of private pools, at residences, in multi -family residential units, and in private clubs is much higher than for most other large U. S. cities. Presently, there are 46 swimming pools (few "Olympic" size) that are open to the public, plus another three under construction; an inventory appears - in the Appendix. Of these, 27 are owned by independent agencies --schools, colleges, and YMCAts--and the remainder (22) are owned by local general " Purpose governments. Even if it is assumed that the present resource base of 46 pools is sufficient for current needs --in effect, establishing an empirical factor only half that recommended by NRPA--there will still be a �- requirement for an additional 20 pools by 1995. Other Special -Purpose Game Facilities IM Requirements for special-purpose game facilities are shown on Table 5-2.' In many cases, these facilities will be incorporated within regional and local parks. However, these figures can be useful as a check against de- tailed regional and local park facilities designs and land allocation plans. They can also serve to demonstrate potential demands for special sports -oriented parks and facilities. Off -Road Vehicle Activity Wei One of the growing problems of regional outdoor recreation is providing � } suitable locations for off -road vehicle activities. , In May 1978, San Diego County adopted an Off -Road Vehicle Subelement of the Recreation Element of the County General Plan. Several alternative ORV park sites were analyzed as part of the study. (Both the nord-Avest corner of Miramar NAS and a site proposed on Otay Dlesa may be suitable locations.) However, considerably more investigation would be necessary before this could be determined. The major concerns are environmental impacts, liability of the owner/operator, and economic feasibility. Thus, after som six or seven years of study by an ORV Committee, no local site has been selected and some which were used informally are being closed rm1 due to liability problems. F 44 J r 14 The Cleveland National Forest lands will provide only a limited opportunity „ for ORV's due to the land characteristics of the forest and the need for ty multiple use areas in the forest. ORV's often preclude other uses in the imme late vicinity while requiring large land areas. The Cleveland National Forest, as required by Executive Order, has designated where ORV use "will be allowed, restricted or prohibited". The Cleveland National Forest is now involved in a forestwide review and update of the �^ currently designated ORV areas. It wi11 be available in September 1979. The State Department of Parks 3^1 Recreation has recognized the ORV use of the Ocotillo Wells area and has agreed to purchase 12,000 acres. Three sections in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park will be included in the total Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area. f�! On most of BUt's 186,000 acres, ORV's are restricted to uxisting roads t4 and trails. Some new trals will be constructed to connect trails in the current use area west of Lark Canyon Campground. Its• ding and Hiking ,Trails Riding and Hiking Trails Elements of General Plans have been adopted by tine City of San Diego and the County and by CPO as part of the Open Space Plan. 11a4ever, only small segments of the designated trail systems have been constructed; the longest is the Pacific Crest Trail in the Cleveland National Forest and on BUI land. A total 304 miles of riding acid hiking trails are shown in the State Dept. of Parks and Recreation PARIS Inventory 1974-6. Regional parks are expected to provide 62.5% of the riding trails for residents and 18.1% for visitors -- a total of 320 miles in 1980 and 560 miles in 1995. Regional parks are expected to provide SO% of the hiking trails for residents and 18.4'% �-a for visitors --a total of 420 miles in 1980 and 900 miles in 199s. Special -Season Activities Not covered in this study are a number of "special -season" activities, such as hunting and winter sports. Participation in the region is not known at this time. Results of the State survey will be useful in establishing the !" demand. ,x Currently deer and other gmm hunting occurs in the Cleveland National Forest, on Bill lands, and at Camp Pendleton, under the restrictions estab- lished by those agencies. Duck hunting is permitted at a number of city lakes and gam bird hurting takes place mainly on private lands operated by clubs. Winter sports activities are quite limited in the region, since snot) cover is limited to a few weeks. However, snow play is an ir+portant activity i, during the limited season. The Cleveland National Forest will provide snow play facilities at four sites in the Laguna Mountain Recreation Area in the next few years. However, considerable effort will be need to handle the s, traffic and trespass problem, which occur whenever there is snow. a F� 45 It i'l CIIAPMR is REGIaWL PARK SYSM- I GOALS Cl iAPTER 6 4 , REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM GOALS r, - [be computations of San Diego County recreation demands and total park system acreage requirements in the preceding chapters establish a range of total regional park system size requirements necessary to serve the County's growing and uicreasingly recreation -oriented population. These numerical system measures, 'therefore, describe the general boundaries for planning an par appropriate regional park system. But successful planning requires much Lg more than just a target numerical value. Planning must be directed toward implementation of the goals and objectives established for the system. Accordingly, a determination of park system goals was established as an objective of this study. 14 Developing a set of system goals sufficiently precise to serve as a basis for system planning is a surprisingly difficult process. Most public system goals tend to be fa: too vague and general to serve as a valid and useful planning input. For this reason, considerable effort was directed to the goal -setting phase of the Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program. Specifically, an iterative procedure was employed in which the CPO staff, with consultwit assistance, originally postulatea goals statements; these were reviewed, individually and in group sessions, by the members of the C Regional Outdoor Recreation Plan and Program Committee, through several successive cycles, until agreement was reached. The resultant goal state- f-c menu , as formally approved, then became an important input to the sub- sequent planning of the regional part: system. ,..� The goals statements have an ir, ortant value beyond their contribution to the present syst-.m planning effort. Many of the goal statements relate to system operations and management, rather than just planning. These goals statements should, therefore, be conside,ed as an biportant end product of the study, with a usefulness and importan..0 .:ver quid above their input to �. the system planning process. GENE-RiU. GOAL To assure that a system of land, facilities, equipment, and programs is t provided within the San Die^., region to serve present and future outdoor L recreation needs, this sy.item should: o Serve the needs Cf resident recreational participants, regional ' = visitors and tourists, and the general corrmtmity. o Consist of a mix of resources and facilities, of different types, sizes, and locations, to serve as broad a range of demands for individual recreation activities as possible. i` { 49 o Consist of a logical and coordinated mix of component units that are P" owned, operated, and financed by the many different jurisdictions involved: local, county, state, federal, and private. ay o Be easily accessible to as many users as possible, in terms both of Proximity to residential areas and tourist accommdation centers, and of different nudes of transportation. o Be financed b an y equitable mix of local taxes, state and federal $ outdoor recreation funding sources, and user charges. THE SYSTEM SHOULD SERVL THE NEEDS OF RESIDENT RECREATIO'QAL PARTICIPANTS, REGIONAL VISITORS AND TOURISTS, AND THE GRERAL COtAIUNIT'Y. The system should serve the needs of the widest possible spectrum of all resident recreational participants. Special facilities and programs should be provided for special population' subgroups, including youth, senior citizens, the handicapped, racial and cultural minorities, and those unable to in demonstrated pay, response to needs and in accordance with local, state, and federal policies and reg- ulations. Facilities and programs should be provided for regional visitors and tourists, to enhance the Cotuity's visitor economy. �^ The system should include provision of open space, green space, and other resource reserves for esthetic reasons and µ environmental protection, and for visual enjoyment. +- THE SYSTFSI SHOULD CONSIST OF A MIX OF RESOURCES AND FACILITIES, OF DIFFERENT TYPES, SIZES AND LOCATIONS, TO SERVE AS BROAD A RANGE OF DITI-ANDS FOR IN- DIVIDUAL RECRE noI ACTIVITIES AS POSSIBLE. Land and resource reservation, through acquisition and zoning, should be implemented as far in advance of need as possible, but facilities for participation should be built only far enough ahead to satisfy immediate future needs. r Needs for land, resources, and facilities should be based on outdoor rec- reation needs standards, to be developed specifically for the San Diego Region and modified, as required. Individual facilities should be designed for multiple use to the maximum extent possible. Priorities for acquisition and development of special-purpose and single - purpose facilities should be based on relative level-; demand of and need, as pleasured by demand surveys, participation data, and the like. +� Where facilities are traditionally provided largely or partially by the private sector, such as golf courses, tennis courts, and racquetball courts, public sector agencies should place priority on providing facilities �a. 50 +� 7ii ITM for population and geographic segments that are unnerved or underserved by the private sector. Facilities and equipment should be environmentally appropriate, and should be designed to resist vandalism, require minima. maintenance, and with- stand heavy use. ' 'ME SYSM SHOULD CONSIST OF A LOGICAL AND COORDINATED MIX OF C01PONDITr UNITS THAT ARE OPINED, OPERATED, AND FINANCED BY TILE MANY DIFFERENT JURIS- DICTIONS INVOLVED: LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL, AND PRIVATE. Operations and financing should be as efficient as possible, in light of evolving govenumntal relationships. Geographic and functional overlapping and duplication of effort should be miniruzed, especially with new resources. Broad spheres of influence aTid areas of primary responsibility should be recognized: State and federal agencies for the extensive landholdings and resources in the eastern portion of the County; State agencies for ocean beaches; County agencies for regional parks and for com7onity and neigh- borhood parks in unincorporated areas; local agencies for some regional M parks and most community and neighborhood parI,s. However., existing arrange- 61 ments that differ need not be altered unless clear advantage can be demon- strated. r4 Responsibilities for resource operation and finance should be shifted through such techniques as joint powers agreements, trades, and sales, when such shifts would provide increased efficiency or superior service to the public. ME SYST01 SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO AS1,M USERS AS POSSIBLE, IN 1101S BOTH OF PROXIMITY TO RESIDEM'IAL AREAS AND MURIST ACMIODATION CENFMS, AND OF DIFFEREN'r MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. Regional, commmity, and neighborhood parks should be located as closely as feasible to present and future population and tourist accommodation centers. i As much parking as feasible shou.,d be include on -site in urban parks, and as much adjacent parking should be provided as practical; in the event of con- flicting space demands, facilities for people should take precedence over facilities for automobiles. i' Newly -developed regional and resource parks outside of heavily -urbanized M areas should incorporate sufficient on -site parking to accommodate near - peak participation levels. Participants should be encouraged to p g employ non -automotive modes of access to outdoor recreation resources, including walking, bicycle, and public transit. To the extent possible, urban -area parks should be designed to optimize non -automotive access, and recreation resource managers should work with transit operators to improve transit services for recreation �? access travel. In some cases, disincentives to the use of automobiles should be instituted. «; THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE FIR'N-CED BY AN EQUITABLE MIX OF LOCAL TAXES, SLATE AND FEDERAL OUTDOOR RECREATION FUNDING SOURCES, AND USER CHARGES. Y As much use as possible should be made of -die various state and federal ' programs of financial support for outdoor recreation. Special facilities for individual activities that are relatively expensive w, should be financed as mach as possible through user charges, except that those unable to pay should not be excluded from by high participation fees. �. Environmentally -beneficial or desirable facilities and services should be cross -subsidized by user charges on less desirable facilities; thus, parking fees could be used to support other transportation modes. a� I.MIVIDUAL RESOURCES GOALS Beaches The special position of Sari Diego County ocean beaches as vital to both residents and visitors should be emphasized. As much of the ocean beach within. the County as possible should be made available and accessible for public use. The large beach areas now within military installations should be developed into public parks when conditions permit. ,. Beach areas should be expanded eastward to provide additional space for non -beach activities whenever public demand warrants. Mere possible, .. . parking and other activities not directly related to beach use should be removed from the immediate beach and bluff vicinity. If and when portions of Camp Pendleton are converted to recreational use, the park area should include, at a minimum, all the land between the ocean and Interstate 5; ideally, it should extend from the ocean to the top of �. the first ridge. Utilization of under-utilized beach resources should be encouraged, except that some beach areas should be designated for low -intensity use and environmental preservation. Parks, Mountains, Forests and Deserts � Additional land for regional, resource, community, and neighborhood parks should be provided to serve Iirojecterr, population growth throughout the western portion of the County. Efforts by federal and state agencies to acquire key recreational lands of exceptional quality should continue in the eastern County. , New park land acquisition -and facilities development should be concomitant1 with growth in residential, populations and visitor volume. Neighborhood and community parks should be combined with school yards and playgrounds as much as possible. School facilities should be designed toJ be suitable for this multiple use. Multiple school -public use should also be made of swimming pools, theaters and auditoriums, and other special- purpose facilities. ' 52 r I W 7Q E Procedures should be adopted to assure continued recreational use, and appropriate financing, for joint school -public facilities when schools are closed due to demographic shifts. 1# Overnight camping facilities in or near urbanized coastal areas should be retained and, to the extent feasible, expanded to serve growing numbers of regional visitors and tourists. However, adequate regulations should be �- adopted to reserve these facilities for genuine visitors and prevent their r use by long-term residents. Local agencies should provide for organized league and team recreational activities and instructional programs. These programs should generally be �- self-supporting through user charges, except that adequate provision should s be made for low-income participants. Other Resources and Facilities Resources of especially attractive scenic value, historic or cultural in terest, and unique environmental or ecological inportance should be incor- porated into part; systems, to the extent practical. Some, including k lagoons, beaches, and deserts, should be reserved for preservation rather than participation. Where possible, bicycle, hiking/walking, and equestrian trails should be developed to interconnect national forest, major regional and comnunity parks, and to provide access from residential areas to parks, schools, and other comnu,rity areas of interest. Special areas should be established for off -road vehicle operation that provide sufficient area to serve participants, while avoiding undesirable environmental effects and interference with other recreational activities. Provision of open spaces, arcades, malls, plazas, amphitheaters, and other areas with recreational us: should be encouraged in new urban construction, office and commercial complexes, and shopping centers. r- if L 53 la qw aiAPTER 7 INDIVIDUAL REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM (MIPONENTS ` C1 MER 7 iJ INDIVIWAL REGIO,NU1 PARK SYSTEri COMPONENTS ' There are three important new elements to the regional park planning context since the RPIS. Two were the result of the current study effort: New, higher forecasts of County recreation demand levels, and a n.3re specific set of regional park goals statements. The third major change is simply the resource adjustments that have taken place since 1972: acquisitions, developments, and losses of actual or potential park resources. Accordingly, the entire spectrum of individual park facilities moist be re -assessed. Aggregate System Measures Table 7-1 summarizes the existing Sa.: Diego County system of regional parks. Approximately 26,000 acres of regional parklands have been acquired, as of early 1979; another 17,000 acres are considered as potentially available for acquisition. Thus, the total identified regional park acreage --acquired plus specified potential --amounts to about 43,000 acres. This total acquired property, at around 26,000 acres, is below the target level established in the RPIS of about 35,000 acres for 1980. Moreover, much of the land classed as potentially available for acquisition in the j RPIS has been irrevocably diverted to non -park use in intervening years. ' The specific status of each indivi.dual part is covered in a subsequent portion of this Chapter. f Allocation of Demand to Individual Park »; In the RPIS, aggregate recreational demands fo. each activity --base year and forecast --were allocated to regional parks --existing and proposed --by a computer -based gravity flow model. This would normally be considered one of the most effective techniques to apply in taus kind of regional system plan. Unfortunately, the RPIS report contains no technical details that would permit -- replicating the process, and insufficient time and funds were available for independent development of a new computer -based model. There are two purposes for use of the gravity flow model: determining the appropriate future size of each regional park in accordance with allocated demand levels, and establishing priorities for individual -park acquisition and development. Given the existing resource situation, in which many of the identified parks are limited to present boundaries, the size estimation capability° of the gravity flow model would have reduced utility. :and, even though the gravity flow model would have remained useful for estab- lishing priorities, replication or even approximation of the process was found impossible. Instead, information for establishing priorities was 1 developed through other techniques. " �J 57 f TABLE 7-1 £ TOTAL REG10XkL PARK SYSP.N f_ RPIS Acreage Allocations and Actual -- 1979 RPIS RPIS-Proposed Potentially Available for RPIS Proposed Activity Total Park Acquisition Acquired Total Park Regional Park. Acreage-1980 . Size-1980 or lease by 1978 Size-1990 Near -Tern Parks 177 1,080 173 1,416 E ' ati� quips agoon Buena•Vista Lagoon 53 489 200 600 i-A " Caladera lake 291 2,042 252 - 2,66S E1 Monte 85 Lake Murray/Cowles Aft. 119 S10 808 90 1,903- 640 989 r . f , San Elijo Lagoon 4S 9.eetwater 736 588 4 061 s7�y 72S 2 088 614 5 01S 1 y " Subtotal 1;5Td ,t3 ; Internadiate-Tenn Parks 111 1,083 1,407 :. gua a on Lake Hodges/Kit Carson 363 2,427 2,124 300 3,114 Lake Jennings 108 762 $80 22S 9S1 *;t Lake Wohlford 55 Lontr Otay 578 388 3,987 915 2,100 100 509 4,941 i Quail 21 Subtotal T-Im 50 TIM TI 30 -3T 65 Tr7m ? Long -Tern Parks tor.11na Auuntain 282 1,94E 1,045 2,434 wue Hensh-Rw 724 4,481 3,948 $,877 San.Elijo Cahyo. 168 1,178 1,546 891• San Vicente Reservoir 15I 704 4,264 40S Sycamore Canyon 270 1,891 1,693 2,412 w Valiecito S8 Subtotal TWI 313 T6'm r;iTm 71 fi3 491 i3;3bI TOTAL - 19 Parks 4,465 28,888 14 183 9 048 36,547 lnde endent of RPIS Program - 125 640 160 ; ~ w ua iente 11 Balboa 128 897 1,158 1,049 Chollas Reservoir 75 $27 600 267 630 Dixon Lak_ 41 294 527 394 -? Dos Picos 28 139 78 180 . Cuajone 179 994 566 1,292 Noise S3 754 899 965 Intemational Park/Border Fd. 19 385 657 475 Lake Morena 137 867 3,2SO 1,089 Los Penasquitos 428 2,623 2,000 191 31567 yid Mimmir Reservoir 13 98 473 126 Hissmi Bay 1,176 4,118 4,225 4,668 Palomr Mountain St. Pk. 121 8SO 1,886 1,102 ?' k Potrero 22 97 119 120 San Ciea%enit ISO S06 36S 621 I San DiegL.tito 23 91 99 118 San Pasqual 3 24 48 31 f , Santa Margarita Canyon 34 Torrey 192 246 t Pines State Pk $ Reser. 8 58 1,031 7S Wilderms Gardens S84 _ 1 Total 2,666 14,229 2,600 17,068 16,908 ' 16,743 + 26,131 12,884 GRAND TOTAL 7,131 43,117 53,455_ Sources. RPIS; California 'Dept. of Parks and Recreation PARIS II Inventory 1974-76; Helix Hater District; Lake Murray, Cowles mid Fortuna Mt. Regional Park Master Development Plan; San Diego Water Utilities Dept. ! 58 Allocation of Resident Populations to Adjacent Parks This ncv allocation approach was keyed to the goals statements in which i; the concept of proximity of regional parks to County residents' homes was stressed. In this approach, resident population --not recreation demands --were allocated to parks. The extensive CPO computerized data base was employed }: to allocate all of the residents of each cell (91.8 acre area) of the extensive west County grid pattern to the nearest regional park, provided a regional park was available within 15 minutes driving time. Populations of cells that were not within 15 minutes driving time of a regional park were not allocated to any park. The total number of resident populations in each of the grid cells allocated to each park was were totaled for all ell parks. Note that the RPIS dealt with a one -hour driving time paramet..r. ;j however, it was found that virtually all parks in the County would serve virtually the entire population under this limitation. %reovet, the 74 goals statements emphasized the need for regional park locations close # to residential concentrations. This analysis was performed twice --once for "general purpose" parks that ? offered resources for sand -based recreation activities (e.g., playing games, picnicking, camping) and again for "water recreation" parks that offered flat water suitable for such water -based activities as boating and fishing. This classification was adopted from the more extensive park ,.y classification in the RPIS, shown as Table 7-2; for the resident allo- cation, parks outside of the grid area and parks that do not (or will not) offer a reasonably broad spectrum of recreation opportunities (e.g., 0 ecological preserves) were deleted from the process. The resident allocation process dealt with three separate classes of parks: it A. Parks that were fully developed and operating as regional parks as of fall, 1978. B. Parks that were substantially undeveloped in the fall of 1978, but where sufficient land ti,ras already acquired by park management agencies ;.r to provide for future regional park development. land required for future regional park development had not yet C. Parks that were undeveloped in the fall of 1978, and where most of the been R' acquired by park management agencies. Some parks were given different A,/BJC classifications for the general purpose f and water recreation allocations, reflecting differences in the status of land area and water area acquisition programs. Finally, allocations were made for two different years. One set was made for current populations, for the "existing" Park system, and the 1975 highway network, and a second set for 1995, with forecasts of 1995 populations, the proposed park system, and the 1995 highway network. ,.� Tables 7-3 and 7-4 highlight the results of this allocation process: "Mt i 4 59 Table 7-2 s +.y f RPIS REGIONAL PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Day '{ Use e 1 General Recreation Parks (15) Agua Caliente + ; Balboa X Calavera Lake Chollas Reservoir X Dos Picos El Monte X Fortuna Mountain Guaj ome ; Palomar Mountain State Pa7'. Potrero San Clemente X San Dieguito X da San. Elijo Canyon P Sweetwater Vallecito Water Recreation Parks (13) r, t Agua Hedionda Lagoon Dixon -Lake Lake flenshaw Lake Hodges/Kit Carson Lake Jennings Lake Morena Lake Murray/Cowles Mt. X *' ; Lake Wohlford Miramar Reservoir Mission Bay , Otay .Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Santa Margarita Canyon Ecological Preserves (7) Batiquitos Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon « f Heise 2 International Park/Border Field Los Penasquitos San Elijo Lagoon X # } Torrey Pines State Park x Special Purpose Parks (4) ' Quail X San Pasqual X Sycamore Canyon Wilderness GardensIN { E f_ i 60 1' 1 Table 7-3 Resident Populations Allocated to Closest Regional General Recreation Park (Wit]iin 15 Minutes Driving Time) x 1975 1995 1995 A Balboa 665,648 236,841 236,565 Mission Bay 243,238 183,089 183,089 �-, Group San Dieguito Dixon Lake 52,864 114,936 66,936 70,372 91,454 64,672 Dos Picos 6,054 11,131 14,131 ..«, El Monte 50,892 33,665 440 B Qiollas Cowles/Fortuna 192,835 340,552 152,846 102,274 Group Guajome 231,462 100,572 Sweetwater 327,610 326;758 Kit ,Carson 78,574 24,627 Los Penasquitos 158,237 151,043 San Clemente 101,164 101,164 Lake Wohlford 5,935 5,935 C San E1ijo Canyon 5,920 Agua Hedionda 68,168 Group San Diego River 201, 359 Bataquitos 66,515 'Calavera 78,034 blurra781 191 , L18ake e I odges 733 Ota San Vicente 1,671 -- Served: 1,089,068 2,110,485 2,164,082 Not Served: 369,634 167,937 104,346 Total Population: 1,458,702 2,278,428 2,278,428 �A if ~-' 61 W. Table 7-4 Resident Populations allocated to Closest Water Recreation Regional Park (Within 15 Minutes Driving Time) 1975 1995 Guajome 64,621 100,572 A Agua Hedionda 88,142 126,054 Group Dixon Lake '69,516 135,243 Lake Jennings 188,065 140,378 Mission Bay 637,953 379,715 B Calavera 90,394 Group Chollas Lake Murray 426,500 297,914 Lake Wohlford 5,935 Miramar 135,180 Sweetwater C Lake Hodges Group Otay San Vicente Batiquitos Served: 1,048,297 1,840,885 Not Served: 410,505 437,S43 Total Population: 1,458,702 2,278,428 62 1995 100,572 68,168 70,764 135,959 319,715 81,925 264,631 298,763 5,935 122,378 342,308 130,888 849 4,420 107.355 2,114,630 163,798 2,278,428 iel r o In the base year allocations, neither the general purpose nor the water recreation parks serve quite three -fourths of the total popu- lation within the western county within 15 minutes driving time. f� o By 1995, however, for the general purpose parks, 93 percent of the west county residents would be served within 15 minutes by the regional parks already developed (A group) plus those for which land has already been acquired (B group). o For water recreation parks, those water recreation parks in the two already -acquired groups (A and B) provide for 15-minute access for only 81 percent of the grid -area residents; however, the addition of the "C" group of resources brings the coverage up to the 93 percent level --about as high as could reasonably serve as a planning standard. The data in Tables -3 and 7-4 were developed by adding the populations computed as proximate to each park, within the limit of 15 nunutes driving time. In some instances, however, future resource requirenrants can be identified more easily by analysis of populations not served. Accordingly, the same data base used for Tables 7-3 and 7.4 were run through the CPO graphic display program to develop a map of those population cells that are NOT within 15 minutes of a regional park. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate the map of residents not served by the com- bined "A" and "B" resources in 1995, separately for general-purpose and water recreation parks. Areas nominally deficient in future regional park avail- ability become immediately apparent through this process: some concentra- tions i1i the Chula Vista area, and some residential cells in the inland portion of North County, near Escondido. Unfortunately, computer progr.=rdng problems prevented development of comparable maps including the "C" groups of resources; such maps would undoubtedly have indicated the substantially superior coverage of the total system. This allocation system is useful as an input in setting priorities for future resource acquisitions and developments. Note, for example, that development c,f a single one of the group "C" water recreation resources -- Sweetwater--would significantly improve the total system coverage of County residents. Mote also the large number of residents who would find Chollas the most convenient regional park for both general and water recreation. The proximity to large numbers of County residents becomes an important input to the process of determining priorities, as described in Chapter 8. Despite the usefulness of this relatively simple (given the necessary computer and data base resources) and straightforward resident allocation process, readers must be warned that this is a process of AI.I,TATING RESIDLNTS ACCORDING TO THE NEARFS'T REGIONAL PARK, NOT AN ALLOCATION OF RECREATIIM DI?I M Especially where two or more par are relatTVely close, there is no necessary correlation between the resident allocation results and observed park attendance data. Ideally, a gravity flow demand allocation is a superior procedure. Since a gravity flow formulation was not possible, this resident allocation procedure was employed as the "best available" tool. Individuals employing these data for independent analyses 63 riQure /•t I— !'—NERAL RECREATION REGIONAL P' KS Group A plus Group B l r ij MMI ninrnrr r ■rrr f� ".i \1P 0 W1 TQ two PIMPLE 0 IWI ID 15M MMPLE O IMI M UM PIMPLE Figure 7-Z "WATER RECREATION REGIONAL Pt—LS Group A plus Group B I t \� a r..i'tl \ n IF lsHs F'q'9r ATnm a NOT ADD C15 M) DT A REOMM FM _......7...'...........................:...................................................riir�fiirrrrirYrLSf iBr i�r—ireiiii must be careful not to misrepresent the results, and, especially, not to confuse a resident -proximity allocation with a demand allocation. Individual Park Status There have been many changes in the individual County regional parks since the RPIS, in 1972. Some have involved substantial progress: acquisition# of extensive new properties and opening of new fully developed park areas. Others have detracted from the potential system: potential park lands com- mitted to incompatible/conflicting uses, inflationary land price increases, .and consideration by some communities of selling off poteptial park property. Accordingly, it is appropriate to re-examine all of the individual parks in the regional system, to document changes that have occurred since 1972. Review of the Regional Park Implementation Study Recommendations All of the larks recommended in the RPIS have been assumed to remain in can- sideration as proposed in the RPIS. The RPIS proposed implementation in three equal phases of six years each, with the first titled Target 1978. The Target 1978 Program called for the following: ` o Acquisition of all land needed to 1990 for Batiquitos, Buena Vista and San Elijo Lagoons and Los Penasquitos. o Expansion land for El Monte, Heise and Lake Murray. o Acquisition of the core area of Calavera Lake and the valley portion of Sweetwater. u Development of Guajome and Lake Morena under programs currently Li underway. o Development of Batiquitos, Buena Vista and San Elijo Lagoons to meet 1930 needs. o Expansion of El Monte and Lake Murray to meet•1980 needs. a Development of valley portion of Sweetwater. z� o Initial development of the core an;a of Calavera Lake. «� ` The success of the Target 178 Program has bet.n considerable, though -cer- j tainly not complete. The successful .acquisitions have been due to coop- �F erative efforts of the cities, the county and especially the state and federal governments. 178 Status of Target Proposals Buena Vista Lagoon c� Acquisition of the Lagoon for a state ecological preserve has been accomplished, including some minor additions along the shoreline, a total of 200 acres. ; 66 None of the Hosp Grove area south of the shopping center has be,a acquired by the County. It was intended to provide for day use and camping. Instead ` IIoS}) Grove will be a residential development with some private open space and nine -acre public park, which is a natural amphitheater. The RPIS proposed park size in 1980 was 376 acres. 4 Batiquitos Lagoon Various public agencies have acquired or will acquire portions of the RPIS proposed park. More extensive acquisition (1760 acres) was intended in the proposed 1976 Master. Plan, which was not adopted. The Wildlife Conservation Board has acquired 134 acres of the western area of the approximately 340 t' acre lagoon. Whether the 432 acres east of I-5, now in litigation, will be purchased for park purposes has not been disclosed. r San Elijo Lagoon r, Various public agencies have acquired the lagoon and additional lvlds for buffer area. The park size now anticipated, has about 850 acres rather j than the 614 acres in the RPIS. A 1976 development alternatives report recommended 877 acres of park plus buffer area of 371 acres. However, no active recreational facilities were planned here, since San Dieguito Regional Park provides an additional 124 acres nearby. rf Los Penasquitos I '17he State Department of Parks and Recreation intends to buy additional lagoon area (Torrey Pines Reserve) and to link this to the Los Penasquitos ianvnn n1,;, ca,4 of 1-5. The County has purchased 194 acres and will buy more. The City of San Diego is acquiring 2000+ acres through development rights agreement with the owners; additional city funds will be available from the Open Space Bond Issue, if and when further adjacent lands are to be acquired. The future park will be less in size than proposed in the RPIS (about 3200 acres instead of 3,561 acres) but it will still be able to serve as an ecological preserve with some recreational facilities too. El Monte One of the smallest regional parks, only 90 acres, E1 Monte was proposed for major additions (450 acres). None have been added and the park is -- heavily overused, the scene of Hatch social upset. ;r Lake Murray In the RPIS, the public lands surrounding the Lake were proposed for expan- sion. Some expansion will be possible; some areas have been developed. By far the most significant change in intent has beer. the acquisition of Cowles Mountain. This purchase assures the availability of the entire 1100 acres for public use. The linkage proposed through Mission Gorge to Fortuna iMountain area. The total 1990 park size as proposed in the RPIS and as currently proposed is as follows: r- r 67 RPIS Present Plans Lake Murray 989 acres Total 6,700} acres (including parts � of Cowles Aft. ) ' Fortuna W. 2434 acres 3423 Sweetwater The RPIS recommended a park size of more than. 500 acres of which only 155 y acres were acquired and another 1300 acres (the Sweetwater Reservoir) were considered to be "available". The plans have been revised so that less 4�i acreage (788) will be acquired, making a total of 2,243 acres. The first twenty-two acres have been developed immediately west of Chula Vista's ' Rohr Park and Golf Course. Accessibility to these developed areas is excellent --from I-805 and the South Bay Expressway. Potential use of the Sweetwater Authority's reservoir is being considered; the north side is readily accessible to thousands of residents. Additional land originally proposed to be acquired west of I-805 apparently is no longer being con- sidered either by the County Mt: or by the Corps of Engineers as a recreation use area as part of the flood channel development., However, due to State Dept. of Fish and Game and Federal Fish and Wildlife Service requirements, the Corps of Engineers plans to acquire about 188 acres of marshlands west of I-5 as a wildlife preserve. Both trails and bicycle paths will be constructed along the flood channel levees to link the bay lands with the Park, Lake Calavera Lake Calavera has continued to cause controversy. Tine City of Carlsbad owns the lake and land around it, 252 acres. The RPIS suggested a total 1990 size of 2665 acres. The northern areas in Oceanside have been devel- oped, eliminating the possibility of acquisition. No further have plans been made to expand the present public area except the proposed addition of five acres adjacent to the }` northern side of the lake. The lake should be reconsidered for expansion into a regional park due to its ability to serve thousands of North County residents, from Vista and San Marcos as well as Carlsbad an,� Oceanside. The loss of potential recreation ` area from eastern Buena Vis+a Lagoon, eastern Agua Hedionda Lagoon and possibly Batiquitos makes acgW-sition of Lake Calavera land more urgent. Development Proposals of the RPIS - Target 178 Development proposed has been minimal in Guajome, Lake Morena, and Sweet- water parks and no program has been started in Batiquitos, Buena Vistaj ` and San Elijo Lagoons. This is due to the failure of voters to authorize bond issues which would have pennitted more acquisition and also more development. n j 68 j �x Intermediate and Long Term Parks Agua Hedionda The State Coastal Act of 1976 requires preparation of Local Coastal Programs ' (LCP) for areas within the Coastal Zone. Agua Hedionda was chosen as a pilot project as part of the LCP in Carlsbad. Unfortunately, considerable disagreement on land use plans for the lagoon areas has prevented any progress in increasing recreational opportunities related to the lagoon. The Carlsbad lease of SDG$E area, the total water area, is continuing for the time being. The contro, rsy should be resolved giving recognition to the variety of demands teing made upon this lagoon. As a water based regional park it is the closest facility to 88,000 residents. By 1995 it will be the closest facility to 126,000 residents, unless Lake Hodges or Batiquitos Lagoon is developed with water sports activities. Lake Hodges/Kit Carson The master plan for development of a water recreation regional park has not been prepared. This next step is needed, since development pressure is considerable on the north, where additional land acquisition was pro- posed in the RPIS. Furthermore, tine City of San Diego Water Utilities D�apartment has declared 410 acres as surplus, a large portion of the usable area on the south. If this land is sold, or otherwise developed, its usefulness to the regional park will be gone. At least part of the w surplus land is being considered for a community park for the Rancho Bernardo community. The park certainly will'be used by the larger community, as is Kit Carson Park in Escondido. One additional concern at Lake Hodges is its use as a domestic water storage reservoir. Downstream users wish to use all they can, which would reduce the water level drastically. Water recreation uses'would require a stable water level for appropriate development along the shoreline. In addition, the Areawide Water (j mlity Management Plan has recommended that any changes in the use of Lake .- [lodges await the results of a study of the effects on Lake Hodges of infiltration of reclaimed water tL-ed upstream for agricultural irrigation. Lake Jennings The RPIS proposed expansion of the current ownership of the Helix Water District. Some 40-50 acres have been acquired to protect the reservoir as residential development takes place on the east and southeast. The County has leased some 225 acres and developed a p popular camping park with 7 tent sites and 56 full service camper and trailer hookups. Fishing is the {' only day use activity now available, on the area operated by Helix WD. The Helix WD well field lies in the flood plain of the San Diego River, now being studied for consideration as a regional park. The well fields might be a suitable link between the two parks. t� f� f 69 v Lake Wohlford Although Lake Wohlford was proposed as a regiatal park in the RPIS, no action has taken place. The limited existing facilities, a fishing pier and informal picnic area, continues to provide some recreation activities. Until Dixon Lake is fully utilized, it is unlikely that this public ownership area will be �.. developed. Lower Otay p, The County has leased 100 acres of City of San Diego land for development as Lower Otay Regional Park. It provides camping and day use facilities. The RPIS proposes future incorporation of Upper Otay Lake to provide more water - related recreation. However, Upper Otay is used to provide warm water fish to by stock other reservoirs. A WCB engineering study will determine if the dam can be modified to maintain the fishery pool; if so, the City will modify the dam and retain the fishery pool for ten years. @I The fishing program at Lower Otay was proposed for expansion in the City Lakes "" report, and'the Capital Improvement Program PY79 indicates that a comfort station"" and a launching ramp are proposed in the next few years. Quail Quail Botanical Gardens is a special purpose park related to a botimical garden resource. No further acquisition or development has taken place, although the RPIS proposed acquisition of 21 more acres by 1980. Fortuna Mountain Although Fortuna Mt. was indicated in the RPIS as a long-term park„ early acqui- sition of important parcels has been undertaken, in, addition to the acquisitions at Lake Murray and Cowles Mt. A Master Plan has been prepared and discussions of acquisition and development are continuing in a joint City/County committee. Lake Henshaw Lake Henshaw continues to be considered as a long-term facility. The dam is inadequate to impound the high water level once intended; the 18,000 acre- feet permitted (except for short-term storage) allows only a very low water c level. This limitation will require reevaluation of the water sports facilities which can be supported. As yet no further studies have been made. .r4 San Elijo Canyon The San Elijo Canyon park has not been discussed since the RPIS report, when Wilderness Gardens was acquired and suggested as an alternate for this park. It appears that this park can be eliminated from further consideration. { 70 n I, San Vicente The RPIS report suggested the addition of 486 acres of City land to the 405 i acre Minshall Ranch property of the County. The City Lakes Study in 1975 also proposed the further development for water recreation use, including expansion of the fishing program and development of picnic areas, hiking trails in conjunc- tion with a camping area below the dam. Trails around the lake were not advised due to the topography and incidence of wildlife and upland game. Both non - motorized and motorized boating (with water skiing) were considered appropriate if properly scheduled. Swimming was not recommended due to the physical char- acteristics of the shoreline. A major recommendation was that a aminimum water level be established that would be consistent with both the Water Utilities Department's requirements and rec- reational needs. The City's CIP proposed paving of the parking lot at San Vicente for FY84; no other capital outlay has been proposed. I4hile this lake is not the closest water recreation facility for large numbers of residents, it is close to many and it offers a very large water surface area (1069 acres) when full. further study should be made of day use facilities and possibly camping below the dam, as proposed in both studies. An interesting 64 proposal in the City Lakes Study was that a trail system linking the various parks in this area should be promoted. It noted that Sycamore Regional Park is located on the west, Minshall County Park Reserve on the east, Steltzer County Park Reserve to the south and Cactus County Park farther south adjacent to El Capitaa high School. In between on the southeast is BLM land (south of the Silvenvood Sanctuary of the Audubon Society) which might be available for trails. Several of these parks lie close to or within the San Diego River flood plain, I� an area now being studied as a possible regional park. The size of the public ownerships in the area is sufficient to establish the "outer limits" of continuous urban development in this part of the region. Sycamore Canyon The park was identified as a special purpose park in the RPIS. It was intended as a major off -road vehicle activity area. However, more detailed study by the County's Off -Road Vehicle Committee found the site unsuitable for such use. A location immediately to the south was also rejected -- for environmental reasons. In addition to the 1373 acres acquired from BUI, the County acqai,red , as a gift, the 320 acre Goodan Ranch, located on the northwesterly corner of the site. Mile some of the uses proposed in the RPIS appear to be suitable, it appears } that the regional park will require further study. 4 Vallecito The Vallecito Regional Park was recommended for expansion in the RPIS. The location of the park, removed from the urban area, makes it more difficult 71 for the County to operate than other parks. It has been suggested :in this review that the jurisdiction most able to operate a facility be asked to con- sider the possibility, in this case the State Department of Parks and Recreation, as part of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Wilderness Gardens San Diego County acquired 584 acre Wilderness Gardens in 1972, with funding from SWAP -- mall Wilderness Area Preservations. The site of an existing„ botanic garden, it has not been further developed. It was considered a possible alternate to San Elijo Canyon or Santa Margarita Canyon in the RPIS. Evaluation of Other Regional Parks ai The foregoing 20 parks were studied in detail in the RPIS because no, detailed planning had been accomplished by the County. The following 19i parks were the responsibility of other agencies or were in the process of being planned or developed by the county. In this section, each of the other 19 regional parks is evaluated andy; assessment is made of its role in the system. The park functions are based on the plans and programs adopted by the governmental planning agency �. for each park. «- Agua Caliente (General Recreation) ►a This desert park, designated "general recreation", remains unchanged in size and development since 1971. The location, over an hour's chive from the urban area, makes it more difficult for the County to operate and maintain than closer -in parks. For this reason, and others, it could be � considered mor., suitable for operation by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, as a unit of the Anza-Borrogo Desert State Park. This " possibility is now under consideration... Balboa Park (General Recreation) V. 114hile the Balboa Park site has remained at 1,158 acres since the RPIS report, it }na- absorbed a number of changes, some beneficial, some detri- mental. Numerous development irprovements have taken place: El. Prado has been closed to through traffic and landscaped and several buildAngs have been reconstructed. Eight additional acres have been developed with athletic fields at Morley Pield, and a new soccer field is under construc- tion. In 1978, two major structures, the Old Globe Theater and the Electrical Building, burned down; FDA grant funds are available to rebuild the latter. Funds are being solicited to rebuild the Old Globe Theater. Chollas Reservoir (General Recreation) Tine City of San Diego operates this general recreation regional park. A small 1S-acre reservoir is the nucleus of a day use facility serving the eastern part of San Diego. The current land -fill, designated as the site of a future golf course, will require further study. fj 72 J i, }' Recommended recreation activities include picnicking, playing boating, fishing and bicycle riding. This regional park is located closest to some 200,000 residents of the region. The open space linkage of the f park will be assured by the acquisition of Chollas Creek -Radio Canyon with open space band funds. 77 Dixon Lake (Water -Oriented) In 1977, the City of Escondido opened its water -oriented regional, park built around a water storage reservoir. Major recreation financing came # from a State Davis-Grunsky grant. Overnight camping, picnicking, boating and fishing are the primary recreation activities in this rocky -hill r7 setting. Trails and nature walks are especially suited to the area. The RPIS proposed that the 527-acre site be expanded to provide the necessary tn� open space and park character acreage, and added that the City of Escondido could operate this facility in conjunction with its Lake Woh1ford park, possibly using a combined staff. Dos Picos (General Recreation) Dos Picos is a small picnicking and family camping regional park of the County of San Diego. Construction was completed in 1971 using county funds and a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to construct SO family camp units, a caravan camping area, 19S family picnic tables and a large picnic area on a 78-acre site southwest of Ramona. A small pond will, allot,: fishing and boating as a future use. Trails of all types can extend. from Dos Picos as a base site. According to the RPlb, demands in 1990 would require an additional 100 acres, most of which can be provided by open space retention programs. A�,uthor alternative would be linkage to the City of San Diego -owned 400- acre Mt. 1,00dson through acquisition of trail easements and acquisition by the City or County of 95 acres of state GSA surplus land now for sale. t Guajome (General Recreation) Guajome Regional Park, located east of Oceanside in the San Luis Rey Valley, is a general recreation facility with picnicking, family camping, playing games, and trails. Boating and fishing are projected on a 30-acre lake. Guajomd could be developed as the major equestrian center of the +� north county, with riding stables and extensive network of trails. Initial development, providing day use facilities, was partially assisted by Land and Rater Conservation Rmd grants. Lh1lile the land owned by the county will be less than that necessary to meet 1990 demand, it appears that the difference can be preserved through land t owned by the City of Oceanside and the Corps of Engineers, flood plain { zoning, agricultural and open space easements and scenic preservation +.+► 9;ning. Guajome should continue under development and operation by the County of San Diego. �� 73 Heise (Ecological Preserve) The initial 211 acres of this mountain park was acquired by the County of San Diego from William Heise in 1967. The site has been developed with family camping units, a caravan and three primitive youth camping areas and 170 family picnic units. The 688 acres added to the initial area have made Heise an excellent site for an ecological reserve t.,, provide a portion of the county's arboretum botanical resource. State acquisitions expanding Ctryamaca Rancho State Park now reach north to the souther;- boundary of Heise Park, linking the two resource land areas. Operation should continue to be by the County of San Diego, unless the + State Dept. of Parks and Recreation would be interested in acquiring the entire park as an addition to Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. International Park/Border Field (Ecological Preserve) '# In every study considering the site, International Park/Border Field has �. been designated for preservation as a prime estuarian resource. RPIS classifies this park as an ecological preserve and recommends a very low -intensity pattern of activities, including picnicking, fishing, hiking ". and nature trails and bicycling. , The state has acquired 657 acres (owned and leased) from the federal govern- ment. The State Department of Parks and Recreation had plar,Led expansion of this park from private owners in the Tia Juana S?ougli. This effort has been picked up by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional lands may be acquired in the Tijuana Valley, under the City of San Diego's Open Space program. The City also is studying sites in the galley for possible location of a sewage treatment plant. All further detailed studies of land use in the valley idll require careful consideration of the estuary. Lake Morena (Water -Oriented) The County of San Diego acquired Lake Morena from the City of San Diego Utilities Department to create a water -oriented regional park. An adequate water supply to maintain the lake surface at the level necessary for inten- sive water recreation and fishing has been found to be quite costly. T7ie , development proposed has been curtailed to a general recreation park with era minimal development and a limited amount of fishing and boating. The parcel size, 3277 acres, is adequate through 1995 and beyond. Lal:e Miramar (Water -Oriented) rW Lake Miramar is a 162-acre reservoir on a 473-acre site. It is a City of 4,1 San Diego water storage facility with recreational fishing and related activities. The day use, Walter -oriented regional park classification calls for primarily boating and fishing with supportive picnicking acid trails, Acquisition of adjacent land for a community park is proposed in th the Scripps -Miramar Community Plan. Urban design techniques will be used to protect the appearance of the surrounding area and to control erosion. t A Lake Master Plan is needed prior to any development. I 74 r r� mission Bay (Water -Oriented) Mission Bay has been developed by the City of San Diego into the world's I' largest agaatic park with 4,225 acres of land and water devoted to pleasure boating, water skiing, fishing, swimming, sailing and racing. Mission Bay r" serves the region with these activities and tourism with hotF':, restaurants, �i marinas and Sea World, the large privately developed water show tourist facility. In the past five years extensive acreages have been developed for pic- nicking, playing g�s ►hikin and bicycle riding. llie wildlife preserve of the University of Califorlia has been retained, and additional City-avned area also has been :uservc,0. Campland, a privately Tieraied urban campground, has 524 spaces oil. 15 acres. DeAnza Trr..:;lwr Harbor has 254 camper sites and 508 trailer or ;-, mobile homes on 699 acres. Mission Bay may be one place that could acco- mmodate those persons desiring beach carping who cannot be served at state beaches. However, additional family camping is not now contemplated. In fact, it has been proposed that this area be returned to full public park and recreatiorx use when the current lease expires. Youti. group camping, howevn:, has been approved for Fiesta Island and the utilities constriction rl has been funded• b; Palomar Mountain State Park (General Recreation) This is one of tiie choice high mountain parks in the region, with lush forests and abundant wildlife in a mountain valley setting at an elevation of 5,300 feet. This state park has 1,886 acres surrounded by the Cleveland National Forest only a fW miles from the Palomar Observatory. Several campgrounds provide S1 high -quality family camp units, a fishing �-+ pond quid an extensive neworh of nature, riding and hiking trails. The San Diego City -County Camp is located at Palomar Motntain State Park. Picnic tables and vista points are provided for day visitors. Additional camp units will be required to meet 1980 demand, preferably in a new campground of about 25 tmits. A very high open space ratio mist be maintained at this pa;k. No additional acreage is required for the state to meet reemation demands. a Potrero (General Recreatinn) Potrero Regional Park has been developed as an overnight canping/picnicking site in a grove of Live Oak among the arid foothills. County funds and a Land and Water Conservation grant provided 18 family camp units and a caravan camping area, 200 family picnic tables and group picnic area an a f ; 119-acre site. the park is intensely developeu on its own acreage with park character lands provided by the surrounding agricultural and grazing lands. No additional land acquisition is contemplated. Operation should be continued by the County of San Diego. �-= 75 r San Clemente (General Recreation) The "natural" park, located in a canyon along State Route 52, is a resource - based day use (general recreation) park. The emphasis of activates is on a system of lineal trails for hiking, riding and nature trails, supported by picnicking and playing games areas. A short bicycle trail should be included to allow passage through the park. All activites will continue to be ' at a minimum development level, to preserve 'the natural resource park aspect. San Dieguito (General Recreation) San Dieguito Regional Park is a 122-acre day use general recreation park of ¢� t the County of San Diego. With limited size, the site provides fairly intense -usage of active facilities, especially in family and group picnick- ing, playing games, and in a youth building. Group camping is allowed for organized youth groups only, under stipulations of the land gift. Bicycling, hiking, riding and nature trails also are included. San Pasqual (Special Purpose) t San Pasqual is the site of the San Diego Wild Animal Park of the Zoological Society of San Diego on land owned by the City of San Diego. This special wa purpose park of 1,800 acres displays a wide variety of animals frog: all parts of the world. Visitors are transported through the park on a slow � and quiet five -mile long monorail train allowing as natural a feeling as possible in this park where animals roam freely. The adjacent one -acre San Pasqual Battlefield State Historic Monument will be expanded by a 47.7 acre lease from the City of San Diego; the State Dept. of Parks and Recreation will build a $2 million: interpretive center on the expanded site. Santa Margarita CQ.nyon (Water -Oriented) The Fallbrook Public Utility District and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation propose to build Fallbrook Reservoir on the Santa Margarita River about *� two miles north of Fallbrook. In conjunction with DeLuz Reservoir eight miles downstream, the reservoir would supply water to the Fallbrook com- 'R amity and Camp Pendleton. The project currently is under review by the iu! federal Office of Management and Budget. No recreational facilities are intended unless the reservoir is built. Torrey Pines State Reserve (Ecological Preserve) This nature park, centered around the very scarce stand of Torrey Pines, is one of two coastal reserves of the State Park System. The 1,031-acre site is a day use facility providing limited general recreation in addition to its specialized botanical interests and nature trails. The ocean : frontage, bluffs and portion of the Los Penasquitos Lagoon preserve biotic communities of rocky intertidal zone, sandy intertidal zone, neaxshore, coastal salt marsh and maritime pine forest. 76 J i {� The ocean frontage provides some sandy beach for swimming. In addition, the RPiS allocates demand for picnicking, playing games, ocean fishing, nature walking, bicycling, and hiking, in keeping with the ecological preserve classification. .N. The state is preparing to buy 588 additional acres for natural preserve. No additional land acquisition is required for regional park purposes. The park should continue as a State Reserve., Other Proposals In addition to the Regional Implemenrvtation program, the RPIS proposed that: +� The State of California, as its share of Target 178 Program, should: - Construct 2S0 camp units at San Onofre State Beach. - Construct 315 carp units at Silver Strand State Beach. - Purchase all necessary land and do initial construction for Internatibnal Park. - Complete acquisition program at Torrey Pines State Reserve. - Add additional campground at Palomar Mountain State Park. F1 - Expand Cuyamaca Rancho State Park by 30 percent. - Extend the California Riding and Hiking Trail to Calavera Lake. - Establish and operate the Buena Vista State Reserve. - Place on the 1972 ballot a statewide park and recreation band issue of at least $250 million, with a share for local governments. The following are the results: San Oriofre will add 210 camp sites with sewer and water hookups in 1979. _y The park now has 273 campsites. s; Silver Strand State Beach has no camp units, mainly due to opposition from Coronado residents. At International Park or Border Park the State t_< Department of Parks and Recreation has dropped its condemnation effort; however the federal Department of Fish and Wildlife Service has taken over the effort, to acquire the environmentally valuable estuary. #{ Additional acquisitions have been completed at Torrey Pines State Reserve. Additional lands will be acquired in the Los Penasquitos Lagoon as noted previously. t Palomar Mt. State Park has no new campground. 'There is a possibility of the State taking over operation of the Palomar County Park. Cuyamaca F Rancho State Park has been expanded by adding some 1,748 acres. 77 The California Riding and Hiking Trail has been discontinued, i Buena Vista Ecological Reserve has been established. �i Much of the State's additional acquisition and development in San Diego County was made possible by the two statewide bond issues--$250 million , in 1974 and $210 million in 1976, with approximately ten percent of each bond issue allocated for State acquisition and development in the San Diego Region. In addition, a total of almost $13.million was provided for various San Diego County governments which then earmarked over $8 million for regional parks. The RPIS proposed that: 1 o The U. S. Forest Service sho;ild as its share of the Target 178 Program: Construct the Pacific Crest Trail in cooperation with the County o and other public agencies. Construct approximately 17, additional camp units in the Cleveland National Forest. The Cleveland National Forest has reduced the numlier of sites eA in several campgrounds. However, new campgrounds are proposed, which will increase the total number of units by more than 200 by 1983. The CNF has added significant lands, including some endangered by inappropriate development. CNF has constructed the Pacific Crest Trail within the Forest, 40 miles of the planned 115 miles within San Diego County. a*' ,i J 78 r� 0 C1IAPTER 8 REGIONAL PARK SXSrM, DEVELM EN' PROGRAM: 1979-199S Li I CiM ER 8 �.s REGIONAL PARK SYSTEM DEVELOREff PROGRAM: 1979-1995 The RPIS described the concept of a balanced regional park system in some M detail. By and large, these comments are still valid, stressing the need for physical diversity, diversity of use patterns, a range of public use intensity, and widespread locations throughout the urban and rural areas of the County. The rather detailed examinations of the suitability of each of the then -existing and proposed sites are as appropriate now as in 1971. But the demand forecasts, some of the acreage standards and allocation + factors, and the existing resource system have changed, in some cases, to a considerable degree. For that reason, it is necessary to reexamine the development program for the regional park system. The ultimate focus of this report is also quite different from that of the RPIS. .In the earlier study, the demand analysis and various allocation procedures were a backdrop to the major effort, -which was a set of specific physical plans for each of the individual parks in the first phase of the system. tie In this study, the emphasi - on the changes in demand and an action program rather than on physical planning. Much of the action program III involves iuVleanenting the basic recommendations and the physical plans first developed in the RPIS, or at least implementing those portions of the RPIS plans that are still pertinent to changed conditions. The Total Regional Park System Size Objective In normal circumstances, the total regional park system acreage objectives established on the basis of the newly developed demand functions would be �. the obvious choice. This approach called for a current -year (1978) system requirement of about 36,000 acres, increasing to about 62,000 acres in 1995; the development of these estimates is discussed in detail in Chapter Q. It would be the logical "normal" choice for three main reasons: o Future requirements are derived from the most recent demand data available in the State, which will undoubtedly be found to be nuch `4 closer to the new State -survey data for San Diego County than the old PARIS data eirployed in the RPIS. o Future requirements allow for growth in per capita recreational participation, which the RPIS projections did not. o Future system requirements are based on more realistic unit and acreage factors than the RPIS projections. ` Acceptance of this system size objective would assure San Diego County of t 81 a reasonable regional park system, designed to realistic but by no means extravagant standards. It would also entail extensiive additional land acquisitions -- about 19,000 acres beyond the total of what is now oimed �- plus what is now considered "potentially available." In view of current County land use trends, a comritment to a park system reaching 62,000 acres by 1995 must be made quickly. After a few more years, it may be almost impossible to find enough undeveloped land in suitable locations to provide for the system's long-term growth. Unfortunately, the current emphasis on frugality may force local government 11 to back off from what would be considered a normal system by established standards. In that case, it may be desirable to consider the alternative 0-1 1995 objective of 45,000 acres, as discussed in the last portion of Chapter 4, The mathematical derivation of this projection is straightforward; .; in it is the implicit assu.rption of "no improvement" over current system standards, which are lagging behind the RPIS recommendations already. Obviously this can be accepted only in the context of a "botton line" or a "final fall -back position" objective --far from desirable, and the minimam , that could reasonably be considered, € Achievement of this "minimmr" objective by 1995 would still require that absolutely all of the additional lands listed as "potentially available" �- on Table 7-1 be acquired, plus an additional 2,000 acres. The acceptability of a regional park system built to these specifications would depend to a high degree on the ability of local government to improve their control over adjacent land uses, so as to decrease the needs for public ownership of areas that are pr_;marily for buffering purposes. k Prior -sties ,for Park Development !� Even though both "normal" and "minimum" total system size objectives involve development of all the available and potentially available park lands currently listed in the park inventory, priority setting is important, to assure that the most pressing needs are met first. Accordingly, updated priorities were assigned_ to all of the regional parks. The RPIS called for prioritization (for only half the parks) on the basis �- of three criteria: pressures of recreational demand, physical attributes y of the resource, and susceptibility of the resource to development for other than park purposes, or endangerment. 'These priority criteria are still valid, and were employed again in this review. This time an additional criterion was added: population readily served- � that is, relative numbers of County residents living within 15 :..._,_cs drive of a park. The data employed were developed from the resident population allocation process, as described in Chapter 7. This new criter- ion accounts for energy conservation and air quality advantages by reducing WJ automobile miles traveled for recreational trips. It also tends to increase priorities for parks for which alternative means of transportation ,,%find , be rest effective. kI The total syster:� priorities, based m. the tour criteria, are smnnarized A f in Table 8-1. The results of this exercise suggest that 16 of the regional NJ 82 ' Table 8-1 Regional Parks Evaluati,-.. F� �b tips .0 Range: L0 -High Y,`15tib e5 �e e0.6 Agua Caliente 1 0 1 0 2 Agua Ifedionda Lagoon 3 2 2 2 7 ~n Balboa 3 0 3 3 9 Bataquitos Lagoon 3 3 2 3 11 Border Field 2 3 2 2 9 1-21 Buena Vista Lagoon 3 0 1 1 5 Chollas 2 1 3 3 9 Cowles Mt./Fortuna Mt. 1 3 1 3 8 Dixon Lake 2 0 3 2 7 Dos Picos 1 0 1 0 2 El Monte 2 2 2 1 7 Guaj ow 3 1 3 3 10 Heise 2 0 2 0 4 Lake Calavera 3 3 2 2 10 Lake Heiishaw 2 0 1 0 3 Lake Hodges 2 2 2 3 9 Lake Jennings 1 1 3 3 8 e Lake Moreno 1 0 1 0 2 Lake 1-array 1 3 3 3 10 Lake Wohlfoid 2 0 1 1 4 Los Penasquitos 2 3 2 3 10 Lower Otay 2 0 1 1 4 Lake Miramar 2 2 2 3 9 Mission Bay 3 0 3 3 9 Palomar Mt. State Park 1 0 1 0 2 Potrero 1 0 1 0 2 Quail 2 0 1 2 5 San Clemente Canyon 1 1 1 3 6 San Dieguito 1 0 1 2 4 San Diego River 2 3 2 2 9 San Elijo Canyon 1 1 1 1 4 San Elijo Lagoon 1 1 1 2 5 San Pasqual 1 0 1 1 3 Santa Margarita 1 0 2 1 4 San Vicente 1 0 2 1 4 Sweetwater 3 2 3 3 11 Sycamore 1 0 1 1 3 Torrey Pines State Park 2 2 2 3 9 Vallecito 1 0 1 0 2 Wilderness Gardens 1 0 1 0 2 83 U 4' C B A A A B A A B C B A C A C A A C A C A C A A C C B B C A C B C C C A C A C C parks should be considered for early action --for master plan studies, acqui- sition and/or development, as appropriate to the individual site. Regional -Park Action Recommended' Balboa Revised Master Plan and continued development (City of San Diego) Batiquitos Lagoon Acquisition of lagoon (Wildlife Conservation Board) and regional park acreage (County) , Border Field Acquisition q (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ' and City or San Diego) Chollas } as ter Plan and development (City of San Diego) Cowles Dtt./Fortuna }Qt. Continued planning and acquisitions (City of San Diego, County), Guajome Continued development (County) owl Preservation of area north of St. Hwy. 76 (Oceanside) ' Lake CalaxTra Revised Master Plan (County) Acquisitions (County and Carlsbad) Lake Hodges/Kit Carson Duster Plan (County and Cities of San Diego and Escondido) Acquisitions (County and Escondido) Retention (City of San D:ago) �- Lake Jennings Master Plan, to ir.-iude day use (County and Helix WD) Lake Murray Continued planning and acquistions (City of San Diego and County) a� Los Penasquitos Continued planning and acquisitions (City of spa San Diego and County) Lake Miramar Master Plan and acquisitions (City of San Diego) 4j Mission Bay Continued planning and development (City of San Diego) z �3 San Diego River Conceptual Plan (County) Sweetwater Continued planning, acquisition and development Torrey Pines State Acquisition and development (State Dept. of =� Beach and State Reserve Parks and Recreation) Of course, as previously mentioned, ultimate development of the system will require that all of the specific projects recommended in the RPIS, asi amended by the data in Chapter 7, be implemented. 84 Priorities for New Park Acquisition Both the "normal" and "minimum" total regional park system size objectives, discussed above, involve some additional land acquisition beyond what is now already owned or designated as "potentially available." The normal objective would involve some 19,000 acres of additional land, much of which it would necessarily be in the form of totally new parks rot presently desig- nated on the master plan or in the RPIS. The minimum objective would -- require an additional 2,000 acres: much of this might be obtained through expansions of existing parks, but, again, at least one or two new parks might also be involved. Although identification and evaluation of new park sites was not within r� the scope of this study, a few suggestions were explored by the Committee. These can be evaluated within the same context as the existing parks, as follows. c, Ci_ ty Lakes The City of San Diego prepared The Cit4LLa_keess Recreational Development Plan in 1975. This resort evaluateT e�rTi potential. for recreational use of the City lakes, while recognizing the lakes primary purpose of storage of domestic water supply. The report made recommendations for six L of the eight City lakes: Murray, Miramar, Otay, El Capitan, San Vicente and Sutherland. (It noted that a study was being prepared by the County for Lake Hodges Recreational park. However, this has not been done.) The I report proposed that there be no development at Lake Barrett other than a primitive area fishing program, due to the difficulty of access. all the other lakes were proposed for multiple recreational uses. Since Lakes ri Murray, Miramar, Otay and San Vicente were considered in the RPIS, such recreational uses were allocated to them as part of the total regional park system. The uses proposed at Lakes El Capitan and Sutherland are in ad- dition to proposals of the RPIS and would increase recreational opportunit3.es i..� or provide for some of those possibly lost elsewhere. Further study of El Capitan, especially the land below .the dam, may be part of the County's current study of the Upper San Diego River. Further studies of Lake Sutherland should be undertaken in conjunction with the Cleveland National Forest since use of CNF land would be desirable in development of a regional park. +-a Other Sites Several other areas are considered possible for regional parks. One is �.. Loveland Reservoir located within the Cleveland National Forest, but owned and operated by the Metwater Authority. The lake could provide an added opportunity for fishing, but facilities development might prove costly due to steep terrain. Another area with potential to become a regional park is the lower San Dieguito River Valley. The Wildlife Conservation Board intends to purchase +-= 124 acres of wetlands for wildlife preservation and coF.Patible public use. The Lagoon area will be considered for a regional park under one alter- native of the Local Coastal Program. The entire river area is a top i 85 4.r priority for open space acquisition by the City of San Diego. Thus, this entire river valley could be examined for its potential as a regional park. Still another area, now under study by San Diego County staff, is the upper San Diego River -- from Santee Lakes to Lake E1 Capitan. A regional park along this section of the river would provide the park closest to 200,000 residents in 1995. Lake Cuyamaca, while not a regional park, does provide new fishing facil- ities, partially funded by the Wildlife Conservation Board. It also has about 75 self-contained RV campsites. Poway Lake too provides fishing and some other recreational activities (including camping), partially funded by the State Park Bond Act of 1976. Improved Buffer Zoning It is well recognized that the effective size of a regional park can be "increased" by adoption and enforcement of compatible land uses adjacent to the park. Such land use control is important now; it will be partic- ularly important in the future, especially if the final regional park system remains closer to the "ninimam" than the "normal" total size ob- jectives. 'too often in the past, public bodies have found that they were forced to spend public money to buy land to prevent imminent conversion to uses in direct conflict with pa:;. use. If obtaining public money for park acqui- sition becomes even more difficult in the future, there will be greater need to substitute appropriate zoning and land use tontmal practices for acquisition. The potential ne its are very large. Note, for example, that in the RPIS formula, t .; amount of land required for activity -specific use is multiplied by 7 to arrive at a total park size requirement, with most of this additional land needed "for park character, buffer, and feeling of openness." Reducing this multiplier from 7 to 6--a real possibility through good land use control --would decrease the total 1995 "normal" system land requirement by almost 9,000 acres. Real emphasis on appropriate zoning and land use control on properties adjacent to regional parks is, therefore, urged upon all levels of govern- ment. It is certainly the best alternative to still more expensive land acquisition. Retaining Existing Public Lands As indicated in Chapter 7, at least some of the lands considered as "poten- tially available" for future regional park use are actually being considered for disposal by the public agencies that now awn the property. Since even the minimum long-term system, objectives require preservation of all appro- priate lands within the park system, every effort should be made to preserve any such public lands from alternate uses or disposal. Only when park Master Plans have been prepared and approved can disposal of "excess" parcels be considered appropriate. 86 r User Fees �•- The goals statements emphasize the need for as much recreation resource ! financial support as possible. The need for obtaining as much direct funding as possible is obvious, and most recreation management agencies are already implementing increased user fee programs. In general, it is easier --and possibly more equitable as well --to l.tv user fees on the basis of automobile entry rather than on personal entry. This technique also can contribute to inproving access, relieving internal circulation transportation problems and reducing the land area needed for parking. Several specific suggestions for user fee approaches are con- tained in the Coastal Access Study; perhaps the most important is the need + for a Countywide, coordinated recreation area parking fee policy and program. Reexamination of Camping Just one of the ten "basic" recreation activities included in the analyt- ical system that ultimately determines future park acreage requirements — camping --accounts for over 37 percent of the total land requirements, under the RPIS methodology. In view of the high demands for camping, it is apparent that some reexamination of the role of camping in the regional park system is needed. One approach to this reexamination was explored in considerable detail in Chapter 4: use of a much higher campsites -per -acre factor in determining i total land requirements. The higher factor is reasonable, in light of the fact that the original factor, in the RPIS, is at the very low end of �t the nationally -recognized spectrum, reflecting a type of camping emriron- �; ment more appropriate to the eastern portion of the County than the western. The higher factor was used in the final, ad)usted system land requirement estimates, so adoption of this total system alternative means de facto acceptance of the much -increased camping standard. Some might want to go even further. It could reasonably be argued that a large share of the camping provided in western San Diego County is used by tourists as an inexpensive accommodation for a basically urban tourist destinatio,,. Under these circumstances, then, it might be reasonable to retain the existing camping in regional parks at the present low levels of intensity, but to plan that virtually all future expansion in camping accommodations be the province of private enterprise. There is already a great deal of private camping in the County, as documented in the Appendix; private operators could undoubtedly provide the additional capacity. ` Alternatively, some of the additional capacity could be developed and operated by private enterprise within the existing regional parks. f 6 Greater private investment in camping facilities could be encouraged by increasing the user fees at public sector resources. Right now, there is little question but that the general public is subsidizing low-cost tourist two accommodations at most of the public sector facilities that offer very attractive low -density sites at low prices. Increasing these user fees would therefore serve two goals --generating more park revenue and encour- 4+ aaing private enterprise to provide future capacity. 87 i.r In any event, there are also indications of need for more rigorous enforce- ment of existing limitations on length of stuy at many recreational camp- grounds --public and (especially) private. Some sites were originally estab- lished as campgrounds and/or RV parks primarily to serve tourists, but instead have become largely parks for permanent or semi -permanent RV residents. Originally, length -of -stay guidelines and enforcement rules were specified as conditions of land use authorization, but, in many casts, operators an not held to these rules. Clearly, additional camping capacity could be developed by mole vigorous enforcement and provisions for enforcement should be incorporated into any future RV`camping land use pPrmi.ts. Uj 88 PI APPUMVILUS =� {r P� r., APPENDIX A - CAMPING AND CAMPGROUNDS In RPIS methodology, camping accounts for far more of the total regional park system land requirements than any other activity. Accordingly, camping warrants detailed examination. The RPIS proposed that camping areas be developed in several regional parks; however, not all of the ►' necessary areas have been acquired. As of January 1979, only 10 of the 28 regional parks proposed to provide camping have developed sites; 7 have adequate land. Four more have land available in public ownership, + ,.� but not now included in the regional park. Therefore, a reevaluation of Y the policy of providing public camp sites appears to be in order. l i€ Demand The 1980 need for camping areas is 920 acres (14,720 sites) , increasing rw to 1,390 acres (22,240 sites) in 1995. t Supply The State Department of Parks and Recreation PARIS Inventory indicated a 1976 total of 1772 acres of public land for camping with 2,975 camp sites. (In addition 304 acres were available for caravans, groups or organization camping with space for 3,614 guests.) Since the region offers a wide variety of climatic conditions with ocean, mountain, and desert environment, it is the vacation destination of many campers. To meet the intense demand, many organizations have provided { their own group campgrounds (not always available to others) and the private sector has responded as well. The campgrounds which are available to the public indicate a total of 4,988 camp sites, as shown on Table A-2. Furthermore, private camping parks plus use permits issued for such use until 1973 show a possible additional 2,635 sites available. Due to a i number of factors, this latter number is doubtful: some parks may not y. have been built; some have changed ownership and revised the number of units; most importantly many sites may no longer be available to vacationing a campers. The County Health Department staff has found recreation vehicles in the same location in a yearly check of sites, although the approved time limit is 60 days with a 30 day extension, Enforcement, of course, is difficult. Thus, many recreational vehicles parks may, in fact, be r providing low cost housing, rather than low cost recreational areas. 60 Thus, it is important that approval of recreation vehicle camping parks carry a time limit (probably a winter 60 day maximum with 30 days extension, 60 and a much shorter stm•::cr limit.) Otherwise camping parks may become permanent resident camps, without meeting the requirements of mobile home raiks. This is especially imrportant in urban areas, where new RV camping Y parks are much higher density than the destination type suburban or rural parks. For example, two new urban RV camping parks are Circle RV Ranch, E1 Cajon, on 7 acres with 185 sites, (26 sites per acre), and Paradise by the Sea, Oceanside, ai 5.2 acres with 104 sites (20 sites per acre). �- Rural RV parks usually have a nuch lower density on the site, as well as an open space setting. Examples are Pinezanita Trailer Ranch in Julian, 26 acres with 130 sites (5 sites per acre) and Rancho Corrido in Pauma Halley, 200 acres with 120 sites (less than one site per acre). LL Public campgrounds in parks usually provide day use facilities as well as camping areas. Of course, the day use facilities are also used by occupants of private campgrounds as well as local residents. Therefore, it is not possible to relate public camping areas to the total acreage+ of a park. The usual design standard has been approximately-4 sites per 4A , acre for the camping areas, plus the additional park area. This high -standard along with the lower price and the generally high level of maintenance has made public facilities very popular. Although time limits are enforced, campers make reservations well in advance, so that it is possible to move rr3 from park to park and back again all year. Thus, it is almost impossible to meet the recreational camping demand, especially in a period of severe `w housing shortage.,* Recommendation 3 It is recommended that local governments: 1) encourage the private sector to provide RV camping parks, 2) limii.t the time any one RV may stay in an RV park and require the park operator to post a notice indicating the time limit, 3) provide a reasonable level of enforcement, 4) development campgrounds only when it can be shown that the private sector cannot reasonably provide the,facilities, or special circum- stances require public involvement (e.g., handicapped camping areas), S) review private sector pricing annually to assure that public sector campground fees ar: not so low as to inhibit private sector development. " 92 TABLE A-1 RPIS REGIONAL PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ping Proposed Lan Acquired Developed .General Recreation Parks (15) Agua_Caliente X X Balboa Calavera Lake Chollas Reservoir Dos Picos X X El MDnte Fortima.Mountain X Guaj ore X Palomar bJbuntain State Park X X Potrero X X San Clemente San Dieguito San Elij b Canyon Sweetwater X* ValTecito X* Water Recreation Parks (13) Agua Hedionda Lagoon D9.xoh !Ake X X Lake Renshaw X* Lake Hodges/Kit Carson Lake Jennings X X Lake Morena X X Lake Murray/Cowles Mt. Lake Wohlfbrd X* Miramar Reservoir Mission Bay X X. Otay Reservoir X X San Vicente Reservoir X Santa Margarita Canyon X Ecological Preserves (7) Batiquitos Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon Heise X X International Park/Border Field _.X Los=Penasquitos Sam Elijo Lagoon Torrey Pines State Park Special Purpose Parks (4) Quail San Pasqual Sycamore Canyon X Wilderness Carden X *Land in public ownership, but not designated for camping. 95 Day Use Only APPENDIX A - TABLE A-2 CAMPGROUNDS - SAN DIEGD REGION MINI - OWNER _ CAMPGROUND TOTAL ACRES NO. OF SPACES tot FEE San Elij o SB 39 171 $4.00 STATE South Carlsbad SB 45 226 4•.00 DEPT. OF Sari Onofre SB 2890 313 PARKS & Anza-orrego Desert SP ? 395 2.00 RECREATION Cuym-aaca Rancho SP ? 182 4.00 Palomar Mtn SP 1886 21 4.00 Subtotal 730g Cibbets Flat 6* 14, 3.00 Burnt Rancheria 85* 108 3.00 AND 106 NA IONAL Boulder Oaks 10A None FOREST Fry Creek 30* 20 2.00 Indian Flats 12* 18 2.00 Oak Grove 20* 90 2.00 Observatory 36* 44 2.00 Black Canyon 14* 22 2.00 Subtotal BUREAU Lark Canyon 1 10. 00 OF LAND White Arrow 5* 8 Nonp MANAGEMENP Cottonwood 5* 29 None Subtotal - 7 INDIAN Viej as reservation 130 82 4.00 RESEWA- La Jolla Indian Reservation 15 17S 3.00 TIONS Ios Coyotes Indian Reservation 10 1.00 ? Subtotal S•'a DIE -GO Agua Caliente Regional Park COUNTY William Heise Regional Park Vallecito Regional Park Dos P.icos Regional Park Palomar Mountain County Park Lower Otay Recreation Area Lake Jennings Regional Park Lake Morena Regional Park Potrero Regional Park *Campground only C41PGMUNDS - SAN DIEGO REGION Page 2 MINI - TOTAL N0. OF MLM OWNER- CAMPGROUND ACRES SPACES FEE _ PRIVATE Silver Don's Mobile Est. 16 10 4.50 OR AS Pinezanita Trailer Ranch 26 130 4.00 NOTED KQ Ranch Camping 110 118 4.00 Rancho Corrido 200 120 5.00 All Seasons RV PK-CG 24 10S 4.00 Lake Wohlford Resort 120 200 3.00 Dixon Lake (City of Escondido) 527 45 4.00 Oak Knoll CG 11 45 5.00 Campers' Paradise 49 75 4..7S Lilac Oaks Cnmpg-io and 56 75 5.00 Woods Valley Kampground 21 89 5.00 Brewer Trailer Park 10 14 1.50 Bailey's Camp 20 35 ? Oak Creek CG 9S 18 2.50 Campland Mission Bay (City of S.D.-Lease) 15 524 8.00 Surf & Turf Travel Trailer Park 57 166 6.50 Santa Fe Travel Trailer Park 20 131 6.50 Vacationer Travel Park 7 160 6.00 Tr-Atel-San Diego 1 25 6.00 Circle RV Ranch 7 185 ? nak r Ac+ D­�L 1?83 6.00 High Land East S 19 4.00 Mt. Empire Recreation Park 26 28 ? DeAnza Trailer Harbor (City of S.D.-Lease) 70 24S 9.00 Rancho Los Coches 12 33 3.50 Lake Morena Trailer Resort 7 24 ? Acme Trailer Park 4 4 4.00 Barrett Lake Trailer Park 25 104 ? Live Oak Springs 300 205 ? Stallion Oaks Resort 16 36 ? The Trailer Ranch 1 14 4.00 Outdoor World 540 311 ? Al's Trailer Haven S 6 3.50 Bernardo Shores 141P 9 124 4.50 Cavalier Motor Hotel ? 17 5.00 San Diego Met KOA S 110 5.50 Pio Pico Park 84 234 8.00 Diamond Jacks 35 26 ? Skyline Ranch 40 18 ? Elfin Forest Vacation Ranch 100 150 3.50 Siesta Nei & RV Park 5 25 3.50 Motel 8 & RV'Park 4 43 6.00 Border Gate RV Park 9 179 6.50 Banner Recredtion Ranch 65 47 4.00 El Lorro Ranch Camp 98 135 4.50 95 M j. • MINI- ; TOTAL NO. OF N I OWNER CWGROIND_ ACRES SPACES FEE Lake Henshaw Resort 100 180 $4.50 i Tido's ►Motel Restaurant 8 IT Park 20 15 5.00 1 Fallbrook Kamp Retreat 15 54 4.50 N" Beach .Kamper Inn 1 70 6.00 Paradise by the Sea 5 104 8.50 Cuyan,aca Recreation & Park Dist. 133 .75 4.00 Subtotal 4,988'`' 0 �r s 96 tl� r U ri U L ra`3 Although they are not advertised, (and, therefore, possibly do not exist), additional campgrounds and/or special -use pemits or variances .for resort and recreation use are listed below: NO. OF NAME ACRES SPQ.CFS Aero 0. Center 22 192 Arnst, Willow Road 32 130 Artesian Lake 20 35 Campo Lake 105 28 Canyon City Lakes 97 75 Crestwood Lakes Recreation Ranch 290 446 I,16mny's Fishing Village 0 21 Double B Ranch 130 45 Hillside Caiu►pgrou nd 100 14 Holiday Hills -Resort 38 50 Indian- Hills Camp 82 100+ Jolly Squire Campground 47 60 Lilac Oaks Campground 40 45 Lydon Frante Trailer Park 12 52 Meyer's Trailer Ranch 7 12 Mobiland Camp 120 99 Oakzanita Springs Paxk 150 150 Old State Trail Ranch 91 278 Pair A Dice Campground 100 75 Picnic Lake Park •? 100 Rancho del Cielo 450 40 Rancho Romona Oaks 500 112 Speth Ocotillo Wells 37 105 Wagonland 160 230 Valley Fort Resort 8 28 Wagon Wheel Trailer Park 7 13 Warner Resort 40 100 TOTAL 2,685 + Ae. 2,635 + Sites GRAND IOTAL 10,389 Sources: Rand McNally Campgrounds - 1977 and San Diego Cotnty - Resort and Recreation Permits, 1973. CPO - 1979. 97 ri 4� n APPENDIX B - GOLF COURSES t i NO. OF _NAME OF GOLF COURSE PUBLIC HOLES PAR t Balboa Park Municipal Golf Course x 18 72 t Balboa Park Municipal Golf Course x 9 32 Borrego Roadrunner Club x 18 54 �- Carlton Oaks Country Club & Lodge x 18 72 Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course x 18 73 Circle R Golf Resort X 18 71 Club Circle Resort 9 27 Ll Colina Park Golf Course x 18 54 Coronado Golf Course x 18 72 Cottonwood Country Club 18 In, Cottonwood Country Club 18 72 ,j De Anza Desert Country Club 18 72 El Camino Country Club 18 71 rn Escondido Country Club x 18' 70 Fallbrook Golf $ Country Club x 18 72 La Costa Country Club 27 72 La, Jolla Country Club 18 72 Lake _San Marcos Country Club 18 72 Las Palmas Golf Course x 9 29 Lomas Santa Fe Country Club x 18 56 Lomas Santa Fe Country Club 1} 72 Meadow Lake Country Club x 18 72 Camp Pendleton Memorial Course 18 72 Naval Air Station Miramar 18 72 Naval Air Station 32nd Street 9 54 Sea & Air Course 18 63 Sail -Ho 9 79 Mission Bay Golf Course x 18 58 Navajo Canyon Country Club x 18 70 Oaks North Executive Course x 27 30 Oceanside -Carlsbad Country x 9 27 Oceanside Municipal Golf Course x 18 72 Osbrink Golf Club x 18 62 Pala Mesa Golf $ Tennis Club x 18 72 Pauma Valley Country Club 18 72 Presidio Hills Public Golf Course x 18 54 Rancho Bernardo Golf Club 18 71 Rancho Bernardo Inn Golf Courses x 18 71 kr x 27 90 Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course x 18 56 Rancho Penasquitos Country Club x 18 70 Rancho Santa Fe Golf Club 18. 71.7 River Valley Sports Center x 9 31 San Diego Country Club 18 72 San Luis Rey Country Club & Golf Resort x 18 72 99 t APPENDIX B - GOLF COURSES - Page 2 NO. OF NAME OF GOLF COURSE PUBLIC HOLES PAR San Vicente Country Club/Resort x 18 72 Singing Hills Golf Course x 18 61 x 18 72 x 18 73 Spindrift Pitch & Putt Course x 9 27 Stardust Country Club/Master Hosts Inn 27 36 x 9 27 Stoneridge Country Club x 18 72 Sun Valley Golf Course x 9 27 Tecolote Canyon Golf Course x 18 58 Torrey Pines Municipal Golf Course x 18 72 x 18 72 Vacation Village Hotel Golf Course x 9 27 Warners Golf Resort x 18 72 x 9 27 Lawrence Welk's Country Club Village x 18 54 Whispering Palms Golf $ Country Club x 27 2-36 1-35 Willowbrook Country Club x 9 70 Source: San Diego Convention F Visitors Bureau, 1977. CPO 1978. i 100 APPENDIX C WESTERN SAN DIEGO REGION r� Location No. swinming Pools -Oven to the Public - 1979 Oceanside 2 Brooks Street 3 Marshall Street San Marcos 7 Woodland Park (under construction) Escondido 9 Washington Park ., San Diego ° 14 Swanson Memorial (Standley Park) 15 Clairemont 17 Kearny Mesa 18 Allied Gardens 2S Mission Bay Pltmge 28 Kearns Memorial (Balboa Park) ^� 30 Colina Del Sol 34 Memorial 36 ;dartin L. King 48 Vista Terrace San Diego County 12 Collier Park - Ramona x Gtmther Pool - Gillespie Field, El Cajon �- (to be closed in 1979) 1" National City 41 Las Palmas Park r Chula Vista 43 Memorial Park 42 Rohr Park 4S Lana Verde Park Coronado 40 Strznd Way r La La Mesa 31 MacArthur Park f.i Padre Dam MWD T `a 19 Santee Lakes Park u } 101 L. F Appendix C Page 2 Location NO. Swimmin Pools - en to the Public - 1979 High School District 1 Tallbrook - Pallbrook High School 5 4 Vista - Lincoln Junior High School 11 Washington Junior High School Noway - Poway High School Grossmont High School District 20 30 Santana High School (under construction) Helix High School ^� 32 Grossmont High School 23 El Cajou Valley High School 24 Montgomery Middle School 37 38 Mt. Miguel High School (under construction,) 39 Monte Vista High School Valhalla High School 46 South Bay - Mar Vista High School Community College a.• G Palomar 16 San Diego Mesa 21 Grossmont 44 Southwestern' YMCA x 10 8 Forth Coast, .Encinitas ` 13 Palomar, Escondido 26 Northwest, Cliffridge Avenue, San Diego Peninsula, Valeta Street, San Diego 33 28 DOwntlon, 8th Avenue, San Diego Copley, Landis Street, San Diego '- 35 22 Jackie Robinson, 45th Street, San Diego John Davis, Dallas Street, La Mesa XI9CA 48 C Street, San Diego Total 46 pools + 3 to open in 1979 - 1 to close in 19/9 418- remaining pools in summer 1979 102 q / ' ©�= g } , q \ � \ q � � } � [ L E � [ :oes _ Qlbc-stla&. 6A__list l t § :2�r■�t7S !!]e m WPM .- ! � � Z I BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY c r" 1. California Department of Parks and Recreation, The Users Guide to PARIS-- 4 Park and Recreation Information System, August 3UV -- 2. California Department of Parks and Recreation, PARI_S_ Inventory of Outdoor Areas and Facilities, San_D5.ego County, 1974-6. 3. City of Oceanside Beach Park' _ utg .Study, Oceanside, CA., September 1972. 4. City of San Diego, The City Lakes Recreational _Developrient Plan, Decem- ber 1975. — ,,� S. Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region, Regional € n Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Regional Open Space Plan and Implementation Program, January 1974. — -- `' 6. Comprehensive Planning Organization, The San Diego Regional Coastal Access Study, J•unid 1978. 7. County of San Diego, Regional Parks Implementation Study, April 1972. i 8. PBQF,D, Inc:, Orange Count Recreation Needs and Regional Parks Study, various reports, 1 .979. 9, San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, Profile: San -Diego's Visitor Industry in 1982, December 1976. 10.,U. S. Department of Interior, Heritage Conserration end Recreation Service, 1978 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation PlanTask Force Reports, June and August 1978. eA 11. lVilliams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Progress Report - Recreation -Standards and Deficieng Analysis. Part of the California Statewide 19creat.Lon Needs alysis, une 978. 107