HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-21; City Council; 10792; Trails feasibility study' L"
".
D UJ
U ct.
4
z
e
z 0
..
5 a
$ z 3 0 0
ClTmF CARLSBAD - AGEND#ILL
P -
'AB# '5 79A TITLE:
MTG. 8 /2 1 /go
DEPT. PLN
TRAILS FEASIBILITY STUDY
DEPT.
CITY A
CITY N c 1 I I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Council (a) accept the report and
findings of the consultant; (b) direct staff to include a comprehensive trail program in the forthcoming Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan; and (c) direct staff to
Recreation elements with the inclusion of a comprehensive trail program.
prepare the draft General Plan Open Space and Parks and
I ITEM EXPLANATION
In July 1989, the Citizens Committee for the Review of Carlsbadls Open Space Plan and Programs completed its report to the City Council. The report included a number of recommendations, a principal one of which was to support the
planning and implementation of a Citywide trails system, to be
integrated into a comprehensive open space green belt system.
On January 2 I 19901 the Council approved a seven-task work program to address the items stemming from the Committee's
recommendations. The first task was to conduct a detailed
study of the fiscal and physical feasibility of implementing
the proposed trail system. The City contracted with the firm of Wallace Roberts & Todd to conduct the study. The consultant
was assisted through a series of workshops held over several
months with members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Citizens Committee for the Review of Carlsbad's Open Space
Plan and Programs.
The consultant's first charge was to refine the physical layout of generalized trail alignments suggested in the original report of the Citizens Committee for the Review of Open Space. The intent was to determine whether trails could be physically connected in a logical system, given the physiography, environmental constraints, ownerships, and existing patterns of land development within the City. As is detailed in the
consultant's report, a comprehensive trail system does indeed appear to be physically feasible. The study suggests a systerr including some 56 miles of trail segments and loops, staging areas, and view points. The system would wind throughout all
parts of the City, potentially interconnecting with trails fron
surrounding jurisdictions, and include a variety of "trail
experiences" ranging from rugged back-country hiking to street
and off-road bicycling to segments accessible by thc
handicapped.
The second major charge of the consultant was to estimate thc
fiscal feasibility of the proposed system. The analysi: involved two components: a) determining the typical costs 01 land acquisition, capital construction, and maintenance, and b) identifying alternative means of financing these costs. The
W Q
r *. I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 'd, YfA
w
details of the consultant's findings are included in the report, with a summary contained in the Fiscal Impact section below.
Finally, the report identifies nearly three dozen policy and action issues which the City needs to address in order to implement the proposed program.
Administrative drafts of the trail feasibility study were
presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 18,
1990 and to the Planning Commission on June 20, 1990. Both
groups had a number of questions and concerns which were requested to be forwarded to the City Council. The principal concern of both commissions is that the assumptions used in the
consultant's estimates for costs for land acquisition may be low. The Planning Commission also felt that the proposed new
Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements, which are pending
consideration, should be presented to the Commission both with and without the trail system included. These matters are discussed in more detail in the attached memorandum to the City Manager (Exhibit 2), and the minutes of the Planning Commission, meeting of June 20, 1990 (attached as Exhibit 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Conducting this feasibility study and its acceptance by the City Council does not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The adoption of General Plan Elements including a trail system and subsequent actions for the acquisition and construction of the system would be subject to environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The consultant's report suggests that the following approximatc
costs (1990 dollars) may be incurred by the City in full1 implementing the proposed trail program:
Land Acquisition: $1.0 million (with a minimum oi
$448,000 if certain assumptions car be implemented).
Improvements: $3.02 million.
Annual Maintenance: $290,000 for the fully implementec
system.
Alternative financing mechanisms are identified in tht
consultant's report.
In general, most of the funding options far construction WOU~ involve either a Proposition H vote of the people or vote! approval of debt issues. Most debt issues included in the lis1
W e -. a
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /4 7Ya
- of alternatives would require a two-thirds voter approval. I1 addition, the maintenance cost, would be born from the Genera:
Fund and are not part of currently projected park expenditures Finally, it should be pointed out that the next phase of thl
larger Open Space Work Program, of which the Trails Feasibilit: Study is but a part, is to develop an Open Space an1
Conservation Resource Management Program. This Managemen Program, among other things, will work out specific financin
proposals for a range of open space programs, including (up0 Council authorization) the trail system.
EXHIBITS
1. (Draft) City of Carlsbad Trails Feasibility Study prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd and Economics Researc
Associates, dated July 12, 1990 (previously distributed
2. Memorandum to the City Manager, dated July 13, 1990.
3. Minutes of the Planning Commission, meeting of June 20
1990 (excerpts).
* A!&
.. ?
W * EXHlB
.d
JULY 12, 1990
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DRAFT TRAILS FEASIBILITY STUDY
Wallace Roberts & Todd
Economics Research Associates
w w
CITY !OF CARLSBAD
JUNE 11,1990 DRAFI' TRAILS FEASIBILITY STUDY
List of Figures
List of Tables
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context
System Feasibility
Physical Implications Financial Implications
Issues Summary
ISSUES DISCUSSION
Introduction
Trails and the Open Space System
Trails and Community Parks
Special Resource Areas
Trails and Parkland Dedication
Classification
Trail Design Guidelines
Landscaping
Staging Areas
Viewpoints and Picnic Areas
Signage and Interpretive Information
Furniture
Lighting
Road Crossings and Bridges
Joint Uses Environmental Issues
Safety: Police and Fire
Vehicular Access
Demonstration Project
Ownership
Liability
Cost Estimation Process
Cost Estimates Acquisition Strategies Financing Strategies
Operations and Maintenance
Phasing and Priorities
Approvals and Permits
LINKAGES DESCRIPTIONS
Individual Linkages Description and Alignment
Map Sheets 01 - 23
Bibliography: Trails Research Sources
Acknowledgments
Surrounding Communities ..
0405/891554
I x
W e
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTEXT
In 1988 the city embarked upon a comprehensive review of its open space policies and planning.
While not the only activity, this review was perhaps most clearly evidenced through the
convening of a Citizens Committee to Study Open Space. The principal result of .the
Committee’s actions was the preparation of a report containing numerous policy and study
recommendations. Upon accepting the report, the City Council directed staff to carry out a
year-long open space workplan to take the city through the necessary steps of research, study,
and planning, in order to resolve the issues identified during the Committee’s deliberations.
The first task in that workplan was the preparation of an in-depth trail system feasibility
study. This report presents the conclusion of that study.
SYSTEM FEASIBILITY
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, both physical and financial, of
Carlsbad implementing a citywide trails system. The one overriding conclusion of the study is
a clear affirmative. Should the city so desire, it is feasible for an interlinking network of
trails to be implemented connecting the various areas of the city together. The principal
conclusions of the study with regard to the physical and financial implications of adopting
such a policy are outlined below.
PHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are a number of landscape resources distributed throughout the city which both
have high intrinsic aesthetic quality and also form representative examples of the
natural landscape of the city. Protection of these resources within open space will
serve to perpetuate the high quality environment to which the city aspires. Access to these resources via a trail system will enhance the recreational opportunity in the city and allow residents to retain a connection with and build an understanding of the
natural landscape upon which their community is built.
The city is undeveloped over enough of its land area that the majority of the trail
system can be achieved through integration of trail needs with future development
planning.
A large proportion of the trail links in undeveloped areas pass through large single
land ownerships or Master Plan areas. In these cases the implementation of the trail
system should be especially easy provided trail needs are identified early enough in the
planning and negotiation process.
In those areas of the city which are already built-up, potential exists to complete the
citywide trail network through the improvement of existing open. space corridors. In a
small number of cases trail linkages will only be possible along sidewalks and through
the use of bicycle lanes within the road right-of-way.
The city has a range of natural resources including water bodies, riparian habitat,
chaparral and coastal sage scrub, and naturalized tree groves which have varying
capacity to-accommodate human land uses. The trail system must be sited and designed SI
as to avoid negative impacts on these resources. In particular the wetland and riparian
areas of the city and areas of chaparral and scrub with sensitive and/or rare and
endangered species will have to be carefully treated. In assessing the physical
feasibility of the system account was taken of these resources. If the city decides to
implement the trail system full environmental review will have to form part of the
planning and design process on each proposed project.
1
w - LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Trails Network Map
Paved Pedestrian and Bike Path Design Concepts
Unpaved Hiking and Bike Path Design Concepts Road Crossing and Information Signage Concepts
Trail Marker Design Concepts
Staging Areas
Viewpoints and Picnic Areas
Joint Uses
Demonstration Project
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Costs Summary
Table 2 Selected Carlsbad Land Assessments
Table 3 Preliminary Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Estimates: Trail Linkages
Table 4 Preliminary Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Estimates: Staging, Viewpoint, and
Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates
Table 6 Improvement Cost Estimates: Phase 1
Picnic Areas
I , w e
.f It is recommended that the city consider the immediate implementation of a demonstration linkage to initiate the development of the trail system. If action is taken promptly
this linkage could be included in fiscal year 1991 - 1992.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Table 1 summarizes the acquisition, improvement, and annual maintenance costs associated
with implementation of the trail system. It should be recognized that a series of
assumptions are built into these estimated; the assumptions and detailed discussion of
the fiscal implications are included in the main body of the report.
Table 1: COSTS SUMMARY
ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE
TOTAL COST $448,000 $3,121,350 $290,000
PHASE 1 COST 95,000 1,891,150 70,000
The trail system has been designed to utilize existing public ownership and right-of-
way to reduce acquisition requirements. Of the trail segments that are not located on
public land, most can be acquired through land dedication as part of compliance with
open space standards of the city’s Growth Management Plan or through the Master Plan or
subdivision approval process, minimizing the amount of land that has to be purchased
directly. While the open space set-aside requirement does not necessarily require
dedication of title to the city, public fee title for the trail right-of-way within the
wider open space corridor should be sought prior to subdivision approval. If the city
acquires fee title, the property owner would be relieved of the responsibility and cost
of maintaining the trail system land.
Total acquisition costs for the entire system equal an estimated $359,000 (in 1990
dollars). Phase 1 acquisition costs equal an estimated $7 1,000. These estimates are
designated open space corridors for which a higher economic use is not permitted. If
during implementation, the trail is aligned on land for which a higher economic use
(such as residential, commercial, or industrial) is permitted, acquisition costs could
be more than 20 times greater for a particular parcel, and the cost/benefit of such an
acquisition would have to be evaluated. This estimate also assumes that substantial
portions of the trail system can be acquired through the negotiated subdivision approval
process without direct public expenditure.
Since acquisition costs are uncertain until specific trail linkages are designed, it
would be prudent to budget additional funds for acquisition beyond the estimated
acquisition of budget cost. Approximately $1,000,000 is recommended.
based on the assumption and recommendation that the trail system be aligned along
2
w <
The total improvement costs have been estimated at $3,121,350 (in 1990 dollars). This
total is based on a series of assumptions about how much of the trail system can reasonably be expected to be implemented and dedicated to the city by future private
development projects. Phase 1 improvements (years 1990 - 1993) are estimated at
$1,891,150.
Additional in-house or consultant costs may be incurred for environmental review of the
Calavera. These costs have not been included in this study.
In order to finance acquisition and improvement costs, the trail system could be
incorporated as an extra item in the city's public facility fees program, or be included
as a sub-element within the existing open space or park facilities standards. A nexus
will have to established to to demonstrate that these funds will by used to benefit the
new population who will indirectly pay these fees. If the trail system is considered an
extra item, this might require an increase in the fee, subject to voter approval, and
would only be applicable to those zones for which the public facility fee and financing
plan has yet to be adopted, unless existing plans were amended. If the trail system is
considered an element within facilities for which public facility fee monies are already
collected, an increase in the fee would not be required, although no new additional
revenue will be raised specifically for the trail system. The trail system should be
considered a citywide facility.
trail system and in the preparation of improvement plans for Hosp Grove and Lake
While monies from public facility fees applied to new development would finance
acquisition and improvement costs for segments of the trail system that serve the new
population, portions of the trail system would be serving existing population from which
public facility revenues will not be generated. Therefore, general fund monies will
probably be required to fund that portion of the trail system's acquisition and
improvement which is allocated to serve the existing population.
The trail system's acquisition and improvement costs could be financed with a general
obligation bond, which would require two-thirds voter approval. The City of San Juan
Capistrano and the East Bay Regional Park District recently achieved two-thirds voter
approval for general obligation bonds to finance park, open space, and trail acquisition
and development.
The city may negotiate with developers either to develop the trail segments within their
property or to pay an in-lieu fee so that the city may develop the trail segment.
Proposition H, passed in 1982, requires voter approval of city fund expenditures for any
single project where acquisition and development of public land exceed $1 million.
Acquisition and improvements funded by special assessments are not subject to this
Municipal Code) states that a project "may not be separated into parts or phases so as
to avoid the effects of this chapter," the city will have to determine whether the trail
system plan constitutes one or several projects.
Total annual maintenance costs for the whole trail system is an estimated $290,000 (in
1990 dollars). This excludes costs for police and fire protection which will be
estimated by the respective departments, and excludes any recreation program costs the
City wishes to offer related to the trail system. In early years, as the trail system
is being developed and is smaller, annual maintenance costs should be less; Phase 1
maintenance costs equal an estimated $70,000.
measure. Since the ordinance which implements this measure (Chapter 1.24 of the
Since the trail system serves the citywide population, incorporating the trail system maintenance costs into the existing citywide lighting and landscaping assessment
district may be the most appropriate approach.
3
t w e
~ ISSUES SUMMARY
If the council decides to include the implementation of a trail system as a component in the
city’s open space and recreation planning, there are a number of issues upon which action needs to be taken. Each of the points listed below represents a summary of the policy and
action issues which must be addressed. An explanation of the background to each summary
statement is included. in the Issues Discussion section.
Primary Issues
Staff should be directed to include planning for the trail system into the wider open
space planning context, specifically through inclusion in the forthcoming development of
the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (Task 7 in the city’s 1990 0
Space Workplan), and in the Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements of the Gener
Plan;
(I A decision will need to be made in the short term over funding for a demonstration linkage if that is to be achieved in fiscal year 199 1 - 1992.
The city will need to make a policy decision regarding the type of ownership which will
be used for the trails system. It has been assumed by this study that city ownership of
the primary trails network is to be preferred.
The Risk Manager and the City Attorney should review existing terms of the city’s
liability policy in order to ensure coverage of trails related incidents.
The city should choose a financing strategy for acquisition, improvements, and
maintenance which is equitable, recognizing that the trail system will be a citywide
facility serving both existing and new populations.
Secondary Issues . Consideration should be given to allocation of responsibility for the planning,
administration of implementation, operations and maintenance of the trails system.
the amount of budget allocations required for those actions, and the adequacy of
existing staffing to meet these new responsibilities;
Decisions will need to be made over which department is responsible for which actions,
. This study identifies the primary trails network throughout the city. However the
system would be much more effective if a system of secondary trails were to connect into the main system. A policy would need to be adopted to that effect.
The city must ensure that future park designs take account of and make appropriate
provision for the completion of the trail system.
It is recommended that the city prepare a master plan for Hosp Grove, defining’its use as a passive recreational site for trails and related facilities such as staging areas,
picnic sites, and viewpoints.
The city should prepare a master plan for the trails use of the area around Lake
Calavera. This study should assess the precise boundaries of any future trails use
context, access for staging purposes, and use of the old quarry. Special Resource Area in relation to the golf course, the sensitive environmental
4
.
*
w w
The city should make a detailed study of the potential to increase its Quimby Ordinance
dedication requirements in order to assess the impacts and potential for use of this
enabling legislation for dedication of trail land.
For the purpose of implementing the trail system (and for the possible preparation of a
booklet or map advertising the trail system) the city will need to break the trail
system down into separate linkages each of which forms a coherent excursion for the
trail user. (This is in contrast with the trail linkages breakdown in this study which
is based upon acquisition and implementation criteria rather than use pattern criteria.) Linkages will go from one key node to another, or form loops based on key
access points.
The city should monitor trail use and, where peak areas of the trail system are
determined to pose negative impacts from mixed use, be prepared to restrict mixed
bicycle and pedestrian use.
The city should prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines for development of the
trail system. These guidelines will not only be used internally to guide city projects,
but also may be distributed to private developers to assist in preparation of their
planning and design submittals.
As part of the preparation of design guidelines for the trail system the city should
prepare a list of acceptable plant species which conform both to the natural landscape
aesthetic and water conservation needs.
The city should develop a system of signage for the trail system describing both what
specific information will be communicated and the design of the signs and markers which
will be used.
The city should discuss with other agencies and communities in the region the types of
regional signage needed where connections will be made between different communities’
trails systems. If a coordinated approach could be determined in advance it would
probably be of benefit to all parties.
The city should identify locational criteria for and design appropriate road signage to
identify the trail system to city motorists.
The city should consider development of an interpretive program to be implemented along
with the trail system.
The city should consider preparation of a trails booklet describing the system so as to
make residents and visitors aware of the resources available. The booklet could also be
used to present rules and advice on use of the trail system and interpretive
information.
Recommendations regarding the construction and location of furniture should be included
in the overall development of design guidelines for the trail system.
The city should consider commencing negotiations regarding secondary trails use of SDG&E
powerline easements in the near future given the apparent reticence of SCE to permit
such secondary uses and the impending merger potential of SDG&E and SCE.
The city should initiate the necessary internal design and negotiation steps necessary
to implement the shared use of the water drainage course ‘in Linkage No. 13 and the
service access road in Linkage No. 43.
5
I e
Many of the landscape resources in the city which are potentially of most interest to
the trail user are also the most environmentally sensitive. The city will have to plan
and design the interaction of trails and environmental resources with care so as not to
destroy the very resource the trail design is seeking.
I
The city should establish and maintain periodic contact with surrounding jurisdictions
to ensure that the linkages necessary to achieve a regionally connecting trail system
are effected.
The city should lobby with regional organizations such as SANDAG for the completion of
regional trails study to identify feadbility and outline a program for implementation " of a regional trail system.
The Fire Chief must be given the authority to close trail linkages as deemed necessary
during dry spells.
The city should develop a trails patrol police unit using either motorcycles or
mountain-bikes or a combination of the two. It should be noted that the costs of
equipping and operating such a unit are not included in this study.
Staging areas in particular and other trail sections close to the road system should be
designed to facilitate surveillance by police patrol units,
The city should introduce ordinances prohibiting the carrying of glass bottles, alcohol,
matches and other ignition devices, and any other articles considered dangerous onto the
trail system. . The trail design at certain road intersections will have to provide barriers which
prevent public vehicular use of the trails but also allow for maintenance/emergency
vehicular access as needed. Removable or knock-down bollards or some form of locked
gateway device may have to be installed. Design guidelines for the trail system should
address this issue.
The city must be conscious of the economic value of land acquired for the trail system
and, while implementing the'trail system should weigh the cost/benefit of each link that requires public purchase once an independent appraisal is made.
A decision will be required as to whether the city will incur additional expense to
implement high priority linkages before the surrounding area develops and dedication of
trail acquisition and improvements through the subdivision process can be effected.
Early involvement of agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help ensure that the trail system is
requirements.
planned and designed in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with agency
6
0 w
ISSUES DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
The 1973 Open Space and Conservation Element of the Carlsbad General Plan contained general
statements and references to the concept of the city pursuing a citywide, interconnecting
trail system. In particular the 1973 Prime Open Space and Conservation Map depicts corridors
and linkages between major open space areas. However when the 1982 Park and Recreation
Element was adopted no specific policies or action programs regarding a comprehensive trail
system were included. This apparently reflected decisions against pursuing a trails system because of the level of improvement costs, ongoing maintenance costs, public liability, impact
on private property where the trail might have to be adjacent to homeowners private yards, and
perceived security and policing problems.
In 1989 the Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space concluded its review of open space
planning in the city and made a number of recommendations for future policy action regarding
open space in general and trails in particular. On trails the committee recommended that:
"Since surveys by the state have shown that the most popular outdoor activities, and
those with the greatest participation, are individual pursuits such as walking and
hiking, the committee recommends unanimously that the City Council give high priority to
studies preparatory to establishing a trail system throughout the city."
This feasibility study represents the culmination of the first step towards possible
implementation of a citywide trail system. .The intent of this study is to give the City
Council and others the information necessary on which to base policy and administrative
decisions regarding trails in the City of Carlsbad.
It is important to note that the trail network studied in this report is intended to form the
primary linkages only. While establishing this primary network as the backbone of the final
system, it will also be important to ensure that developments surrounding the primary trails
take advantage of the opportunity, and ensure adequate access to the primary system, through the integration of a secondary network of trails which will lead through the development and connect it to the main system.
There are three types of trail included in the feasibility study: a fully improved paved trail
type which would be used in the most urban and heavily used sections of the trail system -
this type would be fully handicapped accessible; an unpaved trail type which is intended to be
only minimally improved in order to allow a more rural trail aesthetic; and a few trail
linkages which would use the sidewalk and bike lanes in the road right of way - this last type
to be used only where aligning the trail in a separate right of way is not possible.
In selecting alignments for the trail system the study commenced with the alignments indicated
on the 1989 Comprehensive Open Space Network Map produced as part of the conclusions of the
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space. From this starting point the intention was to link
together key recreational opportunities in the city including park sites and key natural
resource areas. A secondary concern was to provide an alternative non-vehicular
transportation system throughout the city. For all alignments the first choice of location
was to be in an unimproved open space corridor away from any roadway. The second choice was
to locate the trail within a powerline easement. Third choice was to locate the trail within
its own right of way parallel to a roadway. Only where none of these options was available
does the trail system use sidewalks' and bike lanes to connect together open space linkages.
7
w e
. TRAILS AND THE OPEN SPACE SYSTEM
In August 1989, as part of the conclusions of the Citizen’s Committee to Study Open Space, the
distribution of General Plan designated open space, approved.Master Plan open space, and environmentally constrained areas, the map indicated two broad concepts:
city prepared a Comprehensive Open Space Network Map. Based on a plan showing the
The idea of greenway corridors which would link together most of the major open space areas of the city into a connected open space system weaving throughout the urban and
suburban development;
A set of conceptual alignments for a citywide trail system linking the different
neighborhoods of the city and the main parks and open space areas.
.I
In many cases the two ideas - greenways and trails - were coincident. However in a number of
cases the map indicated open space greenways without a trail, and also in places trail
linkages that were not within open space.
It must be stressed that the purpose of this study was to study the feasibility of the trails
component only (a process which has required the refinement in site-planning detail of
alignments for the trail links). This study does not include analysis, observations, or recommendations regarding the greenways. The intent of the Citizen’s Committee to Study Oper Space (as clearly shown in the Comprehensive Open Space Network Map) was to indicate a trail
system which would fall, wherever possible, within open space. If the open space setting for
the trails is to be achieved it is essential that the city undertake to prepare an open space
plan which will address acquisition (or other means of reservation) of the open space areas and greenways. Specifically this should be included as part of the forthcoming development of
the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (Task 7 in the city’s 1990 Open Sp
Workplan), and in the Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan.
Issue: The city must ensure that planning for open space is coordinated with planning for
the trail system. In particular integration must occur in the forthcoming
development of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan (Task ’
the city’s 1990 Open Space Workplan), and in the Open Space and Parks and Recrea
Elements of the General Plan.
8
w w
TRAILS AND COMMUNITY PARKS
One of the objectives of preparing alignments for the trail system was to connect to the
various existing and proposed community parks located throughout the city. The system
developed in this study connects with all the major community park sites in the city:
. Hosp Grove Park: Larwin Park;
Calavera Park;
Macario Canyon Park;
Altamira Park;
Poinsettia Park;
Alga Norte Park;
Carrillo Ranch; and
Stagecoach Park.
It is intended that connection from one side of the park to the other will be achieved through
the park site itself. In those sites not yet designed and constructed this should become one
of the design criteria. Any alignments indicated through park sites in this report are to be
considered general concepts only which will be revised during master planning and design
development of each park site. No significant improvements will be required at the two
existing park sites:
At Calavera Park the trails connecting through the park are only intended to carry
pedestrians, who would be able to use existing paths through the park itself;
At Stagecoach Park pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting at opposite sides of the
park will be directed around its perimeter on Mission Estancia (the connections of Links
No. 42, 43 and 44). The introduction of Link No. 41 may require the addition of a new
path along the western perimeter of the park site.
Part of the Hosp Grove area in the north of the city is included in the 1988 Draft Parks and Recreation Element as a community park site of 27 acres. It is assumed in this study that
this area will only be minimally improved, with trails being the primary activity.
An additional issue with regard to the interaction of parks and the trail system is the
projected use of some of the park sites as a means for parking and use as staging areas for
access to the trail system. While this should not create any significant problems, it is
possible that additional use of parking areas in particular may over stretch the resources at
the park sites. It is recommended that the city monitor this situation carefully and ensure
that any need for additional parking at park sites should be addressed. At park sites not yet
constructed the inclusion of trails usage should form part of the design process.
Issues: The city must ensure that future park designs take account of and make appropriate piovision for the completion of the traii system.
9
W e
SPECIAL RESOURCE AREAS
Parks planning in Carlsbad identifies a primary classification system for park .sites which
includes three types: Community Parks, Special Use Areas, and Special Resource Areas. This last category is defined as including sites which "...provide a unique character, [and] are larger than community parks. They are a recreational site characterized by the existence of a
special or unusual feature, natural or man-made, i.e.;, a water body, earth formation,
historical amenity, ecoIogical reserve, etc." This definition seems to effectively encompass
two areas which have potential: for trails oriented use. The two areas being considered are
Hosp Grove and an area around^ Lake Calavera. In both cases the intent of a trails oriented
Special Resource Area would be to provide an essentially unimproved natural area for hiking
and bicycle use. Aside from minimal grading and improvements for the trails themselves, the
only improvements envisaged would be for staging areas close to road access, minimal picnic
sites, and viewpoints.
Hosp Grove includes a 27-acre Community Park she and a 49.55-acre open space area. It is recommended that the city'undertake to prepare a master plan for the entire Hosp
Grove area. As planning for the city's park system includes the 27-acre parcel at Hosp
Grove as a community park, it is recommended that this classification continue. However the open space area could reasonably be reclassified as a Special Resource Area for
trails use through the eucalyptus woodland.
In the 1988 Parks and Recreation Element Lake Calavera is included as a 252-acre Special
Resource Area. This acreage was primarily intended to accommodate the golf course
around the lake. This intended facility is at present the subject of a separate
planning and design study and it will be necessary for the city to integrate the golf course proposals with any future trails use. A number of issues remain undecided regarding the golf course which will affect planning for the trails area including
access - what direction should it come from, and how the area will be classified. Also
undecided is the policy issue of whether golf courses will be allowed to gain 1OOoh
credit towards the 15% additional open space growth management performance standard.
The area around Lake Calavera falls within the additional 15Yo requirement. If the golf
acquisition of the trails area. course does not obtain full credit, then additional acreage could be used for
Issues: It is recommended that the city prepare a master plan for Hosp Grove, defining its
use as a passive recreational site for trails and related facilities such as staging
areas, picnic sites, and viewpoints.
The city should prepare a master plan for the trails use of the area around Lake
Calavera. This study should assess the precise boundaries of any future trails use
Special Resource Area in relation to the golf course, the sensitive environmental
context, access for staging purposes, and use of the old quarry.
10
W - TRAILS AND PARKLAND DEDICATION
The city currently uses a Quimby Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 20.44 of the Municipal
Code) as a primary mechanism for acquisition of community parks and other active recreation
sites. Carlsbad’s ordinance requires the dedication of three acres of land per 1,000
population brought to the city in new residential subdivisions. While the pre-1982 Parks and Recreation Element emphasized acquisition of more passive parkland, current policy is to place
stringent conditions such that typically only land with slopes of less than 10% suitable for
use in active recreation is accepted. The amount of acreage which can be obtained through this mechanism is a fundamental foundation for plans to implement the city’s park system. If
the city pursues a trail system then a clear decision must be made regarding the use or nonuse
of Quimby land dedication for the trails system acquisition.
While the current ordinance lies at the standard maximum of three acres per thousand permitted
by the Quimby enabling legislation, Quimby also permits the level of dedication to be
increased to five acres per thousand population where the city’s current level of park
provision already exceeds three acres per thousand. Depending upon the method of measuring
the amount of parkland, it is possible that Carlsbad could be in a position to increase its
Quimby dedication requirements.
Issues: The city should make a detailed study of the potential to increase its Quimby
Ordinance dedication requirements in order to assess the impacts and potential for
use of this enabling legislation for dedication of trail land.
11
w m
CLASSIFICATION
The trail system as a whole includes a total of 56 miles of pedestrian, bicycle, and joint use
trails. The system has been broken down for convenience of discussion and feasibility
assessment into 55 links of various length determined by factors such as changes in ownership and interconnections of one trail orientation to another. Each link in the feasibility study
has been ascribed one of two trail types (except where a separate trail cannot be aligned in
vr;hich case the trail system would have to follow road right-of-way using sidewalks and
bikelanes): . , ..
Type 1: Paved pedestrian and bike path 2.5 miles
Type 2 Unpaved hiking and bike path 46.0 milles
Use of Sidewalk/bikelanes: 7.5 miles
The niajority of the trail system is projected to be unpaved in order to keep improvement costs
to an acceptable level and to develop the trail system with a naturalistic aesthetic
consistent with the intent of permitting trail users to come to appreciate better the natural
environment upon which the city is built. The intent of paving certain paths is to allow for
wheelchair access to portions of the trail system. Paving is also assumed in the more urban
sections of the trail system and where especially heavy use is anticipated.
The trail system which has been anticipated by this study shows joint use by bicycles and
pedestrians of both paved and unpaved paths. The design standards for the paved paths (see
Figure 2) show a minimum path width of twelve feet which conforms to the CalTrans standard f
joint use. However, in some cases it is possible that joint use of the unpaved trails (for
which a minimum width of eight feet is shown on Figure 3, could become dangerous - for exam if particularly heavy use is made of a trail linkage. In such a case the city might have to
either restrict use to pedestrians only, for example, or construct an additional parallel path within the right-of-way and use signage to keep pedestrians and cyclists separated.
Issues: For the purpose of implementing the trail system (and for the possible preparation
of a booklet or map advertising the trail system) the city will need to break the
trail system down into separate linkages each of which forms a coherent excursion
for the trail user. (This is in contrast with the trail linkages breakdown in this
study which is based upon acquisition and implementation criteria rather than use
pattern criteria.) Linkages will go from one key node to another, or form loops
based on key access points.
The city should monitor trail use and, where peak use areas of the trail system are
determined to pose negative impacts from mixed use, be prepared to restrict mixed
bicycle and pedestrian use.
12
W w
TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES
While the purpose of this study has been to assess the feasibility of the trail system, some
initial conceptualization of design for the trail system has been necessary in order to
predict improvement costs and to guide the development of implementation recommendations.
Design guidelines for the two trail types are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
In addition to these standard trail types some special circumstances will be encountered in
developing the trail system:
Where the trail crosses the road system it is recommended that a uniform design approach
be developed so that the city trail system becomes a readily identified and easily found
feature of the city landscape. Some conceptual recommendations are described in Figure
4.
Where the trail must follow a regular sidewalk for a short distance in order to link
together two sections of open space corridor, it is recommended that a clear marking system be used to identify the route for the trail user. Some conceptual
recommendations are described in Figure 5.
Issues: The city should prepare and adopt a set of design guidelines for development of the
trail system. These guidelines will not only be used internally to guide city
projects, but also may be distributed to private developers to assist in preparation
of their planning and design submittals.
13
w m
LANDSCAPING
Given that a primary intent of the trail system is to allow people access to the natural
landscape of the city the general rule applied to the trail system design is that no .
landscaping in the sense of introducing new planting should be used. The vegetation around the trail will be that of the natural open space. Nevertheless there are a number of
circumstances where additional planting will be required.
Where construction of the trail requires removal of native vegetation this should be
replaced as far as possible;
Wherever possible the trail system should be implemented using the minimum of cut or
fill so as to preserve the natural topography and to minimize costs;
Where construction of trails or associated facilities leaves engineered cut or fill
slopes these should be revegetated with native plantings which are consistent with
erosion control needs;
Where the introduction of a need for shading occurs such as at trails staging areas and picnic areas the use of native or naturalized tree species should be used;
In more urban contexts the trail system may in places assume more of the aesthetic of a
parkway where a wider diversity of plant material may be introduced. In all cases however the species used should be in keeping with their surrounding context and be
drought tolerant;
At prominent locations the design guidelines for the trail system call for a readily
identifiable ensemble of trail markers, interpretive information, gateways, and associated landscaping. It is recommended that the city select a key tree species or group of species which will be repeated wherever the trail system crosses the road
system or at staging areas. For further details on the design of these areas see the
Trail Design Guidelines section;
In all cases where new planting occurs water conservation must be a primary concern and
only drought tolerant species should be used.
Issues: As part of the preparation of design guidelines for the trail system the city should
prepare a list of acceptable plant species which conform 00th to the natural
landscape aesthetic and water conservation needs.
14
w - STAGING AREAS
Planning for the trail system has included consideration of trail access via appropriately
located staging areas. At these points trail users would be able to park their car,
coordinate meeting with other trail users, and learn about the trail system through
interpretive and safety oriented signage. Two types of staging area were included: Primary
Staging Areas with 20 parking spaces and full facilities including restrooms, and Secondary
Staging Areas with only six parking spaces and minimal improvements.
Primary Staging Area - Total Land Area = 0.5 Acres - Facilities to include:
20 parking spaces and driveway
Fencing and gateway
Signage/displays
Restroom
Picnic tables/benches
Trash receptacles
Handicapped drinking fountain
Trees/landscaping
Lighting
Secondary Staging Area - Tdtal Land Area = 0.25 Acres - Facilities to include:
6 parking spaces and drive
Fencing and gateway
Signage/displays
Picnic tables/benches
Trash receptacles
Handicapped drinking fountain
Trees/landscaping
Lighting
The locations of the various staging areas are shown on Figure 6. It should be noted that in a number of cases the staging areas indicated are within park sites, either existing or
projected. With the exception of a staging area at Hosp Grove which is included because that
park site will be developed as a trail oriented location, none of the staging areas within
park sites are included in the cost analysis presented by this report.
VIEWPOINTS AND PICNIC AREAS
The planning for the trail system included consideration of the need for picnic areas and
viewpoints. Some key opportunities for such facilities have been included in the development
of this feasibility study although it should be recognized that other potential sites will
probably be discovered as implementation of the system proceeds. Those identified in this
study include the key opportunities as ascertained during the field study process. They are included in the cost estimates for the system, in terms of acquisition, improvements, and
maintenance costs. For the purpose of cost estimates it has been assumed that both of these
facilities would occupy a site of 0.25 acres.
The locations of viewpoints and picnic areas included in the study are shown on Figure 7. As
with the staging areas, those viewpoints and picnic areas which fall within community park
sites other than Hosp Grove have not been included in the cost estimates as it is assumed that
such facilities would be included in the park design regardless of whether the trail system
proceeds or not.
15
- w
SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETIVE INFORMATION
Aside from interpretive signage and information (see below) there are three areas of C6ncern
in terms of signage for the trail system which need to be considered signage along the. trails
themselves; compatibility of the signage with the wider regional trail system beyond the.city;
location of trail access opportunities and staging areas.
Carlsbad. Trails Signage
An important component of the trails improvements will be the provision of adequate signage.
Three primary types of signage/marker are envisaged for the Carlsbad trail system. Concepts
and signage along the roads in the city to alert motorists of trail crosskgs and of the
for the signage are shown on Figures 4 and 5.
Along the trails at intervals of one mile (to provide a regular measure of progress) and
at junctions of trails, the city should place a simple marker post bearing at a minimum
the name/number of the trail and the type of use permitted. A simple wooden post could
have a number of metal/enamel plaques attached to communicate necessary information.
Where the trail has to use a sidewalk in order to connect two open space corridors it is
suggested that a simple painted marker be placed on the sidewalk at regular intervals to
guide the trail user. In Figure 5 a painted dot is shown as one possibility. Other
symbols could be employed instead, or the city could opt for a more expensive solution
using signposts.
At staging areas and other access points to the trail system the city should erect a
signboard containing at least a map of the trail system, rules for trail use, and
guidance on trail safety. It is also recommended that the city use these signboards to
communicate interpretive information.
At viewpoints the city should provide information pertaining to landmarks and to the
location of other trails in the visible area. Viewpoints would also be an ideal
location for other interpretive information. In as far as the trail system is intended
to allow people understanding of the city’s natural landscape, the trail experience may
be viewed as a narrative one - the trail tells a story of the city. Viewpoints are a
key location for that narrative to unfold.
Regional Trails Signage
Regional trail links such as the California Riding and Hiking Trail which traverses eastern
San Diego County are limited at present. However the issue of regional connecting trails is
much discussed at present in north San Diego County and it may be supposed that regional links
will be developed in the future. Such trails (or such a regional trail system) may develop
its own signage system with .distinctive signposts or other markers. These could easily be
added to the Carlsbad trails signage without detracting from the value of either system. If
the regional system were to develop a small logo or symbol, then a small metal/enamel plaque
such as that suggested above for the Carlsbad trail signage could be added to the wooden posts
already in place.
Road Signage
It is important that people driving along Carlsbad’s road system should be made aware of the
existence of the trail system. Signage which is located and designed to be legible from the
window of a vehicle travelling at the design speed of the road should both identify points
16
- -. -
where access can be gained to the trail system (i.e., advise of a nearby staging area) and
warn motorists on the approach to at-grade trail road-crossings in order to mitigate against
accidents.
Issues: The city should develop a system of signage for the trail system describing both
what specific information will be communicated and the design of the signs and
markers which will be used.
The city should discuss with other agencies and communities in the region the types
of regional signage needed where connections will be made between different
communities’ trails systems. If a coordinated approach could be determined in
advance it would probably be of benefit to all parties.
The city should identify locational criteria for and design appropriate road signage
to identify the trail system to city motorists.
Interpretive Information and Program
It is recommended that the city develop an interpretive program to accompany the development
of the trails system. This program could enhance the function of the trail system as a means
of allowing trail users to understand and appreciate the natural and cultural landscape of the
city. Interpretive information could be presented on signage located along the trail system
as well as in an overall leaflet/booklet describing the trail system. (Special leaflets could
also be prepared discussing flora and fauna, cultural sites, and other themes which can be
accessed through the trail system.) The use of interpretive signage will be focussed on the
staging areas and at points of special interest and viewpoints.
At key access locations, especially the staging areas, the interpretive display or signage
should include information pertaining to safety of the trail user and setting rules for trail
use.
Rules should include bans on:
clear indication if trail has been closed because of fire hazard;
smoking, fires, and use of firearms;
removal of any plant material, minerals, archaeological artifacts, or animals;
use of short cuts - trail users should be advised to stay on the trail path;
leaving any trash;
dumping or fly- tipping.
Advice on personal safety should include:
carrying water and appropriate food especially on longer and wilderness trails;
appropriate footwear and clothing;
identification, avoidance, and treatment for poison oak;
information on rattlesnakes;
a telephone number for police and other emergency service assistance;
the location of the nearest public telephone.
. ’ a telephone number to call for further information on the trails;
Issues: The city should consider development of an interpretive program to be implemented
along with the trail system.
The city should consider preparation of a trails booklet describing the system so as
to make residents and visitors aware of the resources available. The booklet could
also be used to present rules and advice on use of the trail system and interpretive
information.
I v *
FURNITURE
The only furniture that has been specifically included in.-the cost analysis for the trail
system feasibility study.is associated with the staging areas, picnic areas, and viewpoints.
It is likely however that additional furniture such as benches at convenient resting places, and at secondary overlooks created by the detailed design of the trail alignment, will be
introduced to most of the linkages. (The projected improvement costs for each link include
allowance for additional items such as furniture.) It is recommended that in all cases this
furniture be of a construction which will enhance the aesthetic of the trail system. Therefore, in addition to ensuring use of sturdy and safe construction, it is recommended that
formulate a set of detailed design standards for trail furniture.
Issues: Recommendations regarding the construction and location of furniture should be
'. the city utilize primarily natural materials such as stone and wood. The city may wish to
included in the overall development of design guidelines for the trail system.
LIGHTING
To maintain the natural feel of the trail system and to keep improvement costs to a minimum
the use of lighting for the trail system has been assumed only at the staging areas. Lighting
may eventually be used along some of the trail links depending upon the detailed design of
that link in the context of its surrounding development. For example, it seems quite likely
that the western end of trail Link No. '22 which will probably be part of the commercial
"Promenade" development would be lighted. However, the use of lighting on such instances has
been assumed to be a development project related issue and neither recommendations nor costs
for such lighting are included in this feasibility study.
ROAD CROSSINGS AND BRIDGES
In many places the trail system is required to cross the city's road system. In developing
the alignments for the feasibility study road crossings were designed wherever possible to
coincide with existing or planned traffic signals so as to avoid special costs to the trail
system. In the majority of cases this proved possible. However in a small number of cases,
for safety or other reasons as specified in the linkages descriptions, special pedestrian
crossing traffic signals or bridges have had to be included. Additionally the system includes
three bridges to cross natural landscape features - preconstructed bridges crossing a small
canyon and a small stream and riparian area and a concept for a floating pontoon bridge to
cross Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The special road crossings and bridges and their associated costs
are as follows:
Trail Linkage No. Facility cost
15
18
46
46
47
48
Pedestrian traffic $100,000
signal
Pontoon bridge 100,000
Road Bridge 50,000
Pedestrian traffic 100,000
signal Bridge 50,000
Bridge 50,000
TOTAL $450,000
18
w w
JOINT USES
In certain cases the trail system follows along an alignment where the trail itself is a
shared use of the right-of-way. The primary example of this occurs where the trail system
falls within SDG&E powerline easements and right-of-ways. Where SDG&E has a powerline they
typically allow secondary uses such as a trail system. It should be noted however that
Southern California Edison (SCE) have a less cooperative policy in this regard and if the
merger of SDG&E and SCE proceeds this type of trail alignment may be difficult to achieve. In
most cases SDG&E maintain a service access road along their powerline easements/
right-of-ways. This service road could in many cases become the trail itself. In such cases
SDG&E have provisionally indicated that they would typically consider sharing the maintenance costs of the trail/road. (In order to ensure that the maintenance cost estimates are not
unrealistically optimistic, this sharing of costs has not been assumed in projecting annual
trail system maintenance costs.) While the secondary trail use may be granted by SDG&E it
should be noted that they are required under Section 69C of the Public Utilities Code to
maintain the right to rescind the secondary use. Links where shared use of SDG&E powerlines
is anticipated are shown on Figure 8.
The other joint uses in the trail system are:
Link No. 13: The western portion of this link is anticipated to run along the shoulder of a
city owned water drainage course. Initial discussion with the city Utilities and Maintenance
Department has indicated that this should be feasible.
Link No. 43: There is an existing service access road along the north shore of the lagoon
for Utilities and Maintenance Department access to a sewer line. For much of this link the
trail will be able to use this road.
Issues: The city should consider commencing negotiations regarding secondary trails use of
SDG&E powerline easements in the near future given the apparent reticence of SCE tc
permit such secondary uses and the impending merger potential of SDG&E and SCE.
The city should initiate the necessary internal design and negotiation steps
necessary to implement the shared use of the water drainage course in Linkage No. 13
and the service access road in Linkage No. 43.
19
w m
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The. city has a range of natural resources including water bodies, riparian habitat, chaparral
and coastal sage scrub, and.naturalized tree groves which have varying capacity to accommodate human land uses. The trail system must be sited and designed so as to avoid negative impacts
on these resources. In particular the wetland and riparian areas of the city and areas of
chaparral and scrub with sensitive and/or rare and endangered species will have to be
carefully treated. In assessing the physical feasibility of the system account was taken of
these resources. If the city decides to implement the trail system full environmental review
will have to form part of the planning and design process on each proposed project. Agency review, permits and approvals will affect almost all proposed improvements which may have
impacts on environmental resources. Early negotiation with and involvement of environmental
agencies will help ensure effective implementation of the trail system. (See Approvals and
Permits section.)
Issues: Many of the landscape resources in the city which are potentially of most interest
to the trail user are also the most environmentally sensitive. The city will have
to plan and design the interaction of trails and environmental resources with care
so as not to destroy the very resource the trail design is seeking.
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
The City'of Carlsbad is bounded by four other cities: Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Encinitas, and for a small distance by the County of San Diego. Each of these jurisdictions
have their own trail planning efforts, each at different levels of detail and stages of
implementation. As part of this feasibility study contact was made with all the jurisdictions
to ensure the development of concepts and alignments which would be compatible with those of
the surrounding areas. A summary of the issues regarding each community is presented below.
Oceanside
With the'exception of the north-south linkage along the coastal railroad corridor (Link No.
lo), there is only one strong trail linkage opportunity between the City of Carlsbad and the
City of Oceanside. (The physical barrier presented by Route 78 and the Buena Vista Lagoon
effectively preclude any other possibilities.) The one linkage identified by this study
(other than the regional link along the railroad) connects Lake Calavera with a neighborhood
park which has recently been constructed in the City of Oceanside immediately to the south of
Lake Boulevard, just beyond the northeast corner of City of Carlsbad. (See Link No. 10 on Map Sheet No. 3.) Additional linkages between the two cities have tentativeiy been identified
within the road R.O.W.3 along Hill Street, Jefferson, El Camino Real, Rancho del Oro, and the
future alignment of College. These will however only comprise bike lanes and sidewalks and, as such, do not fall within the type of trail system being considered within this feasibility
study. It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad ensure that any future planning for
bicycle circulation take account of linkage to Oceanside.
Vista
Exhibit "E" of the Bicycle, Hiking and Equestrian Trails Element of the Vista General Plan is
a plan which indicates a number of trail links emanating to the north and east from Lake
Calavera into Vista. All these alignments (which are shown very conceptually) run through
already developed areas of the City of Oceanside. Vista is also conceptually considering a
20
0 - trail linkage westward from Buena Vista Park into the City of Carlsbad. In this case field
investigation and assessment of ownership revealed the only feasible link to run across the
top of a steep slope held under seven different ownerships from whom access rights would have
to be purchased. Given that the trail would have clear vision into the homes concerned this
whole linkage seemed very unlikely to succeed Moreover, with access to Squires Dam limited,
and the views of the reservoir from afar being cluttered with heavy civil engineering
indicates on Exhibit "E" a link along Melrose Drive. This could be connected to Linkage No.
26 in this study.
San Marcos
The City of San Marcos City Council has recently adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan
which includes a citywide trails system. Two linkages are shown in the San Marcos plan which
connect to Carlsbad. Both these linkages have proved feasible within Carlsbad and are
included in this feasibility study as Linkages No. 36 and No. 53. The trail in San Marcos
connecting to Linkage No. 53 is shown as including equestrian use, However planning for the
Carlsbad trail system has not included equestrian use and the City of Carlsbad should
communicate to San Marcos regarding this incompatibility.
Encinitas
The City of Encinitas General Plan Recreation Element includes conceptual trail connections.
Although the feasibility of the connections has not been assessed, the City is proceeding with
implementation of the intent of the linkages, in most cases achieving connection even though
the alignment may not correspond in detail with that indicated in the General Plan. One
primary potential linkage exists into the most southeasterly corner of the Carlsbad system.
Linkage No. 55 of this feasibility study has been aligned so as to effect a connection into
Encinitas which will lead into the proposed Escondido Creek Trail - the spine of the Encinitas
trail system - which will eventually lead to the San Elijo Lagoon. A second potential linkage
between the two cities may occur to the west of El Camino Real and the final alignment of Link
No. 50 of this study should be coordinated with Encinitas. It is also possible that a
secondary trail spur could lead from No. 50 west up to a ridgetop where the City of Encinitas
in proposing the construction of Ecke Park. The third linkage opportunity lies along the
coastal railroad - Linkage No. 40.
San Diego County
The San Dieguito Community Planning Area Riding and Hiking Trails Plan (adopted as General
Plan Amendment - GPA 87-03, Item 4) indicates a proposed trail corridor crossing county land
between the City of Carlsbad and the City of San Marcos. It is possible that this connection
could be implemented, and if so, could have potential for linking into the Carlsbad system.
However the county map was prepared with very minimal study and many of the indicated
alignments are not practicable. It has not been possible to confirm the validity of
indicating a trail in this area. If at some future date this county trail connection were to
be completed the short easterly spur of Linkage No. 53 is designed to make this connection.
Issues: The city should establish and maintain periodic contact with surrounding
jurisdictions to ensure that the linkages necessary to achieve a regionally
connecting trail system are effected.
The city should lobby with regional organizations such as SANDAG for the completiol
of a regional trails study to identify feasibility and outline a program for
implementation of a regional trail system.
21
structures, it was not felt that this linkage was worth pursuing. The City of Vista also
w (c
SAFETY: POLICE AND FIRE
, As part of this feasibility study, meetings were held with the Police and Fire Departments in
.,:.. .. order to gain their input and understand their concerns with regard to implementation of a
.. trails system. Neither department felt that a trails system was unduly difficult with regard
.to carrying out their responsibilities, However both had concerns and both foresaw an
increase in operating (and possibly capital) costs. The following issues were discussed:
Police Department:
The concerns of the Police Department focus on the prevention of illegal activities both on
the trail system and adjacent to the trail system - for example using trails as a means of
access to private property. The Police Department already has an off-road patrol component
using two motorcycles and is currently studying the potential for establishment of a
bikes or a combination of the two. The use of mountain bikes would be more consistent with
preserving the rural integrity of the trail system. Some of the larger trail systems in
California operate an independent security force, but the Carlsbad Police Department indicated
that this would not be seen as a preferred option. Given the relatively small size of the
Carlsbad trails system (it is a citywide but not a regional system) a separate security force
seems unlikely to be cost effective in any case. The Police Department believe that the
majority of law enforcement problems are likely to occur close to the road system and
especially near to staging areas. The design of staging areas in particular and other trail
sections close to the road system should be designed to facilitate surveillance by police
patrol units. The inclusion of lighting in the staging areas will help prevent inappropriate
use patterns at night. With regard to security generally it should be noted that frequent
levels of trail use for legitimate recreational purposes will serve to provide informal
monitoring, and discourage inappropriate or illegal activities. Encouragement of trails use through making people aware of the resource, scheduling hiking tours and schools use etc. will
not only optimize use of the system but will also serve to preserve the safety of the system.
It should be noted that many communities throughout California and the United States have
, mountain-bike patrol unit. The trails could be patrolled using either motorbikes or mountain
existing trail systems and have not found them to be an undue security problem.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department is responsibie for both fire prevention and control, and the operation of
the city’s paramedic service. With regard to fire control the primary concern is over public
access through scrub and brush areas during the dry season when fire risk is at its greatest.
The presence of the trail leading to increased public use of wilderness areas may increase the
incidence of brush fires. It should be noted however that in many cases the proposed trails
are already unofficially used either for recreation or for residence by homeless/migrant
workers. The fire risk from legitimate activities replacing existing activities may not be
significantly increased. It will be important to coordinate with the Fire Department over the
final alignment and design of trail links so as to ensure optimum avoidance of fire risk. It
will also be necessary for the Fire Chief to have the authority to close certain trail sections when fire hazard is especially high - even if this means closing linkages for the
whole summer. Again, it should be noted that the nearby City of Poway has a trail system that
leads through extensive and often isolated areas of scrubland and there does not appear to
have been any significant incidence of fire associated with the trail system. With regard to
the paramedic service, the concern of the Fire Department is over the ability to retrieve
injured parties from the trail system. In terms of enhancing response time it is recommended
that staging information boards include directions to the nearest public telephone. The
possibility of including telephones in the development of the trails system was considered but
rejected as too expensive. However the city might consider locating public phones at key
22
w W
locations in the future. (Many of the staging areas for the trails system would be at public
park sites which typically include public telephones among their improvements.)
Issues: The Fire Chief must be given the authority to close trail linkages as deemed
necessary during dry spells.
The City should develop a trails patrol police unit using either motorcycles or
mountain bikes or a combination of the two. It should be noted that the costs of
equipping and operating such a unit are not included in this study.
Staging areas in particular and other trail sections close to the road system should
be designed to facilitate surveillance by police patrol units.
The city should introduce ordinances prohibiting the carrying of glass bottles,
alcohol, matches and other ignition devices, and any other articles considered
dangerous onto the trail system.
VEHICULAR ACCESS
The trail system is not intended to provide for any motorized vehicular use for recreational
purposes. The only vehicular access which will be permitted on the trail system is for:
Maintenance vehicles either for the trail itself or for other purposes such as where
the trail shares a utility easement and access is required to maintain the waterline or
powerline for example;
Police patrols -- if any motorized police use occurs it would probably be though us of
motorcycles;
Fire and paramedic vehicles may need to access the trails system in case of
emergencies.
Issues: The trail design at certain road intersections will have to provide barriers which
prevent public vehicular use of the trails but also allow for maintenance/emergency
vehicular access an needed. Removable or knock-down bollards or some form of locke
gateway device may have to be installed. Design guidelines for the trail system
should address this issue.
23
I: - a
- DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
As part of its implementation program, it is recommended that the City give consideration to
the possibility of a demonstration project: a high profile effort to put in place a prototype
trail linkage within a short time of adopting a policy for building a trail system.
One possibility for such a demonstration project would be the implementation of Linkages No.
23 and No. 24 forming a loop from the future intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real. along the south .side of Cannon Road to the future site of Macario Canyon Park, through the
park up a ridgeline which affords excellent view over Agua Hedionda Lagoon, leading through
open space areas through the edge of the Kirgis property, between the Kelly Ranch and Evans
Point developments to a viewpoint within the open space area of Evans Point, and back down to
the Cannon Road/El Camino Road intersection. A number of attributes suggest this linkage as a
demonstration project:
The potential viewpoint site in the Evans Point development from which one can see
most of the northeastern area of Carlsbad including the area around Lake Calavera, much
of the remainder of the eastern portion of the city out to the ridgelines which dominate
southern San Marcos which will feature trails potentially linking into the Carlsbad
system;
A second potential viewpoint with vista encompassing both lagoon and ocean;
Joining the trail system into one of the city’s most important future community parks;
. The two major private properties affected by these trail linkages (Kelly Ranch and
Evans Point) are both in the process of negotiating development approvals and their
development is scheduled in the near future; phasing which is consistent with early
implementation of the demonstration project.
Existing conceptual plans for the Evans Point development indicate use of an old barn
as a study/interpretive center which could be hooked into the trail system and also the
potential for a trail staging area at the barn location.
In order to implement this linkage, it will be necessary to negotiate an alignment form the
Evans Point and Kelly Ranch developments through Upland Industries (Carlsbad Research Center
development and/or the Kirgis property, to the Macario Canyon property already owned by the
city (APN 212-020-38: Upland Industries, APN 212-010-03: Kirgis). It is anticipated that
the City might have to purchase open space for a trail right-of-way along a 600-foot length of
Linkage No. 24.
The cost of such a linkage would vary according to the percentage of the trail acquisition and
improvements for which dedication can be negotiated.
Issues: The City will have to take almost immediate budgetary action if a demonstration
linkage is to be implemented in fiscal year 1991 - 1992.
As for most of the linkages, the City will have to negotiate with developers for
alignments and dedications. Given that these properties are being planned and
designed at this time, the need for negotiation is immediate.
24
W - OWNERSHIP
There are a number of different ownership situations which could potentially occur in the city
with regard to ownership of the trail system. City fee simple ownership.trai1 linkages and
associated right-of-ways is the most simple. The feasibility study has assumed that this is
the preferred type of ownership for the citywide trail system as the city would need ownership
to ensure continued access rights and consistent improvement and maintenance standards. This
option is feasible in most cases.
However, where the trail system has to pass along a utility easement, such as an SDG&E
powerline easement, the trail will be a secondary use and will be subject to the ownership
system utilized by the primary easement holder. In the case of SDG&E powerlines, the
projected trail system would usually use easements where the underlying land ownership is till
held by adjacent private landowners. (SDG&E purchased only easement rights, not the land in
fee simple.) In these cases, the trail system will have to pass through privately-owned land
and will be subject to successful negotiation of easement rights with the landowner. (SDG&E
also has the right of refusal over the granting of secondary use easements.) In a few cases,
SDG&E owns the land under their powerlines (especially close to the power plant) and in these
cases a secondary use access easement would have to be obtained from SDG&E directly. (It
should be noted that SDG&E has a more cooperative policy with regard to secondary uses than
Southern California Edison [SCE]. If the potential merger of SDG&E and SCE does proceed, the
potential for secondary uses may be reduced or removed altogether.)
The third main type of trail ownership would be for trails to remain under private ownership,
for example through the responsibility of a Home Owners Associate (HOA). There are a number
of trails in the city already existing under this type of ownership. The problem of this ownership it that access is typically limited to members of the association, While this is
clearly not appropriate for the primary trails being studied in this report, it is possible
that privately owned and maintained secondary trails within subdivisions could link up to the
main trail link.
25
W e
~ LIABILITY
AS part of this study, a survey was conducted of nine cities in California and the East Bay
Regional Park District in order to investigate a range of responses to the issue of liability
with regard to a trail system. The individuals interviewed are presented in Appendix A. All
of the jurisdictions are all “self-insured“ against any claims that would be filed against
funds. The limit of a city’s self-insurance ranges from $100,000 (Rancho Cucamonga) to
$1,000,000 (Burbank). In the event of a claim against a city greater than its self-insurance
limit, the city’s membership in an insurance “pool,” e.g., IndeDendent Cities risk Manapement
Association, enable payment of judgements form $1,000,000 to $10,000,000.
The City of Montebello is the one exception because the County of Los Angeles has jurisdiction
over its trail system which fronts a county flood control channel. The County is covered by
self-insurance for any dollar amount.
All of the jurisdictions surveyed with the exception of the East Bay Regional Parks District
reported that they have not had any claims filed against them. The East Bay Regional Parks District has had claims filed; according to the District representative, however, the courts
of user versus another type; for example, an accident between a pedestrian and a bicyclist.
In the past, the District tended to settle out of court but now intend to change their policy
and will begin to fight most suits. Their experience has been that if there are no real
hazards, and the trail is well-maintained and has proper signage, the District can
successfully defend itself. The District has lost one suit in recent years when a juvenile
strayed off the trail and drowned in a flood control ditch that was not in the District’s
jurisdiction. The District was held partly responsible because the trail took the individual
to the hazardous area and there was no warning sign. The District had to pay approximately
$45,000 in 1989 as a result of the court’s decision. Two other agencies were also
successfully sued for a total award of approximately $100,000. Other than this case, the District reported that no other major suits have been lost.
To reduce the possibility of claims being filed against them by trail users, the various
jurisdictions work to maintain the safety and intended design of the trails. Employees and/or
volunteers control the growth of weeds, trees, shrubs and bushes; clear away dangerous debris like rocks or broken bottles; post signs warning of potential hazards like rattlesnakes,
skunks, poison ivy, etc.; erect and repair fences so unsafe areas are not easily accessible;
them by trail users, Self-insured cities pay off a judgement against them using their general
generally have ruled favorably, protecting the recreational use. Most suits involve one type
and patrol the trails on a regular basis.
Some national insurance companies will offer specific liability coverage for certain user
groups that may use and maintain special segments within the citywide system.
State law limits the liability to landowners who make their land available, through easements,
to the public. The Recreational Use Statute (California Civic Code Section 846), protects landowners from financial responsibility in the event of injury. Immunity only applies,
however, if the landowner does not charge a fee for the recreational use of the land other
than the fee paid by the government or another entity to use the property, and if the
landowner does not expressly invite the person onto the property. A property owner who give
permission to enter and use the property (such as on a trail easement) is not expressly
inviting use of the property and does not assume responsibility or incur liability for .
injury. The public enters at its own risk. Thus this measure protects landowners from claims by people who stray off the public trail onto the adjacent private open space or property, was
well as users of the easement. However, the landowner must warn or guard against a dangerous
condition, use, structure, or activity. While this law protects the landowner, it does not
resources in the legal process, preclude a suit from being filed, and the landowner may still have to invest time and
26
W - The State of California has protected itself (Government Code Section 831.2 and 831.4) from
"liability for injuries resulting from natural conditions of a state park areas where the only
improvements are recreational access road and kinking, riding, fishing, and hunting trails."
Section 831.2 states that a public entity is not liable for injuries caused by a natural
condition of unimproved public land, Therefore, liability increases as improvements to the
property are made. Exposure to liability diminishes if the trail is in a natural state.
California also limits liability for public land trusts (Government Code Section 831-.5). The
land trusts must enter into agreements with the California Coastal Conservancy or the State Public Works Board, which confer the status of "public entity" upon the trust, giving the
trust additional limits on liability.
Although this plan attempts to address liability issues, the City attorney should be consulted
regarding specific liability issues as the trail plan is implemented.
Issues: The Risk Manager and the City Attorney should.review existing terms of the City's
liability policy in order to ensure coverage of trail-related incidents.
27
W
1 ! e
- COST ESTIMATE PROCESS
The method for estimating trail system acquisition, improvement, and maintenance costs
included several steps, as follows:
Field Check
After a preliminary trail system route was established, those segments in the preliminary
system for which acquisition might be more difficult were visually reviewed. During this
field check, site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and access opportunities were
considered to better determine the type of land that might be acquired fee title or through an
easement. Minor changes in the route were suggested that would facilitate acquisition and
implementation.
Linkages Analysis
Acquisition issues vary considerably by location. The preliminary system was divided into 55
discrete linkages for planning purposes. Linkages were defined based on a number of factors,
including factors which affect acquisition such as ownership, zoning, land use, and location
within public facility districts.
Identification of Linkages Requiring Acquisition
After the linkages were designated, probable methods for acquiring the trail system for each
linage were identified. Most of the linkages lie either within existing public lands or large
ownership areas for which master plans are yet to be approved. Public funds will not be
required to purchase trails in these areas since either the land is already owned or will be
acquired through land dedications. Trail right-of-way may have to be acquired within certain
segments. Those segments that might have to be acquired and the type of ownership, land use, and zoning issues affecting the value of those segments were identified.
An attempt was made to avoid the need to purchase trail right-of-way by designing the trail system along existing public land, public right-of-way, or Barge ownerships subject to
subdivision approval where dedication is possible. This design strategy reduced anticipated
acquisition costs to a relatively minor amount.
Cost Estimates for Acquiring the Trail System
The cost of acquiring the land needed for each segment of the trail system for which public
acquisition is deemed necessary was estimated. This estimate was based on a review of recent
land sales in Carlsbad on a per-acre basis (see Table 2), adjusted generally for inflation and
parcel size. Comparable land was defined as parcels with similar zoning and size. Although
parcel characteristics were considered, a parcel-by-parcel valuation or appraisal was not
conducted. Instead acquisition cost estimates were aggregated, resulting in an order-of-magnitude estimate for acquiring the right-of-way for the total system. The value of
trail right-of-way that will be acquired through dedication per the subdivision approval
process was not estimated since public funds will not be expended.
Cost Estimates for Improving the Trail System
In order to estimate the improvement costs which may be anticipated in implementing the trails
system a general unit cost was developed for each type of trail type and for each of the
special facilities such as viewpoints and staging areas. Estimates were based both on
industry standards for construction costs and on a review of typical cost estimates incurred
by other agencies in developing trails.
28
U c 5 3
2
Y n
<
4
W - I !E!
:dj::**-e-e-
-. LU..::ssss; -!:z=<zz=cc ,-#-""""
I" ~0~00000000-
0 P . - 0 .
0 -
*e .. 0.
-0 -0 .. := I", 4-1 -I UI 'I--ocL.nL.n~
*I .IO
-~-ammnm~m~.,.o "6-8 .........
A"' -3 8~I.zPPzzzn"
I I ;;;;;n;; I., I
!g;-$A Ill $$ii$& I*
I I """.eE~ ;?+y??'o?+
zlZ2~~:zSI
I
I oo::z:x,, I
C n
e e
LL. n-
-0 ..a
..
f
7
7 2
n
n .
wn nn
?;
$2 ?f
0::
I,
L.-
" Y b U
0 n - -
I
I
I I
I I 0 I
I : I !
I I
I I
I
t
I 4 I
I 1
I I
m - a
0 - 0 - !
I - - . - i
I
I
I
I I 1
I I
I
I
I !
I I
I
I
I
. . - 0 . ;i -
0 2
8 a P
2
E
-
?.
. 0
a - . a -
a 2
0 0
L. m - 0
: L.
. 0 . . Q
L
0
0
8
0 a
? .I n t 0
a I L. 0 W
c 0 .
a . CI e
CI ..
0
/
i
i
0 . . n . 0 m
1
0 ..
0 0 n n
0
n
L.
n
t
0 . n
0 4 c ::
I
" :
0
<
*
I
6 I
I I I , I I I I , I I 3
I I I 8 8 I
Y - a
a
0 - - ?4
.r - -
W - . e
l
I
I
I I
I I I
I
I
I I 1
c
5 n . a 0
I
s
n 4
j. 9
2 c
d I n
0 .
n ::
L
c t - e 8 ..
I I f
I I
I I I
9 I
Y
c!
0
L.
n
0
I 0 P
t
n 2
I ,mu .. iai::=::::
I?4;.2'aaZ81
1-1 I~I-...... ;z*...... I-tnZfZZfiZ IC10
I I I. ", 0 Y I-
o, -,-,2z:zEX: .I
,~,Z:2ZS2.2=. <I .I "I-,.... ..
-1.1 t n., n1-t - ..
.. CL ma .. 00
nn 00
"
COCC" -*ma.. ...... SlZZ"Z ..>... Q- 000000 0-m
COD. .... "I.
-0-0 .... -e"
2zz!g
5!%
zz ..
"
-owe--
-mm-a- -~L.o-o
Rm-01- ... .
000000 0000
O?f$?:, "
I I, ,00
n-0-n ;;$;;;
en 0- EnRn
nclnnRn "-
- .. - - - .. - 5 -
nnm- -vnn
0000 "I.
I
0000 4004
000-
00~~
OD00
""
/I,
r.n
ee-n 00" nnnm
\ - " " :a -a -n 0 "e - 2d
0000000
-n-c.--n
00 t ,00??0
I I I ,??ST
7??777?
"OQZOO::
nn. if::z:z::,P
~c.c.~.c.-m
OD 00 ,I "2
tt 00 - .- 00 I, " " nn
ut I e - - - " 0 - n u -
- - - "
0 - ;
%I *I 41
%-I
-4
-4 2: -0
- - 0 -
W .;
- Trail Linkages
The costs associated with the two types of trail -- paved and unpaved -- reflect an allowance
for the clearance, grading, surfacing, and associated improvements such as fencing, signage,
and occasional minimal landscaping. The general per lineal cost represents an aggregate
estimate. Some linkages will probably cost less than the average while others will cost more;
the cost estimate process was designed to provide a system-wide evaluation of overall cost
implications. The cost estimate of $l/LF for those links which use a sidewalk and bikelane
along existing or planned roads is to allow for the painting and striping of roadways and/or
sidewalks.
Trail Type 1 - Paved (per LF) $ 46 Trail Type 2 - Unpaved (per LF) 24
Sidewalk/Bikelane 1
Primary Staging Area
Twenty Parking Spaces and Driveway Fencing and Gateway
Signage/Displays
Bicycle Racks, etc.
Rest room Picnic Tables/Benches
Trash Receptacles
Handicapped Drinking Fountain
Trees/Landscaping
Lighting
Contingency
$ 24,000
7,500 10,000
6,000
120,000
6,000
2,000 2,000
20,000
12,000 2 1,000
TOTAL $230,500
Secondary Staging Area
Six Parking Spaces and Drive
Fencing and Gateway
Signage/Displays Bicycle Racks
Picnic Tables/Benches
Trash Receptacles
Handicapped Drinking Fountain
Trees/Landscaping
Lighting
Contingency
3i 8,000
5,000
5,000
4,000 2,000
1,000
2,000
5,000
8,000
4,000
TOTAL $ 44,000
30
,W w
Viewpoints
The $10,000 estimated for each viewpoint is intended to allow for the installation of
signage/interpretive information and some seating. It is assumed that the construction for
viewpoints would be simple and not include any significant built structures.
TOTAL !$ 10,000
Picnic Sites
Eight Table/Bench Units
Shade Trees
Trash Receptacles
$ 4,500
2,500
1,000
TOTAL $ 8,000
Cost Estimates for Maintaining the Trail System
Maintenance and liability costs were estimated based on the survey of existing jurisdictions
with trail systems regarding their maintenance costs on a per-mile basis (see below). The
Carlsbad trail system studied in this report has two trail types -- paved and unpaved.
Estimates for the two different types were made on a segment by segment basis.
Method for Financing Acquisition, Improvement, and Maintenance Costs
After total acquisition, improvement, and maintenance costs were estimated, the appropriate methods for financing such costs were recommended. The survey of existing jurisdictions with
trail systems provided some guidance as to how these costs currently are financed in other
communities. The recommended method or alternative methods also depended on the estimated
magnitude of costs.
Recreational Trail Survey
A survey was conducted to gather specific data about recreational trails in a sample of
communities. The survey included questions regarding the type and size of each trail system;
the cost for improving and maintaining each system; and methods each jurisdiction used for
financing the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of each trail system. Sources
included, but were not limited to, employees and officials in a jurisdiction’s Park and
Recreational Department, Community Services Office, Engineering Department, Planning
Department, Public Works Department, Budget Analysts Office, or Risk Management Office (see
Appendix A). The data is accurate to the best of each respondent’s knowledge.
The communities involved in the survey -- Burbank, Fontana, Glendora, Montebello, Poway,
Rancho Cucamonga, Whittier, and Valencia -- are relatively small in size and population, with
inhabitants numbering 50 - 100 thousand. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District,
which serves over 35 communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, and is one of the largest
trail systems in the state, was also surveyed. During the survey, our use of the term,
“recreational trails,” referred to a path, route, roadway, or lane designated for the
exclusive use of pedestrians/hikers, joggers/runners,or bicyclists. Equestrian usage was not
considered for the purposes of this study. It was understood that vehicular use was
prohibited, with the possible exception of emergency vehicles.
31
w , a
- Maintenance
There is considerable difference among the cities and special districts with respect to yearly
budgets for maintenance and operations (M/O), depending on the trail type and the extent to
which volunteer labor is used. For example:
Budget/Mile/Year City/Jurisdiction
N/A The City of Burbank and the City of Glendora do not have annual
budgets for trail M/O. Volunteers do all of the work and provide all
tools and supplies.
$2,00O/mi./yr. The City of Fontana allocates funds for trail M/O including personnel
and supplies, totaling $2,000 per mile per year. There is an
additional outlay of $300 for tools. Finally $144 is designated for
.. an ongoing series of "nature walks." Nine walks are scheduled in a
year. A guide is paid $8 an hour to lead these two-hour walks.
Fontana's total annual budget is $5,444 for its 2.5-mile trail system.
$6,667 /mi. Jyr. The City of Montebello does not actually pay to maintain its trail system. Since the trail borders a flood control channel, the County
of Los Angeles has jurisdiction over the area. County sources
indicate it costs $10,000 per year to maintain and operate the 1.5
mile trail system in Montebello.
$2,029/mi./yr. The City of Poway allocates $71,000 for the M/O of their 35-mile trai: system. This figure is likely to increase because the City is seeking to extend the length of the trails. The California Conservation Corps
helps Poway city employees to maintain the trail system and perhaps
keep M/O costs from rising too high.
$20,00O/mi./yr. The City of Rancho Cucamonga spends the most money per mile, $100
annually, for trail system M/O. Their trail is the only one that
consists of 100 percent compacted granite that is 4 inches deep and 20
feet wide, and is lighted. The trail is bounded along its entire
length by PVC (polyvinylchloride) and concrete rails for safety. The
upkeep. Finally Rancho Cucamonga is the only city that does not utilize volunteer labor. The M/O work is contracted out by the city.
All of these factors contribute to a relatively high annual M/O
budget.
city maintains a tractor, dump truck, and a pickup truck for trail
$l,429/mi./yr. The City of Whittier is similar to the City of Montebello, in that the
County of Los Angeles has responsibility for trail system M/O. The
crucial difference is that Whittier actually contracts "with the
county, and utilizes Fire Camp workers to help with M/O." County
sources indicate a total of $5,000 is spent on annual M/O for
Whittier.
32
w v
N/A The community of Valencia is unique among the surveyed areas. The
homeowners there pay property tax assessment fees that go into a
Landscape Maintenance District fund (LMD No. 8) to cover costs of M/
A specific dollar amount for annual M/O costs could not be determined
since the work is contracted out to a management company that cares
for the landscape, pools, trails, etc. without separating each into a
particular category.
$7,00O/mile/Year The East Bay Regional Park District, located in the East San Francisco
Bay region, has the largest trail system of the jurisdictions surveyed, totaling 1,000 miles over 35 different communities. The
regional trail system was formed in the early 1970s. Many of the
trails are multiuse trails and are located on right-of-ways owned by other agencies. The District enters into license agreements (usually
25 years) with railroad, canal, water district, and utilities
districts, most of whom do not require payment of the easement rights. The Distrust tries to get easements or fee title through
dedication and consider this method the best. Sometimes the Agency
leases easements. The Agency estimates that its annual maintenance costs, including staff and equipment, is $7,000 per mile for a paved
path. Natural paths are less costly to maintain. Homeowner associations will maintain adjacent landscaping if they desire better
than standard landscaping.
33
I I
w e
- COSTS ESTIMATES
Acquisition
Most of the trail system is on existing public land or in large landholdings subject to
subdivision approval where dedication is likely. Consequently, acquisition costs are
relatively minor and apply only to those properties for which plans have already been
approved, existing privately owned open space corridors, and utility easements. It is
assumed, and recommended, that any trail link traversing these properties be located along
open space corridors, per zoning and the General Plan, so that land costs are kept to
a minimum. Land acquisition costs would increase tremendously if the land purchased had
greater economic value and was zoned for a higher use such as residential, commercial or
industrial.
AS shown in Tables 3 and 4, total acquisition costs equal an estimated $448,000 (in 1990 dollars). The actual amount may be lower since some owners of existing open space, corridors
in already approved or developed areas may wish to transfer their property to the city to
relieve themselves of the cost to maintain those corridors. Phase 1 acquisition costs equal
an estimated $95,000.
Since actual acquisition costs cannot be determined until specific trail segments are
designed, it would be prudent to budget additional funds for acquisition beyond the estimated
cost. Approximately $1,000,000 is recommended.
Improvements
The improvement costs for the entire system are shown in Table 5, organized by linkage
number. The two critical figures for each link are the Total Cost and the Minimum Public Cost
columns. The Total Cost indicates the estimated improvement costs for each line item. The
Minimum Public Cost indicates those line items which it is anticipated the city will have to
finance. It is assumed that those line items which show $0 for the Minimum Public Cost will
recognized that predicting the outcome of negotiations over dedications is an imprecise
science and that the figures represent a best-guess estimate. If the city were not successful
in, or for some unforeseen reason did not pursue, the assumed dedications then the overall
cost of the system could rise. However it should also be noted that the improvement cost
estimates were conservatively made and the city may be able to achieve many of the linkages at
a lower improvement cost. Furthermore the city may be successful in negotiating more
dedication than has been assumed.
Given the provisos above, the total cost to the City of Carlsbad for improvements to implement
the trail system is estimated at $3,121,350. The Phase 1 improvements are estimated at
$1,891,150. (See Table 6.)
Maintenance
Maintenance costs were estimated for each trail link (Table 3) and staging, viewpoint, and
picnic areas (Table 4), based on annual costs of $5,000 per mile for Type 2 trails, $10,000
per mile for Type 1 trails, and $7,000 per acre for staging, viewpoint, and picnic areas. No
maintenance cost was assumed for trail links identified along existing of future sidewalk and
bike lanes, since these links are already maintained as part of the road system.
Total annual maintenance costs for the whole trail system is an estimated $290,000
(in 1990 dollars). This excludes costs for police and fire protection which will be estimated
by the respective departments, and excludes any recreation program costs the City wishes
be attained through dedicated improvements by associated developments. It should be
34
W - to offer related to the trail system. In early years, as the trail system is being developed
and is smaller, annual maintenance costs should be less; annual maintenance costs at
completion of Phase 1 are estimated at $70,000. Carlsbad may be able to reduce maintenance
costs by utilizing volunteer labor, as does Poway. Maintenance costs may also be reduced by
sharing of costs with SDG&E in utility corridors.
45
w e
I
W<!(* mmu) CLioooooooo *;g: I aee k 4)
~~~~~~~"~~E0~"94"~~~~~~~~~~ 9 N.'9 :h.?"??L;;
-2-t
.. nn nnNO.9"" ant. .. v) ON . ~ .? .'l?Q..
SEW! 2" hQ - t,-.: j
us$ j
I loommmooO"mmmmmnnnnmmooo"ooom
$gz ;m 1000000-00000000000000m00-0-000000000
255 I
2sz j
06 iQooooooO
52;; 0 ;sui -
~100"990"94444b~99"994~~ooo~~a~~~~ .. mmam"mv)m ...... mmmmm
522 I
dl
0.1
~~o~~0000000099090009~0Q00~0
i 0. : 9 2 0
ri n 0
w- ** "*I 03 P 0 * w
9 9
c 1
IUI* I ~QQQQQQQQ~Q~QQQ~QQQQQ~~~~~Q~)QQQ~~Q~QQ
IPI IS1
m 121 ?+'=I
IS1
lml
2HI.l 181
5; j I I
C~ldlooOOoooooOooooOooooooooooooooooooooo 8d",SSS"SS"SSS"SS~S~SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS~~ IC, ;qj gk1-i r 121mn~mmnDv)mmmv)nmDnv)mmv)mmmnv)mmv)*mmv)v)mmv) I< lNNN
~~LIooooooooooooooooogo 0000000000000000
I- IUlH !kkkk kRRR"h""~k~kkkg~~kkk~k~k~kk~~kkk NNNPI
UII;='-
~2i~hm ,"-~~~~2~~~~~2~~~~~~~~.~22~2~~2~~NNN zLy I
gz;:j :'SI '!El
"-2
c '<
2 Iu'
4: I z G81 W ; 2%' P m VI vI = 4", U~~B??P8?P?~PP~PP~?P?~~?~~~~~???~????~~ v)
i 5:; =; ++;. .. . . .VI .:*VI d ~"IIII=:9'~9~n~~l99~9?~~9~9~~~~?99~~~~ .VI .VIv)v)VI . .VI" .wv) VIVI
: g2;
ij ;ij
n W
a OK!
I -
+I 2s
E
9 I LyI " "" - " m am- "_
5 tu'! wmmww -
PI " *;ggg VIVIVI.-v x'2ag.- nwwww zg$ $zzz"' ccw
2.- 5 ~ej,,,,.,~,X~:~B=<g:~:~<<~~~~~~~~~~<~~~ - ?:=u"z mm- m-rr- " 1" .""52 .9.9, "
V g~;zzzzzz gzx-2 - "mu
4 m - .- .- -mmmw- g_m_mz2
2,
cE;i~zOz~~zzO~2aIzOzw w)vrVIVIm
OCLCLCLS
-VI
I !
"
u1 EY 1 :: PWWZW lU"UU"V0UO ggzm- = ~uu~u~~HHHHHS,~~~,~~~~~~~~~~ www -wwww OWL JW ;z,"-"- , .- - -.--__.__ 0"""-
OVOVO vvv m VOJ-
w- wmVIwm-- wwwwwm- > -- 0.""" n---- www-amwww-ZPZ3
33 < 33231 35:
o~omo
eci4449~4~4&c,,c"~2~22c~22~~~,~~~~=c 0.mIPPPu&P ~P~~~~~"~~~~~8"~z'"'" >" w .- - 5; m3zzz':22zb
lull I+, 1-1 1SbBSgSSSSS6S~E$66S6~66~66B666B~6~~66
~1~1~~Sb~~6b~~SsS~SSSS6~6~~~~6~~~o~~~~~~ (LI IPI
j9jg~S~666S6%6~~S6%66~~~~6~~~~~~o~6~6~~ ~m
= z=== O~v)OOO* - "- 00 " no -
%#e, 121
*If/ 0 my1 -
$101
0 c
,m1zoz:oz z - m Id, ICL, IC1 IUI
EO mzv) 0"
c10000000000000 Ly,00000000000,0888888888888888~~~~~88~
u ~o,o,o,o,o,o~nnoooov)v) ~o~o~o,nnv)mOn*mnv)ot*Nhno~o -Qmz a)w*tNh
2;
-I
=I <, Ly, ImriOO-N ...... ._...__~.'' _..... -clnCI*aPaPri mh--m*-
-If
"I uIOO----OO~NPI--n"--NNO~~NNNn---~*"~-N
-u I~PNNNP-PNNNN~N~N~N~N=~PN-P-NNNNNNNNN I.. -
q
2
- - I" -w-
\V. YI VI .. => 8 cc I
v) .- v) L :: <PIVIVI
I n << 1-N0P"a"=Q"""=~"3i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~k~~~
2, I I
rj
u3 !a
I+
w - I ~~~moo~~wno~~oooonnnnooooomo~~~~~~~ I < I"00m-CIh
I*llnttm
$~~~OWhP0-t Ph.0 'Oh0NPO mWS0 CO VN0IOINN ,
ten I Nul I*
10 LDV)hhhh moo m ...... .... .. .... ... ..
rj2E I 2- 10tN9 N -00 10 -2b'OI-N
+a I zzI- f I
!
u<m I ss I I
1~"~"440~4~04~.~444?~~~0~0~~~~ ~nnnmnnnonmnomon~nnonnnononmnn
p~~looooooooooooo-oo~~o~ooooooooo
5::;
ZEE j
+ ZI zz; I
a,
a? 1
cj
l00000000000000000000000000000100
??IO.-. +I- O 0 0. 00
m *o
00 100
N'OINP .nV)I*rn I *I* ,* I I
<-e 1 5-2" I
0
N 0
..
igzj
I
I I I
IY, 1wwmwmmwmmwwmm*wmmwwmwwwwmmwmm !zi
g jp j
IvlI
IZI IYI
VIP I +<I I <Y I 8
vln IS I
~~#A~00000000000000000000000000000 +~l'l~"~~"~ss~""~ss~s~~~s~~~sss~
YPII-I 1P.l
hl-; +v3i
~~I'I""""""~"N~""""~""NNNNNN VI IAlnmnLDnmnmmnnmnnnnnnnnnLDnnnLDLDnn
L Zg;$j IYI
~~I~IOOOOO~OOOOoooOooo~ooooooooooo 6 12; L 2 ;g/
8 e 121 W W $ ~~jn?n?n;anann????nrrn~~n??nn~~; n *.A n nn 5 ?:I
01
54 I z I IC8 """N2TIN
IYI IPI
IClhhhbhhhhhhhhhhChhbhh'hhhhhhhhh INNNNNNNNNNNNNnNNNNNNNNNnNNnNN
IUI
I
ww
u?
w 1
0 V -
%
.c
i 2, E 52;
2 E2I
$gjv)IIIvIv)vIU). .. ... I '~~~~~~<<<~<?<<~~?~~r~~~~~~~~~ .*,A mwy1 -Y)wmv)yIyI
c- +I zzz zzzz
!
A
c
+e
- I Y I--"" " - - "_ a 22:: -u.- swm ~=z,~ww
l""" Ys Izmzm.Iz ..... 1x00~ .. -.-- ?-"sa
2 n58vImvImvIm < W.xPo"o"
uu
9 ~~~~~~<<<<<<<<w-vlvl<~~~<O~~=nn m CL~I - zzzzzzii~=cci=c~z~~~=cc
$~;cCCscC .srpp. wmm c
a~wP=w.x= IWWWWWW :&go" "WW so"g mw)m SWWW "vIWW :
! < v
I
E3 j u,-wuvw- wu-m
I1 "" c --.-
- -0 u 0 0000uw C
0- 2z>> ~fs~~='"'~~,~,,30r~,~~,~~,~~~~~~ wwwwww I
zzl-wwwaw--- ;.Qz-un~nx>.-.- w----w---w-w- wwwwww - a W+1=2&Buz " xsxuw1-xw 0.mI-Uuu-co a mwaaa"033nu CLW LC
n > .-
-1
&2&E22&&
5 IqsSsP: = 02 5'y$;;%z;
I
c a 1,16566666666666666666%6%%~66666 a L IZIOZZ02" 0,Z Z0,ZZ 2:- 0 -2ZZOZ W I?;
1:;
19(6666%56%66%5%666%%666%6666666
-*
a~.xt -IPI
QC
.- U"
Wl
~IW166666%~%666$$6$$$6666~$$~$66~ - n .-
gio; <c
n-
LIC
tmt
32
'I 4
z ';
r
lvll "OZO 2ZZ - - Id1 lerl IC1 IWI
cc 'C
+Io0 o~~g~gg~oooooooooooooOOOPOOOIO Ylyl c - - u. ~,NooNhNnnos~~88PoP8~~888~88~~~~~ I ...... ......... ............ . C
Wt
UI <I
Irt*emPN -"-9bNN9 N-mtt0hh-Ohh10 ,
IP IN
I I c
- - I
zI
fI
:
AI
YINN000"-00N---N0000~00Nll--NNN m,
m*
mc
wa .- y1 Ya
-
01
A INNNN~NN~NNNQN~NNNNQNNN*NQNNNN
<a I
- - 92
-Lu I
-
v)
- -
vI Y -w
y1 w .a .- 3v, m-
wo
. . . .. m E:: I
-
I ou
10000000009tttttt999***9nnnLDnyl C < < < < < (N0tLD10hWQ~O-N00tnn~10hmmmO-N09n - e .- "75
fI s II m I
dl
I
0- c 0- .- vI1
w 0
I $1 ????:77:222:;:: I
gg:: ?????S????; .o.o---n-"- '99
ZI-P I -$E I IRk
+z I
1
I H*
I t I In-+ "8 I i ;gE j
22.: t
2ZE j zz;/
P! ai! j zt+ I 150" I ip j < I
I , I :si IPI I*,
IS!
3 wISI
ijsj z a;:/
t; v2/
I- .:I
In w LLlCl I.:,
SI- 1-1 P 81 I
wwl;il
3szIcI
kSu/g! 222 10" I
121
2:z Id;
:2 '
"1+ :;;
z 52 0.:: $2;
z~'w'
151
z IUI
2; <.:I
ICLI
IUI
3: <G #Bi
<
g; g2; -I, ++ I 5 52:;
!
-zz I
v1 g2 I
In
zo'oz'o.oo'o'o0~0" 0000000000 ...
* ooolno roXOO
mt.*
Nmt
I 1-0
I- I- ILO
I ne
!E!
!
I* I ,
0000000000 ?????????? VI 0000000000 -
H VI 0 U -
W
m .c
'3
ggggg~oooo lnlnlnLn .......... mmmmmmmmmm *
mtnlnmlnlnmlnlnm NNNNNNNNNN
w eeweuliiiii .. . . __
0000000000
on
lnLOmyILOln?ylnln
"2222"" "22 ......
H
..
VI .., %PP?P?PPPP
. ..., ..,..,..,.A ;;??;?????
i
< CL
- I UI
+ E9 j
9 za I --g:$ <ggVIzz
VI 2 821 ZZ~ZZ--Cx-
W " m . .a,.
-- mmwwm -
"
I 55W5
CL
U
2, 01
I
"W" ww 0" .:LT2+:
I w, w3 j g, mF FP vvomu;8c~%
&VI, sa2;<2 3.: &S 5s
w -
521 IZzL"U-P)U 0"""
"! 94&= --
-1 a.P=mP-Q
5:
J
c
IUI li-t bsssssggsg
1<1 1>1 e= O"O,s!
%I=, I-,
E:.:! SsbSbbSkEb
gjz:
19: ssssgsssss
IPI
=tu, Ut3z.I
~mj lvll ZE! - IAI I=, I<# IUI I +I w, UI
OOOOOOOOOOlO .o.ow~wmmwmw~n
LI YY??').?').??-. I: +9ZE!ZzZ"""~ I *"I tu, L1I ;i I- I I
! w, 0"I -----N""" 2:
I i -u I <a I .:> I m
NNNNNNNNNN
++ I
I I
W
< L
ZI "Z2R:ffsS:: s
:I 0 ! c
W
3
u
-
m .- - n
< - 8 .., u -< 82
- 0
c
L m
E - -
b W n
L W "-
2
a
VI ::
0 r
P - - a e.
L
VI . 0
0 *
II
W
m a
E
n 0 . - 2
1 - .. a mu ..,- WL -01
L 0 ..
VI- a,. L.., v.
Ln 0.
Le 0 - I1
mo
12 VI-
BZ
(II -a 2: u- W L ..
"
0; VI. um we
LO
e
-.
n-
m II C
.- 0- P"
hL
.: I - - 00
0 .. -. - - 2; r. Ln EN 0.
OH W VI 11
a- m
..,e ow
OVI
uu
cw 4K
..,- -1
-
i
W U .- - x
O
m
W L - - " r
O a
U x W
.- -
W
U m
b
L W 0
0 0
b H
C
0 2 m 3
W
C m
W
C
-
.d .- 2
..,
0)
m
V
- .-
2
<
f
L m W .., W CL .., U
E
C 0
.-
w
W u
A - -VI
L -: -
7/07/90
w Carlsbad Trails Master Plan w
Project 891554
Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates Page 1
Length Special Minimum Publi
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
”-
01 3 .3 Sidewalk/ 5,000 1 5,000 5,000 5,000
Bikelane
02 3 3 Sidewalk/ 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 2,000
Bikelane
03 1 ,. 12 3,000 24 72 , 000 72,000
03
03
03
04
05
06
07
07
08
09
09
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 Picnic
1 Staging Area
1 Viewpoint
12
12
1 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
31
3 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
32
22
22
12
12
1 Picnic
1 Staging Area
1 Viewpoint
3,000
1,000
2,000
300
1,200
3,000
3,000
3,000
4 , 000
6,500
24
24
1
46
1
24
24
24
24
24
8,000 8,000
230 , 500 230 , 500
10,000 10,000
72,000
24 , 000
2,000 2,000
13,800
1,200
72,000
72,000
72,000
96,000
156,000
8,000 8,000
230,500 230,500
10,000 10,000
8,000
230,500
10,000
72,000
24,000
2,000
1,200
72,000
96,000
156,000
8,000
230,500
10,000
I
w Carlsbad Trails Master Plan @
Preject 891551,
7/07/90 Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates Page 2
Length Special Minimum Pub1
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
"-
11 3 32 14,500 24 348 , 000
12 1 12 6,000 24 144,000 144,000
13 1 12 4,000 24 96,000 96,000
14 3 12 500 24 12,000
14 3 12 2,000 24 48 , 000 48,000
15 2 22 5,500 24 132,000
15 2 2 Signal 100,000 100,000 100,000
16 2 22 7,500 24 180,000
17 3 3 Sidewalk/ 1,500 1 1 , 500 1,500
Bikelane
18 3 3 Bridge 1,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
19 3 3 Sidewalk/ 9,500 1 9,500 9,500
Bi kelane
20 2 22 5 , 500 24 132,000
21 2 21 1 , 500 46 69,000
21 2 2 Sideualk/ 1 ,500 1
Bi kelane
22 2 21 8,500 46
1,500 1,500
391,000
23 1 12 5,000 24 120,000
24 1 12 600 24 14,400 14,400
24 1 12 10,400 24 249,600
24 1 1 Viewpoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
7/07/90
w Carlsbad Trails Master Plan
Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates - Project 891554
Page 3
Length Special Minimum Public
Link Priority Phase . Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
-~-
25 3 32 8,250 24 198,000
26 3 32 8,750 24 210,000
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
39
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
32
3 Small Staging
Area
32
12
22
22
22
22
32
32
32
12
12
1 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
32
4,500
4,000
2,500
7,000
6,500
4,250
4,000
6,000
5 , 250
4,750
2,250
500
1 ,500
1,000
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
1
24
108,000
44,000 44,000 44,000
96,000
60,000 60,000
168,000
156,000
102,000
96,000
144,000
126,000
114,000
54,000 54,000
12,000 12,000
1,500 1,500
24,000 24,000
40 3 32 15,500 24 372,000
41 2 22 1,750 24 42,000
< w
Carlsbad Trails Master Plan * Project 891554
7/07/90 Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates Page 4
Length Special Minimum Publ i
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
”-
42 1 1 Sidewalk/ 4,250 1 4,250 4,250
Bikelane
43 1 11 2 , 500 46 115,000 115,000
43 1 12 7,000 24 168.000
43 1 1 Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
43 1 1 Small Staging 44,000 44,000 44,000
Area
44 2 22 4,000 ‘24 96,000
44 2 2 Staging Area 230,500 230,500 230,500
45 3 32 500 24 12,000 12,000
45 3 32 4,500 24 108,000
46 3 32 2,500 24 60,000 60,000
46 3 3 Sidewalk/ 1,750 1 1,750 1,750 1,750
Bikelane
46 3 3 Bridge 50,000 50,000 50,000
47 1 32 9,000 24 216,000
47 1 3 Bridge 50,000 50,000 50,000
47 1 3 Smatl Staging
Area
47 1 3 Viewpoint
44,000 44,000 44,000
10,000 10,000 10,000
4a 3 32 4,000 24 96,000
48 3 32
ha 3 3 Bridge
4,000 24 96,000 96,000
50,000 50,000 50,000
e Carlsbad Trails Master Plan
Project 891554 - I
7/07/90 Table 5 Improvement Cost Estimates Page 5
Length Special Minimum Public
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
"-
48 3 3 Vieupoint
49 2 2 Sidewalk/
Bikelane
50 3 32
50 3 3 Small Staging
Area
51 1 1 Sideualk/
Bikelane
52 1 12
53 2 22
53 2 2 Viewpoint
54 1 12
55 1 12
10,000 10,000 10,000
3,000 1 3,000 3,000
7,250 24 174,000
L4,OOO L4,OOO LL, 000
7,000 1 7,000 7,000
1,500 24 36,000
10,750 24 258,000
10,000 10,000 10,000
7,750 24 186,000 186,000
7,000 24 168,000 168,000
"""""""""""""""""""""""""- """""""""""""""""""""""""-
Special Costs Total: S 1,412,250
Total Cost Total: 7,898,500
Minim Public Cost Total: 3,023,100
Total Length (LF): 298,500
w Carlsbad Trails Master Plan 0 -
Project 891554
7/07/90 Table 6 Improvement Cost Estimates -- Phase 1 Page 1
Length Special Minimum Publ.
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
"-
03 1 12 3,000 24 72 , 000 72 , 000
03 1 1 Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
03 1 1 Staging Area 230,500 230,500 230,500
03 9 1 Vieupoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
04 1 12 3,000 24 72,000 72,000
05 1 12 1,000 24 24,000 24,000
06 1 1 Sidewalk/ 2,000 1 2,000 2,000 2,000
Bikelane
10 1 12 4,000 24 96,000 96,000
10 I 12 6,500 24 156,000 156,000
10 1 1 Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
10 1 1 Staging Area 230,500 230,500 230,500
10 1
12 1
13 1
14 3
14 3
23 1
24 1
24 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viewpoint
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10,000
6,000 24
4,000 24
500 24
2,000 24
5,000 24
600 24
10,400 24
10,000 10,000
144,000 144,000
96,000 96 , 000
12,000
48,000 48,000
120,000
14,400 14,400
249,600
w Carlsbad Trails Master Plan
Project 891554 - 7/07/90 Table 6 improvement Cost Estimates -- Phase 1 Page 2
Length Speci a L Minimum PubL ic
Link Priority Phase Type (LF) Unit Cost/LF Costs Total Cost cost
-~-
24 1 1 Viewpoint 10,000 10,000 10,000
29 2 12 2,500 24 60,000 60,000
37 1 12 2,250 24 54,000 54,000
3a 1 12 500 24 12,000 12,000
38 1 1 Sidewalk/ 1,500 1
Bi kelane
42 1 1 Sidewalk/ 4,250 1
Bikelane
43 1 11 2,500 46
1,500 1 ,500
4,250 4,250
115,000 115,000
43 1 12 7,000 24 168,000
43 1 1 Picnic 8,000 8,000 8,000
43 I 1 Small Staging 44,000 44,000 44,000
Area
51 1 1 Sidewalk/ 7,000 1 7,000 7,000
Bi kelane
52 1 12 1,500 24 36,000
54 1 12 7,750 24 186,000 186,000
55 1 12 7,000 24 168,000 168,000
"""""""""""""""""""""""""- -"""""""""""""""""""""""""
Special Costs Total: s 561,000
Total Cost Total: 2,476,750
Minim Public Cost Total: 1,891,150
Total Length (LF): 91,750
w 0
- ACQUISITION STRATEGIES
The trail system has been designed to utilize existing public ownership and right-of-way to reduce acquisition requirements. Of the trail segments that are not located on public land,
most can be acquired through land dedication as part of the subdivision approval process,
minimizing the amount of land that has to be purchased directly. Goals and policies will need
to be added to the Open Space Element of the General Plan to require future Master Plans for
the undeveloped portions of the city to address provision of trails and related open space
corridors within the Master Plan areas. There are a few situations where public purchase may
be required, as follows:
Segments which are proposed in large landholdings that have already received
approval. The developer may still choose to dedicate the trail link to the city,
especially if this relieves the developer of maintenance costs. Still, a developer may ask for compensation for the easement.
e Segments which are in existing open space corridors privately owned and maintained by
a homeowners association. Again, the homeowners may choose to dedicate the trial system
to the city to reduce the association’s responsibility to maintain the open space
corridor, but some may attempt to negotiate a purchase price instead.
Segments which traverse small ownerships. A trail traversing a small parcel could
potentially reduce the value of that parcel and would require acquisition. The trail . system, however, has been planned to avoid small ownerships to avoid this circumstance.
Segments which are on utility easements. According to interviews with representatives
of San Diego Gas & Electric, SDG&E would not object to a trail along their easement, bu.
since they do not own the underlying property in most cases, the right to use this
easement must be negotiated with the private property owner who may ask for
compensation.
To mitigate acquisition costs and issues, the following is recommended:
1) Use public lands when possible;
2) Seek trail dedication in the subdivision approval process as either
part of the open space or parks requirement; increasing parkland dedication
requirements (per the Quimby Act) to include trail lands might be considered;
3) Plan trails at property edges to minimize their cost and impact on parcel values;
4) Seek flexible easements on parcels that are not proposed for development in the near
term, allowing the property owner to change the alignment at a later date.
5) Align the trail in open space corridors and not through parcels that have a higher
economic use and are therefore more costly.
6) Negotiate the use of utility easements immediately in the event that Southern
California Edison, which does not have as liberal policies for joint-use of their
easements, takes control of San Diego Gas & Electric.
Issues: The city must be conscious of the economic value of land acquired for the trail
system and, while implementing the trail system should weigh the cost/benefit of
each link that requires public purchase once an independent appraisal is made.
46
w v
FINANCING STRATEGIES
Acquisition and Improvements
Options for acquisition and improvements financing include the following:
1) Public Facility Fees
In order to finance acquisition and improvement costs, the trail system could be
incorporated as an extra item in the city’s public facility fees program, or be included
as a sub-element within the existing open space or park facilities standards. If the
trail system is considered an extra item, this might require an increase in the fee,
subject to voter approval, and would only be applicable to those zones for which the
public facility fee and financing plan has yet to be adopted, unless existing plans were
amended. If the trail system is considered an element within facilities for which
public facility fee monies are already collected, an increase in the fee would not be
required, although no new additional revenue will be raised specifically for the trail
system. The trail system should be considered a citywide facility.
2) General Obligation Bond
The trail system’s development costs could be financed with a general obligation bond,
which would require two-thirds voter approval. The City of San Juan Capistrano and the
East Bay Regional Park District recently achieved two-thirds voter approval for general
obligation bonds to finance park, open space, and trail acquisition and development.
3) Citywide Assessment District
A citywide assessment district could be used to finance trail system development costs;
however, since assessment district monies are recommended to cover annual maintenance
costs, the burden of an assessment to cover both maintenance and development must be
evaluated and the nexus more clearly demonstrated.
4) Community Mello-Roos District
While a citywide Mello-Roos District may also be formed to help finance development
costs, this would require two-thirds voter approval; in which case, a more secure
general obligation bond should be pursued instead. However, a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District could be formed over large landholdings on which new neighborhoods will be developed. If there are fewer than 12 property owners, the vote for a
Mello-Roos district is by acreage owned, facilitating approval prior to the selling of
homes.
5) Negotiated Development Agreements/Dedication
The city may negotiate with developers to either develop trail segments within their
property or pay an in-lieu fee so that the city may develop the trail segment. The city
may consider increasing its Quimby parkland dedication standards to include trail land.
6) Grants
State Grants and SANDAG grants exist for trail planning and acquisition. The process is
competitive and the amount of funds available is limited. Still, grants should be
pursued for those particular segments that have the greatest chance of competing for grant monies,
47
w e
- 7) Public Land Trusts
Trail lands may be donated to, or purchased by, a nonprofit public land trust who may
then maintain the trail link or lease it to the city for a nominal fee.
8) General Funds
Finally, trail development costs may be incorporated into the capital improvement plan
budget and funded with general fund revenue. While monies from public facility fees
applied to new development would finance acquisition and improvement costs for segment
of the trail system that serve the new population, portions of the trail system would be
serving existing population from which public facility revenues will not be generated.
Therefore, general fund monies will probably be required to fund that portion of the
trail system's acquisition and improvement which is allocated to serve the existing
population.
Of the financing methods described for acquisition and development, incorporating the trail
system into the city public facility fee program, negotiating trail improvements in the
subdivision approval process, and using general fund monies over time, appear to be the most
appropriate approaches.
Proposition H, passed in 1982, requires voter approval of city fund expenditures for any
single project where acquisition and development of public land exceed $1 million.
Acquisition and improvements funded by special assessments are not subject to this measure.
Since the ordinance which implements this measure (Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code) states
that a project "may not be separated into parts or phases so as to avoid the effects of this
chapter," the city will have to determine whether the trail system plan constitutes one or
several projects.
Maintenance
Maintenance costs may be funded through one of three basic approaches:
1) Citywide Assessment District
Since the trail system serves the citywide population, incorporating the trail system
maintenance costs into the existing citywide lighting and landscaping assessment district may be the most appropriate approach.
2) Citywide Mello-Roos District
Incorporating trail system maintenance costs into a citywide Mello-Roos District formed for other public facilities and services is a possibility. A Mello-Roos district, however, requires two-thirds voter approval, which may be difficult to achieve.
48
e - 3) General Funds
Many cities fund their trail system maintenance costs out of their general funds. While
this is always a possibility, this approach does not raise additional revenue for the
trail system program and general funds expended on the trail system would be weighed
against the other city demands for general fund monies.
Another approach which is not recommended here is to use different funds to maintain
different segments of the trail system, such as smaller Mello-Roos districts formed for
specific subdivisions, homeowners association fees, neighborhood assessment districts,
and private development agreements. While this approach allows greater flexibility, it
could present coordination problems, result in inconsistent maintenance standards, and may increase the liability exposure to private owners and homeowners associations that
maintain portions of the trail system.
Issues: The city should choose a financing strategy for acquisition, improvements, and
maintenance which is equitable, recognizing that the trail system will be a citywide
facility serving both existing and new populations.
49
w 0
- OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The responsibility for maintenance of the trail system would probably be placed primarily
under the remit of the Parks and Recreation Department. This is consistent with their
responsibility for community serving recreational facilities and street trees and median
landscaping. Initial meetings and discussion with the Parks and Recreation Department have
indicated general support from the department management for this position. The maintenance
operations would also have to be supported by the Utilities and Maintenance Department with regard to repair and some ongoing maintenance of paved surfaces, lighting, built facilities,
traffic signals, bridges and underpasses, and any special drainage improvements made for the
trail linkages. Again, preliminary meetings and discussion with the Utilities Department has
generated general acceptance of these responsibilities.
For both departments, of course, the ability to complete these additional tasks is contingent
upon receiving additional funding.
PHASING AND PRIORITIES
The priority categories shown on various tables and in each of the linkages descriptions indicate the time frame within which each linkage might be scheduled for implementation
according to a subjective assessment of their value to the system as a whole. The time .frames
associated with each priority were:
Phase 1: 0 - 3 years Phase 2: 3 - 6 years
Phase 3: 6+ years
The phasing category indicates the time frame at which the trail link might be anticipated to
be implemented if the determining factors did not include the priority ranking. For example
in an area yet to be developed, the phasing for the trail linkage indicates when it is
anticipated that area will be developed, so that if trails implementation is tied to the
subdivision process that is when the trail would be implemented. The only concern in
correlating these two categories is when the intrinsic priority of the link suggests
implementation sooner than the phasing category would allow. In such a case the city, if it
land and fund improvements where it might otherwise have achieved acquisition and improveme
of the trail segment through dedication. (Alternatively the city might be able to negotiate
some form of reimbursement agreement through which to recoup the expense. Even then the cit would have to find the capital expense in the short term.)
The only linkage so affected is No. 47 which because of its intrinsic merits - a unique
linkage in the system along the rim of San Marcos Canyon - is ascribed a priority 1 whereas
the area is not anticipated to develop until Phase 3.
Issues: A decision will be required as to whether the city will incur additional expense to
decided to implement the segment prior to development of the area, might have to purchase the
implement high priority linkages before the surrounding area develops and dedication
of trail acquisition and improvements through the subdivision process can be
effected.
50
w w
APPROVALS AND PERMITS
As with any other land use proposal the implementation of a trails system will be subject to
review from a variety of agencies from whom approvals and permits may be required for the project to proceed,
With regard to trail sections located adjacent to areas of sensitive wildlife habitat such as
wetlands or areas where state or federal listed species occur the trails proposals may include
review by any or all of the following agencies: the California Department of Fish and Game,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers.
Specifically, a Section 404 Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
wherever any type of dredge or fill of wetlands is involved. (Areas of wetland which are
under one acre in size and in isolated locations relative to other wetland may fall under the
definitions of a Nationwide Permit and avoid the need for a Section 404 Permit, but this
should not be counted on.) Trails running within habitat areas of federally listed endangered
species will be subject to Section 7 consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
those running through state listed endangered species habitat will be subject to Section 10
consultations with the State Department of Fish and Game. The Coastal Commission will not
issue a permit per se, but will have review of trails proposals which should be in accordance
with local Coastal Zone Plan requirements, Given that public access is a key concern of the
agency, it is unlikely that significant problems with regard to a public trails system would
originate with the Coastal Commission.
The trail alignments selected in this study have been placed so as to avoid obvious conflicts
with the requirements of these agencies. However a number of trail links go close to
sensitive areas. In these cases coordination with various agencies will be needed to refine a
final alignment. Additionally some special design standards may be required such as the
inclusion of special fencing between the trail and the sensitive habitat. One such fence
standard which has received U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers approvals calls for a 3.5-foot high wood frame and welded wire fence continuous
along the habitat perimeter.
Issues: Early involvement of agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coastal Commission, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will help ensure that the
trail system is planned and designed in an environmentally sensitive manner
consistent with agency requirements.
51
w e
- LINKAGES DESCRIPTIONS
This final section of the report includes detailed descriptions of all of the links considered
as viable as a result of the feasibility study. The linkages are both described in a proforma
and are shown on a series of 23 map sheets which follow the descriptions. It should be noted
that the aerial photographs on which the linkage alignments are shown were taken during the
period September and October 1988,
52
W - I
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 1
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
From Carlsbad Boulevard along Laguna Drive and Jefferson
Street to 1-5
1
5,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City owned right-of-way
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential to south, lagoon to north
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria: Follow along existing city streets; City Parks and
Recreation Department considering development of
recreational facility on site to west of Carlsbad Boulevard
to which trail would connect; trail needs to cross
railroad line to get to beach - at present trail is assumed
to cross along Carlsbad Boulevard bridge but a pedestrian bridge over the railroad is being considered as part of the
Parks Department improvements and the trail could use this
if built
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/CIassi fication: Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: If trail crosses railroad on new bridge, this will have
to meet appropriate design and construction standards for
the railroad crossing
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $5,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street'maintenance program
Notes:
891554/0305
w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 2
- Existing Conditions
Location: From 1-5 along north side of Jefferson Street to Duck Porn
at Marron Road and Hosp Grove
Zone: 1
Length; 2,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 156-010-32; 154-180-06; 156-010-08; 156-010-01;
156-031-10,11,12; 154-140-29,30,32; 150-160-28
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Lagoon to north, bluff to south in private ownerships
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria: Follow along existing city street using existing or future
sidewalk/bikelanes; will have to use narrow existing
sidewalk on bridge across 1-5
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classification: Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: The Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fj
and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
would have to be consulted for approval as construction of
sidewalks along Jefferson would probably involve some fill
of the lagoon. Off-site mitigation might be a condition of
approval which would be expensive. The city has already
engaged in some discussion with the agencies regarding the
construction of a sidewalk in this location
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $2,000 (does not include construction costs for sidewalk or mitigation which have been considered a street improvemen
expense - the $2,000 is for trail signage only)
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Notes:
89 1554/0305
W - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 3
Existing Conditions
Location: Hosp Grove
Zone: 1
Length: 3,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City of Carlsbad
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open Space
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
From a proposed staging area located to the south of the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Marron Road through
the north edge of the grove crossing Monroe Street at
Marron, leading up the slope in a southeasterly direction
to a viewpoint and on through the main portion of the Grol
to Hosp Way.
Some access for maintenance vehicles will probably need to
be incorporated into the site design for Hosp Grove.
Trail Type: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $320,500
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $9,820 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 4
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Leading south from proposed staging area in Hosp Grove
along to Elm Avenue
i
3,000 L.F.
City of Carlsbad
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open Space corridor in-between road and residential area.
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria: Trail should stay close to the top of the slope.
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Trail Type: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $72,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,850 per annum
Notes:
89 1554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 5
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Leading from existing staging area at Wickham Way north into main part of Hosp Grove joining with Linkage #3
1
1,000 L.F.
City of Carlsbad
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Utilize existing trails as well as developing new connection to north. Existing trails do not meet the standards described in this plan in terms of width but are
proving adequate at present. Construction cost estimate
includes improvement to new standard.
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $24,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $950 per annum
Notes:
89 155410305
W e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 6
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership;
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design . '
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Along Hosp Way from Hosp Grove to El Camino Real
1
2,000 L.F.
City owned right-of-way
Residential street
N/A
Follow along existing city street
N/A
Trail Type: Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $2,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of existing street maintenance
Notes:
891554/0305
W w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 7
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
From intersection of Hosp Way and El Camino Real east to
Avenida de Anita and then following along street to
intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron Road
2
Length: 1,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City owned right-of-way; private parcel: APN unknown
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Carlsbad Plaza South commercial development to north;
undeveloped to south; existing residential along Avenida de
Anita
Development Plans: Commercial development to southeast of Hosp Way and El
Camino Real intersection
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Along streets except where trail links up slope from
commercial area to residential along Avenida de Anita
N/A
Trail Type: Sidewalk/bikelane except for 300 L.F. of Type 1
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
3
3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1,200 - city cost
$13,800 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $570 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
I w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NOa 8
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of Avenida de Anita and Marron Road
through open space to Larwin Park
Zone: 2 and 25
Length: 3,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 167-040-24; 167-442-13; 167-090-48
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped to north; residential to south
Development Plans: Buena Vista Park Plaza Specific Plan
Design
Siting criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Trail should be located in open space in preference top
alongside road; follows SDG&E R.O.W. at south end of linl
staging area at Larwin Park
SDG&E maintenance vehicles
2
3
3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Secondary use of SDG&E easement requires negotiation of
easement rights
Proposed Ownership: Public access easement; underlying ownership to remain wit
private property owners
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $18,000
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $72,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,850
Notes: Could use portion of 15 percent growth management standa
in Zone 25
89 1554/0305
w w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 9
Existing Conditions
Location: Larwin Park to Calavera Park
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
7
6,000 L.F.
167-101-19
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space; residential; school; undeveloped area around northwest portion of trail
Development Plans: New residential adjacent to trail, but trail to remain in
open space corridor; east portion of trail falls within
open space in Calavera Hills Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi fication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
From Larwin Park to connect across to Vancouver street
through easement. Cross Vancouver to open space canyon.
Follow within open space corridor to Tamarack. Grade
crossing at Tamarack north of Chatham Road and across E11
at signalized intersection to enter Calavera Park
N/A
2
2
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $72,000 - city cost
$72,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $5,700 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
I v e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 10
- Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Calavera Park to Calavera Lake and linking to Oceanside
7 and 14
Length: 10,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 167-101-28; 168-040-02, 18, 23, and 25; 168-050-01; mair
portion of trail around lake to fall within existing city
ownership
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Calavera Hills Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria: From Calavera Park go east along south side of Elm with a grade crossings required at Glasgow Drive and future
intersection of Elm and College; then follow open space to
Calavera Lake; area around lake to be used as special
recreation area focussing on trails use including a primary
staging area, picnic site, and viewpoint
Shared Use Needs: NJA
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Riparian areas close to trail alignment will involve agency review from the Department of Fish and Game, Fis
and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $24,000
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $500,500
Maintenance (Cost/Financing): $10,070 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
The trails system around the lake will interact with the proposal for a golf course currently under study for the
area
- w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 11
Existing Conditions
Location: Along AT & SF tracks from Carlsbad Boulevard past Encin:
Power Plant to Cannon Road
Zone: 1, 3
Length: 14,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: AT & SF
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: AT & SF railroad/Encina Power Plant
Development Plans: SDG&E power plant expansion
Design
Siting Criteria: To be located along railroad - full study will be required
of the relationship of train traffic to trail use as part
of the design of this linkage
Shared Use Needs: Maintenance vehicles for railroad
Type/Classification: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Dependent upon negotiations with SANDAG and AT & SF
Proposed Ownership: City or public access easement over AT & SF ownership
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $348,000 - for the purpose of assessing the total trail
system costs it has been assumed that improvement costs for
this linkage would form part of a special regional program
and would not represent a city expense
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $13,775 per annum
Notes: It is assumed that the city will participate in any
regional trail venture to implement a coastal rail-trail;
if this does not materialize the city may at some
unspecified time in the future decide to try and implement
this linkage unilaterally
891554/0305
w e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 12
- Existing Conditions
Location: SDG&E easement from Larwin Park to Tamarack Avenue
Zone: 2
Length: 6,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 167-090-31, 33, and 34; 208-133-1 19
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential adjacent to trail alignment; SDG&E powerline
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Costs Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Trail may be able to use SDG&E service road
SDG&E maintenance vehicles
2
1
1
Secondary use of powerline agreement needed from SDG&:
Public access easement required; underlying ownership to
remain private
$36,000
$144,000
$5,700 per annum
Notes:
891 554/0305
w w CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 13
Existing Conditions
Location: Parallel to Tamarack Avenue from La Portalada Drive,
crossing Pontiac Drive at Tamarack, then turning northwarc
up steep slopes into open space area
Zone: 2, 7
Length: 4,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 167-101-19; 208-010-34, 35
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential; undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Calavera Hills Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Southern portion of linkage follows shoulder of city owned
drainage channel; from Pontiac northward the alignment
should contour up the slope to the north of Tamarack; a connection should be made into Buckingham Lane
Maintenance vehicles for the drainage channel
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
- m
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 14
Existing Conditions
Location: From Calavera Park westward under Tamarack Avenue int
space area south of Elm Avenue
Zone: 7
Length:
Existing Ownership:
2,500
167-101-19
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Community park; open space; residential; undeveloped
Development Plans: Calavera Hills Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
From park trail traverses down slope to south leading
through existing road culvert/underpass and then contours
around slope to west, then north, then west again to join
Linkage ## 13
N/A
Trail Type; 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - improvements: $12,000 - dedicated improvements
$48,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,375 per annum
Notes:
89 1554/0305
w w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 15
Existing Conditions
Location: From the intersection of Pontiac Drive and Tamarack Aveni
to the intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real
Zone: 14
Length: 5,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 208-010-32
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open Space; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria: Contour up slope to south of Tamarack Avenue from the
intersection with Pontiac Avenue (a traffic signal is
required at Tamarack and Pontiac); then south along
riparian area/drainage course through the middle of future
residential development to future intersection of Cannon
Road and El Camino Real
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Trail Type: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Traffic signal approvals
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $100,000 for traffic signal - city cost
$1 32,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $5,225 per annum
Notes: While a traffic signal may ultimately be required for the
intersection of Pontiac and Tamarack, it is unclear at this
time whether traffic counts would warrant a signal and
therefore the cost of a signal at this location is
anticipated to be a trail related cost
89 1554/0305
w L
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 16
- Existing Conditions
Location: Through Robertson Ranch from south of Lake Calavera to Cannon Road west to El Camino Real
Zone: 14
Length:
Existing Ownership:
7,500 L.F.
168-040-18; 168-050-17 (Robertson); 168-050-19 (Carlsbac
Unified School District)
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi fication:
Residential - low to medium density; northern portion of
linkage falls within Calavera Hills Master Plan
Locate trail along riparian corridor; crossing of College
Boulevard required north of Cannon Road
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may have review due tc
riparian area
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $30,150
Cost .Estimate - Improvements: $180,000 dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $7,125 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w v
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 17
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of Cannon Road and AT & SF railroad li west along Cannon Road and then north along Carlsbad
Boulevard
Zone: 3
Length; 1,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Existing city right-of-way
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Site along existing city streets
N/A
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1,500
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of existing street maintenance
Notes:
89 1554/0305
I w .m
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 18
- Existing Conditions
Location: Across Agua Hedionda Lagoon immediately to the east of I
bridge
Zone: 1
Length: 1,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Public
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Concept for a floating pontoon bridge crossing Agua
Hedionda Lagoon joining Linkages #I9 and #22 to form a
around the lagoon
N/A
Bridge
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish a
Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $100,000- city cost
Maintenance Cast (Annual): $10,000 per annum
Notes:
89 1554/0305
W - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 19
Existing Conditions
Location: North side of Agua Hedionda from 1-5 to Kelly Drive
Zone: 1
Length: 9,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Various: public and private
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open Space; residential
Development Plans: Infill residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classification:
Bridge east of 1-5 to connect to south side of lagoon;
overlook at Kelly Road; traiI will mostIy follow city
streets; off-road trail option to be encouraged wherever possible; connects to Laguna Riviera Park
Local Coastal Plan designates trail
Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $9,500
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Notes: Connection to existing Panonia Trail should be made,
possibly through use of signage
89 1554/0305
1 w rn
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 20
Existing Conditions
Location: From Laguna Riviera Park to intersection of El Camino Re
and Cannon Road
Zone: .I, 8
Length: 5,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 208-020-28
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space; residential; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Locate along open space associated with riparian corridor
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish a
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $132,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $6,270 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
W - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO, 21
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Along north side of Cannon Road from AT & SF to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon
3, 13
3,000 L.F.
211-010-23, 24 SDG&E
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans: Promenade - commercial development, SDG&E expansion
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Utilize sidewalk/bikelane under 1-5; alignment should move
away from Cannon Road as soon as possible east of 1-5
Maintenance vehicles
Type/Classi fication: 1,500 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
1,500 L.F. Type 1
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1,500 - city cost
$69,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,850
Notes:
891554/0305
7 w m
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 27
- Existing Conditions
Location: West Agua Hedionda Lagoon (south side) to Faraday/Cannc
Zone: 13
Length:
Existing Ownership:
8,500 L.F.
211-010-23,24 SDG&E,212-010-14 SDG&E, 212-010-11 (-
Macario Canyon. Park
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Existing agriculture/open space
Development Plans: Promenade shopping center
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail alignment from pontoon bridge (Linkage #IS) along
edge of Promenade project next to lagoon to Macario Cany
Park
N/A
Type/Classi jication: 1
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish a
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City; some of the linkage may only be possible as an
easement over SDGgLE ownership
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $391,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $16,150 per annum
Notes:
89 1554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 23
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
East from Macario Canyon Park along south of Cannon Roa
intersection of Cannon and El Camino Real
8
5,000 L.F.
208-020-28 Kelly Ranch
Open space
Kelly Ranch - residential
Locate as far as possible from road; introduce buffer
landscaping between road and trail where possible
N/A
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, Fish ar
Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $120,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $4,750 per annum
Notes: . It may be necessary to construct a temporary staging area
somewhere along this linkage for use until Macario Canyon
Park is developed; this linkage could form part of a
demonstration project to be implemented as the first
section of the trail system setting standards for future
implementation
891554/0305
1 W L ..
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 24
. Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
From intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real SOL
to Macario Canyon Park
8
11,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 208-020-28 - Kelly; 212-010-03 - Kirgis; 2.12-010-11 - Ci
of Carlsbad; 212-020-38 - Upland Industries; 212-050-29,
30, and 34 - Wimpey
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria: From intersection of Cannon and El Camino through Evan:
Point development linking to barn/visitor center with
secondary staging area, up to viewpoint, along open space area between Evans Point and Kelly Ranch developments,
through edge of Kirgis property to viewpoint in Macario
Canyon Park, through Macario Canyon Park keeping away
roads and making best use of ridgeline views
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Trail Type: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $3,600
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $10,000 --city cost $264,000 - dedicated improvements/park improvement cost:
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $12,192
Notes: This linkage could form part of a demonstration project to
be implemented as the first section of the trail system
setting standards for future implementation
891554/0305
w w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 25
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
South from Linkage #16, crosses Cannon at College, throug
Sycamore Creek and Sunny Creek to county parcel to north
Safety Center
14, 15 '
8,250 L.F.
168-050-23 - Western Land; 209-060-06 - Western Land;
209-070-01 - Cantorini/O'Hare; 209-060-55 - Sandlin;
209-060-59 - Sycamore Creek; 209-040-15 - Ebright;
209-040-03, 209-070-07, 209-050-25 - County; 209-050-2 I
Title Insurance/Trust
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space; undeveloped
Development Plans: O'Hare Specific' Plan
Design
Siting Criteria: Future high school at north; locate in/adjacent to riparian
corridor; locate alongside College Boulevard right-of-way
special concern along creek is the considerable amount of
poison oak
for northern section; keep above woodland for views,
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi,fication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $198,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $7,838 per annum
Notes: Trail could utilize additional 15 percent open space
requirement in both Zones 14 and 15.
891554/0305
- I 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 26
. - Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing 0 wnership:
From Sycamore Creek through County land to Palomar Air
Road at intersection with Melrose Avenue
5, 15, 16, 18
8,750 L.F.
209-050-21, 22,., 23, 24 Title Insurance and Trust
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Existing agriculture/open space
Development Plans: Future industrial (Palomar Oaks Phase I1 Specific Plan)
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Locate trail in open space alongside future industrial
development; last segment along future Melrose Alignment;
crossing Faraday at future intersection with El Fuerte
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
. Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Coordinate with future alignments of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Avenue; ensure consistency with floodplain and
riparian at west end of link
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Acquisition/Financing: $2 10,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance (Cost/Financing): $8,313 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 27
Existing Conditions
Location: AT & SF right-of-way from Cannon Road to Palomar Airp
Road
Zone: 3
Length: 4,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: AT & SF
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Railroad; industrial; residential
Development Plans: City-owned parcel at Cannon Road could be used for
potential future park or other recreational facility
Design
Siting Criteria: Cannon Road site to include secondary staging area; trail
may be able to move away from railroad tracks into open
space corridor;
Shared Use Needs: Railroad maintenance vehicles
Type/Classification: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Development of trail subject to negotiations including
SANDAG and AT & SF
Proposed Ownership: Access easement over AT & SF ownership
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $108,000 - regional trails program cost
$44,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $6,017 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
The proposed future realignment of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road should take
account of trail routing needs; possible Carlsbad Boulevard
excess right-of-way study should include trail alignments
as part of analysis
..I
I L
2 CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 28
- Existing Conditions
Location;
Zone:
Macario Park (Faraday at Cannon) to future Kelly Drive tc
Palomar Airport Road
5, 8, 13
Length: 4,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 212-010-1 1 City of Carlsbad; 212-010-14 SDG&E; 21 1-01( SDG&E; 2 12-04 1 -05 Ecke; 2 1 1 -02 1 - 19 CalTrans
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space, planned industrial
Development Plans: Huntington Beach Properties - approved plan, planned
industrial at south end of link; north half falls in
Macario Canyon Park
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Trail stays within Macario Canyon Park to Kelly Drive;
crossing at Kelly to west side; parallel to Kelly on west
side to Palomar Airport Road
N/A
2
3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000 park related and/or dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
m W
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 29 Existing Conditions
Location: Altamira Park to intersection of Kelly Road and Palomar
Airport Road
Zone: 5, 20
Length: 2,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 212-40-32 - Kelly
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans: Industrial park along Palomar Airport Road; Residential -
medium density to east of Altamira Park
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Trail to follow open space canyon
N/A
2
2
1
N/A
City
$7,500
$60,000 - city cost
$2,375 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w
1 a
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 30
- ' Existing Conditions
Location: Laurel Tree Road south to Poinsettia Lane, then east
parallel. to Poinsettia Lane to Poinsettia Park
Zone:
.. Length:
20
7,000 L.F.
. .I ' Existing Ownership: 212-040-29 - BCS; 212-040-30 - Carlsbad Land Investors;
215-080-01 - DeJong
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Agriculture
Development Plans: Medium density residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi fication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
A secondary trail southward through the Aviara project
could connect to this linkage away from major roads
N/A
2
2
2
N/A
City
$0
$168,000 -
$6,650
dedicated improvements
Notes:
891554/0305
w v
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 31
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Kelly Road crossing along base of bluff south of industrial park to
link with No. 30
Zone: 5
Length: 6,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 212-040-39 - Faize; 212-040-30 - Carlsbad Land Investors
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Industrial park; undeveloped
Development Plans: Industrial park
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Locate trail along future frontage road for industrial park
N/A
2
2
2
N/A
City
$0
$1 56,000 - dedicated improvements
$6,175 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w ,-
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 32
- Existing Conditions
Location: Poinsettia Park to El Camino Real
Zone: 19, 20, 21
Length: 4,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 215-020-01 - Carlsbad I, 215-020-12 - Bons, 215-020-13 Hunt
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Agriculture; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi fication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Potential underpass as part of development proposal at El
Camino Real or use intersection with Carrillo Way
N/A
2
2
2
N/A
City
$0
$102,000 - dedicated improvements
$4,038 per annum
Notes: Within Zone 21 alignment could use additional 15 percent
open space requirement
891554/0305
w1 v
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 33
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of El Camino Real and Carrillo Way to
Alga Norte Park
Zone: 10
Length:
Existing Ownership:
4,000 L.F.
215-021-07 - BCE; 215-021-08 - La Costa Hotel; 215-031-1
BCE
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Future alignment of Carrillo Way will determine actual
location of trail; locate along north side of Carrillo Way
as far as possible from the roadway; crossing Carrillo Way
into Alga Norte Park
N/A
2
2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $3,800 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
t r Y
w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 34
m
.. Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
From Alga Norte Park to Carrillo Ranch
6, 10, 18
Length:
Existing Ownership:
6,000 L.F.
215-031-04 - Rancho Carrillo; 222-01 1-06 - Woodward Cc
Existing/Surrounding ,Land Use: Open Space; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria: From Alga Norte Park locate parallel to and south of futur
alignment of Carrillo Way; proposed arboretum will effect
siting - trail should follow boundary of arboretum if
alignment through is not possible; follow valley, riparian
corridor to Carrillo Ranch; use future subdivision traffic
signal for crossing at El Fuerte
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $144,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $5,700 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
W v
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 35 1
Existing Conditions
Location: From future intersection of Carrillo Way and El Fuerte
north to Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue
Zone: 18
Length: 5,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 213-030-15
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans: Most of trail in open space area; some future residential
development close to intersection of Carrillo Way and El
Fuerte
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Locate through General Plan designated open space corridor
crossing of Palomar Airport Road at Melrose Avenue;
crossing of Carrillo Way at El Fuerte
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing 3
Negotiation/Perrnits and Approvals: Coordinate with future alignments of Carrillo Way, El Fuerte, and Melrose Avenue
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $126,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $4,988
Notes:
891554/0305
w
I rn
d CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 36
- Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Carrillo Ranch to San;Marcos border
18
4,750 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 222-010-02, 221-010-018 - Carrillo' Ranch
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Agriculture; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
ImpIementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Canyon route from Carrillo Ranch to San Marcos trail
system; road crossings at Melrose and Carrillo Way need to
be built into residential development plans; trail to be
located near riparian woodland
N/A
2
3
3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
US: Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1 14,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $43 13 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 37
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
From Altamira Park to Poinsettia Lane
4
Length: 2,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City of Carlsbad; 214- 140-40 - Abada
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Existing residential to west, existing residential to east
at Poinsettia
Development Plans: School site
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/CIassification:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Altamira park design connects to Linkage #29; city owned
trail in place from Poinsettia north to Camino de las
Ondas; location of trail between park (which has been
dedicated to city) and Camino de las Ondas will have to be
aligned in relation to development of school
N/A
2
1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $6,750
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $54,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,138 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
I - W rn
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 38
- Existing Conditions
Location: From Camino de las Ondas along Seascape Drive to the
'..,:.. intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive
Zone: .. 4
Length: 2,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City owned right-of-way
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential; Home Owners tennis facility
Reve/opment Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
From Camino de las Ondas follows along Seascape Drive
improved sidewalk and along existing paved path adjacent
tennis courts across Buttercup Road and along west edge 0'
city owned detention basin area to Poinsettia.
N/A
1,500 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
500 L.F. Type 2
1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiafion/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $13,500 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $475 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
- - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 39
Existing Condi. tions
Location: From AT & SF railroad tracks at Poinsettia Lane to South
Carlsbad State Beach
Zone: 22
Length: 1,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: AT & SF; city owned right-of-way; state
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Trail follows up cut slope from railroad tracks to south
side of Poinsettia Lane; across Carlsbad Boulevard at
existing traffic signal; into State Beach site to beach
access stairway
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Negotiate with State Parks Department for access
Proposed Ownership: City; State
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $24,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $950 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
4 w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 40
- Existing Conditions
Location:
..
Zone: ' .
Along AT & SF Railroad from Palomar Airport Road to
Encinitas ( La Costa Boulevard)
9, 22
Length: 15,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: AT &SF
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Railroad Right-of-way
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Opportunities/Constraints: Locate along railroad right-of-way
Shared Use Needs: Railroad maintenance vehicles
Type/Classi f ication: , 2
Implementation
Priority CIass: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Dependent on negotiations with SANDAG and AT & SF
Proposed Ownership: Public access easement over AT & SF ownership
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $372,000 regional trails program expense
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $14,725 per annum
Notes:
89 1554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 41
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
Existing/Surrounding Land Use:
Development Plans:
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi f ication:
Implementation
Railroad line to north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, located
on top of south facing bluff
9
1,750 L.F.
216-140-29; 216-140-25 - Sammis; 216-140-16 - Lamb
Residential to north; Batiquitos Lagoon and associated
wetland to south
New residential
Existing dirt road along western portion of link is
currently used as an informal pedestrian trail; eastern
section would follow trail marked out by developer to
follow brow ditches along top of slope incorporating
exlsting dewpoht; at north point in mid section of link,
trail should cross detention basin spillway
N/A
2
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $42,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $1,663 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 42
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Along Lagoon Lane from Poinsettia Lane to Batiquitos Lag
19
4,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: City-owned R.O.W.; 216-150-03, 05, 214-17-21, 22 Savagt
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential f Undeveloped
Development Plans: Undeveloped area to become residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Utilize existing city-owned trail on east side of Lagoon
Lane for northern portion of Link; incorporate secondary
staging area at southern end of linkage
N/A
Type/Classi f ication: Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: I
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $4,250
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Notes:
891554/0305
w w CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 43
Existing Conditions
Location: From Lagoon Lane along north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon 1
Aviara east property line
Zone: 19
Length: 7,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Public
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped to north, Batiquitos Lagoon on south
Development Plans: Proposed Aviara Development on north
Design
Siting Criteria: Public access along lagoon, can have areas for nature
interpretation, views out over lagoon. Falls within
public-owned 100’ wetland buffer. Possible picnic site at
Promontory 1,400 L.F. from east end of link; secondary
north-south linkage through Aviara project can link with
trail; for 2,500 L.F. of this segment a second paved path
has been included alongside the unpaved path - for
handicapped accessible trail lead along part of the lagoon
to proposed picnic site
Shared Use Needs: Utilities Department maintenance vehicles (for sewer)
Type/CIassi f ication: 7,000 L.F. - Type 2
2,500 L.F. - Type 1 (alongside existing Type 2 trail)
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission.
Negotiate for maintenance by Aviara.
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $167,000 - city cost
$168,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $13,142 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 44
- Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Length:
Existing Ownership:
From Aviara eastern property line to El Camino Real, alo
north side of Batiquitos Lagoon at base of south facing bluffs.
19
3,000 L.F.
216-121-01 - McMurphy, 216-121-02 - Mitsuchi, 216-12
Newport Shores
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Agricultural; open space
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Type/Classi fication:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Continuation from Linkage #43 along north shore of lagoc
includes primary staging area at east end of linkage; trail
should be aligned as far from development and roads as
possible
N/A
2
2
2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $6,534 (for the staging area)
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $144,000 - dedicated improvements
$230,500 - city cost for staging area
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $5,860 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w w
I CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 45
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
. Length:
Existing Ownership:
From Alga Norte Park south to Alga Road
6, 1.0
5,000 L.F.
215-030-14; 215-031-08; 215-061-09; 215-480-02, 03 :-
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; golf course
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals:
Proposed Ownership:
Cost Estimate - Acquisition:
Cost Estimate - Improvements:
Maintenance Cost (Annual):
Trail should be aligned so as to take advantage of views
south and west over golf course and lagoon - possibly to be
located on west edge of future residential development.
Alignment to lead to crossing of Alga Road at Alicante
NIA
2
3
3
A portion of the segment may fall under an SDG&E powerline and secondary use easement may have to be negotiated
City; public access easement under powerline
$3,000
$108,000 - dedicated improvements
$12,000 - city cost
$4,750 per annum
Notes:
89155410305
W 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 46
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of Alga Road and Alicante along Alaga
Road eastward to SDG&E powerline; follows powerline
easement from Alga Road to El Fuerte Street
Zone: 6
Length: 4,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 215-491-47 - BCE Development
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Residential surrounding powerline open space corridor
Development Plans: N/A
Design
Siting Criteria: Along powerline locate so as to minimize impact of trail or
privacy of adjacent housing; this linkage would require a
bridge at El Fuerte to ensure a safe road crossing
Shared Use Needs: Utility maintenance vehicles
Trail Type: 1,750 L.F. sidewalk/bikelane
2,500 L.F. Type 2
Implementation
Priority Class:
Anticipated Phasing:
3
3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals.' Secondary use easement negotiation with underlying land owner and SDG&E
Proposed Ownership: Public access easement over underlying private ownership;
within existing city right-of-way along Alga Road
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $15,000
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1 11,750 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $2,375
Notes:
89 1554/0305
W - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 47
Existing Conditions
Location:
Zone:
Along north bluff top of San Marcos Creek Canyon from El
Fuerte Street to staging area off Rancho Santa Fe Road
6, 11
Length: 9,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 215-491-48; 223-010-19, 27.1 ?8, 29, 32, 33, 223-021-16, 17
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Residential; open space
Design
Siting Criteria: Trail should be located on edge of canyon rim providing
public access along open space corridor; linkage includes
Fuerte; much of the trail could follow existing SDG&E
maintenance road; short spur towards overlook; staging area
at east end of link to east side of water treatment plant
one bridge over a small canyon east of and close to El
Shared Use Needs: SDG&E maintenance vehicles
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated' Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Servicc may become involved because of possible habitat impacts on
chaparral and/or sage scrub
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $216,000 - dedicated improvements
$104,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $8,550 'per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
* w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 48
Existing Conditions
Location: From staging area close to Rancho Santa Fe Road southwe: along south rim of San Marcos Canyon to viewpoint in SD
easement, then due east along easement to join with Linka
#53 east of Rancho Santa Fe Road
Zone: 6, 11
Length: 8,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 223-021-11; 223-011-02, 04, 05, 06
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space; undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria: From the staging area at the east end of Linkage #47, a
bridge will carry the trail south -over San Marcos Creek anc
associated riparian area; trail then leads along canyon rim
taking advantage of views where possible; then to viewpoin in SDG&E easement; then follows easement
Shared Use Needs: Utility maintenance vehicles
Trail Type: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service;
negotiations with SDG&E and underlying owners for public
access secondary use easement along powerline
Proposed Ownership: City; easement along powerline
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $27,267
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $96,000 - dedicated improvements
$156,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $9,342 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 49 "
Existing Conditions
Location: Along El Camino Real from Arena1 Road to La Costa Avenl
Zone:
Length:
6, 19
3,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 216-121-14 - Newport Shore$ 216-122-23 - Aviara
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Lagoon to west; residential, open space, and commercial to
east
Development Plans: NIA
Design
Opportunities/Constraints: Must use existing bridge to cross San Marcos Creek;
pedestrian trail to west of El Camino Real except at bridge
crossing; bicycles to use bike lanes on road
Shared Use Needs: NIA
Type/Classi fication: Sidewalklbikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $3,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $Part of street maintenance
Notes: The improvement cost estimate does not include any street
improvements or bridge improvements which (if necessary)
have been assumed to be a street improvement related
expense
89 155410305
I w W e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 50
Existing Conditions
Location: Parallel to El Camino Real from La Costa Avenue to boun
with the City of Encinitas
Zone: 23
Length: 7,250 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 216-122-24 - Aviara; 216-122-37; 255-01 1-10; 255-01 1-11
255-021-5, 6, 7, 8
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Riparian open space to east; undeveloped to west
Development Plans: Commercial/office/residential - medium to high density
Design
Siting Criteria: Trail to go west along La Costa Avenue before turning south; then locate along west side of riparian area.
Possible secondary trail to form loop around future Green
Valley development. Also potential secondary trails to
link up to top of slope to the west to proposed Ecke Park
in Encinitas. Crossing of El Camino Real to join Linkage
#51 to be implemented with new road crossing.
Shared Use Needs: Maintenance vehicles for management of riparian corridor
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 3
Anticipated Phasing: 3
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Coastal Commission
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $1 74,000 - dedicated improvements
$44,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $8,630
Notes:
891554/0305
Trails could use additional 15 percent of land area
required to be set aside as open space in Zone 23
w w
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 51
s
Existing Conditions
Location: From El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road
Zone: 12
Length: 7,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Fieldstone
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space along riparian corridor
Development Plans: Residential development plans agreed upon with Fieldstone
Company
Design
Opportunities/Constraints: Trail connection already shown on agreed development plan! to be sited in landscaped band adjacent to future alignment
of Calle Barcelona. Crossing at El Camino Real at
Olivenhain, and Rancho Santa Fe Road at future road acces!
to Green Valley development
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi fication: Sidewalk/bikelane
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing:
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $7,000
Maintenance Cost (Annual): Part of street maintenance
Notes:
891554/0305
I w 0
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 52
Existing Conditions
Location: From Stagecoach Park north to La Costa Avenue
Zone: 11
Length: 1,500 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 223-060-40 - Christopher Homes
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; existing residential development to east
Development Plans: Residential - medium density: Park View West
Design
Siting Criteria: Locate trail in General Plan designated open space corridor; open space corridor indicated on Park View West
development proposal
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: N/A
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $36,000 - dedicated improvements
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $1,425 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
w - CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 53
I
Existing Conditions
Location: From Mission Estancia in northeast direction to join with
proposed trail in City of San Marcos.
Zone: 11
Length: 10,750 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 223-050-64, 223-060-49, 223-07 1-05, 07 - B.C.E.;
223-071-06; 223-071-10; 223-071-09; 223-032-01
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Undeveloped; open space
Development Plans: Residential - low density; open space
Design
Siting Criteria: Street crossings required at Mission Estancia and Melrose
Avenue; steep slopes area - trail needs to follow contours
and use switchbacks, etc.; between Mission Estancia and
Melrose Avenue locate within General Plan designated open space corridor; trail to stay to west side of water tower
and reservoir; crossing of Melrose to be located at future
intersection with La Costa Avenue; Ensure alignment
corresponds with planning for San Marcos trail; spur to
east close to water tower could effect connection to
proposed county trail linkage
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi jication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 2
Anticipated Phasing: 2
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $0
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $258,000 - dedicated improvements
$10,000 - city cost
Maintenance (Cost/Financing): $10,213 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
I w e
CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NOT54
Existing Conditions
Location: From Stagecoach Park southwest along east side of Ranch1
Santa Fe and then east along open space corridor to south of existing development at Calle Vallarta and Avenida
Anacapa
Zone: 11
Length: 7,750 L.F.
Existing Ownership: 255-03 1-26 - Fieldstone
Existing/Surrounding Land Use: Open space; undeveloped
Development Plans: Small commercial site at intersection of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and Mission Estancia; residential low to medium
Design
Siting criteria: Crossing at Mission Estancia into Park. East of commercir
development at Rancho Santa Fe and Mission Estancia trai
to run through open space corridor along drainage course. Crossing of Calle Barcelona at Rancho Santa Fe. Continue
southwest in open space between residential development i
roadway. Then east along floodplain open space.
Shared Use Needs: N/A
Type/Classi f ication: 2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game; Fish and Wildlife Service;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $46,500
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $186,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $7,363 per annum
Notes:
891554/0305
Possible connection into loop with Encinitas trail system
to south
I W CARLSBAD TRAILS SYSTEM LINK NO. 55
Existing Conditions
Location: From intersection of Mission Estancia and Calle Acervo at
Stagecoach Park south to Encinitas
Zone: 11
Length: 7,000 L.F.
Existing Ownership: Private
Existing/Surroundiilg Land Use: Undeveloped
Development Plans: Residential
Design
Siting Criteria:
Shared Use Needs:
Trail Type:
After short section along sidewalk trail follows boundary
of future school site and then into open space areas of
proposed residential developments
N/A
2
Implementation
Priority Class: 1
Anticipated Phasing.: 1
Negotiation/Permits and Approvals: Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Proposed Ownership: City
Cost Estimate - Acquisition: $42,000
Cost Estimate - Improvements: $168,000 - city cost
Maintenance Cost (Annual): $6,650 per annum
Notes: Possible connection into Encinitas trail system
891554/0305
w e
APPENDIX fi
SOURCES FOR TRAILS SURVEY
CITY NAME DEPT. PHONE
Burbank Anna Mendiola Parks/Rec (818) 953-9554 Jim Patricola Risk Mgmt. (818) 953-3168
East .Bay Regional David Clovis Risk Mgmt. (415) 531-9300 Park District Steve Fiala Land Ac~. (415) 531-9300
Fontana Jim Engel ParkslRec (714) 350-6709
Glendora Dick Swinney Parks/Rec (818) 963-5668
Montebello Bill Mahler Parks/Rec (213) 725-1200
Fred Palmer L.A. County (818) 330-3860 John Wicker L.A. County (213) 738-3028
Poway Robert Wilcox Parks/Rec (619) 748-6600
Dan Cannon Planning (6 19) 748-6600
Rancho Jerry Parks/Rec (714) 989-1851 Cucamonga Bruce ParksjRec (714) 989-1861 Jeff Barnes Public Works (714) 989-2813 Jim Hart Finance (714) 989-2813
Valencia """- ""- -""
Whittier Mr. Hideo ParksjRec (213) 945-8200 ext. 479
Cynthia Herman Risk Mgmt. (213) 945-8200 ext. 370
w w
BIBLIOGRAPHY
City of Carlsbad Report of the Citizen’s Committee for Review of Carlsbad’s Open Space Plan
and Programs. City of Carlsbad, July 1989.
TRAILS RESEARCH SOURCES
CalTrans., Highwav Design Manual.
DeChiara, Joseph, and Koppleman, Lee., Urban Planning and Design Criteria (2d ed.), New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1975.
Fogg, George E., Park Planning Guidelines Revised. National Recreation and Park Association,
1981.
Harris, Charles W., and Dines, Nicholas T., Time Saver Standards for Landscaue Architecture,
New York McGraw-Hill, 1988.
National Trails Symposium., National Trails Agenda Task Force User Conflict Subaroup. Report
on the Ninth National Trails Symposium, September 11 - 14, 1988, Unicoi State Park, Georgia.
Poway, City of., Trail Standards and Soecifications.
Poway, City of., Trails Guide.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Procedure for Locatin9 Riding and Hiking Trails
on Land DeveloDment Proiects.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Public Road Standards. January 1985
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Easement Guidelines for Riding and Hiking,
Trails.
San Diego County Department of Public Works., Imtxovement Guidelines for Riding and Hiking Trails.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service., Trails Management Handbook.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service., Standard Trail Construction
Soecifications
0405/891554
W W.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The City of Carlsbad Prepared. by:
City Staff
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Dennis A. Turner, Principal Planner
Van W. Lynch, Planning Technician
Mike Shirey, Assistant Civil Engineer
Wallace Roberts & Todd, and
Economics Research Associates
. '.
.I
Ralph W. Anderson, Utilities and Maintenance Director
Greg Woods, Street Maintenance Supervisor
David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
Keith Beverly
Michael E. Smith, Fire Marshal
Walter Brown,
Lt. Hasenaur, Police Department
Trails Subcommittee
Planning Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
For assistance in the supply of specific
information grateful acknowledgment is made to:
ADL Planning Associates
Fay Round/ & Associates San Diego Gas and Electric Company
0405/891554
I'
I' Fl -Cnr ~"II
cCIW r_
?I -
Q
C
.x1
w
I -3
4, J.
L?
3,
0: Y
0 =I- 3.7 .i3
p.
w
0 g.
c
a P 4.
h?
4u "*
Q?
9
*
.m
KT
I 9
? '.. P P? s
3,
0: s .. tp ,.
..
0,
I
t
w s s
E
E C B
9 2
h)
? -4
E E
(D 1 1 ..g
E.
3
L v1 tD f. (D 1 (D
N s 2
z7 1m Irr) zm
0: 2 "g
3
ij. 5' 6
I. a
.er 0
tD J
U
(D
m
g
W E 3 cc
0,
$
5 &
= e n
0 & B
%-Ea
(D lama (D 2. -' = 3 taZ.09 =(D g z w UD WE 5: 5 zv B - g -2 Slr3 wmz
cn
.? g$ E CL e.
D -" EF
. . ." - . ..~ ~. .
3 (D 0, a 2 ..
d 0 a
0 1
c) 0
c) n
1 %
3
2
c e
(0
9 rD
3 (D c)
v1
Y
cc I E. I ..
OD Dm 1- <=
i;' - ;&
Eg
gz
un am
90
-1 1,
-1 2.
LI, 1
0
c) 1
(D a
i:
3 & cc
!% ;.
$?
w 9 2
3
2. 3
B
2 c
I.
C
(D
0, 1 0 6
t;'
CD s
c)
cn D 1
2:
u
ri! 1 (D \ U 0, -. c)
3 E.
;i:
(D \
3
0, n
c) n
(D
i 3 E- 5 w 1
& 0
CD 0
v1 m
3 E: m
L
w 0
(D R
E
0' d 2L
0"
E.
?
0
1
E 1
& 3
W
2E cop 13 e& 52
Y-4 4
=r 0 J
c)
P D
R
E
z ..
E 1 5' P?
op 3 I.
q
L
4 4.
c? s
3,"
9
Trn Fs P g
h2
3,
Q:
9 .. r
pfl 'b
be&.
-_pr 9
F
""WW 3 -WY 2 0 2 $1
I -;..e: f E.$ =%
i3gZ'er ='Jug
c) gcgg E
E.Fcg?
y3x 2 E pp~"?!
z=mG-cT
gym!!
z-? 0,; BO?
lY y'
- 2-0 tp
(D
=9v11-
1 -. -*
mom(D
e- cc .-
=I v +SF:
%E: c E: =I
E
?!
cc I. 3
odvlo SA:, gg
& 330
x -z gt?:3 ; ig
n cri m
A
w 9 2
(
1 ! ;
@a 1' 'fi mr ~~1 VI
+ PP
W (D
1.
5
(3
VI 3.
5 2 c
0 ID
VI R
0 e,
VI
LCSI (P e
%
E.
1 1
e,
:H gzr
B 0,CD 11 - +;g %@q ?Lo EPW
-& c,
<
*r % 2.
$7
(D
h!
1
,.
rw ?% 99 ..
gtp 2. 3
.g 2 31
09 E
A
0 ",
s
tu 3 x
c
e. e,
!
w JD
R
g53e 2 0 E.:
e, e.ZW ;(P 2 5
gzz
ag =
a 2.
!? CID
a.a e
VI e." 2'co 3 turn%
.? 3s a rc r.
mrnm
@ %" g$
c 1 E. .I 00
(Pe,-(Po *IDm 0.0 ?=?$a - g"=Elz
a-sgz (3:o(PP 0, ID Ea, ag -09 1 2 *:.tu - 'I "T :. ?LFS g 0 CP m ZE c) ZY RO 23 F6g.Z 3c:Y"z
cw -0
'(P 0 p.
3 2 (P
E 5. y!
c 9
0 -
2 (P w 1 0,. z
5.
z P
(P
(P
(P -
1
S? E. ' 70
3 C. ;
E a
2
s a
0 Y
0 0
=I 0 0 ta v1 v1
Y K
0 < 0 1
=% 5;
(P ZO 5s -W
0 5%
03 2ID
22
VIN Y
VI -v! -
2. 3 z3
CK Rm
30
RO P- = ID J
3 m
c+ -.
i;
tu maVI a 0.w g g 2. cci2;'yci2;'
(P 39.3 g 3
womIDL43 e=" 0 ks
2 w 5 "E iz-gr FeEerEE
Z.!! =r"? VI
E - O 2,; %e4 :=e -.-.VI -1
;*w 1 %E 2
c E; g 5 'd
$qgc $4
*go e 1
0
u 3 E.?m ;t
y "(P p -ID ,.to, -.A3 3Cpas10. %= VI 5 E. -.
L
-3
" "In fi
3 2: (D 2r E.acVI
tzs r + Urn
0 gJ
ID@
v1
. 1: m\ q
rw
E?
a ba
c C. 2 (P
v! 5. ;;
g
.r w
k
0 3
VI
VI i;
%!
2 e
(P
m 1
VI
W?
p"
NO? e 00
I rm
2 gg "3s 3- 3 ;gg
ne 3
2: ..
A
0 c.l
9
...
t 2 0
3 CD I ..
1
e
C
C
W
"""" """-
J
c 9
2
i e E. a
f?.
w -.
(D
09
09 a
m. s Y 0
m 2
i;
3
& e E.
CT v1
s
I
e9
LE;. 3 c2 g.:
.yJ Y 1s'
mer, ;5 63
-2 CD-
'JCD
m, P)-
t
CT
\ ;
(D f?.
?a -09
e. a (D a
v1 5.
e2
3 OE i $? ?E e
CI C.
2s u" L. - - op
* E. E. - E.
tm
CI CI -
a 0 3 E. I
=1
5
(D CD
c., 0
2
G z.
I. 0 1
r, c
\
e
? 1 cc
E CD d 2 i;' D
K? B
s E
1
1
?
P a
& z
E.
:
cc -t
in
.I
?
Y m
E E
c t:
E. OF 1
I a
m 0 0 3 0 c) CD
z
5 = Y i"
5; 2:
-. B :2
a- E3 z:
(D 2. f. u
(D =* -t*
I. 5 2. Y 2- r;
z- 3 E.
s'E T," - .- CT Y
3
z
=1 a. !i
0,
0,
(D P, 7
0 0
c3 7
i
3 0 c
v1 E
09,
%
3
(D
7 0
1: ml q
wtJY L
I
l -
----- -
Ti > . e .
.
----
r
----- --- I
l
?I -0 n
,.
w e
./ ..
1; m\ &:I
rAr
rm
* 063
gjl 7
0 s.
%
c)
a. a e
Y rn P 2.
2. op
Y
$ a -
OQ 3 ? e CD ra
CD' 0,
7j
I
0
C
w 0
!.
1
I(
. -- . . . ." - """""_ M 5 _".. "~ ~.. ~." ... -. " ."
.. .
Q
0
0
F
E.
? tn P,
0
P d 2
El. 1 cc
1; m\ d'l CA
gm
?I -
Q
C
W e
. . . . ." ,""._ ""b_i .." .. . - ."____ "_
..
_"" "
0
0 1
0 I
0,: gfl x$ 5'- E.3 g2¶ 5E
$2 gg 2% 20
gr& &+g
P E@ 5s ZE 3: CD g e. z -2 c) 2. >0,
sa
G
;;
v1
,I; MI ;)iq mr
21. m
-r -
C
C
w e
$ \
. . . - . . . ." " . . . . . . -. - . -.
..
"" I"i"_ . . .~ . . .~~ . ...
I I
7
?! 0
v1 tD p.
U
H (P
0 1 v1 * 1 p", s -.
L
e;l E.
75
-
0 5 (P 1: Rl efE1 v)
;Y
7 -
C
C
I
W a
..
w
bJ
I
tQ N
w 00
..
1; Fie q
?-la '
‘R9 4n + 2
id
...... ...... ..... ..... A :::* rzr *.-.*.....* ...... ...... ..... -* v) .* Td M ..
z
>
" ~ ~ ~~- _ ""..._ ~ "_ ~~ .""" m"- - -~~~"_-~~ "~."~_--~~
z o* ~_~. "~~"-~ """ ~~~ ~
N
N 0 8 s 0
-0C38'2'9 3 d + 1-
TIiEI -30 3 E;
*p
...... ..... ...... 00 :::$q: L Ep ...... ..... ...... ..... e .- w "
*FA
00
0
c
<
5
W - u-,
N rn ,., -
E - -
0 - -
Il"s;Rl ;I til - :e? ..... ..... ;; 0
--.
..
.. .-
: 2.:. ...
.. . . ...
I 0 ...
cO Q
243
33
e
7cr BB ......
+ .:.e.. ..... *,,,,,
P :::E - ...... .....
40 -3 z;
CI Ca rr
am
LA 2w
3
>
- w - m.=
HI
4
N
c1 - I.? - - ez fR1 N iMii .*:.: OI - ;I 0
:....:... ..... - -
..
250
(RJ OQ
40
g ~1~~~ ...... . . .'.'.'
.*.e%.: e . .. . . . . w g .::i w c v1 Fr . . . ...' ..... rv1
.. L Zm
v
> 1
"000'9S2'9 3
> E:
ON ow
0 a
z
0
r -003'8929 3
,
N
1
3 -m
+-T U
9)
0 5. ,o 0 0- - t
0
;4 G Q
D
'0 LT
9)
7 I +
--000'OLZ13 3 + L 4
-ccc'2/2's 3 1 __ 4 I
~ I I
.___
e mpf: ......
7;r
..... .:.&i.:. ...... *:m:: ..... 9- ...... ..... CL rm
L. zw
z
>
~ ~~. ~ . " 3- ~ a ~~~- . . . ~ ~~ ""..
8
.-... ~~~ .~~... .~
0
0
a; "" ~~~.~~~~ ~~~ "."
0
0
-003'CPT9 3 i_
I - , I +
I
-C00'2$2'9 3 t + 1 __
8.
I
-OOO"vE2'9 3 ~ I + +
,
1
i
I
,
-000'9P1'9 3 1
~ j
I
~
~
I
I
~
--000'5E2'9 3 t
j
I
ern
3 E; 40
.....*
id :::H;: v.1 - ...... .:.e:. L ...... t;r
L zw ...... *m
+
I -
I
02 133% H31VW
-000'692'9 3
i j !
!
Z 0 +"I s -. -
+ +
I I"
I I
~
i
fMO'CLZ'5 3
!
rC33'zm 3
-I 3 x
9)
CD cn
T I CQ-
0 3
3 r"
-m cn +z 9> 73
+
I i- 1
- 1 1
t
+c.:.T,iz': j ,+ 7- I -t
I
~
I ,
I l
e
w Rl ::w: ..... e
.:-. 00 . . . . .'. .....
3
c.
e m
40
pd9 273
,'r
v)
=la
z
P
. ~~~~~ . . . . ".. . . . e ~ ~~ ~~ . ~~. .. -~~ * ".~ ~. . -
N
0 0
iL
-003'05Z'S 3 i i + __
I I
~ I
- 000'952'9 3
j
1
~
r000'852'9 3
I !
I
I
1
~
rcoo'o9z'9 3
-003'292.9 3
Tfl id
...... .*.e.-.-a. .;*;;>:. h) :[&; - ..... .*.....*.-
I -
I
-L
I 1 I
- .i
~ "
I t
+
4-
I
~
~
40 3 2 zr
-a cn .. .. co -
z
P
I w 9 EXHIBIT
JULY 13, 1990
TO : RAYMOND PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: Principal Planner
VIA: Planning Director
TRAILS FEASIBILITY STUDY - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF PARKS AN
RECREATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
On June 18, 1990, Planning Department staff and the City' consultants, Wallace Roberts & Todd and Economics Researc Associates, presented the administrative draft of the Trail Feasibility Study to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Following are the concerns and comments which the Commissio requested be carried forward to the City Council, together wit staff's responses.
1. PRC Comment: The Commission generally likes the concep and the physical system proposed in the feasibility study
The Commission recommended that the Council accept th consultant's report.
Staff Response: None.
2. PRC Comment: The Commission feels the report lack information on operating and other cost implications fo the Police and Fire Departments as well as cos
implications for liability.
Staff Response: Throughout the several months of th study both staff and the consultant met with all operatin departments so as to keep them apprised of progress on th study, to solicit their issues and concerns, and t
obtain, where relevant, projections of any operating cost
or other fiscal implications which might accrue to thes departments on trail system implementation. Particula attention was given to soliciting input from the Polic and Fire Departments. Following presentation of the mos recent draft of the Trail Study, the Fire Department ha indicated that it does not anticipate any operating o staffing impacts from trail system implementation Separate from the trail study, the Police Department ha been studying for some time the idea of bicycle-mounte patrols for use primarily in the beach areas. Th department has indicated that it can consider expansion o this concept as a means of patrolling future trails. Th concept is still under study, but according to a copy c an internal Police Department memorandum provided to th Planning Department on July 18, 1990 (following the mos recent draft of the Trail Study) , "The fiscal impact c
such a proposal is not known at this time but it i expected to be minimall1. No other Police Department cost
have been noted. No other departments have indicated cos implications beyond those set out in the consultan report.
I
0 e
RAYMOND PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
JULY 13, 1990
PAGE 2
General cost implications for the issue of liability : addressed in the report. The Risk Management Departme] has not indicated any particular operating issues fc Carlsbad's self-insurance program.
3. PRC Comment: Several members of the commission questiont the ttminimum City cost11 estimate for land acquisitic
provided in the consultant's analysis, feeling th; estimates might be overly optimistic, and, therefore, tc
low.
Staff Response: The consultant's analysis was premisc upon certain assumptions (discussed in the report). A kc assumption is that, generally trail segments are proposc to be sited on land which has no economic developme1 potential, land which, therefore, could be acquired fc little or no cost. The physical plan for the systc contained in the study follows this premise, with very fc market-rate acquisitions anticipated. The final revisc "minimum City cost" estimate for land acquisition :
$448,000, a figure which includes, in response to tl Commission's concern, a higher estimate for la1 appraisals. In addition, because staff and the consultal recognize that it may not be possible to implement ful: the assumptions inherent in the "minimum City cos1 estimate, the final report now includes contingent
million. funding, for a total land acquisition cost estimate of !
4. PRC Comment: The PRC has concerns about the issue t
safety for the segment located along the AT&SF right-o
way.
Staff Response: The trail segment along the AT&SF righ.
of-way was included in response to a regional bicycle pa.
being proposed by SANDAG in conjunction with the nc
commuter rail line proposed by the North San Diego Coun.
Transit Development Board. The trail study makes tl
assumption that this segment of the trail system will !
implemented as part of, and only if, the second rail li:
is constructed. The design of the rail line and bi:
path, as well as their maintenance and the assumption 1
liability will be the responsibility of the progr, developers.
5. PRC Comment: The PRC feels the system needs to flexible regarding the alignments running through priva properties. Staff is encouraged to seek actively t
participation of landholders and developers.
I w a
RAYMOND PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER JULY 13, 1990 PAGE 3
Staff ResDonse: Staff agrees completely. The stug
indicates senera1 alignments for the most part. As ne
developments are proposed there is flexibility to mov alignments within proposed boundaries so as to optimiz
both development potential and the trail experience
Staff stands ready to work with property owners an
developers to come up with lBwin-win1I solutions.
On June 20, 1990 the feasibility study was presented to th Planning Commission by Planning Department staff and th consultant. In general the Planning Commission (PC) echoed th issues and concerns raised by the Parks and Recreatio
Commission. Two main concerns were directed to be brought t
the attention of the City Council, as follows:
1. PC Comment: Some members ofthe Commission disagreed wit including the trails system in the pending General Pla Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements. Thes members felt that it would be inappropriate to put th trails system into the General Plan until all the detaile design and financing issues were completely resolved. Th Commission's adopted motion was to recommend that Counci
direct staff to return to Council with two versions of th
General Plan Elements, one including trails, and on without.
Staff Response: Just as it is not necessary to develo detailed construction specifications for major road before showing them in the General Plan's Circulatio System Element, staff does not believe it is necessary t do these things before including a trail system in th General Plan. The very intent of a General Plan is t provide conceDtual approval for major Citywide facilities The decision to include a trail system in the General Pla should be based upon the Council's general and conceptua approval of the intent to pursue a trails program.
2. PC Comment: The Commission shared the Parks an
Recreation Commission's concern about the feasibilit study 1s estimated llminimum City costsll, for lan acquisition.
Staff ResDonse: See response to Parks and Recreatio Commission, comment no. 3. -- Q Tu-
DENNIS A. TURNER Principal Planner
arb
I
-
w MINU~S EXHIE
\ \
June 20, 1990 PLANNING COKMXSSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERI
staff has
cts uith sunset tion has now been
opportunity to apply for
Motion vas duly made, sec nd carried to adopt Planning Counnission Resol 3057 approving an 8 year
extension of CUP 213, bas findings and subject to
the conditions contained
- A request for
tant Planning Director, ced that staf
t this item be continued
5) OFEN SPACE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - Report of the findings of the consultants on a trail feasibility study .
> e MINU~S
\
June 20, !990 PLXWING COHMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item is an information
report on a consultant's study charged to evaluate the fiscal
and physical feasibility of a comprehensive trail system for
the City of Carlsbad. This report is the first task of a seven-task Open Space Work Program directed by the City
Council in July 1989. The consultant's report identifies where a trail system could be located and what the cost vould
be for land acquisition, construction, and maintenance. This
study is not yet complete with regard to financial
Commission in an effort to acquire input from the Planning
Commission.
assumptions, but the interim report is being presented to the
Yr. Turner stated that the report was presented to the Parks
and Recreation Commission (PRC) on June 18, L990; they have
expressed their concerns as follows:
* The PRC likes the concept and the proposed physical
system and has reconmended that the City Council accept the report.
* The PRC feels the report lacks information on police, fire, and liability protection. Staff is attempting to
get this information from the appropriate City departments. The Fire Department has indicated that
there are no cost implications.
* The PRC has some questions and concerns about the
financial assumptions used to estimate the acquisition
cost. "he thought is that the costs are! too low.
* The PRC has concerns about the issue of safety for the segment located along the ATUF right-of-way. - The PRC feels the system needs to be flexible regarding alignments running through private proparties. They
have encouraged staff to actively seek the participation of landholders and developers. Staff shares that concern and this item will be highlighted in the final
report.
Dennis Turner stated that once the financial assumptions are complete, the final report will be prepared and scheduled for
a subsoqwnt City Council meting. Staff is requesting input from the Planning Conmission and would recoamand adoption of
a Minute Notion recomwnding that the City Council a) accept
the consultant's report and findings. and b) direct staff to include a comprehensive trail program in the forthcoming Open
Space and Consorvation Mmaga~mnt Plan and the draft general plan Opon Spaco and Parks and Recreation elements.
Paul Rookwood. Consultant, Wallace Roberts h Todd, addressed
the Coamission and stated that a City-wid. trail system is
feasible and can predominately be achieved through open space
corridors. The draft report presonts a proposed trail alignaent using area# that are now or will be open speca
corridors. Uharr it vas not poosibla to alip tha trails
strictly within an open space corridor, the second choice was
to align them within a powr lino arsomant, which is also a type of open space. The third alignment selection, where no
other option was available, was to take the trail system for
short sections along the sidewalks adjoining two sections of opan space. The total trail vi11 comprise 56 miles, of which only 2.5 miles will bo paved. The intent of including soma
paved trail vas to allow for handicapped access to key resources. There vi11 be 46 miles of unpaved trail located in opan space corridors, and 7.5 miles of interconnecting
r
., - MINU*
\
June 70, 1990 PLANNING CO~ISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS
trail segments using sidewalks or bicycle lanes to connect
two sectlons of open space. In addition, there are stagrng
areas, viewpoints, and picnic areas.
Hr. Xookuood commented on the key issues:
* If trails are to be located in open space corridors, it
is important for trails and open space to be coordinated and placed in respective docunencs of the General Plan.
- If a trail demonstration linkage is desired in fiscal year 1991-1992, it will need to be inciuded as a budget
item prior to year end. Estimated cost $28,000.
* A policy decision would need to be made regarding the type of ovnership of the trail system, i.e. in fee title, or easements. The report suggests in fee title
(City ovnership) as the preferred method.
* Although the liability issue appears to be a major concern, it has proved to be a small issue with those
cities that have established trail systems. However,
Carlsbad's liability coverage should be revieved to ensure that no unforeseen problems will arise. - A policy decision must be made on the financing strategy
for acquisition. improvements, and maintenance of the
trail system. He reviewed the financial assumptions which assume 53,l million for improvemencs, however this
does not include grant funding or volunreer labor.
Bill Anderson, Consultant, Economics Research Associates, addressed the Commission and stated that the estimated acquisition cost of $360,000 may appear to be very low;
hovever. this is by design, since most of the land can be acquired through dedication or existing right-of-ways.
Approximately 15% of the trail system may have to be
acquired, i.e. open space corridors privately held and privately maintainad, including utility easemnts. Some
property OV~~KS my choose to relinquish the land in return for not having to mintain that open space.
I
Mr. Anderson ravieved tha assumptions used in estimating
acquisition costs and stated that:
* The trail should be designed to be locatad in open space COrridOrS. - The easaments to be acquired should have no development economic value to keep the land costs low. He noted
that if the land is developable, the acquisition cost could be 20 to 40 times greatat, - If acquisition is necassary, the trail system should be placed on property edges to keep costs to a minimum.
* Flexible easamants should be used on property destined for devalopamnt several years in the future.
* The unit price used to estimate acquisition was basad on racant land sales during the past year and a half for agricultural land in Carlsbad. This is a ganartc
estimate and a parcel-by-parcel appraisal vas not conducted. Administrative costs vare not included.
Mr. Anderson comrmnted that the City of Poway has recently implemented a 35 mile trail system vithout having to acquire
any land. However. they are now having to acquire a 2 mile
1
-
W MI N u%is
\
June 70. L990 PLANNING CO"!ISSiON Page 6 COMMISSIONER(
request for state funding, they have requested $1 per foot.
Yr. Anderson reviewed the liability issue and stated that of
t5e cities surveyed, only one jurisdiction (in the 9ay area)
has had a suit. All jurisdictions were self-insured. If the trail system is left In a natural state, accidents are less
likely to occur. To minimize liability, he suggested: 7 easement at a cost of 320,000 ($.17 per sq, Et, 1. In their
* Keep the trails natural.
* Keep the trails marntained.
* Post signage.
* Post hazardous areas.
* Separate uses for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Yr. Anderson stated that the annual maintenance assumption of
$290,000 is based upon the nine cities surveyed. Budgets
range from $2.000/mile to $20.000/mile. Based on the
proposed character of Carlsbad's trail system, $5,000 to $10,000 per mile was used.
Mr. Anderson concluded his coraments by stating that an important issue in acquisition and development is equity,
Since che trail will be serving borh new and existing
residents, the full financial burden should not be placed solely on new development. He recomended alternative
acquisition strategies as follovs:
* Negotiated development agreements or dedication - Use of public facility fees
* General funds
* Grant money
He recomended that maintenance could best be funded by utilizing a Citywide assessment district (assuming that the
trail provides a Citywide benefit). In most cities surveyed, maintenance is paid out of general funds.
I
Comissioner Schlehuber has no problem with the trail
feasibility but does have a problem urging inclusion of the
trail in the General Plan at this point in time. Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, replied that since there currently
exists an emergency ordinance to protect the trail system, it
would be desirable to include something in the General Plan
before the emergency ordinance expires. Commissioner
General Plan, hovever he feels a mandate at this time would
be premature.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, coumented that staff
will be coming forward to the Planning Conmission within the
next two months with a Genera1 Plan Awndmont (GPA) to
include a nev open space and parks/recrertion element. The open space document makes reference to a comprehensive trail
system, but the parkslrecreation document does not. Staff
will be looking for direction from the City Council to make
both documents consistent. If tha Planning Conmission endorses this report on the trail feasibility study, staff
would include the concept of a trail system in the
forthcoming GPA.
Commissioner Schlehulmr inquired vhat vould happen if the
trail system is includad in the GPA and it turns out to be an
economic burdm. Michael Holzmiller replied that the
proposed wording vould allov enough flexibility for the detailed design studies to be dono and dacirions to be made.
Schlehuber could accept a non-specific statant in the
t w MINU~S
\
June 20, !990 PLANNING COHMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS
Ron Sall, Assistant City Attorney, cormnented on the report as
follous:
' The Planning Commission can only act an what has been
presented.
* The open space and parks/recreation elements of the
General Plan must be consistent.
I
* After the public hearing on the forthcoming GPA, the
Planning Commission uill have an opportunity to vote on
the specific GPA language which vi11 be presented to the
City Council for adoption.
* If something in the General Plan turns out to be
infeasible at a later date, the law anticipates that fact and the General Plan can be amended at that time.
* Acquisition costs presented tonight need to include
administrative costs to ensure that the City has specific rights for use of land for trails. Currently,
the SDGhE easements do not give the City the right to use those easements for a trail system.
- The City does not have a liability policy to review since Carlsbad is completely self-insured. Hovever,
some amount needs to be factored into the maintenance
assumptions to cover the costs of defending a possible liability suit.
* A system needs to be worked out so that nev development
is not entirely paying for a trail system that is used in part by existing developments.
Commissioner Holmes inquired if the trail would generally be
surfaced uith decomposed granite. Paul Rookwood, Consultant,
replied that the report includes a variety of surfaces for
the unpaved trail. In soma places it may only be compacted
dirt.
Commissioner Kolmes inquired what the projected maintenance
costs vould consist of. Bill Anderson, Consultant, replied
that, among other things, it includes cutting back brush, repairing potholes, clearing hazards from the trail, maintaining signage and erosion.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the economics of the land acquisition costs. Ha referred to the 3 mile stretch
alongside the railroad vhich is shown as a no cost item. Mr. Anderson replied that this area is proposed for joint use as
part of a regional bicycle trail that SANDAG is planning, to be funded by regional sources. Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, added that the joint use proposal would only be
considered if the proposed conmuter rail line from San Diego
to Oceanside is added.
Commissioner Hall supports tho trail syrtm but questions
soma of the economics uhich have baa praswted. He feels that the costs will ba much higher than projected. He feels
the costs must be more definitive before a GPA includes the
that the General Plan includes a circulation elemant, and
staff cannot accurately predict the specific costs to
construct various road elements. He feels the trail system
should be considered in that SPM manner.
trail system. Dennis Turnrr, Principal Plannrr, observed
Comissionar flarcus agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber. She has no problem with thi concept but is concerned about the
9
-
W MINU*
\
June 20, 1990 PUhFNING COHMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS
dollar amount since it appears to be vague at chis point.
She feels the tralls should be devoted to pedestrians only
and bicycles or horses should not be permitted.
Commissioner Yarcus remembers approving areas for horse
trails and wouid ilke ta know what became of those approvals.
Yichael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that those
industrial. Some of those still exist but they do not form
areas for equestrian use were in isolated areas, primarily
any type of Link which could be used for the trail system. r
Commissioner HcFadden inquired why the financial assumptions
only included residential household costs and not commercial
or industrial to help pay for this. Sill Anderson,
Consultant, replied that commercial and industrial would certainly be responsible to share the costs but only
residential was used in the report to show how small the costs for a trail system would be. That cost would be lower if a commercial and industrial share is included.
Chairman Schram opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Randy Fjaeran. representing the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation, P. 0. Box 4281, Carlsbad, addressed the
Comission and stated that the Foundation endorses the trail concept and recommands the following: (a) completion of the
east-west connection from El Camino Real to the beach along
the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; (b) linkage of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon with the two other Carlsbad lagoons;
and (c) sharing of maintenance costs by conmarcial and industrial interests as well as residential, The Foundation
the trail system around the lagoon.
Mike Howes, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that
the trails study was excellent and many good reconmendations have been offered by the consultants. Now is the time to
move forward to secure the linkagas needed for a Cityvide
trail system. Most landowners he has discussed the proposed trail system with seem to favor the idea if the City will
assma nacessary liability and maintenance. He urg8d flexibility in the trail alignmant and cited a situation
where the trail is currently proposed through the center of a
gated conmnity. If there is flexibility to reroute this
portion around the perimeter of the parcel, the owner would
probably be willing to cooperate.
Julie Nygaard. 3403 Spanish Way. Carlsbad. addrassad the Commission and stated that sha is concerned about tha cost of
the trail systam but feels tha consultants hrv8 done a good job in providing a variety of needed infornution. If an
overall plan is not adopted within the near future, the trail
offered to assist vith the planning process toward completing
system will never occur, Sha urged expaditncy,
Thera being no other parsons desiring to address the Coranission on this topic, Chairman Schram declared tha
public testimony closed and opanad the item for discussion among the Comission menib.rs.
Commissioner Schlehuber feels the trail system in concept is an excellent ide8. He feels that adding this to the General Plan is prematur. at this point but he could support approval of the report and forvarding to the City Council.
Commissioner KcPadden agreas with Co~irsion8r Schlehuhr; howaver, sha doesn't likm the proposed wording of the Minute
1.'
'& 9
*
w MINUSIS
\
- June 20, I990 PrA!ING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONER!
Yotion. She feels that the report is excellent and that it
needs to be approved soon in order to begin the necessary
planning process. Commissioner UcFadden doesn't agree vith
the report findings regarding acquisition costs and she
shares many of the ocher concerns voiced by the Parks ti,
Recreation Commission. She uould like staff to present the Council vith aiternacive actions vith regard to including
trails :n the general plan.
Yotion vas duly made, seconded, and carried recommending 9all
the City Council (a) accept the report on the Trails Ho irnes Feasibility Study; (b) direct staff to include a 'la r c-2~
comprehensive trail program in the forthcsming Open Space ucfacaen and Yanagement Plan; and (c) direct staff to prepare the Schleh-cc
draft general plan Open Space and Parks & Recreation Schramm elements vith and vithout the trail system. Further, that the City Council be advised that the Planning Commission
shares the concerns of the Parks 6 Recreation Conmission
regarding acquisition costs.
I be Planning Conmission recessed at 7: 15 p.m. and reconvend 7:25 p.m. 1 \WEE iL1C HEARINGS: /
6) P 12-LOCAL FACILITIES XANAGPIENT PLAN IWEND ZOX 12 - Request for approval of an amen
es Nanagement Plan for Zone 12, a
d land use changes.
Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, G background of e request and s
in the southeas quadrant of the c
northern edge of he City of Encin rently contains
589 dwelling unit This plan bei
amendment to the Lo 1 Facilities lan for Zone 12
vhich vas originally proved Feb City Council approved transfer
units, the buildout tot for Zo Arroyo La Costa project, prov
the projected buildout fo one \ I scboolr V
Steve Jantt, As ciate Civil Engineer, spok on Drainage, Circulation, Water. 4 \ I Dr.- / \ / \ The origi 1 Zone 12 plan vas conditioned to prov detaile ydrology study to look at the capacity an workings
of the cinitas Creek adjacent to the Zone 12 bound
That port studied areas within Carlsbad as well a3 Enci tas. San tiarcos, and the unincorporated areas ea
Ca sbad and identified posribh flooding along the Enci tas
C ek. The proposed mitigation vas extensive, expansive, olt with upsizing the existing drainage structures locate
I'